Sony Is Done Working For Peanuts in the Hardware Business, New CEO To Detail Shift Away From Gadgets (bloomberg.com) 132
Kenichiro Yoshida, who took over as chief executive officer in April, is set to unveil a three-year plan on Tuesday that embraces Sony's growing reliance on income from gaming subscriptions and entertainment. From a report: The transition is already happening: even though the company sold fewer hardware products such as televisions, digital cameras, smartphones and PlayStation consoles in the year through March, it was able to post record operating profit. It's a tectonic shift for a company built on manufacturing prowess. Sony popularized transistor radios, gave the world portable music with the Walkman and its TVs were considered top-of-the-line for decades. With the rise of Chinese manufacturing, making and selling gadgets has become a business with razor-thin profit margins. Investors have applauded the transformation that's been under way since Kazuo Hirai took over as CEO in 2012, with the shares climbing more than five-fold amid a turnaround.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
And even if done correctly like most of their Minidisc machines, always somehow crippled, especially software-wise.
Re: (Score:3)
I completely agree. I disagree with with the AC grandparent who said that Sony hardware was overpriced and subpar - I felt like you always got what you paid for. Sure, they made some crap - but they also made stuff that was a good value. Their mid-range home theater stuff was always pretty nice.
But back to your point, even when I was super happy with my Sony product, it would have some weird non-standard thing that kept it from being perfect. For instance, I had a very nice Sony digital camera - but it used
Re: (Score:2)
I hung in there with HiMD but after a while Sonic Stage just became stale; the future was clearly MP3 on flash memory. I do miss the long playing times, simple interface, and good sound quality. Even my MZ-1 was able to drive full size cans to nearly hearing-damage levels.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
innovative hardware crippled by laughably shitty software
It wasn't just the software, it was just about everything that was "soft". The hardware was almost always great, but then it was crippled by some ridiculous idea that involved DRM, ongoing fees, and other proprietary schnanagins that weren't "better". Sony could have been Apple during the iPod days, leading up to the iPhone, but it couldn't get its collective head out of its ass long enough to stop crippling their products with bullshit.
Re: (Score:3)
I disagree with with the AC grandparent who said that Sony hardware was overpriced and subpar - I felt like you always got what you paid for. Sure, they made some crap - but they also made stuff that was a good value. Their mid-range home theater stuff was always pretty nice.
I think part of their strategy, at least with home theater gear, was to make certain items quality and others with planned obsolescence, and hope you buy the crap gear to keep your system "all Sony" - and it worked on me. I bought a Sony receiver/amp in the mid-90s which still works fine to this day, but I had two 90's-era Sony CD changers crap out after 2-3 years each, one VCR and one cassette deck die after a few more years. I swore off buying any of their components again after that.
Between that and t
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A 90's CD changer that's still in alignment? I call bullshit, unless your Dad has figured out how to realign it himself.
Re: (Score:2)
To be fair to Sony, the DVD format includes a do-not-skip flag, and officially licensed products are required to honor it. Sony is a key member of the DVD consortium so they're not about to produce players that violate the license.
The cheap Chinese players, as well as software players other than the brand name ones like PowerDVD, ignore the flag, but they are also not officially licensed products. VLC, for example, perhaps the most popular DVD software on computers, uses the pirated libdvdcss to decode the
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I was a pretty big fan of Trinitron.
There really wasn't anything close in terms of TV quality for quite a while.
Re: (Score:2)
IIRC it was shadow mask technology that, more or less, made Trinitron obsolete. After that the brightness differences were negligible.
Which was the last 20 years of tube.
Re: (Score:1)
I vaguely remember it as the last 10 or so years or so. All the TV companies started making nice flat tubes around the mid-late 90s.
Re: (Score:2)
Trintrons main advantage was brightness. As the other early masking technologies blocked a significant part of the screen area.
Flat glass was a separate development process.
Re: (Score:2)
What company should we go do, who offer cheap superior products?
During the 1980's and 1990's Sony was much like how Apple is Now. (Where I am willing to bet a lot of people will say "Apple hardware has always been subpar and overly expensive" as well)
However what looks like what go them, is the move from CRT to LCD TVs where their Trinitron technology just stopped being used. Being late to the MP3 player market. Does Sony even make Smart Phones? Because they had taken over a mountain of Sony gear in one li
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
However what looks like what go them, is the move from CRT to LCD TVs where their Trinitron technology just stopped being used.
Nope. That happened long ago. Mitsubishi had Diamondtron for example, whose wires were less noticeable than Trinitron. Sony actually had superior LCD TVs for years, to pretty much everyone but SHARP. Now neither one is better than LG. Since everyone can make a decent LCD panel now, Sony isn't special any more.
Re: (Score:2)
Professional cameras are an exception. Sony makes some excellent professional camcorders for news gathering and low-end video production. Arri and RED own the high end of digital filmmakng, most digital Hollywood productions use one of those brands. Sony is popular for documentaries, made-for-TV productions, and corporate videos.
They also make fine still cameras with an emphasis on video features, both for professionals and the prosumer market - not surprising given the company's strength in video. One of t
Re: (Score:2)
Nonsense. Before they got a management transplant from Hollywood Sony had superb hardware. It was expensive, but it was superb. After they bought (and got taken over by) the media company, however, they quickly changed into a company that I will have nothing to do with even if they were to offer their stuff for free. (And the mood change to hypothetical subjunctive was intentional.)
I have know direct knowledge of anything Sony since they abused the Playstation customers by disabling Linux...and several
Re: (Score:2)
Sony always made crap as well as quality. But even the crap was built to last, with exceptions of course.
Re: (Score:2)
If you go far enough back that wasn't true. Sony was a technology leader for many years, starting with their pioneering transistor radio. Notable Sony products include the Trinitron TV, Betamax (which ended up losing in the marketplace but it was on the market before VHS), the semi-professional U-Matic video recorder, CD and DVD players, 8mm camcorders, and the Walkman and Discman portable music players. Once other companies came in Sony didn't usually offer the lowest prices; they instead competed on quali
Components (Score:5, Informative)
It was those yellow walkmans in the 90s. Those where like a 90s iPhone, every kid had to have one.
You do realize that every iPhone [appleinsider.com] has a Sony camera in it?
Also I'd suggest that the Playstation at least at one point qualified as a hit gadget.
Re: (Score:2)
It is interesting because Apple has been able to sell the high end products to the masses and at a huge profit. I don't know if Sony was able to do that. I don't think I every had enough money to buy a real walkman.
Walkman (Score:2)
And like the early iPhone, you only had a walkman if you had money.
I grew up with the walkman and remember when it first came out. The initial version cost something like $150 which is around $500 adjusted for inflation in todays money I think. It didn't take long for them to fall enough in price that they were almost everywhere. Most of my classmates in school had one at some point including me and my parents were far from rich.
I don't know if Sony was able to do that. I don't think I every had enough money to buy a real walkman.
For a long time Sony made a killing with the walkman. Go check out their old financial statements. It's pretty interesting. Your analogy to
Re: (Score:2)
The iPod is an interesting example. I replaced my nomad with a iPod mini because the mini was not expensive compared with nomad, came with storage which on the Nomad had to
Re: (Score:2)
You do realize that a camera and a sensor are not the same?
Pedantic (Score:3)
You do realize that a camera and a sensor are not the same?
Thanks Captain Pedantic! You saved the day again.
Re: (Score:1)
Sony's dominance in camera sensors may only last until their patents run out. Once China can manufacture CCDs of nearly equivalent capabilities for a quarter of the price (and half the quality) we'll see a race to the bottom that Sony cannot win.
Re: (Score:2)
Their second tier sensor...to get Sony's best sensor in a cell phone you have to buy a Sony phone.
Sony is up to their old tricks. Bet all the lowest defect count sensors are also in Sony phones, even on the second tier.
Sony customer = Apple (Score:2)
Their second tier sensor...to get Sony's best sensor in a cell phone you have to buy a Sony phone.
Unless you can provide evidence I'm calling bullshit. Apple is Sony's largest customer [sonyreconsidered.com] for camera sensors by a fair margin. I'm pretty sure they are getting whatever sensor Apple wants.
Sony is up to their old tricks.
And which tricks do you figure those are?
Re: (Score:2)
Keeping their best sensors and lowest defect sensors for their own cameras.
Sony's best phone, with a _much_ better sensor then is in the iPhones...https://www.sonymobile.com/us/products/phones/xperia-xz2/
Still no evidence (Score:2)
Keeping their best sensors and lowest defect sensors for their own cameras.
Even if that were true (and you haven't established that it is) so what? I don't see why that is a problem.
Sony's best phone, with a _much_ better sensor then is in the iPhones..
Several problems with that argument. 1) You have no idea if Apple actually wanted that sensor given their other design parameters. 2) It's not clear if the sensor was available early enough in Apple's design process. 3) You have no idea if Sony was ready to produce the sensor in the volumes Apple would need (WAY more than Sony sells under their own brand). Ramping production up to Apple volumes is
Re: (Score:2)
That sensor has been in the last 3 flagship Sony phones.
Sony has a LONG history of keeping the lowest defect sensors for their own use and selling the noisy ones.
_Everybody_ wants the fastest sensors, not so much for frame rate, but for low light.
Re: Components (Score:2)
Sony vs Nikon (Score:2)
There is also more to it than just the sensor, hence why Nikon can obtain higher image quality than Sony at times.
Nikon uses a lot of Sony sensors though they seem to be trying to get away from that. You are right that other things matter to the final image (including lenses especially). But outside of some specialty lenses, Sony has cameras and lenses that equal or sometimes surpass the offerings that Nikon has these days. Sony's A9 and A7-3 and A7-R3 cameras are remarkable pieces of kit that are kind of game changers along with their G-Master glass. I'm not saying Sony cameras get better results than Nikon - I'm
Re: (Score:2)
Where is the iPhone with 1000fps?
Just reacting, like a middle schooler.
Re: (Score:2)
It was those yellow walkmans in the 90s. Those where like a 90s iPhone, every kid had to have one.
You do realize that every iPhone [appleinsider.com] has a Sony camera in it?
Also I'd suggest that the Playstation at least at one point qualified as a hit gadget.
That doesn't mean they're making any money from it. If you sell 100,000,000 cameras for £0.01 less than what they cost to make, then you lose a million quid.
The PlayStation hardware was sold at a significant loss, this was compensated for by raising the licensing fees for games (which is why the PS/XB versions are more expensive than the PC version). Getting someone else to build it for a loss would be ideal, but I doubt they're going to find one.
Playstation is profitable (Score:2)
That doesn't mean they're making any money from it.
Sony has made plenty of profit [cnbc.com] from the Playstation. You should check your facts more carefully. In 2016 the Playstation division accounted for 3/4 of Sony's profits for the whole corporation.
The PlayStation hardware was sold at a significant loss
The Playstation has been a significant cash cow for Sony for quite a few years now. Microsoft tried to buy into the market with Xbox but Sony has been making money on Playstation for a long time.
Re: (Score:2)
Sony has made plenty of profit [cnbc.com] from the Playstation. You should check your facts more carefully.
You should check your ability to read and comprehend what you're replying to more carefully. Especially if you want to criticize others for not 'checking their facts'.
Read the title of the article again. Slowly. See the "hardware-business" part? If not, try again until you do. Now then....
There's a very obvious difference between the Playstation hardware (you know, the stuff everyone else here is talking about) and the Playstation business unit (which only you are talking about).
It is a verifiable fact t
Razors and blades (Score:2)
There's a very obvious difference between the Playstation hardware (you know, the stuff everyone else here is talking about) and the Playstation business unit (which only you are talking about).
A distinction without a difference. There is no Playstation without both the hardware and software. It's an integrated product. You can't meaningfully talk about one without the other. The fact that they don't try to make a profit on the base console is IRRELEVANT because that isn't their business model. To argue that Sony makes no money on the Playstation hardware requires you to narrow the scope of your accounting analysis so narrow as to render it meaningless. (I should know because I'm a certified
Re: (Score:2)
That was the '80s. The '90s were about Minidisc.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Like the iPhone only the Cool kids had them. The rest of our poor slobs had to deal with the cheaper inferior competing company model. Like Samsung, or Panasonic
Sony needs to bring back the Trinitron. (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
So, is Sony "good" hardware? Meh...maybe for the time, but quality enough to trust the name 25 years later? Nope.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Sony Online Entertainment (Score:2)
Huh... unfortunately the change is a bit late for Sony Online Entertainment which was sold off in 2015 and renamed "Daybreak Games". Then came the layoffs.
Re: (Score:1)
This wouldn't have changed anything with regard to SOE. Their only real claim to fame was buying out Verant, but maintaining Verant's mismanagement.
Samurai say..." (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Samurai say..." (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think this is nothing new, and began when Sony dumped the Vaio PC line and decided if you can't sell people premium hardware for profit anymore why bother to do it.
The issue with this assertion is that the Vaio line wasn't actually premium hardware. At best, it was nicely-decorated mediocre hardware sold at a premium price. At worst, they were just dreadfully crappy (albeit pretty) machines.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The issue with this assertion is that the Vaio line wasn't actually premium hardware.
I'll kinda beg to differ. Sony tried, arguably harder than anyone, to make the Media Center PC happen. HP made a handful at the time, but virtually every Vaio had a TV tuner and/or capture card in it. Their all-in-one PCs could easily be used (or mistaken for) TVs if mounted on the wall, and commonly had a remote and an HDMI in so you could plug a cable box into it. I remember a friend of mine had one of their laptops with a really nifty multipurpose slot that could fit either a subwoofer, a floppy drive, o
Re: (Score:2)
Sony was an engineering powerhouse (Score:5, Insightful)
It's a tectonic shift for a company built on manufacturing prowess.
Sony was never really a manufacturing juggernaut though they certainly were/are competent at it. Manufacturing was always a means to an end for them. Their core competency was in engineering hardware historically and they were quite good. They ran into problems with software which to this day they still struggle with on many of their product lines - at least the bits of it that interface the customer. A lot of this was because they historically had a culture of hardware engineers who didn't really grok software. That's changed somewhat in recent years for some of their divisions though not all.
Sony is/was quite competitive on non-commodity hardware or hardware where they have patent protection. For example their mirrorless cameras are really good and they supply the camera sensors to much of the industry for digital cameras. (for example the iPhone has a Sony camera sensor in it) I use one of their A9 mirrorless cameras and it's a remarkable bit of tech. (though the software interface still sucks)
Sony popularized transistor radios, gave the world portable music with the Walkman and its TVs were considered top-of-the-line for decades
And all that was engineering prowess, not manufacturing prowess. Sony never was a low cost manufacturer so they usually had to compete towards the high end of the market. None of that has changed. The company has also diversified quite a lot. Sony is a huge insurance and financial services company. They also are big in entertainment (games, movies, etc) They're best known for consumer electronics but that provides increasingly less of their revenue anymore.
Re: (Score:3)
And all that was engineering prowess, not manufacturing prowess.
They never understood that every part of the product has to be well executed in order to charge a premium. They invested a ton in R&D, and not nearly enough in manufacturing. That resulted in capturing only early adopters, and not the mass market. Once products, like DVD players, became commodities, Sony was blown out of the water by companies that could produce higher quality for a lower price.
Focus (Score:2)
They never understood that every part of the product has to be well executed in order to charge a premium.
True. Especially true for their software. I have a Sony A9 camera. It's a fantastic piece of hardware with amazing capabilities. But the one glaring flaw it has is that the software interface and network connectivity is just atrocious. (to be fair I could say the same about Canon or Nikon) Sony built an amazing device but didn't get the user interface bit because they are just clueless when it comes to that. That's been my experience with a lot of Sony kit. Good hardware, interesting design, well ma
Re: (Score:2)
And all that was engineering prowess, not manufacturing prowess.
They never understood that every part of the product has to be well executed in order to charge a premium. They invested a ton in R&D, and not nearly enough in manufacturing.
There are two Sonys, there is the old Sony that made stuff that lasted for ever and ever amen, and there is the new Sony which came into being approximately around the time of the compact disc which fell flat on its face in the manufacturing department, as you say. I have an old Sony bookshelf stereo that just needs pots cleaned or replaced which is still working really nicely, and when I was a kid I had a Trinitron TV for a long time that just kept on working well beyond expectations despite substantial ab
Plenty of money in manufacturing (Score:2)
Companies continue to find that making stuff doesn't make money.
There are a lot of very successful companies that are going to be astonished to hear that. I don't really get idiots like this who think there is not money in manufacturing. China and Germany and Japan and yes the USA are hugely successful at making stuff and being profitable doing it. Lots of money in manufacturing. The US manufacturing sector alone is worth about $3 Trillion annually. The notion that there is no money in making stuff is complete nonsense. There is and always will be money to be had
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
The bigger picture is that many Chinese workers are de-facto slaves. They don't have much freedom of political speech and so can't do much about long hard hours. The Chinese gov't will argue (externally) that overall conditions for everybody has improved to deflect such criticism. But other countries grew economically without taking away freedom of political speech.
We should tariff countries that don't have workers' rights comparable to our own. However, other countries may use the same justification to tar
Fingerprint Sensors (Score:2)
Like any industry ever... (Score:5, Insightful)
...when your product has become a commodity, you have three choices:
1) try to buy your way to control of the market. If there are high capital barriers to entry in the field, and you already have a lot of the costs invested, you have a chance. As a 90% dominant player, you might be able to undercut/destroy any new entrants before they can get established (or better, make it clear that you COULD do this to intimidate any investors contemplating getting into your market enough to dissuade them from even trying).
2) upscale: use your ostensible experience and sunk investments with the product to deliver more product for the same price. If they can make a walkman that plays mp3's, you offer one that plays mp3 AND will pull content from the web/youtube. If they copy that, you offer one that's waterproof, etc.
3) sell your brand and GTFO. Parlay what is ostensibly a good reputation into short-term cash by licensing your brand to one of the better commodity producers for a fee. They get to make their shitty knock-offs but put your label on it so they can gain extra sales (and possibly a slight margin) trading on your name/history, while you just get $ for doing nothing. Then you can fire your workers, sell your factories, and make serious money with no capital employed at all as long your reputation is worth something for them to pay for it, which is probably a while.
The problem with choice 1 is that sometimes it's simply not possible, particularly when your competition is in China. ...which is why we see #3 as the very common option. For example, I've seen that result for a certain brand of food products - a company with a deep historical reputation as pretty much become little more than an office managing the licensing of their brands.
The problem with choice 2 is that with electronics the capital investment is rarely a big barrier to entry (unless you're talking like chip-fabs or something). A quick reverse-engineering (or even simply knowing something is conceptually possible) is enough to allow low-cost commodity competitors to quickly catch up to you without bearing much of your research/dev costs.
Re: (Score:2)
...when your product has become a commodity, you have three choices:
There's a fourth option. Go up market. Sony really missed the mark on that one. They had the biggest name in electronics, and blew it because:
As a result, the Sony brand became synonymous with throwing money away.
Re: (Score:1)
...when your product has become a commodity, you have three choices:
There's a fourth option. Go up market. Sony really missed the mark on that one. They had the biggest name in electronics, and blew it ...
They did, for 1 simple reason - they hate their customers. Check out the list of things they did to their customers, including what's effectively a bait and switch practice where they sold a few expensive pieces of equipment prior to mass producing them with cheap chinese knockoffs. Inserting root kits into their CDs. DRMing their content to hell and back. And more... much more. Customers will only stand for that abuse for so long before buying the clone from the company producing your sanctioned cheap knoc
Re: (Score:2)
How many years did they have between Mini-disc and CD-R?
They couldn't have helped themselves, they would have 'taxed' the media, plus it was more complicated than a bare disc. Eventually the price of media would have ended the competition. Long before DVD-R.
Re: (Score:1)
They could've made serious money if they had allowed the MiniDisc to be used as removable data storage for computers. It was tecnically brilliant and very compact for its time.
Imagine if they made such a product. [minidisc.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Many Japanese brands tried a different option.
4) Abandon the low end of the market and only produce high end products with good margins. Sony TVs are an example.
Like Apple they make aspirational goods.
Problem now is that people like LG are making TVs that are just as good. Maybe better. They cost slightly less and their margins are bigger due to lower costs manufacturing in Korea.
Junk (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Boondoggle? [Re:Junk] (Score:1)
Why do you call MiniDisc a "boondoggle"? It was decent idea to try at the time, in my opinion. You gotta try new things in the market to stay competitive. Some will secede and some will fail, and hopefully average out for the better.
True, they could have managed it better, such as trying to increase market share over profits by having more lower-end player options. Recording labels would then offer more choice in the format. Limited content choice was a problem. Perhaps they would have eventually got a clue
Re: (Score:2)
Why do you call MiniDisc a "boondoggle"?
It depended on expensive technology that was obviously going to become outdated in short order. It doesn't matter whether you think MD was obsoleted by hard drives shinking (Seagate 1.8 MB CompactFlash drives, as seen in the iPod) or by flash getting cheaper; Sony was working with smaller and smaller hard drives in their Vaio line and with flash memory in their portable voice recorders, so they should have been able to extrapolate trends in both markets and figure out that MiniDisc was a bad idea at best. B
Re: (Score:2)
Cheap/small harddrives didn't solve the problem of how music gets into the device. Sure, we have Internet music stores/services now, but bandwidth was expensive back then, and only a small percent of consumers were connected to dialup services of ANY kind. Nobody could predict how, when, or if it would get cheap enough. Compression algorithms of the time were proprietary and nobody could predict who would sue who and how much. (There was a legal kerfuffle over the MP3 format for a while, but vendors threate
Re: (Score:2)
The word "typically" gives it away: doing such "typically" worked for them before.
No. It never worked for them. Betamax finally flopped, because they did the same kind of dumb crap, for example.
Re: (Score:1)
The Betamax/VHS battle could have gone either way: people still debate endlessly which is "better" and they fought almost neck and neck for a while. The "length problem" of early Betamax was quickly solved. Anyhow, Sony still made big profits selling VHS VCR's.
Re: (Score:2)
The Betamax/VHS battle could have gone either way: people still debate endlessly which is "better" and they fought almost neck and neck for a while. The "length problem" of early Betamax was quickly solved. Anyhow, Sony still made big profits selling VHS VCR's.
Either you don't understand the argument, or you're just disingenuously trying to win it anyway. The Betamax/VHS battle DIDN'T go either way, and it didn't first because early tapes were too short, and second because of Sony's licensing restrictions. Even though most porn was shot on Betacam SP at the time, Sony wouldn't put porn on Beta.
Sony could ruin ice cream with licensing agreements.
Re: (Score:2)
This was a poor investment choice
The ones that don't pay off usually are, however it is worth noting that Minidisc was a victim not of Sony itself, but of technology. Minidisc was revolutionary. I owned a few players and my local store even carried music in minidisc format. But all the things that made it great compared to CD: small size, high quality, ability to record and edit easily, reduced skipping, and better battery life was overshadowed by the dawn of portable MP3 players. Claiming they weren't investing in high-quality products is
Re: (Score:2)
They are a company that really catered to a wide variety of groups and the quality of Sony products was entirely dependent on your own budget.
That right there is the problem. If you are an up market brand, you can't make cheap crap for Walmart and put your badge on it. You need to protect your reputation by consistently putting out a high quality product. If you want to make cheap crap, brand it as something else.
Re: (Score:2)
If you are an up market brand
They're not. They are an everything brand. Not every company needs to fit into one category or another.
Ford will happily sell you the fucking awful Ford Ka as they will a Ford GT. Nikon will happily throw out a garbage Coolpix at Walmart as they will sell D5s to professional photographers. Samsung will sell shitty TN panel mini TVs with garbage pictures to hotels, just as they will produce professional IP5X rated panels for continuous operation in mission critical services.
Sony was never an up market brand
They just bought more peanuts... (Score:1)
And here I thought that Sony just bought a stake in Peanuts from DHX Media.
http://money.cnn.com/2018/05/14/news/companies/peanuts-dhx-sony/index.html
Re: (Score:2)
Sony used to OWN the high end of the video camera market.
Some would say they still own the 'professional' video camera market. But that's nonsense, they have a good sized niche.
What then? "Services" Gimme a break. (Score:1)
Probably a wise financial move, but ... (Score:2)
I have to admit I'm slightly bothered by the trend, overall, in shifting away from building physical things to selling virtual stuff.
Right now, lots of companies are finding it's easier to make good profits by selling subscriptions to stream content to people than it is to actually BUILD something tangible, and then deal with shipping it out to be sold, handle repairs of the broken units that come back, etc. etc. (Look at IBM and their selloff of their entire notebook computer division to Lenovo, in favor
So who's going to make physical stuff now? (Score:2)
Is it taught in MBA classes now that the only way to make money is to sell subscriptions and non-tangible goods? That makes sense in web startup land...(how many copycat subscription box services are there? There's at least 2 in each category.) But yeah, it's like the entire manufacturing industry has decided that just because something isn't as insanely high-margin as software, that it should be abandoned.
Are there any companies not thinking this way? Even GM and Ford probably want to sell you autonomous c
On my boycott list... (Score:2)
Sony has been on my boycott list since 2005 due to their attempted (attempted is the keyword here, +1 Linux) cracking of my personal hardware. Hope their "illegal" (we know it isn't really illegal if a corporation does it) practices were worth it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_BMG_copy_protection_rootkit_scandal [wikipedia.org]
Also, Sandisk is on my shit-list too for refusing to honor a mail-in rebate for $5. I hope they enjoyed missing out of $1000s (literally, thousands (I like storage)) of dollars in sales to sav
Re: (Score:2)
So maybe you have better things to get upset about?
Why? They have proven themselves to be untrustworthy, and have done other questionable things since. Sony makes nothing that a dozen other electronic manufactures don't also make. Avoiding their malware is easy.
Re: (Score:2)