This.
In reality (not in the minds of kids who grew up with Playstation), Sony is a declining brand.
Your right BoneyBoy, truth hurts.

Post. Of. The. Year.

Yup.

Thats a little condescending. I have multiple reasons why i love my PS3 after owning a 360 for 2 years. I wont get into a pissing match with you but blanket statements are never good and show a lack of reason or logic involved in healthy debate speaking so matter of factly. But carry on with your crusade.

Post of the year?

It helps you sleep at night so much?

Good. Luck. With. Your. Life.

Sony learned the wrong lessons from the PS2, and decided to have the PS3 follow it. They assumed that storage format + complicated processor = success. They then threw in the price being way off the hook, and though that "Playstation" name is what matter more than anything else.

Sony learning from what made the original Playstation system a success would help them a lot.

The simple answer is because they were sure it was the right thing to do.

The slightly more complex answer is that:

they decided to build their own architecture rather than leverage more standard architectures, and as a result arguably immediately raised development and production costs, as well as ensuring something trickier for developers to use - something MS to an extent piggy backed, so it is worth noting before overly slamming Sony decision here that the research also paved the way for 360 architecture.

they decided to include BR. I understand why, and as I only wanted an HD console with HD physical media playback for me it was the right choice, but for the majority this wasn't the case at launch and clearly the BR inclusion massively raised the costs plus the launch price

they went for prestige, with a powerful console that was quieter and more reliable, but again this raised costs which inevitably got passed into the price

Of these and many other decisions were clearly made with the confidence of a long run of market dominance behind them, and a lot of confidence that Nintendo weren't a concern while MS were more of a threat and their focus on high end graphics and online for Western audiences had to be countered.

No big company wants to make bad or poor decisions, and hindsight is as they say cheap. They made their choices, I don't think any were bad choices as such, but they simply didn't land well with the market at that time, nor with how their competitors had responded, Nintendo with something disruptive, and MS with a fast launch and push to get a relatively comparable console to market first and at a lower price.

1:They are stupid.

Your post contradicts itself in a lot of places.

First you use market share as a way to say sony doesn't have anything "cutting edge". Although less market share is usually a result of price which is a result of having "cutting edge" technology inside it.

And then you complain about the ps2 being less powerful than the xbox but if we go by your earlier argument it has more market share so it's actually better than the xbox right?

And sony fell to 5th place because of the global economy. People don't have the money to spend on anything "cutting edge" so they buy the cheaper stuff that does the bare minimum.

And if sony didn't use cutting edge technology we would see something similar to the wii. Where it was priced cheap from the start and they never would have had to sell it at a loss.

EDIT: look up "squaretrade reliability" and have a look at how acer are the second worst for failing but since they are second biggest they are obviously the second best. Also hp are the biggest and worst percent for failing. But being the biggest they are obviously the best according to you.

Why did Sony do what?!. making so many systems?! and making too many games?!... I dont get it??

Wow im glad you wrote this, thats exactly what I wanted to say.