They usually start out selling for a loss, but Sony reduces costs and scales production so they’re usually profitable (or at least even) after a couple of years. As far as I can tell the PS3 took the longest, releasing in 2006 and not breaking even until 2010, still 3 years before the PS4 launched.
Personally, I don’t think that selling hardware at a loss is a good excuse to be anticompetitive with the software. I don’t understand how it (and any other kind of loss leading sales tactics) doesn’t trigger anti-trust laws.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: [email protected]
Welcome to the largest gaming community on Lemmy! Discussion for all kinds of games. Video games, tabletop games, card games etc.
PlayStations are not sold at a loss either.
They usually start out selling for a loss, but Sony reduces costs and scales production so they’re usually profitable (or at least even) after a couple of years. As far as I can tell the PS3 took the longest, releasing in 2006 and not breaking even until 2010, still 3 years before the PS4 launched.
It seems Xbox has always sold at a loss though.
On top of all this, Apple also sell their own hardware alongside their own App Store, just like Sony and Nintendo do.
The Apple model is extremely similar to the way the console manufacturers operate albeit with a few more freedoms on Mac.
I think everyone is aware that Apple sells hardware, that’s not relevant to the discussion. What’s relevant is whether they sell it at a loss or not.
Personally, I don’t think that selling hardware at a loss is a good excuse to be anticompetitive with the software. I don’t understand how it (and any other kind of loss leading sales tactics) doesn’t trigger anti-trust laws.
deleted by creator