I know some people have said this, and I don't want to claim this is something that I came up with independently, but I think it deserves some attention and a listing of the evidence behind it. So here it goes:


Prediction: The new 40 GB PS3 model will be smaller in size than the previous models.

Rationale:

1- Why would they remove 2 USB ports if it wasn't just to reduce the size? The cost of 2 USB ports and the required cabling/copper conductors is probably around $1-$3 dollars or such a ridiculous amount. Sources - play.com and FCC test diagram showing 2 connected USB ports only.

2- The left size of PS3's motherboard is virtually empty in the 80 GB model (and 60 GB PAL version). Practically the only thing which is there is a new chip which didn't exist in the other models (people speculate it's something to help with PS2 compatibility, probably even a GS according to some websites). Play.com and other sources claim that this model won't have backwards compatibility, which could allow Sony to remove that chip and chop off part of the motherboard. Pictures:

60 GB American motherboard (including PS2's EE+GS):

http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger2/4132/1041533231054163/1600/ps3_32.1.jpg

80 GB / 60 GB PAL motherboard (Notice the mystery chip marked with the red circle, and how empty it seems compared to the other motherboard):

http://i23.tinypic.com/2woxjj9.jpg

Now a zoom in of that mystery chip (serial number CXD2972GB):

http://microblog.routed.net/wp-content/uploads/2007/03/ps3_motherboard_4.JPG

3- A smaller motherboard and casing would reduce the cost of production a bit, and would make it more attractive to consumers, especially in Japan where the PS3 has been selling badly.

(that's it for the prediction, you can ignore the rest of the post if you want to)

Notes: Searching google for the chip's serial number "CXD2972GB" reveals some interesting links:

http://www.chipworks.com/blogs.aspx?id=3252&blogid=86

http://www.engadget.com/2007/03/24/europes-playstation-3-motherboard-on-display/

And an interesting comment about the chips' serial numbers:

"Carl M @ Mar 24th 2007 9:03PM

Looking carefully at the Sony chip numbers, it kind of seems as if the European version was the one that they were planning to make all along, except they couldn't get the emulation working fast enough, so that the Japanese version was a stop-gap measure.

I'm saying this because the chip number of the PS2-substitute chip is CXD2972GB, while the IO chip is CXD2973GB (and CELL is 2964; RSX is 2971) (the IO chip number is the same on the old and new versions). What this tells me is that the PS2-substitute chip was designed at the same time as all the others, not later. Thus they probably had in mind to do emulation all along, but probably software delays in getting it working made them come up with a plan B for the original release."

PS: From what I'm seeing in the Portuguese playstation forums, people won't think it's funny at all to see backwards compatibility go away if it happens, especially because most people were utterly convinced that it was done through software emulation only. The smaller size would be welcome of course!

It would make sense, since the motherboard was apparently designed for a bunch of ethernet ports and a second HDMI plug, neither of which were in the launch models. Remaking the motherboard would be a smart move, and go a long way to helping the cost go that low.

I think Sony is going to find ways to cheapen the console. And I wouldn't blame them for doing that. If they do come out with a PS3 model that is $400. You can best believe I'm buying that console.

We *know* Sony will release a $399 PS3. We strongly suspect it will be at an even greater loss to Sony than the current models, because Sony cannot possibly cost reduce the device this fast (they don't have the technology).

The question here is: will they make it physically smaller. The size of the PS3 (which is already about $400 in Japan) is seen as one of the biggest hinderences to its uptake in Japan.

Extra ports and plugs are cheap.  The biggest costs can be licensing issues.  USB ports likely cost about $1 each to add to a device, so removing unused PCB would literally cost more in motherboard redesign than it would save you in materials and production.  It would be nice if it was smaller, but it's not likely going to make $20 toward the cost (for Sony) of the console. 

I think this will be the case, or will be the case in the near future. Getting rid of all the PS2 related chips as well as the extra USB ports etc, should make the motherboard half the size. Also, isn't there some mention of them developing the RSX chip to have integrated EE emulation?

I think this would be a super smart move. A nice slimline PS3. It' could easily be 2/3rds of the size. Also there is the different in currents for the IO ports, Wifi etc as well.

I don't quite get how you're concluding the motherboard can be 1/2 the size and that you can create a slimline PS3 at 2/3rds of the size.  The size could be shrunk a little, I think, by removing a few superfluous ports, but you still have a lot of heat/airflow considerations.  Once the cell and RSX shrink to a .45nm process, shrinking the PS3 to a signfiicantly smaller size (such as 2/3rds of the current size) may be a possibility.

Reducing the size of the print/the entire case would obviously increase the overall production cost while only marginally decrease the price of the  board.  Board costs (per revision) are calculated by:

(Size of board) x (Number of layers) x (Holefactor) + development costs

Development costs is a one time only contribution to the overall costs which includes design, fabrication tools, (re-)programming chip and testing machines. Holefactor is basically a measure on how many holes you have to drill, it is 1 for a board without holes and probably would go upto 3-4 for a perforated board.

A PS3 board currently costs around $6 to produce (give or take a buck). Even if by removing the PS2 chip one could eliminate one or two layers, a reduction of the board size would yield a savings of maybe $1. Now why would changing the board size increase the overall costs? Pretty obvious, the plastic case no longer fits (you need a new case, new tools), and the cooling stuff no longer fits (another redesign, again new tools required).

My calculation bring the production costs of an Euro-PS3 currently sold to about $410 (-10%/+5% margin). Removing all the bits mentioned (and possibly a 65nm cell engine), keeping everything else the same, assuming material was ordered early enough for the next production run, the production cost would be about $390 (-10%/+5%) for this new PS3. Sell a game and Sony is about at zero loss with this SKU.

Surely the cost of producing two lots of components, larger for the 80gb, smaller for the 40gb, would be higher than just using the same for both. They will already take a substantial loss on the $400 model, why would they want to increase it?

Also, a semi-slim model might well reduce the effectiveness, sales wise, of the true slim model when that is released.

 I should clarify that. I didn't mean the plugs and ports themselves. I meant the motherboard being designed to accomodate them. The iSupply report stated that the motherboard looked like one for a server or network switch. The PS3 cannot do something like that as it is. Yet the motherboard is built for it. That just adds lots of unecessary expense.

I remember when the PS3 was going to be a router too, I wonder if that has anything to do with it? That was very long ago, so it doesn't sound very likely, but it just reminded me of these news when I read what you wrote:

http://games.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/07/11/1625225