I think they are trapped just like MS and nintendo and cant escape. MS and sony both are probably paying more for chips then they anticipated, and the chips are living up to the power produced but not expected power consumption reduction roadmap. every time there is a fab change both companies hurt tremendously for probably 9 months, heck they may even hold back on pushing new units out, in which case they rely on old units they have built up whcih comes with two liabilities shortages and added cost for storage. 

I also think this is why we will not see as many fab shrinks from nintendo cause the cost to benefit just does not make since even though there is the potential to get 2 chips for every one out of the same fab in the long run it will hurt the short and mid term supply far too much 

also of note there has been an increase in performance of same clock speed chips in PPC linage when size was reduced not much, but over 2 shrinks can be as much as 10%. this was never a problem in desktop computing or server computing, but i wonder if it could be a problem if there are 2 more shrinks with home consoles.  

edit... "To guarantee the proper operation of existing gaming software, the exact cycle-by-cycle machine behavior, including operating frequency, must be preserved." from ars  seems like IBM is working to remove this problem, damn id like to see the white papers to see the changes they make to keep this possible 

Johnsobas - If you look at the numbers.

First revision - ~270 dollars.

This revision - ~150 dollars... and doing more than the first revision.

I already took the "Mass production" into consideration... why do you think I didn't put this revision as 270 like the other one plus some for the smaller chasis and less shipping costs? Instead I took off a huge 120 dollars. That's almost as much as I'm talking about the for the revision!

I'm basically saying the second revision will have half the effect with more done than the first... sounds reasonible to me.

Thanks.

those are totally numbers out of your ass. Yes the first revision saved them money but you have no idea if the first revision saved $270, there is no information out there to back that up. You also have no idea how much the ps3 cost to begin with. You also are not taking into consideration that during that time the cost of the yen changed drastically.

I have a lot to back that up... like the isupply estimate, the price of ps2, and the knowledge of what they did for previous revision, and the price of the Ps3 right now.

The only one to challenge me with facts so far is goddog. And I commend him for his efforts. I see what he is saying but to me the shape Sony is in doesn't sound like they would take that alternative.

No, your whole argument is based on isupply. Isupply is not Sony. They have no idea how much it cost Sony to make the PS3 at launch. There is so many more factors at launch than there is now for how much it would have cost the Isupply would have no idea. Sony was only able to churn out 80k consoles for launch despite all the delays. There was bottlenecks and parts that Sony no doubt had to drastically overpay for to get it out in time for launch. At launch they were obviously building it is small numbers which costs the who knows how much money.
You're assumption on the first revision are completely unfounded, you don't know how much that stuff costs. I will say it again, you didn't take into consideration the drastic change in the yen.
I'm done with you because there is far too much guess work going on here.

Im asking you to specify how you used PS2 in your calculations of PS3 savings.

@johnsobas

I understand that you think he is wrong but you at least have to come in with some kind of rebuttal other than "out his ass" or "assumptions" because everyone here is only assuming Sony is still losing so much money.

With the iSupply info he is using, he stated that Sony pretty much confirmed those same numbers that iSupply gave. If that is truly the case then why is it sketchy?

A lot of this is directly from Sony's mouth. You can't get much better than that.

Goddog came in with some knowledge to drop down on the table and did so without insulting the thread creator. His info also seems very possible too but we won't know any of this until Sony either confirms or denies these rumors. To be honest I don't see how anyone says it isn't true when it was said by Sony themselves.

I am pretty sure you can find the call if you want.

Edit - Didn't see your last post before I sent this post through so if you made a rebuttal just ignore this post.

Euphoria14 said: @johnsobas I understand that you think he is wrong but you at least have to come in with some kind of rebuttal other than "out his ass" or "assumptions" because everyone here is only assuming Sony is still losing so much money. Goddog came in with some knowledge to drop down on the table and did so without insulting the thread creator. His info also seems very possible too but we won't know any of this until Sony either confirms or denies these rumors. To be honest I don't see how anyone says it isn't true when it was said by Sony themselves. I am pretty sure you can find the call if you want.

do i have to say it again, you don't know where that 70% came from.  Yes they said it, but it is a percentage that is not backed by a known number.