begin oe_protect.scr
Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
> __/ [ Mark Kent ] on Thursday 29 June 2006 08:06 \__
>
>> begin oe_protect.scr
>> Peter Köhlmann <peter.koehlmann@xxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
>>> Larry Qualig wrote:
>>>
>>>> Mark Kunt - You are nothing but an ignorant hypocrite. Figures that a
>>>> hypocrite like you would whine and cry about Kelsey calling you names
>>>> but you have no problems calling others names. Physician... heal
>>>> thyself.
>>
>> Ahh, Larry - you just don't understand, do you? Kelsey can call me what
>> he likes, but that's not debating, it's just childish name-calling.
>>
>>>>
>>>> BTW retard - learn to use Google. Sony will be deliberately selling PS3
>>>> at a LOSS to the tune of about $820 million dollars in the first year.
>>>
>>> Poor Msg-ID Larry
>>> How can we help?
>>
>> It's difficult with someone like that, isn't it?
>>
>> Sony's plan is to make a /profit/ on PS3 sales over its lifetime of
>> selling - this is completely different to the xbox which is deliberately
>> sold at a loss for every unit made.
>
> I might as well add a personal opinion: stating PS3 units are sold at a loss
> can improve sales. It's a marketing trick that lures customers (the bargain
> pitch).
I agree. Personally, I'm still not 100% convinced that MS are selling
the xbox at a loss, even in spite of the publicity... trouble is, with
good enough internal accounting at MS, they can probably prove it either
way.
>
> I can recall the days when a CD-RW drive cost around GBP 300. It's a matter
> of demand and mass production. Same with computer chips. R&D costs simply
> decline or supersedes by the sheer numbers in repetition. It's like putting
> a $2000 price label on the P3, but selling it for a merely 500.
I put a longer piece on the previous thread explaining more about how
production costs per unit vary over the run, and what impacts them.
There are many variables, including the cost of raw materials, the
initial design and fab setup, and so on. Towards the end of a run, the
item becomes a cash cow, and it's likely to be profitable even selling
at < 10% of the original cost (eg., CDRW starts at £300 but reduces to
£30 over a few years).
>
> Some clothing shops (to name just one example) capitalise on the
> psychological impact of the strategy. People's perception of the cost of
> what they wear is important (think labels/designers).
>
Most people think that there is a relationship between purchase price and
quality, or purchase price and cost of manufacture. Those who
understand economics better usually realise that whilst there is a
relationship, it's subtle, very non-linear, with no simple formula to
help you out.
--
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
"Your mother was a hamster, and your father smelt of elderberries!"
-- Monty Python and the Holy Grail
|
|
