By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
jarrod on 10 December 2009
Edit Thread
Vetteman94 said:
jarrod said:
Vetteman94 said:

 

1.  It wasnt Sony PR,  funny you mentioned that i should read the article before talking about it yet to failed to do the same

2.  I admitted that it was all estimates, exactly the same methods used by the analyst that your source used.

3.  And no,  $100 is not the best we can get, it will be shrugged off as another analyst spouting information in which he really knows nothing about.

1. The comment containing the figure was said during an open investor briefing.  Not exactly PR, but honestly it's close enough.  Any public comments from Sony officials would be.

2. Your estimate is fundamentally flawed as I've already pointed out.  You can't estimate a reduction in manufacturing costs from an estimated material costs, then add whatever you feel like cords and boxes cost.  And you have no clue what methods my source may or may not have used, since they didn't disclose that fully. 

3. That's fairly libelous to be honest.  Again, I'm surprised how easily you can discount one of the top consultants in the Japanese financial industry and one of Japan's national news broadcasts.  But then, I guess your own hobbled together fuzzy math is better?

 

Come back when you have a legitimate source with an actual figure.  Until then, it's $100 of blood. <3

1.  Its ok you can say you were wrong, dont dance around it by saying close enough

2.  Well it was actually based off of cost of the materials themselves.   Shipping and box materials are easy for me to find out since I can and have asked accountants at work about this sort of thing.   The cords themselves are extemely cheap,  a 4 ft USB cable and at 10ft ethernet cable can be had on the internet for $4 total, not to mention the new power cable theyuse for the PS3 Slim is identical to every other component they make and can be had for about $5 directly from Sony.   And that leaves the controller and the composite cable they use,  which was the only truely fuzzy math I did, but i cant imagine that something they have made for 15 years with a few tweaks to it cost more than half of what they sell it for. especially the cable since the markup on cable are astronomical.

3.  Its really easy to discount them,  until they use manufacturing costs directly from Sony with all material costs and shipping and boxing costs included,  it will be discounted.   Cause an analyst is just someone who is paid to make educated guesses.

1. Well, it wasn't even "wrong" per se.  Public relations also encompass investor relations.  At worst, I was being vague.

2. No.  Manufacturing Cost =/= Material Cost.  Do you honestly still not get why your math is inherently wrong here?

3. You don't know if they used them or not though, they didn't fully disclose sources or methods.  All you can go is their end figure, which you pretty obviously want to reject by any means possible.  Also, you clearly don't know what an analyst actually is.