Try downloading a movie at 1080 P and realize why downloading is not the wave of the future.

^rofl

3-5gb is the maximum you'd need to satisfy 98% of the market 100% of the time.

The new compression technology is amazing. The new Wireless technology is amazing as well.

Who will want Blu ray when storage/networking/playback technology is progressing so rapidly?

By the way, don't worry about the cable companies... they'll be the ones who'll sell you the movies so they'll make damn sure that the bandwidth is available so you can stream movies straight away. I think they're even rolling out 100mbit around the big cities.

Do you want to A - Drive to the store to buy that new dvd that you really want, or B download it onto your media server and have it available on all your computers/tvs at once for less than you would have paid for the DVD?

The luddites will stick with DVD and the early adopters will abandon blu ray. Think Ipod and you'll understand.

-98% of the market is going to want a physical copy of what they buy.

-100mbits is the maximum speed that you could possibly get, but most people don't get anywhere near that.

-Most of the world is still without broadband internet access for various reasons(cost, the fact that cable companies won't run a line out to where they live).

-The cost of storing and backing up digital media makes it noticeably more expensive than DVD(and Blu-Ray).

-The situation with the Ipod isn't exactly what you think.

Oh my god, there comes another one... do you know the difference between manufacturing costs and production costs? Do you know how large companies project the manufacturing and distribution of mass goods (hint: I do). Do you even realize that with manufacturing costs now around $350 (-10%/+5%), a selling price of $399 _in a shop_ is obviously not generating profit (for the producer). However, selling it around $600 in Europe obviously does make a profit (no matter how high the tax is). For the 100 millionth time, Sony in last fiscal year was still selling machines from the remainder of its first generation (approx $840 manufacturing costs) and a sizable amount of its second generation (approx $620 manufacturing costs). It does _not_ take a rocket scientist to see that when shops sold those machines at $499, somebody was taking a heavy hit for every unit sold.

 There is nothing fail about this thread at all. Sony has lost 3.4 billion in the last 2 years on the Playstation brand. The OP discusses that and the fact that he can see no price cuts any time soon, which is pretty much what Sony said at their last earnings report ( See Lazard no price cut this year). This price cut situation and turning the Playstation brand around is the real questions at hand and all this other nonsense is just that.

If that was the case Sony wouldn't of Loss led. Loss leading almost never generates the most profit.

It's only about profit now that the PS3 lost so much money for them.

Well since you're so smart, why don't you explain instead of just saying "oh god you guys are so stupid and don't understand...". At least some of us are putting some evidence behind your claims, and basing them on the best available sources.

Here are four things you could explain:

1- Explain what you mean with the difference between "manufacturing" and "production" costs. Explain why one of them matters and the other one doesn't.

2- Explain why we should believe a number written on a internet forum by some random poster who claims to know $350 is the manufacturing cost. Do you have the bill of materials for a PS3, the list of suppliers, the contracts Sony has with those suppliers? How do you come up with that approximation, when analysts have come up with others? Why are you more qualified than everyone else? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, and from what I've seen you haven't provided even the slightest bit of evidence.

3- Explain why you keep quoting European prices with included taxes, when it would be much more significant to quote prices before taxes (often more than 20%) which are the maximum Sony can receive. Explain why you, being so qualified, can't correct this easy mistake even after being told about it twice?

4- Explain why, if you are right, Sony has stated multiple times that they're losing money on hardware (oh right, is it because you claim to know that all the machines recently sold were produced long ago, a claim which you haven't proved?). In that case, explain why they think they're only going to start breaking even at the end of the fiscal year, or early next fiscal year?

"4- Explain why, if you are right, Sony has stated multiple times that they're losing money on hardware (oh right, is it because you claim to know that all the machines recently sold were produced long ago, a claim which you haven't proved?). In that case, explain why they think they're only going to start breaking even at the end of the fiscal year, or early next fiscal year?"

Sony's own financial statements, and drkohler ignores it. It would take the most deluded fanboys to deny the very words of the company they like rather than admit the company is having problems (like Nintendo fanboys denying until recently how the GC was selling).

So drkohler has shown him/herself to be a truly deluded fan.

Gamecube was 5th on the Amazons best sellers list just last december!

I say Nintendo is greatly undertracking it's own sales!

The sad thing is... I'm actually using more "evidence"...Cube was 5th on the Amazon's best seller list a week in december.