Machiavellian said:
@Bolded: Do you even hear yourself. You keep acting as if your point of view which is an opinion is somehow irrefutable. This is the theme of your over and over again opinion which boils down to "Well Sony could do anything we just don't know". "Sony could have enough servers, Sony could have enough datacenters". To swing around that same point I could say "Sony probably does not have enough servers, Sony probably donot have enough datacenters" both are the same type of argument. So what eactly are you basing your opinion on. Where is this confidence that Sony has what it takes to bring a solid quality of service to the Gaikai platform. Can you provide any type of evidense that Sony just "Have enough to do the job". Right now, all I get from you is that Sony might be able to do something. I would consider that a very weak argument to stand on if thats all you can provide. I have given a clear list of advantages that MS has within the cloud space to support their streaming service. I have listed why I believe they have enough infrastructure to provide a good quality of service. There is tons of examples and links I have provided for my opinion. |
Do you remember what my argument is? Let me resay it for the dozenth time since I know your memory doesn't span more than a single post. (I can post proof of that statement if you'd like)
You cannot judge Sony's capability of their advertised service based on the fact that MS has more servers.
I am not saying Sony has enough. I have not said that at all this thread. I have even already said that I was not saying Sony has enough. This is my second time saying this. Your rebuttal to the bolded says that you think I have. You seem to think that my stance is "who knows, Sony may have enough". Yet I have not taken that stance. I have said (three times now) that given Gaikai's past two years ALREADY PROVIDING THIS SERVICE, along with Sony's increased investment, and Rackspace initiative, (all facts) they might have enough....yet that was never even a point I was arguing. Rather, it was just a counter-argument to the one presented of 'i doubt sony has the ability'.
Again, I have not said that Sony has enough. Just the fact that they aren't launching worldwide at the same time is evidence against that. However, what they have advertised is streaming service in USA with Europe to come later in 2014. Nowhere in that launch discrepancy does it say they won't be competant within the service, which is the entire point I've been arguing the whole time.
I don't know how else to boil it down for you. This is as simple as it gets.
You cannot judge Sony's competancy within a service based on a competitor investing more over a range of services. That is because competancy has nothing to do with the competition. It has to do with providing a service. Maybe you don't know what competancy means? I'm trying really hard to figure out what you're having a hard time understanding. If I can read a book, I am competant at reading. I am able to do it. Another person being able to read in 5 languages doesn't make me incompetant, or make him/her MORE competant, it means exactly what it means. Competant in reading in more languages. Meanwhile, I might be able to read upside down whereas that person cannot. Competancy in different things doesn't not affect the competancy of others.
I have not made any other points this whole time. It is you who has been putting words in my mouth and creating strawmen to attack. You attacked my knowledge of Azure (which is like, wtf, azure has nothing to do with my point), you have attacked by objectivity, and you have attacked my understanding of how servers work. Not saying that you're being aggressive or whatever, because I've done my fair share of attacking. But my point here is that you're attacking me on things that have literally nothing to do with my point.