A beer!?! you sir are a scholar and a gentleman 

i dont hate the ps3 im just wouldnt buy it cuz its too expensive and even with a 200 dollar price cut ill would still be like 300 for the 160 gb but idr the price of the other versions

i would buy the 80 gb if it got a price cut cuz memory isnt that important to me cuz i dont download that much on my consoles

Said what?

You are saying the PS3 hardware is profitable and it can still be profitable with a $100 cut.

If that were true, then Sony must be losing money somewhere else besides normal PS2/3 and P business.

As you said:
. People were so quick in claiming the Ps3 is the sole purpose of Sony's losses. Now in hindsight we are able to see things a little more clearly. Post E3 we can now see what Sony has been doing with it's money. On top of Ps3 losses there has been 2 PSP revisions in a year, 1 Ps3 revision, a PS wand, and I'm comfortable in saying they are in early stages of PS4 and PSP2

----

Wait, I re-read it... you are saying that PS3 HW is not profitable now, but could be when they do X,Y,Z --- apologies.

----

Well I vaguely remember some of those estimates on parts for the PS3... at launch 2 of the most expensive components were the blu-ray drive and the cell chip. each at $150+ to manufacture

When the estimates were released later on (may have been your iSupply ones.. I am not certain) those two components were clearly the main source of cost cutting, with BR drive/laser down to $20-30 or something, and the Cell chip down to under $10 (this is from memory mind you, but those two components were definately the main loss)

So those two components... neither of which are possible to take out of the PS3, had already reduced cost by immense amounts and didn't have much further to go.... reducing the chip-set size again down to 45nm and reducing other sizes for a PS3slim would not have anywhere near the same effect.
Cost cutting on tech like that can only go so far before they are basically at a wall and trying to cut any more is pointless unless you are selling to billions of people (because the cost of changing dies for smaller chips etc would outweigh the savings made manufacturing them in the future) This is why people saying the Wii must be making $150 profit by now are talking bullshit... the Wii was basically already next to the wall when it launched, so cost cutting is minimal at best.

I agree TWR, and that's why I estimate that basically the same process will only have half the effect as last time. Even with a few extra things to cut cost.

lol CGI, you like to argue with trolls huh?

Half the effect perhaps (at best)... but not half the costs they cut last time.

If they have cut half the costs from the original design up to now, then half the effect would be to cut 1 quarter of the costs... which would put it at $330 to produce.

But this wasn't done in 2 simple stages like that anyway... If the current design is costing them $440 I doubt changing to PS3 slim with 45nm would bring it down past $370ish unless it is a really major re-design.

To be honest I don't see the PS3 costing less than the supposed magic $199 until it's successor is launched.

You're just silly. Sony themselves have stated that PS3 is the big money sink. All the way since the launch in Nov 2006.

Almost every quarter the Entertainment division has lost several $100 millions and Sony has never said it's due to R&D. The division is still losing big money, including the latest quarter as demonstrated by the financial report that was released just a few days ago.

LOL. Who is the one being silly? You expect Sony to be like "Yeah the reason we are losing money is because we have motion control in development! It won't be out for a few years, and hell, we might even scrap it because its a prototype and every prototype doesn't make it through but I'll let everyone know what we are doing, so that... when the time comes to announce it... no one will care" Seriously slime... like I said this line of thought process is to advanced for you.