 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
212.149.228.203
In Reply to: RE: SONY is also in black posted by Jack G on January 01, 2008 at 07:29:39
you keep on taking about Q2 and 1,3 million PS3
SONY sold 4 million PS3 world wide in the last 3 months of 2007.
SONYs Bravia TVs are bestsellers. You should not let your SONY hate cloud your mind.
Follow Ups:
I never mentioned quantities of sales, just the fact that the gaming devision lost money. And yes, Sony is dropping all RPTVs, as I posted down the page a while ago.
Jack
If you have Q3 numbers (profits or losses) of the gaming devision please share them.> > > SONY sold 4 million PS3 world wide in the last 3 months of 2007. < < <
And since they are selling the PS3 at a loss, do you think they will be making *more* money?I don't hate Sony, I have one of their SXRD TVs. Fantastic TV, pity they will stop making them.
Jack
Nobody but SONY have these numbers now.
Why do you think SONY still lose money on PS3?
When you make enough and reduce the parts inside, the costs goes down.
> > > Nobody but SONY have these numbers now. < < <
And Stringer doesn't seem too happy these days. It will eventually come out, like Q2 did.
> > > Why do you think SONY still lose money on PS3?
When you make enough and reduce the parts inside, the costs goes down. < < <
They haven't made nearly enough for the costs to drop that much. Remember, PS3s have just about reached the numbers Sony said they would hit by Christmas 06. Their plan has always been to sell it at a loss, I don't have a problem with that-until there is solid proof otherwise, they are still selling at a loss.
Jack
Christmas 06 ? The launch was November 06 in USA. They did not plan to sell 8 million in 06. What did you intend to say?
At Christmas 07 they passed 8 million world wide.
Their target is 8 to 11 million in their financial year, which ends March 08.
So PS3 sales are today looking fine, no matter how you look at it.
The turning point for the loss only SONY knows.
In Edisons light bulb case, the biggest loss was the last year before he turn to profit.
It is Toshiba that has a problem, they have made only less 1/2 of their target of 3 million.
> > > Christmas 06 ? The launch was November 06 in USA. They did not plan to sell 8 million in 06. What did you intend to say? < < <
My mistake, Sony originally planned to sell 4 million in the US X-mas 06. Of course, they revised the numbers a bit. Several times in fact.
> > > Their target is 8 to 11 million in their financial year, which ends March 08. < < <
That's a far cry from original expectations when the PS3 was launched.
Jack
This is why businesses run by engineers always fail :-)
Most big German, Japanese and Chinese companies are run by engineers.
So what did you mean?
> > Most big German, Japanese and Chinese companies are run by engineers. < <
Wrong. Most are run by business people. They employ engineers.
And Chinese political leaders are mainly engineers.
And in USA Chrysler was saved some years by Iaccoca, an engineer becoming salesman.
Many engineers have later learned finance or MBA, the reverse is rare.
> > And Chinese political leaders are mainly engineers. < <
Well, that's true. They are also Communists, and dishonest, and corrupt. If you're trying to convince me of the superiority of engineers, you picked a very bad example.
Speaking of bad example:
> > And in USA Chrysler was saved some years by Iaccoca, an engineer becoming salesman. < <
Saved? You mean by Iaccoca's desperate plea to the US Government to bail out his horribly mismanaged corporation? The same corporation that continued to do so badly that it later was the first and only US automaker to be acquired (and subsequently dumped) by a foreign corporation?
Anyway, you said, "Most German, Japanese and Chinese companies...," yet here you are talking about an American company - which, by the way, is currently managed by a businessman with an MBA.
> > Many engineers have later learned finance or MBA < <
Yes, I know. I'm one of those people. The thing is, I'm no longer an engineer - I'm a businessman. My engineering background is quite helpful though - I am able to easily recognize and deal with the limitations and shortcomings of engineers :-)
> > the reverse is rare. < <
Absolutely, and there's a very good reason for that. Why would a successful businessperson limit their options and pigeonhole themselves by giving up a lucrative career to become an engineer? Engineers are by and large nothing more than a commodity these days. You can't swing a dead cat in Bangalore without hitting four or five hundred of them.
So I won the other ones:_)
I truly enjoyed your post, good writing.
(Not fair, but very funny)
So engineers with MBA are no longer engineers? In that case I must give up :-)
I must confess, I did not get an MBA, I payed my way though engineering university by selling, and my secretary typed my graduation paper.
More seriously, good engineers are never a commodity. But bad ones are.
Just like bad MBAs.
In England and USA an engineer lack social prestige, the Germans, Scandinavians, Chinese and Japanese place them at the top of their society.
Having too many laywers and MBAs can damage a country.
> > So I won the other ones:_) < <
If you thinking you've "won the other ones" will make you less annoying, then sure - you've won them all ;-)
> > More seriously, good engineers are never a commodity. < <
Sorry, but you're still wrong. If you had said "not always" instead of "never," you would have been right. The fact is that in many markets, especially emerging markets, even good engineers are often a commodity.
Just as an example: I have a good friend who comes from China. He is an engineer and scientist, he is brilliant, and he is highly educated (two PhDs granted simultaneously from the College of Textiles at North Carolina State University). He has been described as "one in a million." The problem is that in China, being "one in a million" means there are a million others just like you. That's the definition of commodity :-)
> > In England and USA an engineer lack social prestige, the Germans, Scandinavians, Chinese and Japanese place them at the top of their society. < <
My German engineer wife (RWTH-Aachen) believed this when she came to the US to get a PhD. There is some grain of truth to it - at one point nearly everyone in the US was called an "engineer." The trash collector was called a "sanitation engineer," the bus driver was called a "transportation engineer," even housewives were called "domestic engineers." It did do further damage to the title, "Engineer," but not nearly as much as it would in an engineer-worship society. After a bit more than 10 years of living in the US, my wife now thinks the overarching worship of engineers that she was used to in her home country is silly.
But that's not really germane to your point. The real issue is this - in rigid, socialistic societies, class and social standing are very important. In the countries and regions you reference, most people are nothing more than the sum of their education and social position. Since engineers tend to be highly educated, their status in a rigid, socialistic society will tend to be high.
OTOH, in a more egalitarian society such social class distinctions are less important. People are not merely the sum of their education and social standing. In an egalitarian society, rags-to-riches success
stories are commonplace. In an egalitarian society, a high-school dropout with a desire to succeed can become a billionare. While this does occasionally happen in the socialistic countries, it is by comparison extremely rare.
So, don't make the self-serving, egotistical mistake of thinking that the US is inferior because we don't put engineers on a pedestal. They don't belong there any more than does any other skilled worker.
A commodity is a physical substance, such as food, grains, and metals, which is interchangeable with another product of the same type.
The keyword is "interchangeable"
A good engineer is not interchangeable, she/he has unique skills, so she/he is never a commodity.
These unique skills might not be in demand in the local market. So the price can go to zero. So no job, and a move to another market is needed. Like your friend.
The Scandinavian societies give free of charge first class university education to anybody, who pass entry skills tests.
As far as I know, Germany and Japan do the same.
So the rise to the top in Scandinavia is easier for the children of the poor persons, than in USA, where you have to pay a lot for the best universities.
The German engineering skills keep their export high in spite of the high Euro, because their products are not commodities.
I wonder why - do you enjoy embarrassing yourself? :-)
> > A commodity is a physical substance, such as food, grains, and metals, which is interchangeable with another product of the same type. < <
That is one definition. It is not the only definition. Skilled labor can also be a commodity. This includes skilled labor provided by engineers.
Ole, I know more about this subject than you. You're just an engineer :-)
You completely missed my point, even when I wrote it clearly.
The key word is "intercangeable" in any definition of commodity.
Skilled engineers and skilled MBAs are NOT interchangeable, and therefore NOT commodities.
In general people are not commodities, they are individuals.
A good manager knows that, and build a team based on the many skills needed.
But bad MBA managers think like you, and cause the current problems in USA.
I am truly sorry for the people, that have to work for you.
.
| FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
