If Sony sticks to the 10-year lifecycle and the hardware sells they can make a good profit.

The guy obviousley thinks he's a genius.

ROFLOL...gee, that's pretty obivious...the attempt to have a blew-ray explosion to counter the heavy cost of the PS3 hasn't materialized, and time isn't on Sony's side...sure, unit cost will go down, but so will the per unit price to customer, in order to stay competitive, which jsut simply get's sony back to square one...loosing money. Nintendo will launch their new console as will M$, and sony will still be working on that 10-year plan.

it is depend on the person who will wan to buy a 720, 1080, 1440.... and so on still with DVD build in every 3 or 4 years.

If the "720" was going to be released 3 to 4 years after the XBox 360 was we would already know about it because it would be released between November 2008 and November 2009; a much more realistic estimate for the next system from Microsoft would be 5 to 6 years after the release of the XBox 360, which would put the release of the "720" between November 2010 and November 2011. Surprisingly enough, the expected release of the "PS4" will (also) be about 5 to 6 years after the PS3 was released much like the PS3 was released (roughly) 5 to 6 years after the PS2 was released, and the PS2 was released (roughly) 5 to 6 years after the Playstation was released.

No disrespect, you're a History major. I'm a business major. We should stick with what we know. You're showing us a graph of cash and short term investments, not net income. Cash and short term investments are used to judge liquidity, not profitability.

What's more the graph even mentions why microsofts cash and STI were low, they were repurchasing their own stock. I'm certain you don't know what this means or else you wouldn't be citing this graph and saying MS is losing money. They repurchase it because the companies believe its stock is undervalued, basically a good sign to investors.

I hope you didn't base your entire arguement on that one graph. 2004 was year microsoft paid the largest dividend (ever if i remember correctly) of 3.5 billion because they could not do anything with their huge cash reserves. They didn't lose 30 billion like you claimed in an earlier post. They used that money to pay the dividend and repurchase stocks.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_kmafp/is_200407/ai_n6848591

Microsoft's Annual Net Income (profit not revenue)

1996 $2195 million
1997 $3454
1998 $4490
1999 $7785
2000 $9421
2001 $7346
2002 $5355
2003 $7531
2004 $8468
2005 $12254
2006 $12599
2007 $14065

Taken directly from financial statements. You're welcome to verify, they're in their website. http://www.microsoft.com/msft/default.mspx

Negative Sales.

dave perry is a prick, i remeber him from the megadrive days, he made alladin on megadrive then gimped out.

how the hell does he know that ps3 wont make any money lol what an idiot

Wrong, there are alot of companies that get tiny returns on bluray profitability but here are 18 companies that can really profit alot directly from sales of BluRay technology. Sony gets by far the most being that they championed the product. The actual forecast for BluRay DVD sales alone for next year are in the billions (maybe 2-3) and will multiply dramatically years down the road if the format stays on track. With that being said, Sony gets roughly 25-30% of that pie... While BluRay can be used as a horse to sell high def displays and audio, the bulk of the profits will come from royalties off disk sales. And when i mean disk sales, I'm talking about new releases, not rebuys of the same movies people already own.