I had a pretty long post going over each of your points but after looking at things, the bolded part is all I need to address.

@Bolded: Yes, I know this was your point, do you even remember what I actually questioned you on.  Here it is so you can remember.  Here is your statement

"Exactly.............MS is puilling to wool over peoples eyes again, Xbox is such a small part of MS business only a fraction of their cloud will evr be used for xbox."

You make a statement that MS is somehow being deceptive.  You talk about MS cloud service in a way where it doesn't work in that capacity.  Here is my reply.

"There is no wool.  MS has the capacity to provide a cloud based compute service and dedicated servers for all developers on their platform.  the fact that  MS is expanding their business as a service is the reason  all of their products benefit from this investment.  The investement is still there no mattter how you spin it.  The service and the infrastructure is there.  Even the platform which MS spent 3 years build which is Orleans is there.  I am not sure where you get the wool part.  MS has the capability to provide the resources to support their claim and they spent more than 2 billion this year building more capacity.

I am not sure what conclusion you are coming to.  Just because the X1 is not the primary revenue business for MS does not detract that it benefits from other areas of the business that make sense like Azure."

So, no matter what your original claim was, thats not the statement I replied to.  Maybe if you knew how to stay on point with what you stated we would not have to go down this route.  You make all these big claims but totally forget exactly what I questioned you on.  From there you go on about things you really do not have the knowledge on.  Here is one part of that claim

"a) Having more invested in a company-wide cloud system does not inherently mean apps and services are yet developed for the xb1. One is hardware and one is software."

A true cloud service is Hardware managed by software.  The most complex part of a cloud service is the software that makes it all work.  This type of software takes years to get right expecially if it handles most of the administration of millions of servers around the world.  This is an area where Sony does not have the expertise or experience because its not part of their company focus.  Going back to the Hack of Sony network is also a big key.  There were a lot of things Sony did that no real admin would allow, like having customers data unencrypted on the services that can be reached over the internet.  Anyway, there is a lot to a cloud service then the client app that will run on the customer end.  

b) Having more invested in servers only means that you are capable of running MORE and delivering MORE content. As a correction, the POTENTIAL is far better, but again, hardware and software are not the same thing.

Your second point is incomplete.  Having more servers means you can also have a server closer to the customer thus improving ping times which improves response time with a game streaming service.  I even told you about Orleans which is MS cloud based development platform for distributed cloud applications.  I explained how this platform allows MS to distributed the workload amoug thousaunds of servers instead of one.

Anyway, your original point got lost in the shuffle since you tried to make more points about a subject you have not researched.  Maybe before you go off again on someone following the thread, maybe you should just concentrate on what you say.  My counter to your opinion has always been from the start the first point I addressed.  From there you continue to make more points that are incomplete as far as I can see and I countered.

The best part about your whole post is that you quoted someone else as being me. Nailed it.

Anyway, omitting that last error in a long line of misquoting and misremembering...I'll respond.

I responded that you were agreeing with me. And then I brought you right back to Kowen's statement. Don't act like I was moving around. The whole thing was connected, and you were directly presented with it. Had that not been something you wanted to address then you should have re-clarified that you had no argument with it. Instead, you ignored it...editting it completely out of your response, and picking out little cherries to continue your platform of argument.

The next thing you said about Orleans and whatever I had no problem with. MS Cloud is good, and I agree, but you weren't addressing my point at all. Your next post says "you should understand something before you call it BS".

My very next reply is asking "wtf are you on about. I'm not talking about the technology, I'm talking about Kowen's statement".

I think it's pretty clear to anyone reading that I've been addressing one point this whole time. You are grasping straws for anything that makes it look like I'm going after other things. I made my points, you editted them out, addressed other things. I did not argue anything about their cloud with you A SINGLE TIME. Yet you continue to think it's your job to educate me on what their cloud does...which is ironic because I even admit that MS Cloud is going to be the better overall service and be able to do more.

Who are you trying to convince? You blatantly stop following the quote trail like I'm going to forget, or that some simpleton is not going to read on or something. lol. What? Hello? You say "maybe if you knew how to stay on point". Great. I did. I said "what the fuck are you talking about though". Obviously you took soemthing I said, and applied it to something else. I shouldn't have to remind you that you did this twice, by the way. The "lock" part, where I was talking about logic, not tech, and "BS" where I'm also talking about the logic, and you think I'm talking about the tech.



But as far as the number of servers portion, yes I do know that distance is important to ping times and service quality. That being said, you cannot also guarantee to me that 300k is just enough, or that it is spread out properly, or that gaikai and rackspace are lacking in datacenter coverage for the specific service they want to acheive. You simply cannot prove either of these things. You can theorize, saying, yes, theoretically 300k should be really great. But yet you still cannot say anything about Gaikai's performance.

It's funny that you tried to address my point finally, but you're still dancing. You know you agree, and you're trying hard to make it seem like there's some sub-argument here. Sorry. It doesn't exist. There's one argument that you veered away from, were redirected to, veered away from again, were reminded of, and now pretend like I went off into many tangents and argued that MS Cloud was bad or something.

My points have been simple. Since you cannot follow them even with help, I can only imagine that it's the English around the points that makes it hard. So here. Have some easy bullets.

1. You don't need 300k servers to be competant in a specific service.
2. Having a lot of servers for a huge business doesn't mean they will be best at a certain specific service.
3.

I'm just going by the leaked document, which showed they were aiming for 2015. The only reason Sony is ahead is because they needed to use the technology to get Remote Play working from launch, so it was higher priority.

I imagine both will charge for a separate subscription. It is looking like both services will go multiplatform anyway, so they can't really tie it to the existing ones.

Going multiplatform would be very interesting if both service decide to go that route.  I believe Sony would have an advantage there as they have a bigger catalog of games to put on the service.  I still believe Sony would have to go a lot smaller first in order to not have the service get overloaded with customers than not be able to provide enough quality to keep them.  MS would be best to leverage Azure as much as possible and provide the service to as many users as they can to get a jump on Sony.  It would be interesting if both service came out at the same time.

If you say so, but I pulled it from your post.  And I pretty much know which part is someone else.  Either way, I believe we are done.

1.   As been stated many times its just not the servers.  This is the flaw in your original point.  A cloud service is more than just a bunch of servers, the software that runs it is just as important and takes years to perfect.  Just forgetting about everything esle that makes a complete cloud service ignores the complexity of such a system.  Combine that software for distributed apps with a whole lot of servers gives MS an advantage in this space that is greater at this time than Sony.  

Now if you mentioned content, then that would be totally different.
2.  Yes, having a lot of servers does not make you proficient at everything.  The point is that Azure has been doing steaming of demanding software for years.  Its not like MS is a novice in this area.  They already have a video standard for compresion which is one of the best on the market and if this internal showing is to believe, it appears they have no problem sreaming a game.  Thus having a true cloud platform and the muscle to deploy in a greater area with enough servers to provide a high quality of service (Just so you know Quality of service is about the speed which for some reason in your last post you did not get).

In the end, you have an opinion that is not irrefutable.  There are gaps in your statement which does not take into effect what the Azure service is or what it can do.  You keep making statements like a could service is a bunch of PCs which is just one part.  You keep saying that the X1 will only get a fraction of Azure which is totally not how the service works.  I believe the real problem is that you do not know what Azure is and how it works.

Well we can't know for sure, but it does look their original plan was for 2015. MS seem like they are going for the AR "Kinect glasses" next year instead, and putting the game streaming on the back-burner.

If you haven't seen it, definitely check this out http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.379349-Xbox-720-leaked-document. They may have switched it around after the leak, but they kept the 2013 strategy so maybe they are locked in by now. Given the R&D that must have gone into the glasses, they would probably want to launch them as quickly as possible anyway, rather than delay just to match Sony with a streaming service.

As for Sony starting small, it pretty much looks like that's what they are going for making Gaikai US only at first. That is the most competitive region for them anyway, so it makes sense.

I am not sure if the glasses would delay the streaming sevice since they would use different teams within MS.  MS might want to get the steaming service out just to have a counter to Sony.  Since Sony also have a pair of glasses they can combine with the PSeye, it appears both companies are going down the same line of development which is interesting.

I'm not going to get long winded in this. I am not going to pick apart your entire post

I'll just simply say you have no information to back up the claims you pull from your rear. None. Zero. Nada

You spent a whole bunch of time talking about Microsoft and Azure, which you clearly know very little about. And I'll have to assume you know even less about Sony's service since you didn't mention it at all. Even though you can say they are at a disadvantage : )

Overall you don't have anywhere near the required information to make these statements... because that information isn't out there right now

And not just you but others too