I stopped purchasing anything Sony about 20 years ago when I had a problem with one of their CRT based TVs just out of warranty.
Calls and letters to Sony answered the same way "take it to your local Sony Repair Station(SRS), but it is not under warranty.". Fine, so I asked for schematics of the TV to try and repair it myself and was told Sony only supplied those to the SRS's.
I chunked the TV and swore off anything Sony from that point on. A couple of years later when the Internet was coming ito it's own I found similar comments there as well. Sony just flat stopped lietening and assisting it's customers because they thought their brand name would carry them through thick and thin.
As far as Sharp going to junk bond status I am only happy for one reason, Apple already announced plans to stop dealing with Samsung on their displays (whom is their highest quality/quantity supplier and moving that volume to Sharp. ;)
"Sony’s financial services are generating a better-than-expected profits."
That's the saddest part of the whole article. It seems the way the economy is set up, the biggest rewards are for those who just skim money from it instead of adding value to it. It's a sad system when you reward the leeches and punish the doers.
I agree that the Japanese companies will not exit the TV space willingly. In the case of Sharp it may be forced upon them as they teeter on the verge of bankruptcy as they warned investors last week about their serious doubts of being able to continue as a going concern.
It would appear that they will become overpriced resellers but this strategy will work only if their brand names continue to carry a significant premium in the marketplace.
As for OLED, I agree it won't save their TV business but it will give them the opportunity to lose a few more billion.
You are absolutely right. None of the Japanese CE vendors will totally "exit" from TV business; but they will eventually shift their model from making everything on their own to sourcing TV sets from someone else and slapping their logos on top of them. (Just like what all PC companies in the U.S. do)
I am aware of Sony-Panasonic deal on OLED, but I wouldn't bet on OLED to save either companies' TV business.
Whilst Sony's TV unit losses have averaged over a billion dollars per year over the last 8 years and getting out of the TV business may be an economic necessity, I have not heard of any mention from Hirai that Sony was exiting the TV business. In the past Hirai has stated that the TV was the centrepiece of Sony's home ecosystem, and promised to put the TV unit back into the black by March of 2014. Moreover if Sony planned on exiting the TV business, why would it enter into an OLED partnership with Panasonic in June of this year? On Oct. 2 Hirai stated that “Sony has a very deep DNA in creating the best picture and the best sound.” Doesn’t sound like someone who is about to exit the TV business even though the TV unit is on track to lose another billion dollars this year even after further production cuts of 2 million units per year.
As for shrinking game console and digital camera sales, Sony, along with many others, is falling victim to the overwhelming success of smart-phones and tablet computers in these spaces.
The unemployment rate in Japan is around 5% and it is easy to find low-wage unskilled jobs. Finding a good job, like anywhere else, is difficult, as the large Japanese conglomerates are retrenching and laying people off.
what's the jobless number of Japan now, anyone?
Is japanese folking all switch to fishing now?
If moores law dead in 5-10 years this will be the fate of US ppl, I can smell intel, micron, amd ... follow sharp's footsteps.
"solar is effectively dead without government subsidies"
Wrong. If you eliminate fossil fuel users' right to pollute without compensating the victim, which is a subsidy of over a trillion dollars per year worldwide, then solar would be just fine.
Solar cannot compete if it has no subsidies but its competitors do. But that doesn't tell you very much.
Basic econ says the way to handle pollution is to force polluters to pay. Until they are required to, markets are using the wrong prices and get the wrong result.
Drones are, in essence, flying autonomous vehicles. Pros and cons surrounding drones today might well foreshadow the debate over the development of self-driving cars. In the context of a strongly regulated aviation industry, "self-flying" drones pose a fresh challenge. How safe is it to fly drones in different environments? Should drones be required for visual line of sight – as are piloted airplanes? Join EE Times' Junko Yoshida as she moderates a panel of drone experts.