Chris,

Why do you object to the title? It seems accurate to me. It says that it may be delayed, and it may initially cost $900 to make. Both are in the text and are the major points. It seems like a good title to me. Can you explain why it's not accurate?

The people here that post articles and news are should post articles like this, not decide for themselves which they like and which they don't, unless it is clearly an error they are posting. For example, if someone wrote an article that the Pentium 4 could not be clocked over, say 2 GHz, they would know for sure this is nonsense and would not post it. However, they can not know for sure if this is true or not, so rather than have them think for us, they should report all of it and let people make up their own minds. That you've made yours up before reading it is fine, but when you question why they would post this here because it is garbage, you are advocating censorship because you think the article sucks.

Why it is so late, I can not answer. Maybe it should have been posted sooner. But, better later than never, unless it is so late that it is no longer relevant. While you may have seen it on other sites, I never have because I don't read those sites. I am sure of every person that reads this site, at least some have not. So, they put it up and if you've read it, no foul, and if you haven't, you learned something you didn't know.

I think your frustration is a bit misguided. I think you are more angry at Merrill Lynch for creating this nonsense, and should direct your anger there instead of site that simply have a responsibility to report it. I'm not a great fan of Merrill Lynch, to be honest of you, as I am with you when you say they are full of crap a lot. I know this sounds crazy and paranoid, but I strongly suspect they create a lot of stories to benefit stocks they are holding or are advocating their clients to hold, and for that reason question the veracity of what they say.

Now, specifically regarding this "garbage" as you put it, I think there are plenty of flaws. First of all, the cost of the cell processor is crazy high and is probably taken out of context. The actual production of each processor is going to be much less than that, much less, but, of course, you have to factor in the cost of the fabrication equipment and particularly design costs. Now, in this context, they don't matter because they are already there and paid for whether they are used or not. So the incremental cost of producing each processor, which is what they are facing now, is going to be quite low by comparison. If they delay the release, that will actually make the situation worse, as the overall number of processors made will be less and the overhead for the costs already paid will be more difficult to recover. It's just a stupid remark they made, unless they can prove that the cost of fabricating one processor is that much, which they can't because it's crap.

Furthermore, the Blu-ray drives may be that expensive, I really don't because I don't know anything about it. However, it misses the point again by obfuscating that whenever Sony starts making these drives, they are going to be expensive at first. Yet, they have to start sometime and only by seeding the market and increasing production volumes will they bring this to a cost level where they will be widely adopted. If no one ever starts making them, they won't fall in price much or at all, and they won't gain traction in the market and become an important standard. So, they need to produce them for reasons outside of the Playstation and if they cost more for the Playstation right now, the extra expense and experience they gain will reap cost rewards down the road as this will be a widely used technology. So, again, I don't see any choice but to start it now, it will benefit the company greatly from a wider perspective than just a game box.

Sony certainly can afford to lose some money on the game boxes to seed them, what they can't afford is to make XBox 360 become the dominant machine, or for that matter Nintendo, and they also can't let Blu-Ray become the next Beta. I don't see how they can afford to delay it.

Chris,

I'm not from Xbitlabs, I apologize for giving you that impression.

The title illustrates what analysts are saying, not that it's true. That's what the "--Analysts" indicates.

It's typical for console makers to lose money on consoles, and make money on the games either directly or from royalties. So, this is nothing new. Gaining critical mass is more important than making money initially, so I think this report is a bit of exaggeration in terms of the problems it creates for Sony.

knght,

Keep in mind that they are referring to Sony's cost for the graphics processor, not the cost we would pay retail. Also keep in mind this is just for the chip itself, not the memory that is typically included on a graphics card and adds a lot of expense. So, it's actually quite expensive.

That's the production cost.
Then there's the research cost, that's why we have to pay with our arms and legs.