PS3 – No Component Cables or Infra Red

You are confusing me with someone who made 1080p a significant part of their argument. You also confuse the subject under discussion. This is not about how the lack of a component cable will affect me, you, tyr, or anyoone specific, this is about how it will affect the (limited) masses of consumer who will be bringing home a PS3 and will want to connect it via the now currently ubiquitous (on HD displays) component cable. Its not about the currently limited number of people who have HDTVs with HDMI, its not about DVI, its about giving the largest possible number of people a connectivity option out of the box.

You're absolutely right, but you're also complely wrong...once again, you miss the point. This isn't about dedicated gamers or Home Theatre enthusiasts as you say they're going to shell out for the quality cables. This is about EVERYONE else, who would rather just have the cheap cable come with it, and later on if they feel the expense is warranted they might upgrade.

I understand better than you think, but I also know that most people just want to hook it up and play Madden or whatever on the HDTV they bought from Wal Mart. I also know that according to Murphy's Law theres gonna be more than a few people trying to hook this bitch up Christmas morning sans an HD cable.

Funny, then how can Sony justify charging $30 for the PS3 version....

Yes, you did need the cable, but the cost of the jack went into the total cost per unit of the adapter itself. Also, the optical out was also availible on the Advanced AV pack, which supported both S-Video and Compsoite. Both packs also had the added bonus of being able to use your own, higher quality cables.

Personally I was a big fan of the AV hookups on the original generation PlayStation, with its standard RCA jacks in the back, rather than a propritary AV cable...too bad they chose to abandon that...

I have noticed the current trend toward cheap surround sound units, but these units rarely (if ever) come with any kind of digital input, only internal sources and simulated surround. Perhaps recently this has changed, but none of the cheaper units I've seen include digital in.

Finally, you realise what it's all about - "its about giving the largest possible number of people a connectivity option out of the box" - that's composite, I'm afraid. The numbers of HD-TVs out there pale into insignificance alongside the numbers of SD-TVs, but even the HD-TVs have a composite connector.

Let's look at it another way, I'm no business major, but I have seen enough episodes of How It's Made on Discovery to get an insight into the way these things are put together.

Apparently 17.2% of TV-owning households in the US had an HD TV at the end of 2005 - let's say that has risen to 22-25% by now, Japan is slightly ahead of that, but Europe is way behind the US, so let's estimate 20% of worldwide TV-owning households have HD TVs. That's pretty generous.

If you can cover 100% of your potential market by shipping a composite cable and make it slightly more convenient for roughly 20% of your market by including a component cable that 80% of your market can not use, what would your decision be? Bear in mind you have had about six months of ridicule for your console being too expensive.

Now factor in the costs of buying the component, not too high? How about packing the component? You have now got an extra station on each of your packing lines, that's probably two staff to pack the cables, plus one to re-supply them, per line. You can easily have 10-20 packing lines per factory and five to 10 factories. That's at least 150 extra staff. You've also just dropped your productivity slightly by extending the packing line. You have also added another point to your quality control check list, which again slows down QA slightly.

None of this covers the increased logistics cost of managing the schedules of the deliveries of components, warehousing the components or the chance that production could stop if the supply dries up or stalls for some reason.

You could easily add $10 to your costs per unit, which will have to either be added to the cost of the unit in store, or come off your, already in the red, bottom line per unit. You've just cost the company $5,000,000 for launch day alone.

All to save 20% of your market $7 and stop some whiners on the Internet, who will be replaced by the whiners who think Sony is bumping up the cost by including stuff that 80% of people won't use.

It's a business decision, pure and simple, and Nintendo have made the same one and come to the same conclusion. But then, Nintendo can do no wrong!

INCREDIBLY generous. It may be a reasonable percentage for the USA, EU and Japan combined. But it's WAY high when you are talking about worldwide (and you were). In China, India and South America, HD penetration is at approximately 0%

There are over 400,000,000 (SD) TV households in China alone.
There are only 111,000,000 (SD and/or HD) TV households in the USA. Global Flat Panel TV sales have yet to exceed 70,000,000, and a great many of those were ED.

Whatever Sony ships will piss someone off. If they ship component, there will be those of us who would prefer HDMI. If they ship HDMI there will be those who prefer DVI. Or component.

Speakers ship without cables. Guitars shipp without leads. It's the way it SHOULD be. The choice on the kind and quality of the connector should be left up to the consumer.

But the fact is, those people who are whinging about it are Sony haters who wouldn't buy the PS3 under any circumstances... so really their opinions do not count.

And before they all have a cow about my arrogance. I acknowledge their entitlement to have those opinions, and to express them here and elsewhere. But they make no difference to Sony's bottom line... they do not count in that respect.

I don't accept it.

I don't think it's over-priced. In "real terms" it's no more than the Atari VCS was at launch. It's less than the Sega Saturn was (again, in real terms). I'm pretty sure that in 1987 we paid £399 for our first video recorder - probably about £1000 in real terms.

I can afford it. It costs less then my snowboard or my wakeboard did, both of which I'll use far less than a PS3.

The price won't put me off it. The way it looks and the on-line features (or lack of them) might do, but the price won't.

That is... I think, dispute.

Once again you try to confuse the issue by attmpting to paint me as a rabidly anti-Sony fanboy, you keep making the same argument over and over and over again...its tiresome. Bottom Line, Sony failed to provide the same connectivity options as the 360. I think thats a mistake on thier part. Bitching about how some people would have a problem no matter what Sony did has absolutely no bearing on the discussion beyond your need to change the subject from the fact that Sony made an error.

Finally?!? Thats what I've been saying this entire time, with the exception of the fact that you're completly ignoring the FACT that a combo cable trumps the composite. Your whole "How It's Made" trip...an ill-considered effort wasted...a combo cable would replace the composite, so there'd be no extra packing station, and all your other costs are suspect. $10 dollars a unit?!? Thats ludicrous. Regardless, the responsibility for any pricing criticism rest squarely on their own shoulders. As for your aside about Nintendo...Nintendo is Nintendo, they aren't competeing AS directly in the HD arena, and they do stuff that don't make sense as a matter of course...but anyone who said they can do no wrong wasn't me.

Wow, someone actually making sense and with a point that isn't leaking Sony jizz from all orifices...I'll go along with it not being overpriced, IF you are looking to be an early Blu Ray adopter. Otherwise...I dunno someone said something about increasing the price to include some junk most people don't need or want...

as has been said, the ps3 is overpriced for those not wanting a next generation film player but a next generation console. thats a lot of people, but it does depend on perspective. i personally think its quite reasonably priced for whats under the bonnet, but not for the functionality contained within that i would actually use

sony have dropped the ball on the cable thing, and yeah, nintendo have done similar things too just so you know im speaking as just an interested party.

HD is the main reason for the big ps3 price tag, and the feature that sony seem to be betting the farm on. not having this functionality out of the box is a bad thing and thusly a mistake

I'm going to say this again, component will do jack s**t for 1080p resolutions. It means nothing to include a component cable. It means nothing, to me, that people have a tv with some red, blue, green hookups and don't want to pay for a $20 cable. Market penetration HDTV is low. Not everyone who has one has an HDMI port, let alone a free one (Cable Box and DVD Player may or are probably there right now). So as Tyrion so verbosely pointed out, I think it would of cost Sony alot more to include them. I STILL don't know why it's even an issue here. Is it principle, it's it ease of hookup on Christmas day, is it because Sony is touting HD as the wave of the future for the past two years (Microsoft made just as big a push you know)??? If Microsoft didn't include a component/composite monstrosity, would we still be arguing as such?

But it doesn't does it?

I mean really, and honestly. It doesn't. For purely enabling the greatest number of people to use the system out of the box, composite is best. All TVs can accept composite. Only Flat Panels, Projectors and RPTVs can accept component.

Actually they have CRTs that accept component AND HDMI too. But composite is forever.

You know what was cool? When Nintendo had composite outputs on their NES and also gave you the cables for it. 1985 sweetness. Although no one could use them till 1995.

Doc, a combo cable (at least the one included with the 360 and the one currently under discussion) connects via composite OR component...both...

I'm a knob who didn't read properly. You point is quite correct.

Though, of course, a Combo cable is really giving away two cables (OK, 1.75 cables) and no one likes to do that from a purely econoic point of view....

Leaving aside any financial issues for the moment, I'm not 100% convinced that such a cable is even possible with the Playstation A/V connector, at least not if you want decent picture quality.

This pinout shows only one Video ground on the PS A/V connector. This would have to be shared by the composite signal and the RGB signals. Theoretically this should not cause any issues, but I'm sure you would have interference from both circuits being connected at once.

In which case you would have to have either circuitry that detects which system is being used and switch off the other or a manual switch like the 360's cable has. Firstly, the circuitry solution may not be possible without a communication channel, although you may be able to have circuitry that detects a line drop. Secondly, the switch method is clunky and may confuse people, I know it took us a few moments to notice the switch the first time we set up our 360.

For comparison, the PS A/V connector has 12 pins and the outer shield, the 360's has 30 pins and the shield. The 360 has enough pins to have a separate ground for each of R, G and B and composite and yet it still needs a switch.

So Sony have to invest in some auto-detecting circuitry, increasing the complexity and cost of the output stage of the PS3. Or they have to have a switchable cable, increasing the cost of the cable sightly and possibly increasing the number of support calls they receive about PS3's not giving a picture. Or they have to design a whole new connector and throw away the backwards compatibility with the PS2's cables.

Again, all of this is to save less than 20% (much less according to Rod) of their market a few dollars for a separate cable. Also, lets not forget that all of this is in order to support a connection format that Sony and all the other A/V manufacturers wish to drop in favour of HDMI.

Oh I dont deny that Sony might have another axe to grind by not including a component option, I'm sure they love HDMI. But its not nealy ubiquitous enough to consider for a bundle. But you are right about the switch.

Too much talk for nothing, if there's no need to put components in the PS3 box because few people have the TV sets that matches it, then there is no need of HDTV compatible console & vice-versa...

Ding ding ding. Tyrion wins yet another round.

Also to mention the R & D that goes into a combo cable could be easily spent on more important issues like backward compatibility, or a better interface, or more features, or a more stable OS enviroment, etc.

So let's end it, me and Tyrion win! Where's my belt?!

That's why my original comment said "at the moment, most people don't have an HD-TV". That will change in the future and Sony claim to be aiming for a 10 year lifespan with the PS3. In 10 years, the PS3 may still be going and, if it is, it will still be kicking out 1080p into the TVs of the future without any hardware upgrades.

Based on the lifespan of the Xbox, we may be onto the fourth Xbox in 10 years time.