The word 'would' implies that they otherwise would not be losing money. For someone to say that the PS3 is losing money, but would lose money with a price cut, is poor grammar.

The quote should been: "I would lose MORE money on every playstation I make."

Since the direct quote is:

Asked about the logic of not cutting prices, Stringer said, "I (would) lose money on every PlayStation I make -- how's that for logic."

It implies that they don't currently lose money on every Playstation they make.

You could even argue that since he only said Playstation, what he means to says is that he currently loses money on both PSP and PS2 production, and if he gave Playstation 3 a price cut, he would lose money on every Playstation device he makes.

Sweet sweet vindication:

I contacted the author and editor of the article to verify how and why the word ´would´ was added. This is the reply I received.

I think you can use the story without the word "would". It was probably added in the editing process in an attempt to clarify the quote, which was "I lose money on every PlayStation I make -- how's that for logic."

/thread

I saw this:

Asked about the logic of not cutting prices, Stringer said, "I (would) lose money on every PlayStation I make -- how's that for logic."

So, the way I read it, they would lose money for sure if they cut prices (context being the logic of not cutting prices), and they say they lose money doing that.  The context talks of a price cut.  Based on this, we don't know if they ARE losing money currently.  It is possible Sony looks at what the Wii is doing, with Nintendo selling units at a profit, and still leading, and think they can do similar.

It is a mountain out of an anthill.  Based on what I read, I can't conclude that they are losing money now.  BUT, and this is important, you CAN say if they cut prices on the PS3, they WILL lose money.  And this second point is the most important, not the first.  The point is that Sony isn't going to be cutting price due to this, and it doesn't make sense.

Because of focusing on the petty, this thread has gone on WAY too long.  So, to sum up, don't expect a price cut, unless Sony can avoid losing money doing so.

Hey, want something to argue over also?  Debate whether this picture has an old or young woman in it:

^^^ I saw that picture in the 3rd grade, it clearly has both an old woman and a young one.

You have poor grasp of economics.  The product price needed to break even at $399 MSRP is not $399.  It is much less.  You have to take out the retailers margin, at 5% and probably 10% so that is $40.  You have to subtract distribution and packaging, say $10 and $5 each.  Subtract the cost of the controller, say $5.  So that leaves maybe $340 of gross margin to apply to COGS.  This also neglects any non-COGS OPEX needed for the PS3 production and distribution.  Every dollar that they reduce the MSRP directly reduces the margin.

I didn't think the retailers margin was that high on consoles sold as they make the vast majority of money from the software.

Its sad people can't see the value of the ps3.

Asked about the logic of not cutting prices, Stringer said, "I (would) lose money on every PlayStation I make -- how's that for logic."

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Yeah, Sony is probably breaking even or even making a few $'s on the $500 - 160GB PS3, but they are still losing a few on the $400 80GB PS3. Why do you think they haven't dropped the price yet. If anything, they might drop the price of the 160GB to $450, but I don't think they would help move PS3 unless the 80GB PS3 dropped to $350. Sony will definitely lose more money if they drop the price now. They are holding off as long as possible, which is why they are offering new bundles.