NJ5 said:
drkohler said:
NJ5 said:
@drkohler: You still haven't explained why your numbers look like BS considering Sony's declarations and financial results.
You came up with a $350 manufacturing cost, which would make the PS3 profitable even at a $400 price, going against Sony's CFO's declarations. You have also failed to account for such simple things as taxes in Europe's case, and repeatedly ignored all the hard evidence which was presented.
|
|
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?
|
I am not going to write a 500 page dissertation about those points, only a few things concerning your answer:
1. "Explain why one of them matters and the other one doesn't." I never wrote that at all and it is a completely ludicruous statement. Manufacturing costs is what a company has to pay for its product when it's in the production cycle - be that manufactured by itself or a contractor. Now, before you can manufacture a product, you have the full cycle of marketing research, development stages, testing stages etc. All this adds to the price of a product, since you as the producer have to cough up that money before you sold your first item - also you still have all your engineers to feed even if the product design is finished (which, in the industry, never happens anyway).
2. The list of components is easy to get (also you can actually _look_ at the main board and write down a component list -the chip descriptions are not milled.). How do I "invent" my price estimates? ($840 for 1st generation, $620 for 2nd generation, $350-$400 for 3-4fth generation units. Note how the first two numbers are pretty identical to numbers given by most analysts so my assumptions are not totally wrong right from the start). As with every estimate, one has to make certain assumptions, my key assumption is that Sony Gameing division had a $3 billion setup cost for the PS3 which they wanted to regain with their first 10 million units in two production runs of roughly 5 million units each. Now obviously noone outside Sony knows about the contracts Sony has with its suppliers or Sony's plans to regain development costs, so one has to estimate standard values for components, amortisation times, and procedures as they exist in the industry. Granted it has been a long time since I designed computer components myself (on a much smaller scale than we write here and we are talking Nec7220, Hitachi HD61480 etc), but the industry has not changed systematically in the past 30 years, only the manufacturing has changed ("just in time" is one of the buzzwords here. Somewhere there is an older post in the forum where I explained the costs of some parts a little in detail, but I'm too lazy to search it for you). And yes, in the past 30 years, I had worked in many projects and had been in direct contact with companies large and small that produce industrial goods (or sometimes produce machines that produce industrial goods - I have actually seen prototypes of blu-ray discs in research labs before most of our readers have even heard about something now called blu-ray). When you work in projects in such surroundings, you also get to see some of the financial decisions behind them. (And you always have to sign so-alled "nondisclose agreements" which prevent you from telling anyone what you have seen or you go bankrupt pretty fast).
3. I can walk into major and minor Swiss, French and German stores within an hour or two and simply write down the prices for the various consoles.. and I have colleagues in other countries that do the same thing in their hometurfs. So there is no secret procedure to get sale values.. As an example for Switzerland, the tax is 9.3%, so subtract roughly $60 from every bundle and you get around $560 for the PS3 before taxes. That's still far away from $350-$400 Sony coughs up upfront. And dealer margins are pretty low for this kind of electronic goods (I think there are older posts that say some US distributors actually have a zero margin on the hardware - something that no distributor in Europe would accept).
4. I'm not going there. If you don't want to understand my previous posts that try to figure explain Sony losses even in last fiscal quarter, that's ok with me. Also I never wrote about the whole sottfware issue because I have no clue there. This could have been/still is an equal money sink as the hardware unit.
