Really? i thought it was only know from August that Sony hired Rackspace to develop their Cloud. .

http://www.thewhir.com/web-hosting-news/rackspace-to-help-sony-playstation-deploy-openstack-private-cloud

really surprised with Sony going with Openstack cause while its backed by Major forces its not really deployed on a level like the PS4 Cloud will need to be..

Sorry, it just seemed like so long ago. Guess these past two months have been a long slow grind waiting for these consoles. Feels like they're never going to come out.

Anyway, I'm not worried. It'll be enough for what they want to do with it.

The question then would be how many.  Renting the space is the first part.  Next would be to provide the actual servers.  How much space and how many locations will also be a factor.  The software to run the servers I know they are using openStack but Sony is customizing it for themselves which will require a lot of development time.  There is a lot of stuff that goes into a cloud base service like this and having the infrastructure already makes a big difference.  Anyway, this is all speculation at this point until Either company lauch their service.  I will be watching this area as its something I work with all the time.  

Exactlt what I've been arguing this whole time. Speculating that gaikai won't be able to handle its own service simply because MS has 300k servers doesn't make any sense. Sony will likely have what it needs for it to function. Who knows what they need, and who knows what kind of quality the word "function" entails. All speculation. End of story.

A rumoured service, again rumoured for 2015 from MS, is a big leap ahead of a demonstrated service confirmed for launch in 2014 from Sony? Seems pretty unlikely.

Actually, I am not sure if anyone was arguing if Gaikai can handle the limited launch Sony has planned.  Instead, people are arguing if Gaikai can scale as fast and as large as what MS can do at this time.  Gaikai cannot just function, it has to perform at a level where people are willing to invest their money to use the service.  Gaikai is a risk for Sony because they really do not need another product that does not bring in money.  If Gaikai is only so so, works for a limited amount of people or is more expensive to run compared to the install base could be problematic.  You have a lot of hope that Sony can make something work they really do not have a lot of experience doing.  I have the view that there will be a lot of growing pains and hopefully the PS crowd are patience.

As far as what Gaikai needs and the quality of the service, that part is not obscure as the service has been running for a few years.  As of right now, the service needs to be better than what it was when Sony bought Gaikai.  There is a reason why they sold their business to Sony.  The speculation part I am mentioning is how much Sony has committed funds to make Gaikai a success.  This is the part I am interested in because its a big risk.   The investment will be substantial.  I know from my own business, its a real balancing act on how many servers you buy, how many datacenters you deploy those servers, how much service you purchase from those datacenters, hosting cost and how much business we can sell hosting our solution for customers. Its really a complex dance and doing to much if the customer base is not there will leave you with a big cost you have to eat.

The advantage MS has in this area is that their cloud base service and datacenters is revenue not a cost.  Gaikai for Sony probably will be a cost for who knows how many years and if it does not take off, could be a money pit.  MS on the other hand can easily drop their stream service if it does not bring in money or keep it going if the cost is not as large as the long term scope of the project.  Not sure about anyone else, but my argument is that MS just has way more advantages in this area and its not the number of servers.  They have the infrastructure, the software that runs the datacenters and a profitable business already in place.  MS has the expertise in this field and they are one of the leaders in this space.  MS has the software technology and can leverage all of their cloud services for Rio.  You arr arguing about servers which is one aspect of a larger piece.

The thing is you forget MS has a much longer history than what we hear now. They have servers in every corner of the world and are first and foremost a software company with lots of competence in that area.

I'm not going to read your post if you're not going to read the thread.

It matters not.  You have an opinion and I have mine, weather you read it or not I stated my case.

You're right. The only thing that matters is proving yourself as someone who argues against a pro-Sony view simply for the sake of it.

As in, my only argument is that you can't judge how well Sony is going to be able to support their advertised services simply because MS has a lot more potential capability due to various support structures. If you can't be bothered to read my points, and yet continue to argue against what I'm saying, (and while I give you leeway that you're not the biggest offender *looks at walsufnir*) comments with the intention of demonizing or undermining this pretty simple point doesn't come off as objectivity.

So yeah, it matters not, because I already knew the kind of people I was arguing against. I gain nothing from this argument, but maybe you can.