They haven't made significant profit in general before the PS3 was even released. The whole idea of sacraficing profit for market share is a losing proposition and if they realise this then they won't cut the price. Microsoft let the Xbox 360 go for longer without a price cut and now they are actually posting both decent profit numbers and decent unit sales.

Phil Harrison was there long enough to account for the cost of the launch of the PS3 and knows all the costs which are associated. People just focus on the Cell processor as if it was the only thing they had to develop to get the PS3 into production without accounting for the numerous other expenses. Common sense dictates that he would know significantly more about what the major expenditures and costs and risks are with the launch of a new console than 99.99% of people whom would care to comment on the subject.

How did MS allow the 360 to go longer without a cut?  They cut the price not long after Sony cut the price of the PS3 last year and, as far as I can recall, never allowed the 360 to go more than 2 years with a cut.  And they did the same thing Sony did, sacrifice profit for market share.  The only difference is they were able to get production costs down quicker than Sony was.  Which wasn't as difficult, as they hadn't invested as much in new tech like the Cell and Blu-ray.

Yes, Phil may know what it may have cost to launch the PS3, but he has no idea what Sony is going to do for the PS4.  Hence, he has no idea what Sony is going to do to keep costs down.  And you can believe they are going to try and keep costs down, not repeating the same mistakes from this gen.  Sony will not release its next system at $600.