You get it backward.

I`m not saying XBSS is replacing X1X, but it is more capable than it so getting the same version of X1S isn`t cutting it. It really does seem like the console was totally capable of doing it but they decided to not. Guess it will be one of those cases where "you can't simply turn a flip"

Well what was XB1 technically capable of that it didn't do either? Did it have BC at launch? Just because it could, doesn't mean it should. There's always tomorrow. There are plenty of products in all sectors that simply need slight changes or unlocks to allow for full use. People themselves are capable of much more than they typically output. Just depends on what you want to offer vs someone or something else.

When the service will be available on the same family of products and it is technically capable then yes they are just removing that from the baseline to make the more expensive look more valuable. And that is from the consumer friendly company right?

Everything can be anti consumer if you want to look at it that way when it comes to options.

What if XBSS was in a larger form factor with more space like XBSX? Could it not likely have it's performance boosted somewhat? How much more would that really cost MS and couldn't they easily eat that cost?

If I remember correctly, I believe way back, when I suggested a $299 ish, 1080p next gen console, that I said they should make it 1080p only, period. No 4k at all, and for this reason. As soon as they allowed some form of 4k, the question would come up about why not all 4k options?

Thing is, somebody would have questioned why no 4k upscaling anyway, so. I mean how could it not upscale to 4k right? Well where does it stop is the question?

There would be no real benefit in making the casing of Series S the same of Series X it would just be empty space, why would it boost performance? The lower GPU is due to the selection of chip not casing.

The TV will upscale to 4k anyway, but sure considering even X1S had an upscaler and a 4k disc there really is no reason for MS to not have upscaler on Series S (and well it was confirmed to support 1440p60fps rendering).

And nope it isn`t everything that should be called anti-consumer. It is just when it is pretty clear that something was possible, and is made by them and is just not allowed because of their own decisions. There is no real defense for a console that is at least equal in power to X1X to not be allowed to run X1X version of the game but go for X1S version.

The tighter the hardware is confined, the tougher it is to cool and hotter it will likely run, or louder it will sound. If they put XBSS in a bigger shell, they could likely boost the APU clocks to some degree without losing too much due to yields. Was this choice anti consumer?

Ya but those in the know, know that TV upscaling almost never beats the hardware doing it itself. If you've bought an XBSS, how expensively high end is your TV likely to be?

So would you also agree SNY is anti consumer for not offering a $299 version of the PS5? Did MS have to, or could they have just kept XB1X with XBSX, or better yet, launch XBSX only while discontinuing XB1X anyway?

The Series X will be a much better purchase long term since in a few years games could be running poorly on the S. I'd only recommend the S if someone really can't afford the X or for getting a second Xbox for whatever reason.

Depends on how hardcore you are. If you require the very best experience possible, assuming you can afford it and are willing to pay for it to have that experience, then you probably want to get the XBSX.
If you're not that hardcore and just want something that plays next gen games reasonably well, with limited BC capabilities, etc, or simply can't afford it, then XBSS will be just fine, for a while anyway.

If you buy the XBSS, you need to do so assuming you may need to upgrade to XBSX 3 or 4 years in for your gaming experience to remain the same. You may not have to, but you need to be prepared to. By that time, XBSX should be $299-$399 and may possibly be all digital as well.
XBSS will be able to operate like XB1S does now. It'll play games at 900p (or lower) if it has to and upscale them to 1080p, likely later in the gen.

Truth is you won't really know how this will play out down the road. Will MS drop an upgrade in 3 or 4 years, or will they have a shorter gen and come out with a 4k and 8k console for next gen? Nobody knows for sure.

Xbox One X has 12GB of Ram and the Xbox Series S has 10GB.
20% is a fair chunk.

The Xbox One X also has more compute on the graphics processor which could be doing some offloading.
Either way, the Xbox Series S *could* run the games in an "enhanced" state, but it wouldn't be able to brute-force, it would require for all games to be reworked, if people cared about 4k enhanced games, they would not be buying a more budget orientated 1080P/1440P console anyway.

The size of the console isn't anti-consumer, the CPU it have is almost the same as Series X, the GPU is like 1/3, and everything else scalled to meet the need, so even if you made it twice the size it would barely matter.

You are trying to make a enormous strawman here. Sony is losing a lot of money on discless PS5 to the point people are complaining that they are paying to much for the one with disc for 100 USD more.

It would be anti-consumer if Sony for example decided that digital PS5 won't have BC for the digital titles because it can't o BC for physical due to not having disc. Keeping or discontinuing X1X is irrelevant.

There is plenty of HW leeway between using X1S version and allowing it enhanced on Series S.

Sure 20% difference in RAM is something, still you have PS4Pro version of those 3rd party games that run at over 1080p without needing over 8Gb of system RAM. Also wasn't confirmed that OS of Series uses less RAM than X1S and X1X?

And considering the SSD advantages that could also give some leverage for the RAM. The fact is that they are just cheaping it out since the HW is capable of much more than they are allowing it.