| r505Matt said: First off, MUCH better color =) 2nd, HOT DAMN your responses are long, I love it, and hate it at the same time =) The RRoD part was just stupid on my part, all that matters is the actual reported loss (which will include any costs from RRoD repairs/replacements) The brand comment, that's actually what I was going for, even if I went quite a roundabout way to get there. I was pretty much trying to say that Microsoft has such a strong name in America that it doesn't necessarily need to cut corners.As you put it "consumer buying habits have shown a long history of nationalist tendencies". I'm not sure why I went on about the PS2 thing because I already think/feel/agree with what you said so maybe my extreme tiredness yesterday was getting to me =) Haha probably shouldn't have tried to debate like this on 3 hours of sleep yesterday. I understand the idea of demand. I'm not saying I didn't understand what you were saying, because I do. I'm not saying they didn't lower their price with the intention of increasing demand, and not for the purpose of trying to undercut its competitors. The issue is that everything is so related and intertwined that you can't really seperate them. You can try, but I don't believe you can succeed. My point is that lowering the price of a product in a competition-heavy market versus a competition-free market are very different. I'm not saying that lowered their price because of the existence of the wii and/or 360, what I'm saying is that because of the existence of the wii and 360, it changes the reasons to lower a price. Sony could lower the price solely because their graphs/models/charts/whatever show that with that $50 or $100 price cut, they can achieve maximum profit. I wouldn't be surprised if they plan models (maybe more like templates, to be more variable/universal) up to years in advance; what I'm saying is that with the existence of competition, those models are affected. Maybe that's where we're seeing differently, I think we were just talking about 2 different things. How those models are affected will surely influence how a company like Sony acts, so yes, maybe they cut the price to follow their model for maximum profit and consumer adoption, but that very model cannot exist without taking MANY other factors into account. Just pretending some of the factors aren't there/don't matter isn't a proper way to run a business and I know Sony would not act like that. This to me is still a price war, so maybe we're just stuck on different defintions; not really saying one is right or wrong, but people think about different things in very different manners sometimes. I'm not grabbing at straws, I just think we weren't on the same page. Also, all of this is based on an assumption that Sony really didn't do it to try and undercut MS, but it's always possible that was their intention. It's fun, and TIRING online, I prefer debating in person. Ugh now I have long responses -.- haha. |
okok
I can agree to disagree. You have some good points, and our concepts are just hairs away from each other's. Competition does factor in, but at the end of the day this is how I feel they open board meetings:
Sony: How can we sell more PS3s?
MS: How can we kill Sony?
Anyway, yeah, they do plan years in advance as much as possible.
How's that? I shortened it quite a bit eh?
Yeah debating in person is much better I agree. Especially after boozing it up a bit amirite?
