Not getting involved discussing a member who is banned, it's not really good etiquette but as for the bolded:

The simple fact is Sony aimed for the same release date Micrsoft did and missed it by a country mile (for a number of reasons) while Micrsoft having spent a lot of money and effort to hit that date decided they would go ahead and gamble on the hardware knowing they could fix any possible issue in future hardware spins.  It was the right corporate decision but in hindsight poor customer service.

@underlined. I couldn't care less, and I don't see the reason for the etiquette, so again not my problem. I'm just continuing the argument he can't continue because I agree with him. He'll be proud of me on his return, since he and I usually disagree.

@bold. Nobody said they didn't spend alot of money to hit that date. We understand that. It doesn't change the argument this far in the slightest.

@italics. That's your justification?? That's exactly the issue. They didn't QA it adequately enough so this didn't have to happen. It's one thing for you to say they didn't expect the failure rate they had, it's another to haze it out with your usual minor failure rate that can be fixed post-launch.

@underlined. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Your word against mine, I think it was a poor corporate decision, and we all here are pretty damn quite knowledgeable in video game business strategy. I suggested many altrenatives to Chris Hu already, take a look.

what really matters is that right now MS hardware is the top.

Xbox Slim is solid rock

I think you need to read my post with more of a open mind, I wasn't being argumentitive, I just answered the question for why they did what they did, it certainly wasn't a justification. 

The point about the expenditure is because launching without more testing was a gamble and like any gmable it is about risk and reward.  You can never have enough testing before releasing a product hence why so many cars have recalls for defects.  Having spent so much money to launch for xmas 2005 they put a huge amount of investment on that date because for them it was critical to launch at the same time or earlier than the PS3.  When Sony slipped on the release date it left Microsoft with the chance to go unopposed for at least one holiday period, I've no doubt all analysis pointed to the early launch being worth a gamble on the hardware being fine. I think most companies would have taken a similar choice given the potential reward of a massive headstart on their rivals.  Sony were trying to take a similar gamble I'd add but couldn't get enough hardware volume to launch.  This is why I said I thought it was the right corporate decision, it's only with hindsight and full understanding of the hardware issues now that we can really judge it as bad.

The only thing I would say is had they put it in for more testing they potentially would have found out the problem quicker but the resolution would still require a redesign of the hardware so would have taken at least 12-24 months.  I don't actually think they could find out the problem as the inexperience of manufacturing with lead free solder was the main culprit and even now the issues have only been reduced by stopping as much heat building in the system which only came with the die shrinks on the CPU and GPU.  I think launching early gave the 360 a important boost that allowed it to ride the hardware controversies and had they launched at the same time as the PS3 they would have actually been in a far worse position at this time.

I would finally highlight that the issue they had with the 360 primarily was due to new manufacturing techniques that nobody fully comprehended the impact it would have on the reliability of electronics devices.  I actually think the thermal design and board mounting and thickness were all taken into account before people understood the differences the new lead free solder would make.  This would not only affect manufacturing decisions but test decisions also, it just wasn't anticipated that board flex would break BGA joint like they did (hence why PC motherboard and GPU's also suffered with this too). 

I don't disagree that either of you have a point (or tow), but you seemed to come across as only your viewpoint was a fact which is simply not the case in such debates as this.  I cannot say you're wrong and vice versa as there is too much hypothesis on what could/would have happened if things went differently.  It's always worth considering what would have happened had the 360 launched earlier and the hardware been fairly reliable (PS3 level), would they have dominated, would we be having these discussions.  That was the best case scenario to their gamble, instead they got a worst case result near enough.  As I said hindsight makes it look simple when it really isn't.

P.S.  I'd be worried if S.T.A.G.E ever agreed with me....

No, I understand what you mean now and we actually agree. It was a matter of timing, not due to NVIDIA imho, but due to timing compared to competition. You agree with us.

I like the added detail about the inexperience with Lead Free Solder, and the need for new CPU and GPU dies that would take forever to implement I think, and would be a huge loss on investment.

Yeah, I think we agree. And I think Chris Hu kind of meant this when he was talking about the need for new parts to fix the issues, only that he made it sound like they would upgrade parts regardless, issue or not, just 'cause. I like your explanation.

I'm sorry Chris Hu, i've read most of the things that you posted, it explains things partially but I cannot get around this^. I just cannot see how MS gets out clean after such a decision.

Yeah but what I'm trying to say is that , consoles are not cars or any other products. they are hardware. and this market is exceptionally cruel. amd knows it. noone gets to gamble and gets away with it

Let me correct both of you, while you're both arguing. 

Microsoft knew there was an issue in QA, but they believed it to be a yield issue, not an engineering issue.  The belief was that the issue being encountered was the result of one or more components being defective from manufacturing, which in time would be resolved as the manufacturing process improved.  The problem was a far more extensive problem of engineering.  The circuit board material was thinner then it probably should have been, the solder wasn't as high-temp as it could have been, and the heat sink wasn't as tightly attached as it could have been.

Microsoft believed that the problem would happen within a respectable failure rate, which they would then use the planned improvement outline to resolve the issue.  The problem was that it was a bigger issue in the real world than they anticipated.  You can't necessarily blame them when you consider the fact that there are still Day 1 Xbox 360's that work without a hiccup today, but there are some people who seem to have constant problems with older ones having the RRoD.

The RRoD issue wasn't as widespread as people like to believe.  Yes, every Xenos Xbox 360 will experience the RRoD in it's lifetime, if it survives that long.  Some Falcon Xbox 360's will experience the RRoD.   Fewer Jasper Xbox 360 will.    The vast majority of RRoD issues were resolved with the Falcon-based Xbox 360s, but that doesn't mean there weren't people who repeatedly experienced the RRoD.  Why, I don't know.  I only ever experienced one, and it was after almost 2 3/4 years with my Xenos-based Xbox 360, and my console was on many occasions for 18-20 hours and in extreme heat.  Yet it died in October.  Not exactly a warm month in the Northern part of the US.

Microsoft took a gamble that the problem would resolve itself.  Call it inexperience, call it stupidity, call it whatever.  Hindsight is 20/20.  It's easy to sit here today and say, Microsoft should have taken longer to QA the Xbox 360, but I can tell you from personal experience that in the corporate world risks are weighed versus the cost of delay, and often the better wisdom is often ignored.  It happens.

Ford knew the Pinto gas tank would explode before a single Pinto hit the road.  However, because the Pinto's engineering costs needed to be within a certain range in order to ensure Ford could sell it at the price they wanted, they couldn't afford to re-engineer the gas tank.  So what did they do?  They hushed up the engineers or fired them, and kept quiet until someone died.

The Xbox 360 debacle wasn't nearly as serious.  It did, however show Microsoft's inexperience in engineering a consumer electronic device on this caliber.   Microsoft took care of their customers that either had had their consoles repaired prior to the warranty extension, or had their consoles repaired after. 

Look at the bold.

lol STFU troll

Note: This post has been moderated

-Mr Khan

I'll not start a huge quote tree so I edited your post out but I think you'll find I agreed with what you said in my last post.  I admit I didn't know aware Microsoft was before launch as I didn't believe it had ever come out publically. 

I've serviced/repaired over a thousand 360's so I have some idea what faults occur and why also.  Without a doubt with hindsight the vast majority of RROD issues would have been drastically reduced with a thicker PCB to stop the board warping.  Of course increasing board thickness would have affected all the timing so was never a cost effective solution early in the consoles lifespan.  I agree that the issue was vastly reduced with the Falcon, the combination of better Heatsinks, better chassis and lower Heat output from both CPU and GPU all would contribute to improved  reliability.  Jasper improved this even further again.

Nice post though, always a pleasure to learn something new each day.