I'm quite sure those premium priced memory schticks are profitable on any size, they're not very different from standard memory cards, and the latter are profitable even at dirt cheap prices.

I believe Stringer was moved to a new position, Chairman of the Board.

Is he in a strip club?

My point is that the profit on vita hardware cannot feasibly include the memory cards because there is no distinct point of reference. If you say, "aim to be profitable in 3 years" and yet don't actually know how much you're making, well, then that's a pretty dumb remark not just because it's uninformed, but because it looks bad to investors to say three years (a long time) when factoring in memory cards would make it a lot lower. Being that as the case, I believe he's speaking specifically about profit margin from the vita itself, not mem cards, not games. It was probably directly in response to "are you losing money on each vita sold", or "is the vita itself sold for profit" ala razorblade strategy vs Nintendo strategy.

Given the components cost we saw from isupply (or whoever it was) being 150, manufacturing costs and shipping and exchange rate most likely make it unprofitable, adding over 100$ to the equation. Manufacturing and shipping probably adds 40-50$ per vita, so at 200 with a sour exchange rate, its probably costing them 300, with the majority problem being exchange rate, since cost of manufacturing goes down exponentially over the course of production at scale. Given that it take usually 1 year to decrease manufacturing by 50%, it will probably be 1.5 to 2 years in before it is profitable, wherein there might be a price drop, or at least an added feature. So, I could expect a price drop, or phone version either sometime spring, fall, winter, 2013.  At which point a new model might take another year to hit profit, so xmas 2014 profit on vita? Sounds right given a price drop or new model, or combination 200$ "touch", 249$ phone.

That's what I'm guessing.

Hahaha :) Hey, keep those funnies for the Caption thread! :D I kid. :)

How can you get his point when the point is that you can't support "other sectors" with a console that isn't profitable on its own?

This is regardless of the fact that Kaz never said he would support other sectors with psv profits, but that he would use ps3 psp and vita as investments into the mobile sector, which, I mean, we're SEEING with the xperia, and the apps for vita, and the buying out of ericsson. Lastly, he never actually says "use the profits", he says they are being used as an investments toward mobile. Sure an argument could be made that they're talking about profits, but given the "playstation suite", the "xperia", the "apps", and the buyout, I believe that he is talking about using the software coming out of those products as a foundation for smart phone competition.

There's no mincing words here, profit was not mentioned, psv was not mentioned singularly, and even if it was (which it wasn't) the quote he refers to is likely talking about base hardware profits.

If he succeeds, I will personally eat my entire N64 collection.

Profits were actually mentioned in the OP, but not taking the products singularly, neither specifying HW alone or overall in that line "He hopes to use profits from PS3, PSP and PS Vita as investment into the company's mobile business". But yes, if journalists are quoting him correctly, he made a series of statements not tightly linked to each other, we tend to mentally join them with things we imagine as reasonable, but that he never said and there could be other links as much reasonable instead, or no ones at all.

About Kow's point, I can get it if he understood Kaz's point as PSV contributing with a profit too earlier than reasonable, and not just as the whole PS brand contributing with an overall profit. As I wrote though, whatever one wants to understand, PSV HW and SW overall profitability will come quite earlier than the HW alone one, and this should interest shareholders more, as they care for the end result. But hey, I'm reading too more things that he actually said, I get too that he was meaning mostly sinergies across all the most noteworthy Sony product lines and that's why I agree that Sony should streamline production and find any other possible way to cut costs and losses before even considering cutting a product, TVs themselves are bleeding money, but they could stop doing it, competitors can be profitable selling them, sony could be too again, and they are too important for sinergies and brand recognition, even now that they are in such a bad shape. PS line is very important too, obviously, and it's in a far better shape, as right now PSV losses and costs are those expected early in the product life, not the awful series of errors and unfortunate events and circumstances that crippled TVs.

This is the direct translation:

"The new president Hirai, in addition to strengthening as a core business digital imaging, games, mobile operators, clarification of the business areas to focus revive the TV business slump, the management resources, the future point of four of acceleration of the (reform) innovation was listed as the company's policy. Illustrates the idea "is contributing to profits in the game machine of species 3 PS3, PSP, of PSVita, turning to mobile operators of these assets" for the business game itself had taken the lead up to this with also."

So it's the journalists fault.

Additionally, PSVita, assuming kowen's picture of the situation where ps vita is contributing to other sectors, can still do so with profits. Just because the psvita couldn't contribute profits from it's own singular margin, doesn't mean it couldn't do so with its "overall" profit. Either way it's wrong.

bold! bold! very very bold! and i hope he can pull it !off. the problem is stong ip. they have allot of great ip that sell perfectly well but other then GT, they have nothing to compete with against the heavy shooter focused 360, and Nintys more legenday mascots. damn i'm going to have to comeback edit this