How is " production cost has been halved since january 08 which puts it in the 400-450 range and rumored to be around 400 since jan-may 08.  Most estimate a breakeven/ small loss. This was in almost every gaming blog/online chronicle/WSJ print in january 08."  directly the opposite of your citation?  You are saying all the uncited articles are entirely false when its leaked information, albeit skewed, from Sony's boardroom.  It echoes the exact information, just skewed to whatever analysts/writers viewpoint.  It is the same information, it is mostly skewed, it is leaked info from what later came out in the conference call you linked, it has price ranging interjected since no company discloses production costs outside of launch units(which takes years for them to provide).

Semantics.

How do you conclude it's leaked information? Since when does "analysts" equal "leaks"?

You have a very weird definition of semantics, and I have no intention of debating this further as it's clearly false to say your information is equivalent to the one I posted...

That's fine.  But when a companies Q3 FY07 ends 31-12-07, a barage of posts saying production costs drop 50% are posted all over the internet on 13-1-08 and similar findings are recorded on a conference call by sony on 31-1-08 that is pretty clear evidence information is leaked.

I'm fine that you don't want to debate it anymore but could you just explain how our information is completely opposite?  It is the incredibly similar information, but as I said one source is uncited and skewed to whatever "analyst" or writer is contributing.

The FY doesn't end in December, it ends in March.

When they say they expect to break even towards the end of FY08 (the ongoing fiscal year as you can see here) they mean around March 2009.

When I say our information is opposite I mean:

1- You talk about specific cost decreases, while Sony's quote in the investors conference declines to give specific numbers or percentages.

2- Your information says they were breaking even back in January 2008 while Sony's says they were expecting to break even around March 2009.

Q3 FY07 ends 31-12-07

production cost has been halved since january 08 which puts it in the 400-450 range ...  Most estimate a breakeven/ small.

Price range / % uncited on internet, halved = 50%

rumored to be around 400 since jan-may 08

EDIT: I still think we are arguing the same thing, just different sources/reliability. I'll go ahead and agree with you and admit to unintentionally being trollish  I have foot in mouth disease.

Its scooby Doo, Night of 100 frights. Its an ok game, I have it.

Heres what I thought would happen

DS and PSP would have a good fight but in the end PSP would win, but DS would get 40-45% market share. Dead wrong there.

I thought Wii would blow everyone away and catch on and be a big thing just like the DS which is unexpected. I really wanted to buy Nintendo stock but my money was in a CD which I am very sad about :(

I thought Sony would get arrogant and after E3 2006 I knew they would lose. Xbox 360 seemed really cool but at $400 it was too much but since it was out first the price would come down.

High price is the symptom, but what is the cause?

You deal with the cause (too late now), then the symptoms go away

The PS3 was a result of "inside the box" thinking, the Wii was WAAAAY outside of the "Box".

the PS3 has been out for 2 years now and it still costs way too much for most people to buy, the price is the only thing keeping it from busting out of its shell, with the price of some blu-ray players reaching as low as 200 bucks now, Sony needs a 300.00 PS3 now or it's over!