It was perfect and i wouldn't change a thing.

Ps4 is also perfect.

No hypocrisy in these statements like the op is trying to prove though. Why? I'm a consumer wbo buys the product to play games not brag about the inside and this gen gave me the best games on PlayStation. Just like next gen will

I would change the internet bandwidth, the weak ass GPU and the interface.

I voted memory, but Sony went for power instead of ease of use for developers which caused them to feel more comfortable with the 360. It wasnt easy, thus the lazy ports were exposed easily. What I am happy about is Sony has learned their lesson.

I'd have wanted them to do what they're doing with the PS4. Something easier for devs to work with that was also demonstrably more powerful would've been a much easier sell.

The PS3 wasnt perfect, Sony made tons of mistakes with it. They were able to fix a lot of tnose mistakes with amazing games and great support, but we went to hell and back before the good stuff. 

Cell. It was expensive and drove away many developers.

A "BEAST" in every sense of the word. Powerful yet not very smart.

PS3 is like Cranky kong, very few will miss him when its successor is released.

Cell was redundant, surely sony could have garnered the same returns (in 1st part titles) at a much lower cost with a better GPU and RAM combo? Also that would have undoubtably provided better ports.

Also the low system memory makes navigating the psn store quite annoying.

Hate to say it but I don't think the inclusion of bluray really paid off either. All 3rd party games seem to undergo the same level of video compression as the 360 and I stopped buying Blu-rays after 2008.... Although I'm sure I would have ended up buying a bluray player down the line, so I guess I can't complain.

Overall I'm very happy about how the ps3 turned out.