|
heprof00 said said:
They do the exact same thing. The entire idea of "elite" or "pro" models does exactly the same thing. In fact, Sony probably took the idea from MS in teh first place!
The point was why didn't Xbox do it more often? Sony have almost twice as many SKUs (almost 2 different SKU per PS3 generation) as Xbox 360. Xbox on the other hand, only updates their SKU once every year at most.
Do you even know how much MS has lost? If you think Sony has lost a lot of money, MS has lost double that. And FYI, MS DOES infact drop price whenever ps3 drops price. MS is trying to get profitable. They have the Arcade at 200$ and there is literally no reason they should drop the elite's price. They will, eventually, but right now they have no good reason to do so. They have the price advantage on the competition. In order to play that game, there needs to be balance on the scale. They charge 100$ for 30$ XBOX360 Sold seperately hard drives. 100$ for 20$ wifi adaptors, etc etc... and they STILL lost more money. They do enough. They don't have to match every price point either, the price of the adaptors and seperate peripherals are what makes the consumers buy the elites over the arcades. However, Sony is not in the position to do that because as soon as they start doing it, they have no value benefit over the 360. The whole concept of the ps3 is as a complete package. So while that would be a great way to move demand over to a more expensive console (ALSO a much better idea than to simply "lower the price"), if done with the PS3, it would have dramatic repurcussions.
First, you'll have to provide source on how much XBox lost vs PS3 lost. Secondly, what are you talking about? I am talking about undercutting PS3's 250gb with their own 250gb which is priced at $400 atm. Both are considered 'complete package' yet the Xbox chose a higher price point on their top SKU, when they should be at least matching the 250gb SKU from Sony.
That was a typo, it was supposed to say "18 cents per dollar per console". That sounds a lot worse, which is what you are suggesting. Yes, they potentially lose money for not meeting demand (to an extent), but they lose money in totality for lowering the price. They do not lose money for excess supply, because they are already sold, and like I just said, they do not produce as many 250s. The excess in the retailer pipelines costs them virtually nothing.
No, they lose money when there is excess supply. Vendors don't want to purchase 250gb when their warehouses are stocked piled with them. Sony's production factories output pretty much a constant number of PS3s/month. They expect to ship all of them out but they can't if the vendors don't want them.
THEY ARE SOLD. Sony sells their consoles to the retailers, and it is the retailers who have the excess supply. As soon as the retailer has the product, it is sold, which is why Sony and MS and N all track "shipped" versus "sold".
Again, vendors don't want them when they have stockpiled of 250gb in their warehouses.
That's the same thing. A lawsuit over integral parts that had cost implications which greatly increased the settlement price. Regularly licensing does not cost that much, but when you make a technology one of the key requirements for you device, and you never claim a license on it, then that price explodes into insane costs. If you license a product beforehand, you pay less than 1 percent, and it costs you only that much. When you get sued during production, you have to halt sales, stop production, excess supply builds up to monstrous levels, you lose sales, you give competitors an open market segment, since your in a production contract, you have to keep paying for supplies even though you're not building anything, you have to pay their lawyers fees on top of your own lawyers fees, court fees, you need to settle (pay more) so that the trial doesn't go through and make your company look like a bunch of assholes...etc etc etc. It is substantially more costly to get sued over a royalty or license than it is to license the product in the first place.
We are strictly talking about the amount they suit for. If the piece of technology is only deemed to worth 1% then the judge will only grant that 1%. However, apperently both rumble and rim keyboard is worth way more than just 1%.
Also, production is usually never halted until the judge deemed that the an infrigement was made and even so, Sony or Rim or MS would just appeal and the get case re-examined. Thats how microsoft usually get though their infrigement lawsuits... they just re-appeal and eventually after 5 or so years of lawsuit battle, the plantiff would either end up bankrupt or they lose the battle.
"For example, he said, the rate for a plastic flip top might be a fraction of a percentage point, but a video game could be up to 15 percent.” Fliptop. Video game inventions" -from your link.
The 15% does exist. It is paid TO Sony, that is where I said they make 20$ per game. Other than that, the 15% may exist in licensed games, like Disney based games or the like...franchise licensing. Not the games or the hardware. Did you see the quote? "A fraction of a percentage point (for a piece of hardware)".
Well first of all, did you just compared the PS3 to a plastic fliptop? Secondly No, the quote did not put "for a piece of hardware" (Do you even know what is a plastic flip top? hereis a picture: http://www.plastcaps.com/photo/1/28mm-plastic-flip-top-caps-yl-ft28.jpg, see the plastic lid that flips up?). Thirdly, did you deliberately ignore the other more relevent royalty rates like say :
15% or more. Software licensing royalty rate paid by Dell Computers for highly marketable products
or
% to 12% of sales for well-known brands. “Attorneys who deal with licensing issues said most companies that license well-known brands pay a royalty rate of 8 percent to 12 percent of sales.
|
