And Aaron Greenberg denied it clearly later on Twitter. If Microsoft were asking here for advice I don't think they'd launched even 360, or would have left The market with the RROD, or when Sony sold more YoY with Ps3... there have been so many people advising and predicting MS to leave console market... 

While any article from a website called "furiousfanboys" is bound to be awful, that doesn't mean that there isn't some validity to saying power matters, as long as that difference in power is actually demonstrable in a significant way. Of course, there are other factors that matter just as much, if not more, price being one of them. There is also Sony's massive brand name in most of the non-natively-English-speaking countries and the adoption, whether fast or slow, of 4ktvs to serve as secondary factors. To say we have any real idea which company is clearly on the right path is premature, as without the full context of whether the companies nail the price points and pr involved, we only have a single factor to examine, which is only a partial part of the pie. 

So, who's right? Spencer or Greenberg? And those people were semi-right about MS leaving the console market.

Spencer have never said that, Shannon Loftis was, and Greenberg amend her later.

How is going to leave console market while is launching two new models? MS only can leave the console market not launching new hardware anymore, sharing exclusives with W10 is not near leaving The console market.

Yes, MS has lots of money, but Xbox doesn't.  We have seen MS starting to distance the Xbox name from other divisions, such as music and video.  We have seen them abandon deals that they made all the time last gen, like COD adversing exclusivity.  Recently, they dropped several studios and games that were in development.  Why?  Because MS is investing less in Xbox than at the start of the gen.  It's the same reason they are demanding all of their exclusives be put on Windows PCs, instead of staying exclusive to Xbox.  They are going to start focusing more on SW, as opposed to HW.

Yes, the XBO S is partly to push more HW, but it is mostly to cut production costs.  Like I said, I'm sure the Scorpio will be pushed just as much, if not more, as a Windows 10 VR console, than as a Xbox.  And consoles are not going anywhere, anytime soon.  People thought this gen was going to be dead because of how the Wii U performed, yet the PS4 is selling just fine, and it's only dropped $50 from when it launched almost 3 years ago.  With further price cuts and only on PS4 exclusives, it'll have no problem getting to 100M+.

Yes, those companies invest heavy on Software to sell their hardware and make profit with that and this is the reason the Exclusives of each console are the Gaming's finest games, look at how much Sega did when was still with their console hardware, look of what Sega is doing now, without the Commitment of selling a Plataform they are focusing on Mobile, MMORPG, and Indie games and those give more money per software, Big projects only exist to sell hardware.

Yes, because selling a Multimidia/function/everything device that are PC, Phones, is the same as selling a Console  that will have no exclusive feature and  that building a PC would be much more worth than purchasing it because people would be able to play Xbox games + Pc games and would have freedom.

Microsoft isn't trying to make it a "Open plataform" is just a closed plataform without exclusives and that any people would eventually install the Windows 10 sooner or later.

Consoles are much expensive I doubt that Scorpio will have anything less than Xbox One's launch price or even more, People need to pay 60US+DLC per game, People will not throw a lot of money into something that they will be tied to while they have a better option that would also give freedom for the users and while Microsoft is focusing on the PC as much as the Xbox One (or even more).

Sega did it with Tectoy and the Mastersystem sold 5+ Millions of units on the Brazil but the console is out for 15-25US$ with tons of games, not Scorpio's scenario.

I disagree with the point on the music and video service dropping the Xbox name as an effort to diminish the emphasis on the Xbox brand. I believe this was necessary to dilineate the 2 services and to keep gaming separate. Especially now that MS with Windows 10 is trying to push its app and services to the masses. MS rightfully needed to keep the notion of gaming as a separate entity. This is where Sony succeeded by pushing its console primary as a gaming experience rather an all round entertainment machine. I commend you however for acknowledging that MS released the Xbox One Slim to push HW. This is very much the point I am making in regards to its commitment even if there is a cost cutting motive involved. I still think tho that the console will be around forever idea is wrong. This is where MS are playing it smart for preparing for a future where gaming will become a subscription service on multiple devices. This is inevitable - especially with streaming that can be done on W10. Even Sony has partially adopted this with its W10 PS4 streaming app. Regarding the closure of unprofitable studios- I think all the console makers have been guilty of this. That's just business sense. MS did acquire some studios as well such as Mojang. This is placing them well for when they do become a service. In ten years time gaming will be a service on very powerful convertible and mobile, tablet devices. Consoles will end ultimately.

I think that if Sony closed shop every time some other company start to talk of releasing a console more powerful than theirs about a year after their product hit the market... they would not have released the PS2 yet.. I mean, the OG xbox and gamecube released about 18 months after the PS2 (thus were more advanced) but price and content played big roles, along with timing, etc.

People are just speculating with too little in their hands, we have yet to see how long before Sony's machine will be there and how much of an impact it has, what the price difference is and how they both perform in the real world (beyond the 4K console PR speak, how does it materialize?).

Specs are an important factor for a console (the PS1 was the best performing console upon release, the NES was the best performing console upon release, the PS2 was arguably more powerful than any other console upon release, same for the 360)... people did not compare them to upcoming tech, they bought what was there, then when other more powerful machines came to be the others just had too much momentum built for them, the library made the rest... heck, even the Atari 2600 was much weaker than its competition, but they all came out later! and sold much less...

so the right question now is: is the first mover a better advantage than specs? the answer is "it depends on the execution" as MS has seen with the 360, it does not always work, even if your product is great (however, the 360 was seriously flawed).

People categorically refused online-only gaming 3 years ago and you think they'll be ok with online-only service in 10 years time? You will always need a box to play games so why not use consoles?

I truly believe that devices whether they be tablets, convertibles or phones will be ultra powerful in a decades time  which can plug into a hd TV and Nintendo, PlayStation or Xbox will increasingly become a service for playing our favourite games. Xbox on Windows 10 is the first step towards this approach. MS know this and are forward looking by future proofing the Xbox brand.