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.

[–] [email protected] 31 points 9 months ago (2 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 9 months ago

The difference is that Nintendo and others always marketed their device as a "gaming console", aka a limited functionality device.

Apple, on the other hand, sold their devices as a type of computer. "There's an app for that" and "What's a PC?" ads killed their hopes of claiming that their devices were supposed to be of limited use and functionality like gaming consoles.

[–] [email protected] -4 points 9 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 20 points 9 months ago

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.