• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Sony: "We have not changed the production number for PlayStation 5"

Kdad

Member
Honestly...Between this and the Apple spy chip story which they never gave follow up on one way or another, I have questions about how Bloomberg vets more junior writers scoops, what motives they may have. Short on bullshit, ride the recovery, seems like a presidential thing to do.
Bloomberg is basically N4G and Forbes..."journalists" are just bloggers pulling crap out of nowhere.
 

Kdad

Member
Another FUD hive has been shut down. Clowns keep clowning. :lollipop_tears_of_joy:

Fuck...I can hear the mime scream!
 

ethomaz

Banned
So Sony really is only targeting 6 million consoles since bloombergs reported increase in production was after mass production began.




You have that backwards bub. Yields were the reason for the speculated drop in production
Drop em production? There is no drop in production.
 

Dodkrake

Member
The fuck does FUD mean?

The interesting bit:

In 1996, Caldera, Inc. accused Microsoft of several anti-competitive practices, including issuing vaporware announcements, creating FUD, and excluding competitors from participating in beta-test programs in order to destroy competition in the DOS market.[11][12] One of the claims was related to having modified Windows 3.1 so that it would not run on DR DOS 6.0 although there were no technical reasons for it not to work.[11][13] This was caused by the so-called AARD code, some encrypted piece of code, which had been found in a number of Microsoft programs. The code would fake nonsensical error messages if run on DR DOS, like:[14][15][16]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear,_uncertainty,_and_doubt#cite_note-Reynolds_1991-16
 
You believe all PR over investigative journalism? Got it. It's not like Sony has motive to protect their stock and financials or anything after the Bloomberg report and their stock fell. It's called discernment failure. I'd bet money that Sony is being dishonest or at the very least, misleading.
If production yields were "as bad as 50%" like what was speculated by this "investigative journalist", why would production estimates only be cut by 27% (4 mil)?

Something doesn't add up there.
 

semicool

Banned
If production yields were "as bad as 50%" like what was speculated by this "investigative journalist", why would production estimates only be cut by 27% (4 mil)?

Something doesn't add up there.
Total production output is different than output efficiency yield percentage.

Say I have a customer that wants as many loaves of bread as I can bake for them. I believe my yield efficiency will be at 75 percent for baking bread and I need to bake 75 loaves for a week. I will attempt to bake 100 loaves in that week which would produce a success of 75 loaves with 25 bread failures out of those 100 attempts. But let's say before mass production for that week I discover my bake bread success yield percentage is actually going to be closer to 50 percent. AND I find a way to increase attempts of bread baking(I buy a new second oven) to bake 150 loaves instead of 100 in order to NOT change my production total success of 75 loaves that week. I tell the customer I will bake them, yield 75 loaves before mass producing them for that week.

OR BEFORE mass producing for that week I tell my customer that I can will be able to bake them, yield 50 loaves.

In either case, my production number in starting MASS production didn't change even though it could have been either 50 or 75. And I'll try and keep my yield efficiency a secret.

Yield efficiency != yield production
 
Last edited:
Total production output is different than output efficiency yield percentage.

Say I have a customer that wants as many loaves of bread as I can bake for them. I believe my yield efficiency will be at 75 percent for baking bread and I need to bake 75 loaves for a week. I will attempt to bake 100 loaves in that week which would produce a success of 75 loaves with 25 bread failures out of those 100 attempts. But let's say before mass production for that week I discover my bake bread success yield percentage is actually going to be closer to 50 percent. AND I find a way to increase attempts of bread baking(I buy a new second oven) to bake 150 loaves instead of 100 in order to NOT change my production total success of 75 loaves that week. I tell the customer I will bake them, yield 75 loaves before mass producing them for that week.

OR BEFORE mass producing for that week I tell my customer that I can will be able to bake them, yield 50 loaves.

In either case, my production number BEFORE MASS production didn't change even though it could have been either 50 or 75. And I'll try and keep my yield efficiency a secret.

Yield efficiency != yield production
lmaooooo

The desperation for that to be true is almost sad.
 

Andodalf

Member
If production yields were "as bad as 50%" like what was speculated by this "investigative journalist", why would production estimates only be cut by 27% (4 mil)?

Something doesn't add up there.

Because they were already expecting a failure rate. Chips always fail at a certain rate, lets say 25% for a new process (No clue what this really would be number wise probs less). So 50% failure isn't a halving of production capacity, but taking approx 1/3 off of what was expected us 25% failure being the expected %.

I make 20 Chips and expect 15 good ones. I only get 10. I got 33% less than expected even thought the final failure rate is 50%

This should be very obvious stuff if you grasp the basic ideas of manufacturing and fractions.
 
Last edited:
Any time a corporation puts suspect qualifiers in an official statement and fails to address key/pertinent details specifically, it's an immediate red flag to proceed with caution and consider very carefully what they actually said in a legal sense.

The pertinent bit of the whole thing is them reducing their production, my friend, which they refuted. What else is there to tackle? The yield bit? Do you expect a company to communicate a figure? Especially in this industry? What?...
 

Reallink

Member
The pertinent bit of the whole thing is them reducing their production, my friend, which they refuted. What else is there to tackle? The yield bit? Do you expect a company to communicate a figure? Especially in this industry? What?...

Yes, because that detail is what ultimately hit their stock price, not a hypothetical reduction in undisclosed production volume. Disastrously poor yields as alleged would effect every aspect of the PS5 business. How many units they can realistically produce, the price they can sell them for, the losses they will have to absorb per sale, and how many pieces of software/accessories they can expect to move. All of that applies not only to right now, but also to their foreseeable future. The original article to which Sony is responding was not complicated, it very plainly placed all the blame on APU yields. Sony's failure to make even a toothless generic comment like "yields are within our expected range" reads to me like a tacit admission that aspect of the story is true.
 
Last edited:
Yes, because that detail is what ultimately hit their stock price, not a hypothetical reduction in undisclosed production volume. Disastrously poor yields as alleged would effect every aspect of the PS5 business. How many units they can realistically produce, the price they can sell them for, the losses they will have to absorb per sale, and how many pieces of software/accessories they can expect to sell. All of that applies not only to now, but also to their foreseeable future. The original article to which Sony is responding was not complicated, it very plainly placed all the blame on APU yields. Sony's failure to make even a toothless comment like "yields are within our expected range" reads to me like a tacit admission that aspect of the story is true.

They will reveal their prices tomorrow, so we can re-visit this thread then...
 

Reallink

Member
They will reveal their prices tomorrow, so we can re-visit this thread then...

It wouldn't necessarily effect the consumer's pricing, that is determined just as much by MS's price points and what consumers are realistically willing to pay to create an install base that will allow them to sell 10+ million units of a single game. What it will definitely effect is their profits or losses per sale. If they're having to trash half the chips they produce, in order to ship 10 million functional consoles, they're going to have to produce 20 million APU's (as 10 million of them will be binned as nonfunctional). This will drive the APU cost on the BoM to obscene levels, which even with excellent yields was likely the most expensive component in the box.
 
Last edited:
Was thing seen here?
Forrest Norrod from AMD addressed this in this video:



0:40-1:30
He can't comment on specific customers, but now, the production of their semi custom chips is going as expected without problems.

Sony wanted to take advantage of the rumor about the 15 million initial units for the hype keeping silent and it came back to bite.
 
Last edited:

mckmas8808

Ah. Peace and quiet. #ADayWithoutAWoman
Was thing seen here?
Forrest Norrod from AMD addressed this in this video:



0:40-1:30
He can't comment on specific customers, but now, the production of their semi custom chips is going as expected without problems.

Sony wanted to take advantage of the rumor about the 15 million initial units for the hype keeping silent and it came back to bite.

Are you drunk? Or just trolling?
 

oldergamer

Member
A few things don't add up.

- It was Bloomberg that first reported sony increased production to 10 million units by end of dec. Sony didnt comment but imo that didnt make sense. Its too short a period.
- then that changed to end of the fiscal quarter
- then Bloomberg reported sony was increasing product to 15 million units but due to yield issues the dropped that to 11 million. They never mention what was having yield issues. There are multiple chips that could be the problem.
- sony made the mistake of saying the have not cut production to deny that bad press, however they did not deny the price, the reported issue with yields, or that any numbers reported are correct.
- if sony planned to have 10 million units in that quarter, the fact they set up a strange pre order site and say you are not promised a console if u register, makes it sound like there is even less consoles produced then what u would expect for normal launch

So it may be that sony never changed the production target. It could be it was not 10 million to begin with. Therefore not cutting production. it could be that they are having yield issues or are not, and it could be correct on the price (we find out today)
 
Sometimes you see a pattern, i wonder what it is with this guy.



Well this is the new norm. A publication comes out quoting anonymous sources , corporation denies the claims and other so called "JOURNALISTS" demand the company prove that its not true by releasing information it never releases.

I guess actually doing their job would mean they would have to do some work...
 

McRazzle

Member
A few things don't add up.

- It was Bloomberg that first reported sony increased production to 10 million units by end of dec. Sony didnt comment but imo that didnt make sense. Its too short a period.
- then that changed to end of the fiscal quarter
- then Bloomberg reported sony was increasing product to 15 million units but due to yield issues the dropped that to 11 million. They never mention what was having yield issues. There are multiple chips that could be the problem.
- sony made the mistake of saying the have not cut production to deny that bad press, however they did not deny the price, the reported issue with yields, or that any numbers reported are correct.
- if sony planned to have 10 million units in that quarter, the fact they set up a strange pre order site and say you are not promised a console if u register, makes it sound like there is even less consoles produced then what u would expect for normal launch

So it may be that sony never changed the production target. It could be it was not 10 million to begin with. Therefore not cutting production. it could be that they are having yield issues or are not, and it could be correct on the price (we find out today)
SONY supposedly has a staggered regional release schedule; that could be an indication they lowered their production target.
 
It wouldn't necessarily effect the consumer's pricing, that is determined just as much by MS's price points and what consumers are realistically willing to pay to create an install base that will allow them to sell 10+ million units of a single game. What it will definitely effect is their profits or losses per sale. If they're having to trash half the chips they produce, in order to ship 10 million functional consoles, they're going to have to produce 20 million APU's (as 10 million of them will be binned as nonfunctional). This will drive the APU cost on the BoM to obscene levels, which even with excellent yields was likely the most expensive component in the box.

Such losses would be indeed easy to spot when their financial reports hit. I am bookmarking this page and will repost in due time...
 
Sometimes you see a pattern, i wonder what it is with this guy.



Read: Sony is the leader, so by targeting them, one makes themselves get clicks and be seen as an intransigeant journalist, seeker of the hidden truths. The guy believes he is working on some Watergate mini versions...What a clown...
 
Last edited:

Bo_Hazem

Gold Dealer
So according to Urban Dictionary you lot are calling everyone "a slang term for the female reproductive organs"? Wat.

FUD is an acronym for fear, uncertainty and doubt. It is a marketing term that is often used to cast a shadow over a competitor's product when your own is unable to compete. FUD is a technique used by larger companies who have a large market share. The FUD acronym was first freely defined by Gene Amdahl after he left IBM to found his own company, Amdahl Corp, with this statement: "FUD is the fear, uncertainty, and doubt that IBM sales people instill in the minds of potential customers who might be considering Amdahl products."

.

From the 1990s onward the term became most often associated with Microsoft. Roger Irwin said:[10]

Microsoft soon picked up the art of FUD from IBM, and throughout the '80s used FUD as a primary marketing tool, much as IBM had in the previous decade. They ended up out FUD-ing IBM themselves during the OS/2 vs Win3.1 years.

 
Last edited:
FUD is an acronym for fear, uncertainty and doubt. It is a marketing term that is often used to cast a shadow over a competitor's product when your own is unable to compete. FUD is a technique used by larger companies who have a large market share. The FUD acronym was first freely defined by Gene Amdahl after he left IBM to found his own company, Amdahl Corp, with this statement: "FUD is the fear, uncertainty, and doubt that IBM sales people instill in the minds of potential customers who might be considering Amdahl products."

.

From the 1990s onward the term became most often associated with Microsoft. Roger Irwin said:[10]

Microsoft soon picked up the art of FUD from IBM, and throughout the '80s used FUD as a primary marketing tool, much as IBM had in the previous decade. They ended up out FUD-ing IBM themselves during the OS/2 vs Win3.1 years.

the only problem is that these reports are not coming in from microsoft, but from bloomberg
 
Last edited:
That's the point, you use other people to do your dirty work.
Could be, but here is the thing:
All previous articles, ranging from "playstation 5 bill of materials" and "sony is cautious with initial production because of cost and covid economics" and "sony plans for 5 to 6 million units until end of march", to "sony ramps up to 11 million because lockdown and social distancing present opportunity for more sales", these were all from bloomberg, and these articles were not just not refuted by sony, but instead were used as the source for the entire advertising sector of video games, you know, sites etc.
 

Bo_Hazem

Gold Dealer
Could be, but here is the thing:
All previous articles, ranging from "playstation 5 bill of materials" and "sony is cautious with initial production because of cost and covid economics" and "sony plans for 5 to 6 million units until end of march", to "sony ramps up to 11 million because lockdown and social distancing present opportunity for more sales", these were all from bloomberg, and these articles were not just not refuted by sony, but instead were used as the source for the entire advertising sector of video games, you know, sites etc.

I think Bloomberg is a trust-worthy site, but they mis-stepped this one. You know, shit happens.
 
Could be, but here is the thing:
All previous articles, ranging from "playstation 5 bill of materials" and "sony is cautious with initial production because of cost and covid economics" and "sony plans for 5 to 6 million units until end of march", to "sony ramps up to 11 million because lockdown and social distancing present opportunity for more sales", these were all from bloomberg, and these articles were not just not refuted by sony, but instead were used as the source for the entire advertising sector of video games, you know, sites etc.
Sony does not respond to media reports of rumor, like most companies. However, when they are being defamed, they have to respond. This is standard industry practice.

If you respond to every rumor, you would basically be forced to make Q&A against your will. By not responding it avoids issues of fake posts used to fish for replies.

However, when media goes too far and make actual claims which harms the image of the company, the hammer goes down. And they respond in a way that discredits the media source, as they should be.
 
Sony does not respond to media reports of rumor, like most companies. However, when they are being defamed, they have to respond. This is standard industry practice.
If you respond to every rumor, you would basically be forced to make Q&A against your will. By not responding it avoids issues of fake posts used to fish for replies.
However, when media goes too far and make actual claims which harms the image of the company, the hammer goes down. And they respond in a way that discredits the media source, as they should be.
One could argue that when Bloomberg wrote back in spring that sony is worried and therefore is planning equal/reduced initial numbers compared to last gen despite ps4's success and will wait for microsoft to announce pricing first, that would also be something harming the image of the company.
And the proper way for a corp. to "hammer down" false claims is to present the truth. you know, to clear every doubt and set the record straight.
Here we see a responce "we dont comment on manufacturing, but bloomberg is wrong"
Now, I am not saying that Bloomberg is right and Sony is wrong, but Sony's response here is imo less than it should be.
Pretty soon the chips will fall to the table though, and things will be de facto proven.


I think Bloomberg is a trust-worthy site, but they mis-stepped this one. You know, shit happens.
That is certainly a possibility. As I wrote just above, pretty soon we will know.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom