Thoughts on Next 3 Slides Interesting concepts re: “real-time TV” Interesting point about where there are dominant players (either on content or brand). I wouldn’t quite parse it they way they do In memo landscape section where we talk about dominance, be clearer about dominance in brands that have been around a while Subscription film and TV – Netflix Next day TV (ad-supported and, likely subs) – Hulu Purchase of recent and library film and TV – iTunes, Amazon In memo where we talk about newer device based services trying to differentiate in the face of dominance, be clearer about what is emerging and has no dominant player Real-time TV over IP to devices (e.g., MLB streaming) Early Windows In memo Sony section – clarify “real-time” TV on devices is as an opportunity as an area that we compete and, in some cases lead

Executive Summary Real-time pay television is a significant opportunity for Sony Pay TV is the largest segment of media industry worldwide (6X video game & 4X film industry revenues) Technology is enabling new players to compete with traditional Pay TV distributors (Cable, Satellite & Telco TV) New players are not focused on real-time TV which represents over 60% of PayTV revenues & is growing We have identified 4-5 products to add to our current video services Products are complementary to, & integrate with current VDS offering Three types of live TV content offered: Live sports seasons, premium cable channels, basic cable bundles 3rd party video services like VUDU, CinemaNow & exclusive Sony content to be introduced as well Consumers & cable networks have expressed interest in these offerings A phased implementation is expected to positively contribute to the video services P&L Products to be phased in over 2010-13 starting with sports & premium cable in the US Remaining products & geographies to launch pending success of the initial offering The combined offering is expected to contribute $3-5 M of op. profits in ‘10-11, growing to $30-40M by ’13 The broader video offering is expected to be a key differentiator for Sony products Specific competitive gaps need to be closed in order for us to succeed Consistent & seamless user experience across devices is a key gap vs. competitors Acceleration of TAM interface rollout, cloud storage & common video streaming protocols across devices essential

SNEI Business Model Options The market and competitive landscape, along with profit potential, primarily determine if SNEI should BUILD, BUY or Partner Market Landscape Profit Potential Competitive Landscape Segment Market Size? (US Mkt. >$5B) Digital Growth? (CAGR >10%) Segment Economics Dominant Player? Sustainable Advantage? Business Model Video TV-Library Netflix Partner TV-Catch Up* Hulu TV-Real Time - 1st Party Home Video- Library Home Video-New iTunes Box Office Music Radio Pandora Publishing Newspaper Wait Magazines Books Amazon Other Internet Search/Ads Video Games Compete

Thoughts on Next Slide Interesting concepts re: our services are only on our devices; competitors are across devices Get the concept into the memo: Sony Section -- Today, our services are only available on Sony Hardware Landscape Section – Another competitive advantage of 3rd party services is that they are now available broadly across devices; hence more awareness / familiarity / popularity

Incubation Strategy Feasible Two feasible models for network svc & devices to compete together in a market Network Service Exclusive Network svc. on 1st Party devices only Open Network svc. on all devices Device Integrated model Devices & service compete together Focus on differentiated & seamless user experience e.g. iTunes and iPhone/iPad/iPod Mixed model Service competes independently Devices uncompetitive Competitor devices offer same service + other 3rd party services e.g. Netflix svc. & original Netflix/Roku box Exclusive Competing 3rd party services have limited functionality 1st party svc. storefront integrated in device UX No Going Back Sony cannot move back to an integrated model without alienating consumers and partners Incubation Strategy Feasible Sony can transition from an integrated to open model at any time Mixed model Devices compete independently Service uncompetitive Competitor services work on 1st party devices + other devices as well Open model Devices and Service compete independently on their own merits Open Multiple competing services No preferential integration in UX

Thoughts on Next Slide Interesting concepts re: we don’t seem to be taking a uniform approach to whether we only build services where there is not a dominant competitor Get the concept into the memo: Sony section – call out that our “ambitious plans” include both competiting head-to-head where there are dominant competitors (e.g., video stores) and competitng where there are limited competitors (e.g., real-time TV). Note that we should consider whether to take a more uniform approach to prioritization or whether we must build across categories if we want to offer integrated bundles and a killer UI

Sony has ended up adopting different market strategies by segment Market Segment Sony Network Svc Potential Competitor on Sony Devices Market Strategy Real time-Pay TV Premium & Cable Lite Google?, Boxee? Fully Integrated Model? New-Home Video VDS/Q Video Vudu, CinemaNow, Alphaline, Amazon Open Model? Box Office VDS/ Q Video- Early Window Video Games PSN Zynga? Fully Integrated Model Radio Q Music Pandora, Napster, Iheartmusic Fully Integrated Model (Incubation Strategy) Music Books eBooks Amazon? Is a consistent strategy needed going forward?