Sorry your browser is not supported!

You are using an outdated browser that does not support modern web technologies, in order to use this site please update to a new browser.

Browsers supported include Chrome, FireFox, Safari, Opera, Internet Explorer 10+ or Microsoft Edge.

Geek Culture / Sony--- just shameless

Author
Message
Raven
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 23rd Mar 2005
Location: Hertfordshire, England
Posted: 21st Jan 2007 02:40
Quote: "Since it would still be directed by Peter Jackson I'd definitely camp out for that!"


He's the reason the movie is currently on-hold.
The budget he has set for the movie and what he wants to do clashes with what Bungie wants in terms of a story and Microsoft are looking to spend.

When you consider Microsoft gave the go-head budget of $250million, you've got to honestly wonder what the hell Mr. Jackson needs more for. Personally I find him to be an over-rated Director, given while his last few films have been alright; they've all be way to over-hyped and enevitably (atleast to me, they've been a disappointment)

I personally reckon that Halo would be better in the hands of Steven Speilberg or Paul Anderson.
Speilberg, because he makes films that relay the emotions and story in a way that still wow audiences. Anderson because he has successfully made a Game -> Movie film that was truely awesome without making it into hollywood tripe (fyi: Resident Evil).

That said a few might judge him on the second in the series which he didn't direct, or produce. It went waay overbudget and was honestly what hollywood does to most Game -> Movie translations.

Steve J
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 22nd Apr 2006
Location: Vancouver, Washington
Posted: 21st Jan 2007 03:07
Halo: Fellowship of the ring

Hobgoblin Lord
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 29th Oct 2005
Location: Fall River, MA USA
Posted: 21st Jan 2007 04:10
Quote: "Movie film that was truely awesome without making it into hollywood tripe (fyi: Resident Evil)."


God I thought that movie was awful. If you wanted a Dark story Tim Burton would be great.

Raven
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 23rd Mar 2005
Location: Hertfordshire, England
Posted: 21st Jan 2007 05:05
What was wrong with Resident Evil?
Thought it was quite true to the RE-series, particularly the RE2 storyline; the second film was a pure farse though.

Tim Burton definately does some good films, but he's become too kiddie in recent years for a new serious film imo

Like Terry Gilliem, he does some good films; but waay to much comedy throughout to make anything that would stand out.
Personally I think Bungie themselves should direct the film, given it's not that much different than what they did for Halo2.

There was 2hrs of cut-scenes in Halo2 and more voice acting throughout the whole thing to Master Chief directly. While personally I could've happily watched on it's own if there were someof the major battle scenes done. That would've made a decent movie itself. Some of what got cut out as well was awesome, but was taken out due to the fact they didn't feel people would really pay much attention to the cut-scenes so they made everything more brief and bite-size.

Crazy Ninja
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 27th Aug 2005
Location: Awesometon
Posted: 21st Jan 2007 06:20
Quote: "Halo: Fellowship of the ring"


hehe, niceness!

Jeku
Moderator
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Jul 2003
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Posted: 21st Jan 2007 06:50
Nooo, not Spielberg! He is over-rated, too Hollywood for Halo I think.

Steve J
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 22nd Apr 2006
Location: Vancouver, Washington
Posted: 21st Jan 2007 07:06
I was hoping someone would pick up on that Crazy Ninja

Xander
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 3rd Mar 2003
Location: In college...yeah!
Posted: 21st Jan 2007 07:22
Quote: "man i got a PS3 love it, i am a nintendo h8r. dwn with nintendo!"


I think I just changed my mind. I want to blow my dough on a PS3 now instead of a Wii. Now I can play two games with good graphics instead of having a blast with my friends playing intuitive and fun games. Thanks!

Xander Moser - Bolt Software - Firewall
Bizar Guy
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 20th Apr 2005
Location: Bostonland
Posted: 21st Jan 2007 17:05 Edited at: 21st Jan 2007 17:11
TO MATT
Quote: "A year from launch, let's see the figures and see how right I am . If I am, you guys all owe me a coke!"

If a year from launch you're right, I swear that as long as you send me a reminder e-mail (preferably with this post being quoted) with your address, I will mail you a bottle of coke, with a letter acknowledging you were right all along (being that the ps3 has the most units sold of the Xbox 360, the Wii, and the PS3). You can even make a thread about it if you want, with a pic of the coke and card.

I'm serious. I'm not saying this because I'm that ridiculously confident that I'm right in thinking the PS3 wont be the number one system, but because I believe that it's worth it to show a real vote of confidence on Apollo that goes a bit father than a few words which everyone will forget in an hour. That, and because at least one person should actually take you up on your bet.

My only condition is, if what I have described as being your belief about the state of the console war a year from launch (November 17, 2007 right?) turns out to be wrong and more Wiis or Xbox 360s have been sold total than PS3's, you must make a thread in the Apollo Geek Culture Board stating that you were wrong that the PS3 would be the top selling system at that point in time. Also, that the title of the thread make it very clear what you are talking about. Very fair conditions, I would think.

If it's still acurate, the numbers on nexgenwars.com should do nicely.

So Matt, do you accept?

David R
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 9th Sep 2003
Location: 3.14
Posted: 21st Jan 2007 17:19
I think the whole thing boils down to the fact that gamers vote with their wallets, and very few will do for a severely over-priced over-hyped console


"History shall be kind to me, for I intend to write it" - Winston Churchill
Matt Rock
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 5th Mar 2005
Location: Binghamton NY USA
Posted: 21st Jan 2007 21:43
I totally agree. I've admitted in the past when I was wrong, and I'd do it in this case to. I firmly believe I'm right, so far everything has gone "according to plan" (so to speak)... I've been extremely accurate so far, except that the 360 sold a bit better than I expected. But I'll definitely admit that I'm wrong if that ends up being the case. I'm just wondering if you'll be the only one who admits it if I'm right, hehe.

About the Halo movie:
Peter Jackson = bad director. I'm sorry everyone, I know he has a lot of fans and whatnot, but seriously, has he ever directed a single movie that was based on an original plot? Ever? Let's see... the Lord of the Rings movies, those were based on a series of books. King Kong, that's a classic film that he re-made. As I understand it, he's working on a remake of "The Dam Busters," a movie-version of "The Lovely Bones." Oh, and a big epic trilogy based on another fantasy novel series, I can't remember what that was called though, Temer-something. Anyway, it remains to be seen that he's a good director, imo anyway. He hasn't impressed me yet; to me, his movies thus far have all been forgettable. He doesn't exactly have a unique style or anything. When you watch a Steven Spielberg movie, you know who made it. The same can be said of James Cameron, or John McTiernan, or Richard Donner. Jackson just doesn't have that "spark" that I personally look for in a director. But I'm sure I'm the only person who thinks that . It always works out that way for some reason, lol.


"In an interstellar burst, I'm back to save the universe"
Chris K
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 7th Oct 2003
Location: Lake Hylia
Posted: 21st Jan 2007 22:09
I think you need to look up Peter Jaxkson's filmography. You seem to be under the impression LOTR was his first film.

Never done anything original?? I take it you haven't seen Bad Taste.

Please check before you make brash comments. Jackson is a brilliant director. Go watch Heavenly Creatures and we'll continue this discussion.

-= Out here in the fields, I fight for my meals =-
David R
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 9th Sep 2003
Location: 3.14
Posted: 21st Jan 2007 22:39
Quote: "Jackson is a brilliant director. Go watch Heavenly Creatures and we'll continue this discussion."


I'm sorry, but I have to agree with Matt. Jackson's films may not be atrocious, but they lack particular style or flare, and are for the most part bland and 'normal'

And Heavenly Creatures is not exactly special. It's based off of a true story. Kind of hard to go wrong there. Bad taste isn't exactly original at all either - it's just low-budget crap


"History shall be kind to me, for I intend to write it" - Winston Churchill
Chris K
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 7th Oct 2003
Location: Lake Hylia
Posted: 22nd Jan 2007 00:18
I just don't see how any of his films (apart from MAYBE Heavenly Creatures) could be described as 'normal' - let alone *all of them*!

Bad Taste is not great, but I don't see how it is 'normal' in any way. Wasn't it made by him and friends for zero budget over like 5 years?? Hardly what most films do.

When he said 'original', he meant 'not adapted'. Which is why I assumed his knowledge of Jackson's work stretched all the way back to LOTR.

I don't know anyone else who could have made LOTR as well as he did.

-= Out here in the fields, I fight for my meals =-
Antidote
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 18th Mar 2005
Location: San Francisco, CA
Posted: 22nd Jan 2007 00:27
Matt, I'll send you a 6 pack of coke


Bizar Guy
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 20th Apr 2005
Location: Bostonland
Posted: 22nd Jan 2007 03:09 Edited at: 22nd Jan 2007 03:31
Quote: "I'm just wondering if you'll be the only one who admits it if I'm right, hehe."

Well, in the event that you win the bet-
I'll make it very clear that you were right from the beginning (and I'm sure you will too) on the boards. I'm pretty sure other people won't argue, in this event, unless the Wii is only just behind the ps3 in sales, or if it's selling more games or something. In that event you could argue that the bet was that the PS3 would have sold the most consoles, and nothing else.

In the event that you lose the bet though, do you think people will ever let you live it down (I would, but I only speak for myself)?

Of course, now that we've made a bet, there's not a whole lot of point in me arguing the Wii is better than the PS3 with you. The bet's there, may the most popular console win.

I like the LOTOR movies, and king kong was actually pretty cool, though that was more of this huge wow factor than amazing directing for me. However, I don't think any Halo movie would be good. Since when has a movie based off an fps been good (RE was an awful movie... there are far better zombie movies out there, like Shaun of the Dead)? Halo may be a great game with a good story, but it would convert about as well as Sonic would to live action.

Antidote
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 18th Mar 2005
Location: San Francisco, CA
Posted: 22nd Jan 2007 03:38
Quote: "Halo may be a great game with a good story, but it would convert about as well as Sonic would to live action."


Most likely, but I'd still want to see it because it'd be the largest budget given to a video game movie. Something interesting I guess.


Bizar Guy
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 20th Apr 2005
Location: Bostonland
Posted: 22nd Jan 2007 04:31
Meh, well I'm a HL fan, and I'd imagine most Halo fans would want a Halo movie about as much as I want a Half Life one.

Raven
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 23rd Mar 2005
Location: Hertfordshire, England
Posted: 22nd Jan 2007 10:37
Quote: "Let's look at it this way... Sony's revenue in 2006 was $68.39 billion. Microsoft's revenue in 2006 was $44.28 billion. This doesn't count either company's financial reserves, both of which are staggering. Anyway, Microsoft could try to buy out Sony, but it would eat up A LOT of their reserves and would force them into a number of industries where they have literally no experience."


i'd suggest homework is in order, particularly covering fiscal reports (released quarterly) and stock prices.

Microsoft FY2006 (July 1st 2005 - June 30th 2006)
- net worth: $305.83billion
- revenue: $44.28billion
- net profit: $12.6billion
Sony FY2006 (July 1st 2005 - June 30th 2006)
- net worth: $47.12billion
- revenue: $15.2billion
- net profit: $1.4million

As you can see, Sony is loosing money in almost every industry right now. Their "Games" division which is what the Playstation 3 and Playstation Portable are under are currently loosing them -$358.96million right now, which is where their biggest losses are comming from.

I don't know how the hell anyone got to the figure of 66billion revenue, unless they were looking at the value in Yen.

Quote: "I totally agree. I've admitted in the past when I was wrong, and I'd do it in this case to. I firmly believe I'm right, so far everything has gone "according to plan" (so to speak)... I've been extremely accurate so far, except that the 360 sold a bit better than I expected. But I'll definitely admit that I'm wrong if that ends up being the case. I'm just wondering if you'll be the only one who admits it if I'm right, hehe."


Dude, the Playstation 3 in comparison to the XBOX360 has had a truely aweful launch. What makes matters worse is Microsoft hit their target that you didn't believe they could; and oh look a competitor that you firmly believed would be sunk, is actually taking the market by storm.

Sony needs a damn miricle in order to pull back from this mess now, and pushing back their Europe and Pan-European releases certainly isn't doing them ANY favours.

Jeku
Moderator
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Jul 2003
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Posted: 23rd Jan 2007 00:14
Sony's greatest fans, the Japanese, have retailers that are starting to sell PS3s *below* retail. At least 20% below as shown here.

Can anyone else hear Taps playing in the background?

Steve J
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 22nd Apr 2006
Location: Vancouver, Washington
Posted: 23rd Jan 2007 01:16
lmao, Microsoft's revenue is almost as much as Sony is worth. Kind of shows you how small Sony is in comparison, frighting really.

Zappo
Valued Member
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 27th Oct 2004
Location: In the post
Posted: 23rd Jan 2007 02:09
Raven, you must not be looking at the Sony Corporation as a whole. This is the holding company for the whole Sony Group. The figures I have are:
Operating Income: $1,604 billion USD (2006)
Revenue: $63,980 billion USD (2006)
Net Income: $1,058 million USD (2006)
This includes the figures from Sony Electronics, Sony Computer Entertainment, Sony Ericsson (50%), Sony Pictures Entertainment, Sony BMG (50%), Sony Marketing, Sony Life, Sony Assurance, Sony Bank etc.

Now tell me they are smaller than Microsoft!
Steve J
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 22nd Apr 2006
Location: Vancouver, Washington
Posted: 23rd Jan 2007 02:58
Uhm, that is WIKI, please post a more reliable source.

Antidote
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 18th Mar 2005
Location: San Francisco, CA
Posted: 23rd Jan 2007 03:10
Quote: "
Now tell me they are smaller than Microsoft!"


Well considering that they are...


Dextro
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 26th Feb 2005
Location:
Posted: 23rd Jan 2007 03:52
Quote: "Revenue: $63,980 billion USD (2006)"

So Sony's revenue is 63,980,000,000,000,000?
Antidote
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 18th Mar 2005
Location: San Francisco, CA
Posted: 23rd Jan 2007 04:15
Me = LOLZ


Raven
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 23rd Mar 2005
Location: Hertfordshire, England
Posted: 23rd Jan 2007 11:17
Quote: "Raven, you must not be looking at the Sony Corporation as a whole. This is the holding company for the whole Sony Group. The figures I have are:
Operating Income: $1,604 billion USD (2006)
Revenue: $63,980 billion USD (2006)
Net Income: $1,058 million USD (2006)
This includes the figures from Sony Electronics, Sony Computer Entertainment, Sony Ericsson (50%), Sony Pictures Entertainment, Sony BMG (50%), Sony Marketing, Sony Life, Sony Assurance, Sony Bank etc.

Now tell me they are smaller than Microsoft! "


Oh I'm sorry, were my links to the ACTUAL fiscal reports from the ACTUAL companies not reliable enough for you?

Kentaree
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 5th Oct 2002
Location: Clonmel, Ireland
Posted: 23rd Jan 2007 11:24
The moral of this story boys and girls is that Wikipedia is NOT 100% accurate. Zappo, I have to totally agree with Raven here, I believe Sony know their own finances better than some random dude who likes to waste his time editting pages in Wikipedia.

Zappo
Valued Member
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 27th Oct 2004
Location: In the post
Posted: 23rd Jan 2007 12:11 Edited at: 23rd Jan 2007 12:43
Quote: "So Sony's revenue is 63,980,000,000,000,000?"

No. That would be in UK billions, the US measure one billion as 1000 million so it would be 63,980,000,000,000.

I really don't think you realize how many pies Sony has a finger in. For a quick look see this list. Purely on the movie studio front they own studios such as TriStar Pictures, Columbia Pictures, Screen Gems and 20% of MGM (which owns MGM Pictures, United Artists and Orion Pictures) plus others. Surely you have read how much these companies invest in each modern blockbuster and how much they take at the box office worldwide? Staggering amounts. Add to that all of their respective television production companies (e.g. Columbia Pictures Television, TriStar Television, Sony Pictures Television etc) plus Castle Rock Entertainment, Adelaide Productions, etc. etc. On the music front they own Columbia Records, Epic Records and Legacy Recordings (plus others) which includes hundreds of massive earning artists.
Here are just some of the figures I found doing a quick search. The London Stock Exchange has Sony Corp's current market capital as $39.28 billion (in other words their retained money).
Their Life Insurance company 'Sony Life' alone has a net worth of $2,273,167,531 USD ($2.27 billion) as of the end of March 2006 - see their Disclosure of Embedded Value document (pdf). Did you even know they did life insurance? I mentioned it because I didn't.
Sony Chemicals Corp consolidated with Sony Miyagi Corp to form Sony Chemical & Information Device Corporation in July 2006 and had joint sales of $1.25 billion that year (thats sales in a single year, not what they are worth).
Sony Corp sales and operating revenue (that means the money earnt from sales and services in a year, NOT what they are worth) for 2005 was $61.64 billion. <EDIT> The figures you link to Raven may only be for the second quarter of 2006 as I don't think the full years figure is out yet.</EDIT> Can you imagine what this would make the corporation worth if thats just what they sold in one year?
Of course you have to add the hundreds (if not thousands) of other companies they own such as Sony Semiconductors (of which there are lots), Shanghai Suoguang Electronics, Sony Ericsson (50% ownership), Sony Bank etc. plus all the premises they own, equipment, research, intellectual property, patents etc.

Microsofts market value is more (after all, there are little raw materials needed to make software and therefore more profit) but their sales and assets are not as big as Sony's.

EDIT: I just want to make it clear that my posting here was to try to point out to people just how huge Sony is as a whole. Its not just a company that make consoles. It can't just be bought by Microsoft with their spare change. Whether Sony Computer Entertainment (of which there are many individual companies) suffers losses or somehow gets eaten by giant moths, it wouldn't effect Sony as much as people think.

Quote: "The moral of this story boys and girls is that Wikipedia is NOT 100% accurate. Zappo, I have to totally agree with Raven here, I believe Sony know their own finances better than some random dude who likes to waste his time editting pages in Wikipedia."

Actually, I think the moral is to do your own research and read things properly rather than relying on someone elses interpretation.
Raven
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 23rd Mar 2005
Location: Hertfordshire, England
Posted: 23rd Jan 2007 13:14
Zappo, as Fiscal year is July-June not January-December; this is a very common mistake made by people who don't understand all the different years in business.

So the values provided for the 2006 Fiscal Year, would be from July 2005 - June 2006 which the report provides the information on.
For this exact same period I provided Microsoft's report.

While you can keep posting aspects from all over the place, the Fiscal Report is for the Corporate Entity: not just the individual divisions held within. All of the figures I provided were converted from Japanese Yen to United States Dollars (as of adverage Market value over the fiscal period provided)

I'm aware that the corportate entity as a whole is much larger than the divisions, however the original point I made is still valid even if you don't believe in the figures I've provided from the Fiscal Report itself... Microsoft are worth over 2x what Sony are, this is at a marked down value; and also are far more profitable right now.

Although yes the corporation as a whole is quite large, the "Games" division which is what the Playstation3 (and what the original argument stems from) is actually causing the corporation extensive losses of revenue.

So what if they earn $44billion or $63billion within a year when they're only making ~$2billion profit. That simply doesn't compare to the $12million profit that Microsoft are making.

You know what that all equates to is either Sony is poor or clueless on how to run a business. All of thier expendaures over their entire corporation seriously would need to be reviewed; right now their net profit doesn't equal to 10% of their net value.

This means unless Fiscal Year 2007 is as good as they hope it will be (which so far it has been WAAAAAAAY below their expectations) they are going to be in SERIOUS trouble in July.

Hobgoblin Lord
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 29th Oct 2005
Location: Fall River, MA USA
Posted: 23rd Jan 2007 13:54
Well take a look at their movie division, hundreds of potential films each year get shut down at various stages and run into hundreds of millions lost that can never be recovered.

Zappo
Valued Member
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 27th Oct 2004
Location: In the post
Posted: 23rd Jan 2007 13:58
Quote: "Zappo, as Fiscal year is July-June not January-December; this is a very common mistake made by people who don't understand all the different years in business."

Actually, here its usually 1st April to 31st March, but that aside I do understand how financial years work. I prepared my own Limited Company accounts for several years. If you look closely at the page you posted you will see it says Q2 meaning the second quarter and they compare it to the second quarter of the previous year. On financial documents the 'quarters' normally refer to quarters of the financial year.
I posted links to several places over the Web to prevent the inevitable posts from the sheep saying that Sony must be lying.
Either way, you say they are making a profit (no matter how small you consider $2 billion) and yet they will be in serious trouble. That doesn't make sense. If they are making a profit then they have covered all costs and expenditure and still have money left over. Considering the events which happened in the last year (e.g. the court payouts to everyone affected by the Sony BGM copy protection fiasco and the battery pack recalls) if they are still making a profit then I think they will be okay.
Dextro
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 26th Feb 2005
Location:
Posted: 23rd Jan 2007 19:06 Edited at: 23rd Jan 2007 19:08
What I meant with my post is that Sony has a revenue of 63,980 Million, not billion
If Wikipedia reports it as billions, then we can all agree that the guy which wrote the article is living in wonderland.
Jeku
Moderator
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Jul 2003
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Posted: 23rd Jan 2007 21:52
Quote: "63,980,000,000,000"


That's $63 trillion.

Just remember that Microsoft needs to purchase just 50% + 1 share of Sony to own and control it. Microsoft could *easily* do this with their value of $274 billion.

Bizar Guy
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 20th Apr 2005
Location: Bostonland
Posted: 23rd Jan 2007 23:12
Quote: "Now tell me they are smaller than Microsoft! "

They are smaller than Microsoft.

Aside from that, I see no point in arguing the obvious.

Zappo
Valued Member
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 27th Oct 2004
Location: In the post
Posted: 24th Jan 2007 12:36
Quote: "They are smaller than Microsoft."

Thats down to your perception of what makes something big. Like I have already said, Microsofts market value is more BUT their sales and assets are not as big as Sony's. Thats a fact (unless you want to say Forbes is lying).
Saying Sony is smaller is like saying a loaf of bread is smaller than a sandwich because the loaf is cheaper. (Yes I am hungry at the moment )
Fallout
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 1st Sep 2002
Location: Basingstoke, England
Posted: 24th Jan 2007 13:36 Edited at: 24th Jan 2007 13:38
On the Sony debate -> Usually decent products, but like designer clothes, you're paying for the badge. Sony teles are no better than their competitors, but always carry a premium. Consoles are a different kettle of fish, but in general, don't buy Sony if you want value for money.


Kentaree
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 5th Oct 2002
Location: Clonmel, Ireland
Posted: 24th Jan 2007 13:38
Up till recently most Sony HD TVs were using Samsung manufactured screens. The Sony label was put on it and voila, guess which was more expensive?

Fallout
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 1st Sep 2002
Location: Basingstoke, England
Posted: 24th Jan 2007 13:41 Edited at: 24th Jan 2007 13:41
And as I understand it, pretty much everyone (including Samsung) use components manufactured by LG. Could be wrong on that, but I remember watching a news article on it. So LG create the screens and components, Samsung stick them into a box with some circuits, then Sony buys them off them, spray paints it all silver and sticks a badge on it.


Zappo
Valued Member
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 27th Oct 2004
Location: In the post
Posted: 24th Jan 2007 14:03
I seem to remember a few years ago that there were only a handful of manufacturers in the world who could/would make CRT tubes. Everyone else had theirs made by (or bought off the shelf from) one of these companies and rebadged them for use in their own equipment. Its common place in the electronics industry and saves on cost.
Its not just the tube though that makes a good, reliable TV or monitor. There is an aweful lot more inside than that, and that can severly affect cost. I don't have much Sony branded stuff (a digital camcorder, a DVD burner and my PS and PS2 is all I can think of at the moment) but they have all been reliable - so far. Of course, I don't know how much stuff I have which was made by Sony and rebadged by someone else.
Kentaree
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 5th Oct 2002
Location: Clonmel, Ireland
Posted: 24th Jan 2007 14:12
I agree to an extent, I've got a PS2 at home (ultimate proof I'm not a total Nintendo fanboy ) and one of my bosses had a Sony laptop which Sony repaired for him, after he dropped it out of warranty.
But recently Sony have made faulty batteries, and much of their hardware has lost the quality it used to have, that made Sony one of the champions of the industry. They've always charged for the label, many companies do, but now their attitude is that they charge because of the label in a lot of cases. There's not the same quality difference that there used to be, yet they're holding on to their convictions that "because we're Sony, people will buy". Now is the time for them to recognise that to keep this up, they have to start making exceptional gear again, and in cases like the PS3, more affordable too

Hobgoblin Lord
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 29th Oct 2005
Location: Fall River, MA USA
Posted: 24th Jan 2007 15:55
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/global500/2006/full_list/index.html

well by pure sales alone Sony is #65 and Microsoft is #140. Looking at profitability, Sony would be lucky to make it inside the top 400 though.

Jeku
Moderator
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Jul 2003
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Posted: 24th Jan 2007 17:25
That's the same with cars, though. Most Japanese cars are manufactured in Ontario, Canada, then shipped back to Japan, then shipped around the world to sell (including getting shipped right back here again). Most of them are only Japanese by name brand, and not much more.

Fallout
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 1st Sep 2002
Location: Basingstoke, England
Posted: 24th Jan 2007 17:26 Edited at: 24th Jan 2007 17:28
My Sony freeview box loses channel information after a period of time and has to be reset. It was a £100 box too, so towards the top of the range for a pure box. So yeah, Sony used to be associated with quality, but I'm not sure if that's so much the case anymore.

Edit: @Jeku - That's a bit different though. The factories might be in the North Americas, but the design and components are all unique to the japenese cars. It's not like Jap cars are made from Chevy components or anything.


Kentaree
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 5th Oct 2002
Location: Clonmel, Ireland
Posted: 24th Jan 2007 17:33
PS3 Pal launch details tonight... at 00:00. How nice of them to keep it at a decent hour of the day

http://www.eurogamer.net/article.php?article_id=72188

Kevin Picone
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 27th Aug 2002
Location: Australia
Posted: 24th Jan 2007 17:54
Quote: " How nice of them to keep it at a decent hour of the day "



Breakfast time ?

Kentaree
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 5th Oct 2002
Location: Clonmel, Ireland
Posted: 24th Jan 2007 17:56
Fair point actually, had forgotten you Aussies have PAL aswell. On the flipside, the greater part of their market would be over in Europe, so it would've made sense having it as an in-between time at least

Jeku
Moderator
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Jul 2003
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Posted: 24th Jan 2007 21:57
Played Resistance today during lunch break and my reaction is: meh. I tried to get into it. The intro was pretty cool with the whole alternate history angle, but the gameplay was just boring. The graphics were not that great, nowhere near GOW, and considering this is supposed to be one of the system's best games, I was disappointed.

Raven
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 23rd Mar 2005
Location: Hertfordshire, England
Posted: 25th Jan 2007 06:30
Quote: "Thats down to your perception of what makes something big. Like I have already said, Microsofts market value is more BUT their sales and assets are not as big as Sony's. Thats a fact (unless you want to say Forbes is lying).
Saying Sony is smaller is like saying a loaf of bread is smaller than a sandwich because the loaf is cheaper. "


Doesn't that depend on the sandwich? I mean Subway sells a foot-long, which comprises of an entire loaf plus the fillings.

Sure, Sony has more areas they sell products which reach the needs of more types of people.
Let's not forget though that while the combined total of products sold gets to more people (especially now they own a mobile phone company which is one of the biggest demand markets there is with almost 100billion phones sold world-wide each year in total), this doesn't mean that Sony are a) making as much profit, or b) shifting anywhere close to the units that Microsoft can and does.

Windows XP (all editions) sold 250million copies by January 1st 2007. Microsoft also has noted that currently there are 480million computers currently using Windows (either pirated or not).

Visual Studio 2005 (all editions) sold 60million copies by January 1st 2007. (this is from being on the market for only 9months)

So it's fairly easy to see that sure Microsoft might only have a small number of stock; the only 2 products Sony sells that come close to those sales figures are Mobile Phones and Consoles. Both of which generally make a loss over profit.

Quote: "http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/global500/2006/full_list/index.html

well by pure sales alone Sony is #65 and Microsoft is #140. Looking at profitability, Sony would be lucky to make it inside the top 400 though."


This is more the key. Microsoft has less on the market, but make a far larger profit.. what does that tell everyone else?
More to the point this is what is key to buying-out a company, the net-worth (total number of stock privately purchases, i.e. not free/owned by the parent company) and the cash available to purchase a 50%+1 steak to gain majority control.

At the end of the day, Microsoft could do this easily.
Less profits mean less people want to invest, because they're either not going to make much back or they're going to loose money in share resale.

Jeku
Moderator
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Jul 2003
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Posted: 25th Jan 2007 06:49
Quote: "100billion phones sold world-wide each year in total"


So you're saying with 6 billion people on the planet, they each buy almost 17 phones a piece, *every* year? Um, not likely. Drop a few zeros and we'll talk

Login to post a reply

Server time is: 2024-11-18 08:51:08
Your offset time is: 2024-11-18 08:51:08