Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Loses $126 Per Unit on XBox 360
ahess247 writes "BusinessWeek has taken a look at the insides of the XBox 360 and with the a little help from market researcher iSuppli determined that Microsoft is continuing its tradition to taking a big loss on the console in hopes of making a profit on games. From the article: "An up-close look at the components and other materials used in the high-end version of the Xbox 360, which contains a hard drive, found that the materials inside the unit cost Microsoft $470 before assembly. The console sells at retail for $399, meaning a loss of $71 per unit -- and that is just the start. Other items packaged with the console -- including the power supply, cables, and controllers -- add another $55 to Microsoft's cost, pushing the loss per unit to $126."
OK they lose money selling the hook. If buyers purchase enough games or buy into XBox Live, for a nominal monthly fee, they get it all back and then some. The business model pioneered by Atari, Sega, Nintendo, Sony and before that drug dealers all the way back to the days of the opium trade.
What's actually funny (ironic, maybe ha-ha, too) is these sales, assuming the sales actually go through, will enable people to profit at Microsoft's expense. When was the last time you did that?
Oh, and beyond the cost of parts and assembly, don't forget packaging (a good box with packing material is much more than you think, especially if boxes are damaged in transit and need to be replaced, small wonder HP ships expensive Athlon64 laptops in plain brown wrappers) plus the cost of transporation and logistics, and adverising, and development costs. The loss is a bit more than that $126. Why does the fascination with loss-per-unit only focus on parts?
I tend to think Sony still has significant advantage over Microsoft, thanks to economies of scale, they make many other consumer electronics items and can combine channels, where Microsoft will be selling this one thing.
let me know when they have a network version of m.u.l.e. or mail order monsters
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
I'll make you a deal, Microsoft. If you send me 100 bucks, I won't even buy an Xbox.
Electric Monkey Pants
Everyone knows you don't make money on the pipe...it's the stuff you put into it that provides the real cash. Cell phones and razors have been using this model for a while now.
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
It's actually worse for Microsoft. The $126 loss statement doesn't take take the fact that stores make a profit into account. Thus the full retail prices does not go back to Microsoft.
Add in marketing, shipping, beta testing, opportunity cost and everything else, and I bet that the real loss per box is much higer.
What are you eating? isItVeg?.
Don't like Microsoft? Just don't buy the damn thing....
Buses stop at a bus station
Trains stop at a train station
On my desk there's a workstation....
Not on game consoles. The markup is almost zero.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
If you , me and 175,000,000 of our closest friends all but one this weekend, we'll bankrupt the buggers! w00t!
If brevity is the soul of wit, then how does one explain Twitter?
When you're a big player and can afford to loose money, doing this makes perfect sense. Sure you'll make money off of royalties and accessories and subscriptions, etcetera, but that's not the point. The object is not to make money at this point, what they're gunning for is market share.
When the market is crowded and there isn't much room to butt in, you have to sell it at a loss to attract buyers. Nintendo and Sony are already household names and proved their worth decades ago. But this is something relatively new for Microsoft. So, in order to grab a peice of the market share pie and get their name around, they have to make it attractive to purchase.
Take for example the market of DVD players. How many brands are out there? Too many. Everyone wants a peice of that pie so they'll try to lower costs as much as possible and mark their price to get the lowest margins possible. The bet is to flood the market with enough units of your name so that when everyone else who makes DVD players has begun to die off, yours is the one people think of when they go to get a new DVD player.
No, there isn't a conspiracy here, folks, it's just a company willing to take it in the shorts for bit until the have a big enough market share. (It's just with Microsoft that they want 99% of it.)
We're all hypocrites. We all have hidden parts, it's the contrast between them that make us more a hypocrite than others
No, that is not correct. Assuming that this study controlled for economies of scale, the per unit loss is fixed. It is $126 per unit. If you sell 100 units, you have lost $12,600. If you sell 1,000,000 units, you have lost $126,000,000.
Don't underestimate m$ pricing. E.g. see what a
ethernet cable
costs in Europe. That is 30 euros, mister!
And for the Americans: that is 35 US dollar, for an ethernet cable.
Damn! That is a profit margin of at least 10000 percent.
Bram
Bram Stolk http://stolk.org/tlctc/
power supply, cables, and controllers -- add another $55
*Retail Price* *Maybe* - The estimates given for the raw materials cost sound suspect. I'm pretty sure that a contract to deliver parts for the XBox comes with a much lower price per unit than your average trip to the computer superstore.
Except you can buy an Xbox for $140 new now because the prices on the hardware have to naturally fall to stay competetive as well.
All game machines start out at several hundreds of dollars until the sucker market is exhausted and you have to start targetting people who are only willing to pay $200, then the ones who will only pay $150, then the ones who will only pay $100.
The machine's price will fall at a faster rate than the cost will.
I voted for Bob Dole once. That was the smartest thing I ever did since he lost.
init 11 - for when you need that edge.
1. They have nowhere near a monopoly in the game market. So no, there is no oversight, nor should there be.
2. If this is "dumping" then you should jump up and down about gas stations (gas is often sold at or near cost), Coke and Pepsi (with a true monopoly, fountain drinks are sold at or below cost), all cell phone companies (my cell phones were all free), etc.
3. They're not competing on quality? I don't exactly have $400 burning a hole in my pocket that I have to spend on a game machine. Considering that the XBox 360 is the most expensive console out there right now, there is absolutely no dumping going on.
Idiot.
That's not too surprising. The original xBox is, after all, an x86 PC, but sells for less than one. The PS2 is a low-end MIPS processor and some wierd vector units, hard to program but cheap to make. The xBox 360 is a new architecture, but not, apparently, a cheaper one.
In the end, Microsoft stockholders would be better off if Microsoft got out of the game console business. It's a money drain.
1. Buy 200 billion Xbox 360s.
2. MS loses 25.2 trillion dollars.
3. No one buy any games for these 360's so no royalties go to now bankrupt MS.
4. Port OSX and Linux to Xbox 360.
5. Network together all 200 billion 360s to make ULTRAMAX, the supreme overlord computer that controls everyones daily lives.
6. ??? (who knows what the future will hold then).
Let's get going on this people.
"Leo Fender was in a 'state of grace' when he designed the Stratocaster." -- Paul Reed Smith
I can confirm this from first hand experience. Retail margins are in the 3-5% range, and don't improve much over time. There *is* a reason why best buy salesdroids have been trained to sell you accessories and games to go with that console. Those do have more normal markups (at least 15%, probably 25-35% especially on ripoff-priced cables and accessories). So anyone walking out of the store with just the console is a bad deal for the retailer, and rabid salesdroids will do their damnest to prevent that.
:)
Same goes actually for things like low end laptops - their margins can also be as low as 5%, and the real deal is the extras - carry cases, mouses, external hard disks, headphones, additional software, blank CDs, extended warranties... whatever the salesdroid can manage to pile up on top of the actual computer sale.
The good salesdroids are the ones who can jedi mind trick you into spending few hundred bucks on top of the item you wanted, and that way drag up the total profit to the retailer from that 3-5% range to 20-30% (or more). Best ones can actually predict what your real needs are based on few probing questions, and actually make you want all that stuff he's peddling to bump up the profit margin.
Master salesdroids have mad l33t jedi mind trick skillz. Poor ones come off as rabid dogs who refuse to let go even when you spell out in gory detail why you don't want anything else.
Not really. Sony was able to drive down the cost of their console because it owned all of the pieces and could integrate them. However, with the original XBox the manufacturing costs basically stayed level over the entire life of the console. Microsoft still loses over a hundred bucks when it sells an original XBox today. Microsoft's problem with the original XBox was that it specced what were basically commodity parts when it launched. It chose the least expensive hard drive that it could find, a processor that was already in the sweet spot for price/performance, and a graphics chipset that was made by a competitor of its processor. No integration was possible, and the only component that hadn't had all of the profit squeezed out of it was the memory. While it is certainly true that these components get cheaper over time, there is a floor price below which the price doesn't drop. That's why newer XBoxes come with larger hard drives than the original run of XBoxes. Microsoft would happily purchase 8G hard drives if someone was offering them at a lower price than 20G hard drives, but no one is. Likewise Intel is still charging almost the same price for the XBox processors that it did when the XBox first came out. Microsoft's XBox bought Microsoft a spot at the table, but it did so because Microsoft was willing to give away billions in hardware. The XBox has lost nearly 3 billion dollars over its lifetime, and it is still losing money.
It appears that this time Microsoft has essentially made the same mistake with the 360. It's possible that IBM's Cell processors will drop dramatically in price over their lifetime, but both Sony and Nintendo will also be using variants of the same chip (and Sony owns enough of the technology that it will probably benefit most). You can guarantee that if Microsoft comes close to making a profit that Nintendo and Sony will simply undercut them. Microsoft has also tied a great deal of the functionality of the XBox to a hard drive, and the price on those is not likely to drop substantially over time.
Microsoft is giving away too much hardware yet again, and it is going to bite them.
What you really have to look at is the price that microsoft is paying for components, etc. There are many products where the sum value of the individual parts may in fact exceed the item value (for example, car parts individually can be incredible expensive).
When they are buying at volume from parts sellers, they could be getting quite a cut on the cost of components. I doubt that MS is about to reveal the actual cost of components too, though they might be happy to go along with the idea of "selling at high loss" to make the 360 look like more of a bargain.
One must remember that the FDIC approached Microsoft a while back with the comment that they were sitting on tens of billions of dollars. And that they needed to a) give out a dividend and b) re-invest said capital as a responsibility to their share-holders or be fined for violation.
;)
In other words, Microsoft was basically told they needed to re-invest 50% of their cash hoard. So the Xbox gave them a strong "market" investment area. And allowed them to burn thru "investment capital" while at the same time building their portfolio. So when Microsoft loses $350 million a year on the Xbox. This is in fact not outside the scope. It is new market capitalization. And they can now point to such investment in order to avoid fines and legal lawsuits from the investment end.
While at the same time, they buttress their core division by ensuring that if home entertainment consoles become the new "home PCs" they have a strong footing in the game. So it was both a protective and expansive move in a multi-faceted levels.
I also imagine that the Xbox360 is going to do what many thought the original Xbox would (but never did). It's going to crossover. I expect in the third year you will see Microsoft offer a Keyboard, XIE browser, and Live accounts will include email and messenger compatibility with MSN Messenger. Oh...and possibly the following year if such is successful. Office lite....subscription service.
I know better than this, and really, so do you if you thought about this just a little bit...
Developer costs have to be kept low so that people will produce for a given console in the first place- if you extract part of the costs of the console losses even slightly from the developers, they'll very probably skip the console in question and go to another one. It's as simple as that. As a developer, if I'm not going to see a return on a run that ends up producing at least a wash on sales, it's just not going to get done as I'm supposed to be in the business of making money. I have to pay per instance just to run on the damn thing so people can play my game. I have to pay for a developer station so I can test for deploy. I have to pay for a runtime engine or roll my own that'll run on it. And, so forth... All this adds up. The amount of money they "recoup" on developer fees alone is in the noise floor here. It doesn't do anything for their bottom line- it does, however, regulate who gets to provide games and the quality level though. It has to meet with Microsoft's final stamp of approval or it doesn't ship for X-Box/XB360 and you have to pony up some cash and pay a portion of your profits back to them to be able to run on it. That's a bar against any Joe Shmoe wannabe game developer from producing something for sale that makes their console(s) look bad.
Royalties is the only place they expect to really see a return on things at this point (No guarantees of production process improvements- and you'd better NOT be betting on that as that's counting chickens before they hatch...) so they need 13 titles to be sold per XB360 unit currently ever sold to begin see a profit. This means that in order to be profitable, they're going to have to stay the course for at least 2-3 years at minimum to start seeing profits on this mess.
Production process improvements come over time, typically somewhere between 1-3 years of production. Sometimes within 6 months, but usually it's 12-18 months into it that you start really seeing anything out of that. And that's if you've designed everything right. Sometimes you get a design that won't see benefits from production improvements for years. You can't bet on that sort of thing unless you've designed them in from the start and they're more due to volume than device improvements when you run that play. At $400+ per unit, any volume discounts will also be in the noise floor for some time to come as they're already seeing those discounts with what they're producing in the first place.
The numbers being high? Not really. These prices I'm seeing in the article are conservative, as in being close to what they're probably seeing in costs.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
Its interesting, irritating, and I guess expected. When an op-ed for a newspaper puts out financial numbers the post subject is fact. But when Merrill Lynch, one of the countries biggest financial institution puts out a report, Slashdot has a "?" to it. Check it out here.
What is the difference you ask? Well one doesn't say MS sucks and the other does. One compares both PS3/Xbox with numbers and the other doesn't give any. Anyone interested in more accurate PS3/Xbox 360 breakdown you can go here (or here to get the chart). Again these numbers are according to Merrill Lynch a leading investment firm, (not a newspaper or an op-ed).
Take a look at them before you flame me.
I was skeptical of this report before reading the article in depth, but now I am assuming they are just flat out wrong on some points. Namely:
20GB hard drive for $53 and DVD-ROM drive for $21. I can get better prices than this. Me. On one unit. Microsoft is talking about millions of units. I know that these are thin margin markets, but the exclusive contract from Microsoft is a huge win for any supplier.
So the per-unit loss on each console is probably between 50% and 70% of what they reported. At the very least, you can probably remove $20-$30 for those two drive components alone.
don't forget that if they succeed in knocking sony out, then they will be a monopoly in video game consoles, too, and can jack up the prices even more on the next round (like windows--$200-$300 retail--and office--$400-$500 retail). that way, they can profit on hardware and software.
I'm not sure this study is correct.
Merrill Lynch looked at both the 360 and the PS3 and found these results.
The short end of it is that the "full" version of the 360 costing $400 at launch is actually making money.
"What do you despise? By this are you truly known." --Princess Irulan, Manual of Muad'Dib
/)