Machiavellian said:
theprof00 said:
Machiavellian said:
theprof00 said:
machiavelli, thanks for ypur response which still fails to address any of what i said nor acknowledge that you do not know what my poiny is yet again.
told status:
knights of the told republic.
007 toldeneye
no country for told men
24 karat told |
I have already figured out that no matter what I say, I will always fail to address any of your points because you ignore them.
|
I haven't ignored a single thing you've said. I've corrected you.
You corrected me on things I wasn't saying. I restated my point...over and over and over. You've danced around it, continuing an argument about something I didn't say. I call you on that, saying you're obviously not reading the thread because you're correcting me on things I'm not saying. You deny that, making implications that I'm a fanboy or that I can't understand your point because I'm blinded by bias. I pull out your posts again, showing how you're not ackowledging me. You proceed to quote someone else, saying that I said "MS is pulling the wool over our eyes", when I never said that...making this huge post about how I had an initial point and then swerved off into many other points that you were addressing.
And you couldn't even point out these other points I was making.
I point out how you are now confirming that you can't even keep track of what is being said. You say 'oh, you didn't say it but that doesn't matter'.
So yeah...better luck painting someone else as a fanboy. Cuz you did a shit job with it against me.
I guess the only real thing you can argue, the only valid argument piece against my point, was that Sony may not have enough datacenters. This is the only valid argument against mine because my point was that MS doesn't actually need 300k servers for xb1. I proposed they could get by with far less, and I still believe that's true. Which stems right from my point that Sony doesn't need to have as much invested as MS to provide the service they are advertising...as opposed to MS who is advertising a whole lot more.
You could argue that I simply don't know enough....which you have. But it still follows that Sony might have enough for what they need, evidenced by the fact that Gaikai already won many awards and has run well for two years already....on top of which that Sony has continued investing in it.
So, unless you can prove that Sony's service is incompetant when it hasn't even released yet, there is really no further argument to be made.....unless we want to continue making theories and assumptions, which will simply end up as a waste of both of our time.
|
@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.
