Obviously its been known from launch that the PS3 loses Sony a lot of money per console. I won't argue that. But to me, it seems as if their launch position and current position are the exact same as launch.

First, stop saying the PS3 has dropped $200 since launch. Thats stupid, and if your saying this then you really are just twisting facts to make it look like Sony has a complete catastrophe on their hands. Launch prices were as follows.

60gb-$599 

20gb-$499

During the course of this year, we saw alot of confusing shuffling of consoles. I was going to explain the whole story console by console, but I dont feel like it at the time. Basically the end result is this.

80gb-$499

40gb-$399

(right here you can see that is AT MOST a $100 per console drop.)

However, the 40gb gained wifi, but lost 2 full chipsets and the cell dropped from 90nm to 65nm. Now im no hardware expert, and I dont know much about the workings of factories outside of How It's Made on the Discovery Channel, but doesn't removing two whole chips significantly cut down cost through both assembly steps and the costs of the chips themselves?

And I know I have heard that the smaller the chip, the cheaper. So shrinking the cell from 90nm to 65nm would make a difference correct? On top of that, the blu-ray laser was a large part of the manufacturing costs initially that was costing Sony so much money. Doesn't that gradually come down over time as the process of creating them is more and more refined?

My point here is, I'm not sure if removing these steps actually eliminates all $100 extra dollars they would lose during the process, but I would think it would come pretty close. It seems to me on a per console basis, even with the price drop, that Sony is even with the cost per console/retail value ratio. 

They should be able to drop prices next year, and not lose "lots of money" as many of the fanboys say they will. Any arguments against this? Because I really am unfamiliar with how all this works. 

Why worry about it?

As long as Sony is making PS3's, they are fine and you should be fine with it too.. 

Yes they are. I actually think there making money with the ps2's and psp sales, and software sales for all of their systems, And there camera/movie/music/etc.. studios.

That why this post exist, to prove once and for all:

"Sony is not loosing money anymore, so leave Sony alone, you beaches...."

On topic, only Sony knows for sure how much money are loosing (the logical situation) for each PS3 rigth now...

I say about $140buks.\

I see your 140 and raise you three dollars.

¿ Any link or some sort of info to back up your claims?

 Simply, price cuts. If they arent losing more money since launch as of now, they would be in a good spot to cut prices to $299.

Well, according to the bible aka wikipedia (backed up with a loooot of reference links) the minimum cost reduction, including blu-ray manufacturing costs etc is around $150. The exact reduction of the move to 65nm and removal of the chipset is unknown, but Id say it'd be at least $50.

Obviously this isnt concrete fact, but its the closest I can find, it looks okay for Sony in terms of money lost, they dont seem to be in any worse situation.

The problem for Sony is the only way they can compete is by lowering prices. They are forced into a business model of loss and/or low margins.

Also, there are cost associated with coming out with new SKUs every six months. There is a certain amount of R&D expense and retooling costs whenever you create a new model. So while there may be cost savings, they aren't immediate nor is it a simple matter of reduced component cost.