Buying in bulk, is buying in bulk. Saying they couldn't get a better deal on 3.5", but could on 2.5", doesn't make sense from the manufacturers side. It's not like 3.5" is being phased out or anything like that. A 3.5" HDD could not fit inside the OG PS4 as it was designed, so it meant either a redesign, or a 2.5" HDD.

If PS and XB are so worried about noise, space, consumption, and heat, then an SSD would be way better than any HDD next gen, if the right price can be met.

XB may have just went with DDR3, because XB1 wasn't directly focused on gaming, plus that was the norm for APU's at that time. I remember reading that the PS decision was not quite as last minute as some may think, so GDDR5 supply may have been locked up so XB couldn't even use it even it they wanted to. That or XB would have possibly had to pay more and wait longer to launch, while building up GDDR5 supply, which they probably didn't want to do. I remember reading about all of the XB1 updates and add on software after launch, that made many wonder if the XB1 was rushed to some degree.

Just way too much to take into account at the moment. Storage for PS5 could possibly be what RAM was for PS4. A big surprise.

I never said anything to the contrary.

That is entirely dependent on costs of course.

Not the norm for APU's at the time? Common. You need to do better than that.

The Playstation 4 uses almost the same technology as the Xbox One, released around the same time, likely started it's development process around the same time.
It used GDDR5.

There was some concern over GDDR5 supply.
Anandtech had an article on it.

Certainly not a rushed console with the eSRAM and over engineered cooling system.

Comments in bold. 

Again, way to many what if's, and not enough known's. For me personally anyway. I hope I'm pleasantly surprised.

That's in reference to all drives.
And is applicable to all drives, including optical. - I could have explained myself better I suppose.

The Xbox 360's chip used GDDR3 rather than DDR3. We could technically class that as an APU once the GPU was integrated within the CPU.

There were many reasons why Microsoft chose DDR3 over GDDR5, the fact it was an "APU" wasn't one of them.

There are several outlets on the internet which can be held in extremely high regard.
Anandtech and Digital Foundry falls into that category.

I wouldn't brush them aside casually.

These devices are in the design phase for years.

There were a ton of hints and leaked information dropped about the Xbox One years prior to it's launch.

The Xbox One was most certainly not a rushed console, anyone looking at the motherboard, the over engineered cooling and power delivery understands this.
The software was immature, but the same went for the Playstation 4, Wii U, Switch, Xbox 360, Playstation 3 as well, it's normal for a new platform release, they get patched and updated over time.

I hate it when people reply in Bold, it makes my job replying more difficult.  Haha

Optical. Storage.

I would hope not for their sake.

Who's refuting them?

If only that darn DRM and Kinect wasn't baked right into the hardware. Too bad XB wasn't willing to gamble.

Surprise. lol

I just had a thought. If the XB4 and PS5 release in the same year, they will probably be pretty similarly powered and priced. Other specs would become more important to differentiate them, then. What would be a better selling point? A high capacity, lower speed drive to store lots of 100+ GB games, or a high speed, low capacity drive to load said games much quicker? If they're going head to head, which do you think they'll go with?

If I am not mistaken, the key issue over the whole RAM thing back then was not just a supply issue, but more importantly a supply issue of 4Gb (gigabit) GDDR5 chips (PS4 cerca 2013 had 16 of such chips). No one could have been sure of those chips would become readily available or the launch of the consoles. Sony was even rumoured to be juggling the idea of using 4GB of GDDR5 and 4GB of DDR3. Even their developers said they found out about the 8GB when we all did.

MS went with DDR3 cause right off the bat they wanted to have 8GB of ram...... but cause they anticipated that it wont be possible to make that of the GDDR5 variety early on in the life of their console design they went the ESram route which is actually a more complex chip design that what sony's approach was. That shows a lot of forward thinking and indicates that they were never rushed. 

Sony was going with the split ram thingy until they got their breakthrough and lucked out on 4Gb GDDR5 ram chips being available. It was relatively easier for them to rework their board.

This right here is the real reason sony is against cross play.

At the end of the day, when there is absolutely nothing to separate the consoles anymore (consider that right now we are at a point where comparisons usually have to zoom in by like 200%+ to highlight differences or we are comparing framerates that differ by like 2-7 frames.... yes, thats nitpicking) the only thing to differentiate them would be games and userbase.

Chances are, if the two consoles are exactly the same, then everyone that has a PS4 now will go with a PS5 and everyone that has a XB1 will get an XB2. The next generation of the HD twins will be more "identical" than ever before. Its only their software lineup that will differentiate them. Something MS finally seems to be catching onto if we are to take Phil Spencers words as fact which suggests that MS are gonna start acquiring studios or making new ones. 

Good point. The more similar the consoles become as time goes on, the less the hardware will matter. Games and service will become more than just ammunition. Would XB ever make a deal where they pay PS to have Live on the PS5 as a service, and stop making hardware altogether? XB exclusives on a PS console? Would PS prefer or even allow that? It would give PS some more control and would drive customers to the physical PS hardware and software ecosystem.

I have a hard time seeing XB acquire more studios. The problems with studios leaving XB, some employee's not being happy there, plus closing studios as well. Maybe XB will or have changed their attitude, maybe they haven't or won't. Creating their own new studios makes much more sense, since those employee's now know what they are getting into and XB won't have to deal with changing those existing companies habits, to fit what XB wants. More work yes, but also much more stable and reliable once complete.

I would guess PS would choose a lesser TB SSD over a greater TB HDD. In bulk, PS should be able to get a way better deal on SSD's than any consumer could. This would allow the consumer to be able to buy a greater TB external HDD, for cheap at retail, instead of having that consumer buy a more expensive lower TB external SSD, or swap out the stock HDD with the SSD. By that time we may also be at USB 4 or 5 potentially. The average consumer will also see SSD on the PS box, and HDD on the Xbox, and will ask or find out what the difference is. When they read or are told that HDD is ancient tech and SSD is the latest and greatest, which means drastically faster load times, people will lean towards the newer tech in a new console, as long as the price is right. Whether it's SSD or M.2 or whatever, PS should incorporate that into the stock system using their mass purchasing influence and allow customers to buy a cheap mass storage HDD at retail, whether there is an extra space to slot it in the console or external.