Kutaragi speaks on PSP’s loss-leading price point

LOL

Okay, I'm going to take a leap here.

I'm guessing that you're sat there typing your posts on a machine installed with a recent version of Windows using Internet Explorer.

I would say that you are not in any position to make a claim that we shouldn't support "this type of monopoly"

Any other OS or, at the very least, another browser and you could be let off with that remark.

As it is, I reckon you're actively supporting arguably (and IMO) the most monopolistic, predatory, unethical and anti-competative organisation to grace this planet.

DINK! User "bynight" has disappeared in burst of self-nullification

The crack addict can't even work out how to quote properly on a forum system that auto-brackets for you, and has a quote button.

ROFLMAO.

A bit too late if its trying to directly compete with the DS. That is unless they start airing commercials tomorrow.

I won't support the PSP financially, but I wouldn't mind watching strangers play portable Eye Toy.

>> "Kinda like the Xbox is a trojan horse Media Hub?

I don't see you flapping and crying "foul" about that."

give me a break. Sony's trying to do the same thin. putting "cell" processors inside TV sets. trying to make PS2 into a cable set top box / DVD player / super media center combo.

it takes a monopoly to fight a monopoly.
for instance: sony vs. microsoft, with ps2 vs. xbox.


sony vs. palm vs zodiac. I think this a lopsided fight.

Sony reaches into their big monopolistic war chest and illegally dumps PSPs all over the place. burning hundreds of millions of dollars in cash to do a hostle over the market.

I don't think that's illegal.


They are selling these PSP's at a 60% loss or more. In a market that is already estabilished an doesn't do those kinds of things. Sony loses like $200-$300 dollars on every PSP they sell.. tell me that's not anti-competitive to company's like zodiac and palm that sell their hardware at 15-20% above cost. and Palm and zodiac are using cheap commodity microchips and manufacturing their palms devices at the lowest possible cost in china for god's sake! tell me sony's not a cheating peice of s**t that should have lawyers kick the crap out of them?

It would be like if I was a multi-Billionare and I moved into a town and opened up a shop that sells shoes. then I start giving away shoes for 10 cent a peice for months and months. meanwhile all the other shoe shops across the street are run out of buisness because they don't have the same cash reserves to give shoes away for 10 cents a peice.

You see monopoly tatics...

Yes, but can you say that computer software would be as developed in an unstable and highly fragmented development environment that having multiple OS's would cause? No. Alot of the massive shifts in computing on the software side have been because of a stable operating system on which to base improvements. Okay, so Microsoft are wrong in charging as much as they do for their OS software, but the benifits it has brought have been worth the sacrifice.

Where as in the video gaming market, a monopoly by Sony would be a bad thing? Why, because Sony (who are notorious for this thing) would not license their technology out to compeditors. If they did, it wouldn't be so bad. Microsoft want to dominate the console market, but only on the side where the software has to be based on their tech and so they make a study profit from it. They would lease out their hardware side, which would result in more competition and lower prices.

You sir, have believed the hype!

None of the "innovation" that Microsoft has decided to promote have come from within Microsoft. They have either bought, copied or simply stolen everything they have produced in the OS market.

MS-DOS was, as we all know, bought by Microsoft when IBM came to them for an OS for their in-development PC. QDOS (quick and dirty operating system) which they bought was based on an, allegedly, stolen copy of CP/M. Not a good start to their "innovative" OS department.

Given multiple hardware platforms, a standardised OS is, of course, a good thing. However, Microsoft didn't even "invent" that. Unix and CP/M were running on multiple platforms before MS-DOS came along.

Microsoft got to where they are now because of the IBM contract for MS-DOS giving them a huge cash cow that they have milked for years.

Sony, on the other hand have got to where they are today due to producing good electronic devices for the home and professional buyer. Their entertainment department produced a good games console, fostered good relations with the developers of the time and launched gaming into the public eye in a respectable way.

I don't think the comparisons made in this thread have any basis in reality.

This is simply just not true. Microsofts dominanace of the operating system market has brought very few benefits - many people would say none. They have systematically used their monopoly to stifle innovation that might lead people to choose technologies that they do not control.

Had we had a choice in operating systems, alternative (invariably superior) technologies would have a chance to establish themselves, and could then spread to the Windows environment. But as it is Microsoft hates what Microsoft doesn't own - so the buy it or kill it.



No, it's MUCH more insidious than that. Making a profit is fine, but controlling the means of distribution gives them a powerful ability to censor any messages that disagree with their political and moral standpoint.

A free "press" is the backbone of a free society. If you saw what a political propoganda machine the US press is, you'd think twice about giving away your freedom.



You believe too much Microsoft propoganda.
The idea that there would be some big competition leading to lower hardware prices is a myth. They simply cannot get any cheaper and be profitable. Since Microsoft are the ones who make all the money from software, they are the only ones who can afford to subsidise the hardware prices.

I mean, c'mon, if that's the plan, how come they haven't done it already? Because no one wants to build Xboxes and lose money.

I'm not saying microsoft wouldn't like to get this expensive loss-making part of their business off their hands. But they are stuck with it... they make the hardware (which, I predict they will give away for free with every Xbox Live subscription within three years) they control the software, they make the money. They keep it going, because they see that in the future it will make them a LOT of money, but the cost to society in general are too great. It's your freedom, give it away if you want.

Lets see.

The Software
The PSP can play games, movies and music files. It can't let you write documents, spreadsheets or emails yet.

The screen size
The screen on the PSP is bigger and higher resolution than most of the PDA devices out there, so if they are PDAs, screen size doesn't make a whit of difference.

The ability to enter text
A D-pad is not a text entry tool for anything other than putting your handle into a high-score chart!

A clip on keyboard
Come on, point to one, anywhere!

You are the ones smoking dope, if you can't see that.
And you, sir, are a fully paid-up member of the tinfoil hat wearing brigade. I'm suprised you sleep at night with the reds under the beds, the alien implants, the black helecopters and the tracking devices in the paper currency.

Not every marketing move is a conspiracy to take over the world. If Sony wanted to ensure a PSP in every home for world domination purposes they'd just give them away.

Sony are trying to sell a games platform that also plays movies and music. A lot of people are seeing that as too ambitious and overloaded with features. For them to then take over the PDA market at the same time would seem to be straining their resources more than a bit.

You're getting all bent out of shape over Sony "taking over" the plam (non-games) device market. I have no idea where you get this notion, but I really don't see the PSP becoming such a device any time soon. Sure it could be, but I just don't see it happening.

Sony isn't going to go at this all scatter gun. Its strategy isl surely focus on the PSP penetrating the handheld gaming and media market. If the PSP is going to rattle anyone, it'll be the Archos' and Creative's out there. However, the UMD is still to prove itself as a medium and, as many have already indicated, people are reluctant or will refuse to buy their existing software in an additional format. Sony have a lot on convincing to do in this area alone.

Also, consider this. Palm-like devices all have a nice little high-level OS nestling within them. An OS with all the hooks and widgets that an application developer can use to build a consistent GUI. In the short time Sony has had to develop the PSP, do you think that a well rounded, high-level OS could have been brought to completion? I really, really doubt it.

Anyhoo, how come you don't feel that the DS could happily play in the palm applications arena?



Ah, war chest. Buzz term of the moment.



Which is it? Illegal or not?



Kinda like Microsoft selling Xboxes at a massive loss, no? It's nothing new, happens all the time, and isn't such a big thing.



It's just a different business model. Sony loses money on hardware, but recoups it on software licenses. Palm/Zodiac make a profit on hardware and bugger all software. I'm sure they've all done their homework.



Firstly, your whole argument balances on the premise that Sony will thrust PSP into the palm device (applications rather than games) market. Like I say, I don't see that happening any time soon.

Anyway, what you suggest is exactly the move that mega corps like WalMart and a hundred other superstores have done. They've destroyed local commerce and, by proxy, communities by massive price cutting. Now they're moving into sectors other than food, such as games, videos, music, hardware, clothing ... the list goes on. I personally find the decimation of local commerce and community to be for more distasteful that the notion that Sony just might have its eye on the palm device sector.

No.

Sony are putting Cells into TVs and transforming PS2s into PSX's, all of which are clearly marked as "media hubs"

Microsoft's approach is a duplicitous one, where the company line is to shout that Xbox is "all about games", all the while building an infrastructure (Live) to transform the machine that is "all about games" into a media delivery and exposure control system.

And yet you have misunderstood the whole reason why the xbox exists.

Microsoft's corporate vision is that the PC will be the media hub of the home controling/allowing access (depending upon your view) to everything from TV, music and video games, to ordering your groceries and chatting on forums like these.

They tried to fulfil part of this strategy when they approached Sony with the offer of using a version of Windows as a base OS for programmers to use. However, Sony publically rebuffed them on the grounds that the dreamcast version of the software had been hardly used. The truth was that Sony knew what Microsoft where up to and blocked it.

You see, Sony also share a similar view of the future, the difference being everything being controlled from the living room rather than the PC. (The Cell is Sony's second step in this, their first step was taking over all the home entertainment market (TV's, Games Consoles, CD Players, Portable Music etc etc and then Music, Film and Video Game Makers)).

When Sony rebuffed Microsoft, they realised that they would need to take the Console market off them as it was giving Sony a trojan horse to take over the living room, and therefore give them a stable platform to take over the home and the control/access to media content. As someone said, Microsoft hates something they don't control.

After successively try and failing to buy both Sega and Nintendo, Microsoft took the plunge and made their own console (Opening the Xbox is something you should read if you want to know more about this).

Microsoft's true plan is to take over the games console market from Sony and essentail set Sony back to Stage 1 in their dominantion plans.

And don't think i'm nieve to Microsofts history, I might work for a Xbox site but that doesn't mean i'd be prepared to jump into bed with Microsoft.

I know they created very little themselves, i know they used the IBM contract to create a monopoly, but when it comes to innovation it is decided by the consumer. Look at the games market, the only place techinical innovation had really occured in the past year is on the Gamecube and Xbox.

Progress in our society is chosen by the consumer. Many different options can stiffle progress (just look at the betamax & VHS saga).

While one piece of the PC market is unstable, the other needs to be stable. Otherwise progress would never occur. Despite what some people would like you to think about Linux and other Open Source OS' they are still light years behind Windows.

I think it might be you who has misunderstood.



Microsoft don't give a damn whether it's a PC, or an XBox, or a f**king kichen blender, just so long as it has a Microsoft operating system, and they get a cut of EVERYTHING.

But history has shown that some people simply WILL Not put a PC in their lounge, that some people do not want a media hub. But those same people are much more receptive to a games console... which slowly "evolves" into a media hub. That's why Xbox exists.



No s**t, sherlock! Have you considered a job in intelligence.



Ahem. Compare Sony's share of ANY market against Microsoft's share of the OS market. Now take back all that talk of "taking over".



Dude, as Config said, there has been NO trojan horse behaviour from Sony. They've been upfront and puching for media convergence since day one - look at the PSX.

It's Microsoft who have been underhand about things. Who stated that the Xbox would never be anything but a games machine - before making it a client for Media Centre.



You get paid? Because it's not really "working" otherwise!



Ah, we're getting to the point here. Progress is chosen by the consumer based ont he choice and information they are given. When one company erodes compeitition in order to control information - how can people make a "choice"?


That's what Microsoft WANTS you to believe. But it's not true, and only a sucker or someone sho is misinformed believes it

I mean, OK, tell me, how much do you use Linux?

I have (on an average day) several Linux machines, and several Windows machines plus one or two Macs under my control. The Windows machines are ALWAYS the problem machines. The Macs are the best - a strict opposite to their "popularity".

http://www.dti.gov.uk/ewt/antidump.htm



So, no, it's not illegal for Sony to sell the PSP below cost, it's only illegal if they sold it elsewhere considerably below the price of the PSP in Japan. By setting a low price there, they can then sell it at a low price everywhere else.

I can understand why people who love Nintendo feel that Sony is playing cheap tactics to get hardware sold. It does seem to be unreasonaly cheap to sell the handheld but you all are jumping to conclusions. Do you know how much the system costs to make? no because we just learned the price point so the manufacturing costs can't be that much more expensive. I have never heard of a business that would sell a product at 50% or more loss. That would be a terrible business model. As for the worry that Sony is doing illegal practices; its not true there just scare tactics by Nintendo fan boys. History has shown us companies constanly sell products for under production costs for many reasons. Some are for bankruptcy reasons, others do it to gain market confidence. In Sony's case its for market confidence. The system is treading in the ultra competitive handheld market, this is Nintendo's turf and Sony has to compet with almost 15 years of customer loyalty. This is the only fair ground they can see. I know some of you are going to say "No, its the games, if they sell good games they will do well." I have one thing to tell you, SHUT UP! games are important but the deciding factor is this. Can people buy the product cheaply and without much conflict? If they have to save for months to buy a system just for the most awesome game in the world that is not smart. But if they can buy the system for a rather competitive price and in a couple month own the system and several games that would be the most ideal situation because Sony makes money off of the software not hardware.