And then we could make money having people riding her. If you’re going to start a hypothetical scenario of Valve still being able to make money selling at a loss you can’t be angry that people are replying on the basis your premise is true.
I never said $800 would be selling at a loss, in fact I said that there’s a good possibility that they can sell it cheaper than 800 and still make a profit because they buy things in bulk. You were the first one who even mentioned it being profitable for them selling at a loss:
They could totally make money selling it at a loss.
Which is completely false, if they sold at a loss by definition they would lose money on each sale, and because it’s an open platform people would just buy the cheap hardware to be used for any project which would make Valve bleed money like Sony did with their PS3 until they closed the system.
Regardless, this is a thread about whether Valve could still make money selling at a loss, you stepped into it claiming they couldn’t compete in price/performance, which implies that they couldn’t compete even selling at a loss (since that was the central point of the discussion)
You’re the one that brought up Valve selling at a loss
I wasn’t, it was the person I’m replying to, the one I mixed out with you. Sorry for that, thought it was the same person.
you think anything under $800 would be selling at a loss
No, it’s a thread about the market differences between the PS3 and the Steam Machine. You’re just being so irrational in your obsession with being right that you don’t know what you’re talking about or with whom.
Nope, the PS3 was just an example of why you can’t sell at a loss with an open platform. Selling at a loss was the central point of the discussion, if that flew over your head it’s fine, but don’t try to make it my fault that you jumped in the middle of a discussion about why Valve can’t sell at a loss and said:
The Steam Machine is a standard x86 computer that can’t match the ubiquitous ThinkCentres in price/performance.
Which implies that even with the Steam Machines being sold at a loss a ThinkCenter would have a best price/performance which is just impossible.
This is going in circles and bringing nothing constructive.
If they’re sold at a loss, by definition they have to be cheaper than anything sold at a gain with the same performance.
And if my grandma had wheels she’d be a bicycle.
And then we could make money having people riding her. If you’re going to start a hypothetical scenario of Valve still being able to make money selling at a loss you can’t be angry that people are replying on the basis your premise is true.
You’re the one that brought up Valve selling at a loss because you think anything under $800 would be selling at a loss. I’m telling you it is not.
I never said $800 would be selling at a loss, in fact I said that there’s a good possibility that they can sell it cheaper than 800 and still make a profit because they buy things in bulk. You were the first one who even mentioned it being profitable for them selling at a loss:
Which is completely false, if they sold at a loss by definition they would lose money on each sale, and because it’s an open platform people would just buy the cheap hardware to be used for any project which would make Valve bleed money like Sony did with their PS3 until they closed the system.
You’re quoting someone else.
Regardless, this is a thread about whether Valve could still make money selling at a loss, you stepped into it claiming they couldn’t compete in price/performance, which implies that they couldn’t compete even selling at a loss (since that was the central point of the discussion)
I wasn’t, it was the person I’m replying to, the one I mixed out with you. Sorry for that, thought it was the same person.
I never claimed that.
No, it’s a thread about the market differences between the PS3 and the Steam Machine. You’re just being so irrational in your obsession with being right that you don’t know what you’re talking about or with whom.
Nope, the PS3 was just an example of why you can’t sell at a loss with an open platform. Selling at a loss was the central point of the discussion, if that flew over your head it’s fine, but don’t try to make it my fault that you jumped in the middle of a discussion about why Valve can’t sell at a loss and said:
Which implies that even with the Steam Machines being sold at a loss a ThinkCenter would have a best price/performance which is just impossible.
This is going in circles and bringing nothing constructive.