nono that is the scorpio, the Xbox one S is supposed to support 4k playback, which it does.
Originally it was stated it would run games the same, so this performance leap and reduced tearing is just  a bonus for buyers, which is great.

I was looking for another Xbox One, and considered getting the Xbox One Elite when it went on sale, and considered getting an inexpensive used one, but ultimately went with the Xbox One S in part because Rod Fergusson had confirmed that the Xbox One S had a higher frame rate in Gears of War 4. So it's not correct to say that the spec boost plays no role in gaming purchasing decisions.

Touche. Well hope you enjoy your XB1S, it's one sexy beast! :P

No it doesnt. You dont wanna leave the OG Xb1 users behinde.

Also its 7% increase in GPU.... most of the times it means slightly less frame drops (more smooth 30fps) or in area's below 30 fps, maybe 1-2 fps more.

If performance is already subpar (below 30), you dont wanna push it lower, by useing the extra tiny bit of power the slim has.

I don't think you understand exactly how hardware works.

The APU inside the X1S is the same as the XB1. It's just a revision, meaning that it have some errors corrected and some chip-bining corrected. Usually it gives about 2~5% advantage over previous generation. If this console is about 7% faster, you can totally tell that this X1S APU is either overclocked or AMD did one hell of a job.

Now to the Neo. The Neo is a totally different architecture. It's the same manufacturer, yes, AMD. However, it's a totally new architecture with a totally different concept. Existing AMD's architecture are based on CMD(Cluster Multithreading) and they divide the pipelines into clusters. The next AMD chip, globally known as "Zen" is an architecture based on SMT(Simultaneos Multithreading), which is the same division of pipeline that Intel has used for ever and the one design that AMD decided it was not "the future" when they started developing the K10 architecture. It was also the only way AMD could have built a true quad-core at the time, utilizing SMC(single-chip module) instead of the "fake" quad-core from Intel's MCM(multi-chip module).

However this is too technical and people couldn't care less about this stuff.

TL;DR

The Neo is a totally different architecture and it will require a patch for older games to work.

I don't really think ms cares much about the OG xb1 owners. I think it makes more sense to them to clear the slate and start over as soon as possible.

They have 20m users, they arnt going to just drop on the floor.

Even when the Scorpio launches they ll have to carefully care for the OG XB1 & XB1slim, users.

and 7% gpu speed bump, isnt enough to make much of a differnce anyways, its not worth the hassell of p*ssing off your customers, that bought your product.

MS is hopefully trying to get back goodwill and brand trust, with the XB1.

I think it depends as much on the development tools than it does the hardware, maybe more.  How close to "the metal" are PS4 games written?  Is there a layer of APIs that games access on the PS4 that could be redirected to new hardware on a new variant of the PS4?  Anyone want to weigh in?

How would you know?

It was common knowledge that AMD themselves never comissioned to reengineer the Jaguar at 16nm. Now that we know that the Slim actually contains two shrinked Jaguar units, we see that at least Microsoft paid for the development of it (which wasn't cheap).

Now the big question is: What about Sony? Can the "freeload" on the 16nm Jaguar or did they also pay for it? Or did MS and Sony silently agree to co-develop it?

What we know is that Sony at some point contemplated using "a better cpu" in the Neo - for a much increased price. That would point to the "original" Neo having the same die-shrink Jaguars (rumoured at 2.1GHz) as the XSlim.

At worst, the Neo is simply two die-shrink Jaguars and double the CUs (at 16nm) of the PS4. So the Neo would be totally the same architecture as the PS4. Given that the Neo is rumoured to be ready now, this isn't even a far-fetched theory.

So many questions, so few answers....

I don't think Microsoft has abandoned the Xbox 360 yet, let alone is about to abandon the Xbox One.  While Microsoft is no longer making first-party 360 games, or manufacturing the system, they nonetheless are still supporting apps and releasing updates.  Xbox Live is still fully supported on the 360, third-parties are still authorized to release new Xbox 360 content through Microsoft's distribution channels, and Microsoft continues to actively work on 360 backwards compatibility for the Xbox One.

So it seems a bit alarmist to suggest that because they release a version that is 7% more powerful, a difference that they publically downplay as being even a selling feature, that they'd prefer to throw away 20 million enthusiasts and start from scratch.