Vetteman94 said:
jarrod said:
Vetteman94 said:
jarrod said:
Vetteman94 said:
jarrod said:
Vetteman94 said:
jarrod said:
Vetteman94 said:
jarrod said:
The original $805 figure was for iSupply's 2006 teardown and was just the console material costs, not actually a manufacturing estimate and didn't include anything regarding cords, controller, manuals, packaging, etc. You can't apply that directly to Sony 70% reduction figure with some fuzzy math thrown in for extras and claim a $40-50 loss.
The only credible source in here says a $100 loss per slim. In fact, the 70% figure you're working from even pre-dates that source, it's less recent.
|
I dont remember seeing any credible sources saying $100 loss per slim. The only true credible number in this entire thread is the 70% umber, and that because its directly from Sony
|
If you have any legitimate reason to think of TV Tokyo and Daiwa Securities as not credible, I'd love to hear them.
As is, actual analyst estimates seem better than trying to guess 70% less of something you don't know. Real Source > Fuzzy Math
|
I am wondering if you even watched the video or read the article yourself. The analyst entire estimate is based off of a comment made by a Sony back in May of 2009 which stated that sony lost 10% on each PS3.
|
Read closer. It cited the public comment, that doesn't mean that's ALL Diawa was going off when making these projections.
|
I did, where was the mention of the 70% off of manufacturing costs, cause I didnt see it.
|
Daiwa didn't cite that figure. Again, why are they not "credible" in your opinion?
|
Because they arent using any recent numbers from Sony. They are hundreds of analysts out there what makes this one more credible than the next. I suppose you believe everything Patcher says as well
|
Well, I'd hope Patcher's comments would be rooted in something more than Sony PR, a 2006 iSupply teardown and fuzzy math to connect the two. Unless you can provide an actual sourced loss estimate for the slim, it looks like $100 is the best we can get.
|
1. It wasnt Sony PR, funny you mentioned that i should read the article before talking about it yet to failed to do the same
2. I admitted that it was all estimates, exactly the same methods used by the analyst that your source used.
3. And no, $100 is not the best we can get, it will be shrugged off as another analyst spouting information in which he really knows nothing about.
|
1. The comment containing the figure was said during an open investor briefing. Not exactly PR, but honestly it's close enough. Any public comments from Sony officials would be.
2. Your estimate is fundamentally flawed as I've already pointed out. You can't estimate a reduction in manufacturing costs from an estimated material costs, then add whatever you feel like cords and boxes cost. And you have no clue what methods my source may or may not have used, since they didn't disclose that fully.
3. That's fairly libelous to be honest. Again, I'm surprised how easily you can discount one of the top consultants in the Japanese financial industry and one of Japan's national news broadcasts. But then, I guess your own hobbled together fuzzy math is better?
Come back when you have a legitimate source with an actual figure. Until then, it's $100 of blood. <3
