backtop


Print 65 comment(s) - last by .. on Aug 30 at 9:28 AM


Kmart ad

FYE ad  (Source: Kotaku)
New ads from FYE, Kmart, point to lower PS3 price

The rumors appear to have been true and the official price cut for the PlayStation 3 will be happening soon. There have been plenty of reports that a “slim” PS3 will be announced some time this month along with price cuts for existing “fat” PS3 units (currently available in 80GB and 160GB variants).

Now the first confirmed reports of signage pointing to the $100 price cuts are finally starting to make an appearance. Over the weekend, FYE leaked signs showing the 80GB and 160GB PS3s priced at $299.99 and $399.99 respectively – this marks a $100 price cut for each model. The ad notes that the pricing is “while supplies last”.

Engadget notes that further confirmation came from none other than Kmart. The retailer has an ad running on its website that notes “The Rumors Are Reality -- New Low Price & a New Exciting PlayStation 3”.

Neither ad lists a date for the pending price cuts.

Updated 8/18/2009
Kmart has a pre-order page on its website for a "Sony PS3, SLIM" priced at $299.99. The release date is listed as 8/24



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: To Sony
By FITCamaro on 8/18/2009 11:21:38 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
uk is one of the worlds premier places for health care research.


The US IS the world's premier place for health care research. Why? Because there's financial incentive to develop new treatments, drugs, and medical equipment. In America, if a hospital wants a machine that just came out, they just need to come up with the cash. If a hospital in the UK wants it, they have to go through the government to get it.


RE: To Sony
By Aloonatic on 8/19/2009 2:23:32 AM , Rating: 2
We have to go through the government. You have to go through an insurance company. It's all the same at the end of the day. It's just given differnt names and there is a differnent levvel of minimum coverage.

In the UK we all have medical coverage, it's run on a not for profit basis by the government to ensure the maximum amount of money goes through the system to the "customer".

In the US some of you have medical insurance, run by private companies who make a great deal of profit, hardly the most efficient method.

In the UK NICE makes many decisions about what drugs can be prescribed, treatments given. All but a very small percentage of new and largely unproven drugs (probably the cancer drugs that you've seen on Fox News) are not provided on the NHS.

In the US your insurance company decides what drugs you can have and what treatment you can receive. You can have whatever you want, you just have to be lucky enough to be able to afford a good enough plan. Those expensive new drugs are probably not covered by many plans either. And if they are you will probably get treated once, then find it hard to get insurance again, as will your family.

In the UK all people have a pretty good (but not perfect) level of health care coverage that doesn't cost a massive amount of money. If you want more, your own room, an operation a little sooner, satellite TV, those new drugs, access to an MRI scanner sooner etc, you can pay a premium for private health care too.

In the US most, but by no means all have a "adequate" level of health care coverage. Everyone has access to emergency treatment. If you can afford it or have a job with health care included, you do get a more expensive system with better access to drugs and equipment, which is great.

There is plenty of money in the UK for medical research and for buying drugs. The NHS (and other European systems) are probably the largest customers that many drug companies have. Drug companies in the UK and EU can also sell their products to the USA if they so wish.

No one system is perfect. It's also a little strange how this row seems to have blown up surrounding the NHS as the "socialist" model Vs the "capitalist" US model. In the western world neither are the best. France and Germany have far better systems than both the UK and USA. That's where you guys should be looking. They have a better mix of tax payer coverage and private healthcare integration.


RE: To Sony
By Aloonatic on 8/19/2009 3:17:42 AM , Rating: 2
Just a couple of quick notes. I used the words lucky and efficient a few times above I think and I just wanted to clarify that a little.

I am sure that most people who have health insurance in the USA have worked hard to get their jobs and to earn enough to get the insurance that they receive, no luck involved. Sadly however, we are all just a smile to Margery in human resources or a compliment on your bosses choice of tie away from redundancy, as we have seen recently and maybe even lucky enough to be generally healthy and not have a chronic illness that makes it hard to work.

I also mentioned that the NHS is more efficient, which I'm guess you have heard a lot in the USA. Large organisations, especially government run organisations, are rarely any where near as efficient as they could be, especially when a socialist government (like New Labour) have been allowed to raid the pantry. In theory it should be more efficient of course, that was the point I was making. Hopefully the UK will see a change in government soon. As an example of the inefficiency and generally lax business practices in the an organisation like the NHS there was a story today about 45,000 NHS works calling in sick every day. All on full pay, many probably using up allocated sick days that they have to use by the end of the year. Hardly super efficient.


"Folks that want porn can buy an Android phone." -- Steve Jobs

Related Articles













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki