Faulty analogy.
Cell was a highly customized Power PC chip with the lofty idea of embedding it in all of Sony's electronics. They sold PS3 at hundreds of $ in losses and Sony largely was responsible for making the chips.
Iterative x86 hardware with PC GPUs/APUs are highly standardized configurations that are manufactured in the hundreds of millions by multiple OEMs that will bid for design and manufacturing, and can be configured in a way to guarantee COGS <= selling price.
The high customization of Cell meant extreme software development cost for multi-platform support. PC hardware in contrast is very low cost to support multiple configurations.
I have no idea where you're coming from at all.
Do you remember what they wanted the PS3 to be? I do and my Cell CPU anaology is talking about the same thing you are. Power PC is dead, but when they were using it, it still must have been relevant.
They wanted your PS3 to be a all in one device. And it blew up in their face.
Which goes back to people wanting games, and a great console.
If people gave shits about advanced tech, dreamcast, sega CD would have taken off along with teh Japan only Super Famicon CD add on. But they didn't they gave shits about the games, not the tech.
Just because you want some kind of tech revolution and you want consoles to be a part of it, doesn't change the fact consoles are for playing games. The tech they use helps them achieve that to the best of their ability. Sony. Sega, and NINTENDO have chased the rabbit many times.
N64? Virtua Boy, Sega Nomad, Sega CD, Sega Saturn. WHen all they wanted were games. Sega CD could play cd's like the Playstation, but PlayStation had more games, more developers, and albet a better 32bit chip that actually rendered polygons not sprits.
BTW no need to have a dickish reply with "Faulty" like you know how the industry is suppose to work. I'm telling you how it has worked and how they continue to do it today.