Sony is competing:

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by SeaKing

In fact I might have some PS consoles around somewhere. The boys used to use them to play games with. But I think I only have the first one still. Maybe the second? Will that one play Blu-Ray?

Probably not:

The PS1 owed its success to its use of CD-ROM as a game distribution mechanism. They had a larger code capacity and sold for less than the competing Nintendo's cartridges. It could also play audio CDs.

The PS2 owed its (japanese) success to its use of DVDs. It could play movie disks and since japanese import restrictions of the time effectively banned chinese-made (read: cheap) DVD players it was simply cheaper to buy a PS2 than a DVD player.

The PS3 followed up the tradition by building its value proposition off its BD-ROM drive. In fact, its UK launch featured advertising billing it as the "PS3 Blu-ray player. It also plays games." (Yes, much laughter ensued at their competitors.) For a couple of years the PS3 was actually the best performing BD-player money could buy (until the OPPO came out) but unfortunately for Sony those were the years when BD-ROMs weren't selling at all. Serious home theater use of the PS3 was hampered, though, by its lack of infrared Remote Control capability (which the DVD-based XBOX *did* feature). The issue is moot now as you can buy equivalent-quality BD players for less than US$100.

A point to consider: they are a *very* competitive company.
Their problems stem from their choice of battles to fight and the tactics they use. Like selling gaming devices where the most prominent feature *isn't* gaming capability...

As I said, entire books can be written on Sony's... er, idiosyncratic, management...

[Andrew H.]

Originally Posted by SeaKing

You probably are too young to remember the BetaMax. I had a brother in law that swore by them. They had better specs than the VHS machines, but eventually lost out to better marketing.

Beta did have slightly better specs than VHS - noticeable, but not spectacular. Their biggest problem was that Betamax tapes would initially only 60 minutes, while VHS tapes would record for 120 minutes. Consumers seemed to find the two hour recording time more important than the slightly better performance. The difference between one and two hours was huge, though, because it meant that you could record a movie from TV or cable on one VHS tape...which also meant that you could do it unattended. (I remember some movie channels used to put classic movies on at 3:00 a.m. to assist in the recording process).

(Beta eventually made its tapes longer, losing some quality in the process; VHS also made its tapes better - but Beta was never quite as long as VHS, and VHS+ was never quite as good as the newer beta formats...but VHS had already won the format wars before these developments played out.)

[RainingLemur]

Originally Posted by afa

Good point. The PS3 was monstrously expensive (I think it was $650?) at launch. What was worse - Sony were apparently still losing money even at that price.

Yeah. I think that the 20GB model (no wifi) was $499, and the 60GB model was $599 (had wifi). At the time, I think the "premium" model of the Xbox 360 was $349, or something like that.

I was stoked to get a PS3, then I saw the retail prices and proceeded to cut loose a chain of profanity that I'm ashamed of at this point in time. But, I lucked out into getting a 60GB model a few months after launch off Craigslist for $180 and the guy still had the receipt.

Still works to this day.

[Penforhire]

Sony has a very long history of cool devices and failed attempts to make their own media standards. Beta was mentioned already. Now add Minidisc (and its ATRAC compression), DAT, SA-CD, memory stick, and UMD. Ugh! Try to take over the world and usually bad things happen.

Now sometimes they hit a home run. Remember 3.5" floppies and regular CD's? Sony made those happen. Also the Walkman. And some mild successes like S/PDIF audio connectors and Firewire (with a few partners including Apple).

[Rizla]

The T1 feels less solid than the new Kindle. The horror! Sony are competing, but at what price? Oh well. It's actually very impressive that they made such a feature rich e-reader and can still compete with Amazon on the price.

[soulfuldog]

On a positive note, does it not say something about Sony that they are such a big player despite all of these bad decisions!

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Penforhire

Sony has a very long history of cool devices and failed attempts to make their own media standards. Beta was mentioned already. Now add Minidisc (and its ATRAC compression), DAT, SA-CD, memory stick, and UMD. Ugh! Try to take over the world and usually bad things happen.

Now sometimes they hit a home run. Remember 3.5" floppies and regular CD's? Sony made those happen. Also the Walkman. And some mild successes like S/PDIF audio connectors and Firewire (with a few partners including Apple).

To me, that illustrates that they are innovative. You need to push out a lot of products if you're an innovator. Most of them will fail, but alongside the failures will be the successes. Sony are very definitely an innovative company.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by HarryT

To me, that illustrates that they are innovative. You need to push out a lot of products if you're an innovator. Most of them will fail, but alongside the failures will be the successes. Sony are very definitely an innovative company.

Yes, Sony innovates.
They take a lot of risks; some visionary and necessary, some downright stupid...
Some is genuinely interesting, as in curiosity generating, but not in the sales-generating sense.

But they are also a "me-too" company, getting into and staying in (low-margin) businesses they should have long bailed out of.

Consider that Sony sells cheapie disposable batteries, earbuds, basic transistor radios of the kind that were SOA fifty years ago. Stuff they update on a yearly basis yet contributes little of anything to the bottom line. Hardly the output of an innovative high tech company. A lot of their legacy product lines are maintained solely for face-saving and/or nostalgia.
(It's almost like the old soviet government companies whose primary purpose was to keep people employed rather than making a quality product and/or a profit.)
The bulk of Stringer's tenure has been spent fighting his own staff, who keep on doing what they've always done, and keep on getting the same result: red ink.
Most of the divestitures he's managed--semiconductors, the LCD panel co-venture with Samsung--have simply provided the funds to keep on funding the money-losing parts of the company.
Consider how long it has been since Sony was even relevant to portable audio. Or TVs. They show off these great display prototypes but what they actually ship is pretty generic stuff at delusional prices.
(No, I'm not talking about their 2008-2010 readers. )
I'm thinking of their Funai-quality TVs at Sharp prices.

A lot of it is that Sony is very much an inwards-focused company that has a real hard time accepting facts that deny their preconceived notions. They act as if they can simply wish the world to conform to their expectations.

Their recent (and surprising) moves to align themselves to ebook and tablet market reality is long overdue. But it might also be coming a wee bit late...

[fjtorres]

Sony at CES 2012:
http://gadgetbox.msnbc.msn.com/_news...-to-try-harder

Stringer, despite the challenges and the criticism, remains certain the company will have a strong future: "What's unique about Sony is that we have a stake in every path in the digital revolution," he said Tuesday. "We create some of the most futuristic products in the world."

Remember Sony's OLED display prototypes of years past?
Sony had nothing on OLED this year while Samsung and LG--having cracked the blue-LED durability problem--both announced 55in models to ship this year.
http://gadgetbox.msnbc.msn.com/_news...o-us-this-year
http://gadgetbox.msnbc.msn.com/_news...5-inch-oled-tv

Instead, Sony was showing off yet another *futuristic* tech: a pure, non-organic LED TV. (Translation: having failed to match their Korean competitors on the Blue OLED, SONY was falling back to inorganic LED to have something) to show.
The display is by all reports, spectacular, but it's a prototype tech demo, not a product that will ship any time soon.

Futuristic is fine, but quality shipping products is better.

The first paragraph in the report says it all:

Sony, a company whose name was once synonymous with electronics greatness, came to the Consumer Electronics Show this year as just one of the crowd — a company with some new TVs, cameras and phones. The company's top executives explain why they're not further ahead by blaming past mistakes, and outline plans to rectify them. Assuming, of course, that it's not too late.

[SeaKing]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

Sony at CES 2012:

Instead, Sony was showing off yet another *futuristic* tech: a pure, non-organic LED TV. (Translation: having failed to match their Korean competitors on the Blue OLED, SONY was falling back to inorganic LED to have something) to show.
The display is by all reports, spectacular, but it's a prototype tech demo, not a product that will ship any time soon.

Futuristic is fine, but quality shipping products is better.
:

(above edited for my point; bold and large is my highlighting.)

I loved Sony. Have had a lot of products. If I didn't have something it was usually because it was too expensive, then I would wait until it was reduced. The kids loved Sony products. Still do.

I am betting Sony will be back.

On the other hand, what has happened to "my" JVC?

I couldn't believe it when I ended up buying a High End Panasonic DVR. I looked for the JVC products for the Sony, and then I went Panasonic. Has DVD RAM, USB2 and SD inputs.
The machine is excellent, the controls/software has a few glitches.

[HansTWN]

If Sony doesn't score a hit this year, the future does look bleak for them.

[fjtorres]

I'd tend to agree that 2012 is going to be crucial for several of their product lines. Either they shape up or get out. eReaders is one.
TVs is another and the more crucial one.
As far as TVs go, their prospects are simply *bleak*.
They are in last-ditch mode to get relevant fast...
...yet showed nothing at CES.

Two examples:
- Sharp has over 6 70in TV models, not including their videophile Elite models, at retail prices starting at US$2000. Plus at least one shipping 80in model under US$5000. Sony had a 70in at over $30K and dropped it.
http://store.sony.com/webapp/wcs/sto...mber=KDL70XBR3
Sharp can do this because they make their own LCD panels. Sony? They just sold their stake in their Samsung co-venture. The, in effect, helped finance Samsung's takeover of *their* TV market share.

- LG just introduced at CES a TV that displays Full HD with *passive* polarizer glasses, the cheap and light stuff used in theaters. It also does 4K video over HDMI if anybody ever ships BD content in UHD format. Shipping this spring so it's still vapor. But it's on the books gathering mindshare. And June isn't all that far away.
http://ces.cnet.com/2300-33363_1-100...s=0&o=10010788

Sony?
Helll-looo, Sony?
(crickets chirp)
Here's what CES 2012 looked like:
http://gadgetbox.msnbc.msn.com/_news...er-gear-at-ces

Sony *is* competing, which is better than *not* competing, but it is in a few *commodity* businesses. Where they are languishing is in the high-added value products worthy of the premium pricing Sony needs to stay alive and keep funding their drool-worthy tech demos.
Unfortunately, they are great at making demos and prototypes but not so good at turning them into commercial products that sell.

[TGS]

With reference to the previous post, why the f**k would anyone want a TV that is six feet big? What are you gonna see that I'm not gonna see on my 32" LCD, (Sony, by the way, and very good). If I ever live anywhere where 32" isn't big enough (ooh er missus), I'll rearrange the furniture.

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by TGS

With reference to the previous post, why the f**k would anyone want a TV that is six feet big? What are you gonna see that I'm not gonna see on my 32" LCD, (Sony, by the way, and very good). If I ever live anywhere where 32" isn't big enough (ooh er missus), I'll rearrange the furniture.

To watch movies we have a special room where we use a projector and a 120" screen. Great stuff! But I never would want a TV that big, the screen just disappears into the ceiling when we don't use it.

There also is justification for 50-60" screens, but more than that? Not unless you have a house like Bill Gates.

[BeccaPrice]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

There also is justification for 50-60" screens, but more than that? Not unless you have a house like Bill Gates.

This is an ongoing discussion with my husband. What is the justification for such a large screen?