Kaz lays out future...

[theprof00]

Jereel Hunter said:

theprof00 said:

Jereel Hunter said:

That "base reversal" doesn't take into account the fact that there probably weren't 10,000 people spinning in their chairs and sleeping at their desks. They are reducing costs, but the lost jobs also hit production and development. Claiming that they'll make new products to excite consumers is all well and good, but heavy workforce reductions make that easier said than done. At the end of the day, their likelihood of returning to profitability within a single year is low, because even if they get on the ball and start making products people get excited about, they've lost a lot of mindshare in recent years. How many savvy people buy Sony TV's with LG or Samsung out there making equal or higher quality units for less money? They've got an uphill battle, while I can believe Sony can turn things around and do better, it's also a claim they've been making for 9 or so years, so I doubt it will happen as quickly as they say.

"7B$ reversal is impossible"

At least now you're trying to use facts, despite you have no source for who lost their jobs or how it supports your point.

This is a fact Jareel, and you can go ask kowen for confirmation, the tv segment has been the single thing holding sony out of profitability for several years now. I'd like you to think about that, and then come back when you're ready to discuss civilly, rather than herald the DOOM banner (those people are a dime a dozen.

These buzzwords like mindshare and uphill battle, they're just words. They don't actually prove your point.

The FACT (maybe it's also fun?) is that Sony would be profitable if they weren't getting undercut so heavily by samsung and other tv manufacturers.

I don't need a source to list who lost their jobs. You're counting 10,000 employees as a savings of 10,000*(estimated employee salary) without any regard for the fact that there probably weren't 10,000 useless employees sitting around doing nothing. Losing such a significant number of people doesn't come without a cost to the business, it all I was saying.

Only their TV's lose money? That's a fact? Looks like Sony-Ericsson's lost some serious money.

http://www.inquisitr.com/183777/sony-ericsson-loses-money-tough-competition-to-blame/

Also, despite playstation being in the black for the last couple fiscal years, Sony spent more developing the PS3 then they can ever hope to recoup. You may say that's in the past, but such a disasterous investment shows the fundemental problems in Sony's long-term thinking. One of their main profitable divisions is that way because they blew through $5 billion in the past to set up these 'profits' (which will never make back that amount).

And I'm not using buzzwords. This is a company that has lost money, year after year - THEY have the burden of proving they can change that. Are you new to reading about Sony's financial promises? I remember having similar discussions with people about their financial state 2 years ago, and then again last year when they had their AAA credit rating downgraded. Somehow, Sony can use their own buzzwords about the changes they are going to make(just like the promises they make to shareholders every year), and Sony fans take it as gospel truth that profitability is now the ONLY possible path. The last 6,7,8 years... don't matter.

And I'm not sure how the fact that Sony gets undercut proves your point, and not mine? Somehow, Sony's competitors can offer equal or superior products for less money. That certainly doesn't bode well for their return to profitability.

They have the burden of proving you specifically. Pardon me, I had no idea that your voice was influential to the debate. I'm sorry for criticising your obviously significant argument involving imaginary numbers.