MS would be taking ~$!00 loss on a $299 Kinectless Xb one. Most analysts reckon Kinect is
“The fundamental cause of the trouble is that in the modern world the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt.” - Bertrand Russell
"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace."
Jimi Hendrix
bonzobanana said:
I have no idea why anyone takes these breakdown of costs seriously. Both Sony and Microsoft will be ordering millions of these consoles and geting a fantastic price for components. PC components that may only sell in 10s of thousands are sold at a profit at retail and lower prices than this. It's an absolute joke. Why would they be paying more for DDR memory than I paid at retail with delivery and sales tax? That includes profit for manufacturer, retailer and all the transports costs from China plus custom charges possibly. Yet Microsoft buying lower spec bare chips pay more than me. Blu-ray players are coming out of chinese factories for $15-20 dollars yet a bare optical drive is $37. On a PC $471 probably represents teh manufacturing cost of a PC that probably retails at something like $700 and is only made in 10s of thousands of units. Something like this; It's ridiculous to think a little games console stripped down to essential parts in a small case and small psu plus manufactured in millions would ever come close to the manufacturing price of that pc. That PC is probably assembled from indvidual components in the USA. |
quoted for being freaking right!
"I think people should define the word crap" - Kirby007
Join the Prediction League http://www.vgchartz.com/predictions
Instead of seeking to convince others, we can be open to changing our own minds, and seek out information that contradicts our own steadfast point of view. Maybe it’ll turn out that those who disagree with you actually have a solid grasp of the facts. There’s a slight possibility that, after all, you’re the one who’s wrong.
kirby007 said:
quoted for being freaking right! |
I'm pretty sure these breakdowns are made calculating backwards, meaning they start with the $499/$399 sales price, assuming the total manufacturing costs a few $ less than those values, and then go on internet sites to see what parts they could get that make up the price. It's been a (long) while since I had actual insights into manufacturing costs but some parts of this quoted breakdown are simply hilarious. Like the $60 MS is supposed to pay for 16 dram chips - they went for under $2 at the time ms reserved millions of them (which probably was around 2009). Or the $9 or $14 manufacturing costs (they likely mean this is what the plant manufacturer gets for each finished unit). Last time ms lowered the manufacturing price down to $14 (instead of somewhat over $20 another plant offered) - the result ended in the infamous rrod fiasco. Then there is the $37 they think a hd would cost. Or the mainboard cost which doesn't really appear in the teardown... I could go on but the point is: These simple breakdowns are most likely calculated "backwards".
drkohler said:
I'm pretty sure these breakdowns are made calculating backwards, meaning they start with the $499/$399 sales price, assuming the total manufacturing costs a few $ less than those values, and then go on internet sites to see what parts they could get that make up the price. It's been a (long) while since I had actual insights into manufacturing costs but some parts of this quoted breakdown are simply hilarious. Like the $60 MS is supposed to pay for 16 dram chips - they went for under $2 at the time ms reserved millions of them (which probably was around 2009). Or the $9 or $14 manufacturing costs (they likely mean this is what the plant manufacturer gets for each finished unit). Last time ms lowered the manufacturing price down to $14 (instead of somewhat over $20 another plant offered) - the result ended in the infamous rrod fiasco. Then there is the $37 they think a hd would cost. Or the mainboard cost which doesn't really appear in the teardown... I could go on but the point is: These simple breakdowns are most likely calculated "backwards". |
doesn't change the fact those are estimates that anyone could have put together
"I think people should define the word crap" - Kirby007
Join the Prediction League http://www.vgchartz.com/predictions
Instead of seeking to convince others, we can be open to changing our own minds, and seek out information that contradicts our own steadfast point of view. Maybe it’ll turn out that those who disagree with you actually have a solid grasp of the facts. There’s a slight possibility that, after all, you’re the one who’s wrong.
I honestly don't understand what makes Kinect so expensive. The technology has been done before, almost 6 years ago in fact.
My fathers Lexus LS had a camera fitted behind the steering wheel. Whenever a driver got in, it recognised them and adjusted the entire car for that user (temperature, seat position, cabin ambience, ride IE hard or soft suspension and even radio stations ets...).
I step into my living room I run out of breath trying to get the XBO to do my desired commands. Its useless tech, ads nothing to gaming (as of yet) nor the UI. Just take it out MS and watch sales skyrocket.
Awful, awful, awful analysis.
http://www.joystiq.com/2013/11/26/teardown-suggests-xbox-one-manufacturing-cost-of-471/
It cost them $471 to make the One with the Kinect accounting for $75 of that cost.
I can't believe I need to say this again but here it goes...
Microsoft does not make money on the Xbox One. Does NOT. It doesn't for two obvious reasons.
1. Once the console is made it doesn't just magically appear at a retailer.
2. Retailers do not pay Microsoft $499 for the console.
At $499 the Xbox One is weaker hardware for more money.
At $399 without Kinect the One is gimped weaker hardware for the same money...
Bet with Adamblaziken:
I bet that on launch the Nintendo Switch will have no built in in-game voice chat. He bets that it will. The winner gets six months of avatar control over the other user.
| kirby007 said: doesn't change the fact those are estimates that anyone could have put together |
No, anyone would probably fail rather badly estimating some components (or miss important ones). So that teardown was not just random assumptions. The mistake was doing it backwads and assuming the comsole actually makes some small profit to get to the final values. Sony has in a way admitted early on that they make a small loss initially, and ms pr pretended not to make one (which everyone except me seems to take as granted, but is very obviously wrong in my opinion just by looking at the listed $70-$75 Kinect cost). In all likelihood if you fork over real money you get a much more in-depth teardown from that company.
| foodfather said: I honestly don't understand what makes Kinect so expensive. The technology has been done before, almost 6 years ago in fact. |
Well, I made first contact with a tof camera sometimes in the early eighties when our research group had quite some money left for an apparatus and we visioned either a excimer/dye laser combo, or a tof camera (as far as I can remember, roughly 10 by 10 pixels). Both cost about $60'000 at the time. (We went for the laser, fortunately). Fast forward into the new millenium and you could already get tof cameras (160*120 pixels) for under $10'000. Fast forward another few years into around 2010 and you could get a 320*240 tof cameras for around $8000. Now if you look around you can probably get a 320*240 tof camera for around $500 (in larger quantities).
Now MS is including a 500*400 pixel behemoth of a tof camera with their console. Upto maybe two years ago, such a device would still be way, way over $1000. Mass manufacturing the device, ms somehow succeeded in reducing the manufacturing costs by apparently over 95%. Assuming $30 for the tof chip (which is really neat and small), there also is an expensive (compared to the original Kinect) rgbi full hd camera (with much better lense), and a rather large soc that does all the data assembling and processing (easily a $25 chip). Then you have the whole case (which is not cheap metal sheets cobbled together), a ventilator, programmable ir diode array and some other electronics stuff and you easily get to $150 manufacturing costs. Such a Kinect device would have easily cost you $5000 a few years ago...
| fallen said:... ....
Will Microsoft follow my advice and release the $299 Kinectless Xbox One? I'm not convinced. A more likely strategy may be just to keep Kinect, bite the bullet and drop to $399 with Kinect. They may also release a Kinectless version for $399 and simply pocket more profit, as well. Nothing in MIcrosoft's history suggests they are particularly aggressive on price. Again, this doesn't take advantage of the strengths of Xbox One's design, though.
|
Interesting take. I think Kinect is really a good strength. Some gamers might not like it, but I think most of the people that use it will. Once you have used it a bit, it's a great thing. And you wonder why other devices aren't as easy, useful and capable to use.
Dropping Kinect would be like making a motionless Wii in 2007. Sure some gamers might like it, but most of the people buying the system would lose out. Plus it would stifle the forward movement we have with versatility and as we move into more virtual reality.
Interesting note: The Kinect 2.0 Software Development Kit is currently at $399 USD just for a Kinect 2.0 that you plug into your PC. That is assuming you can get one.
|
Really not sure I see any point of Consol over PC's since Kinect, Wii and other alternative ways to play have been abandoned. Top 50 'most fun' game list coming soon! |
|
 |
Tell me a funny joke! |
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2026 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
