I think it looks like Microsoft vs. Amazon with Microsoft having a large advantage. 

Google made too many errors with their launch, I guess they could get back in the game but would have to make a large investment in a studio or two (or three).

I believe your problem is that you keep comparing what people do today as if things do not change.  How many people do you see with their Switch out in public.  I see a lot.  So what really going to change is custom controllers for Cell phones that easily connect and disconnect providing all the function of a switch, Xbox or PS controller.  Tech moves and if you are the person that says, well they do not do it today, you will be the first left behind.  Its not a question of what they do today but how you get them to do what you vision for tomorrow.  The thing is, console games are coming to Cell phones and once people start to take it up more, using on screen controls will not be enough.  This is when the accessories start to take off and you start to see innovative controllers.  Once this switch happens it will be a gold rush.

Totally agree with you. I know gaming is different compared to music/movies, and that's why I think it will take some time (>5 years) for streaming to establish itself in the gaming industry.

Thank you for the link. I did not know this.

I am not surprised. Amazon, Azure, and GCP do have such a significant infrastructure advantage that it does not make sense for Sony to go in this market by itself.

100% agree. Content is and always will be king in this industry.

Microsoft is the better positioned company at this moment in time. It would be interesting to see how Sony and Nintendo react.

I like your analysis.

However, what about Sony vs. Nintendo vs the streaming services vs Apple Arcade? Do you think streaming will be king?

I think the value proposition of streaming can definitely reel in "da casualz".

Really unlikely that game streaming takes off, unless consoles, and any other method of playing games locally has died off. There will always be latency with streaming, and when the service removes a game, you've lost access to it.

Streaming passive media =/= streaming interactive media. So far, every attempt to successfully stablish game straming as something relevant has failed. You can blame it in technology not being quite there as much as you like. But in the end, the experience will ALWAYS  be inferior to running the game locally and it is just not as appealling. I don't know why some people insist on thinking that game streaming is the future of the industry, when history and technology are telling us the opposite.

I am waiting to see if something like Gamepass ends up on the Switch.  If so, then they aren't really competing.  They are complementary, and it's very possible that both can succeed at the same time.

But let's say, for the sake of argument that nothing like this happens and they all end up competing.  My analysis doesn't change much.  Switch ends up dominating traditional console gamers in places like Japan, North America, and Europe.  There are also people in these regions who might get Gamepass, but it will be more for the games instead of for the value Gamepass is trying to offer.  If someone wants to play Elder Scrolls or Halo then they will get Gamepass simply because of the games.  

I put "da casualz" in quotes, because this is actually more than one group of people.  In places with a robust console market (Japan, North America, much of Europe), the so-called casuals are mostly people who do not like the classic controller.  These controls are too complicated.  They like using the Wii remote or a touch screen or something like that.  They will never play Gamepass even if it's free.  The value doesn't matter to them.  It's the controller.  So these people will play on mobile devices and maybe the Switch and that is it.  Apple Arcade is in the best position to appeal to these people, but they also just might keep using the microtransaction model instead.

Then there are all of the people who live in areas where there isn't much of a console market (like India).  This is another group of "da casualz".  The gamers in these markets are PC gamers.  But there are also people in these regions who don't game because they can't afford a PC, but they can afford a phone.  A service like Gamepass might really take off in this kind of market.  It makes gaming possible for people who couldn't afford it before.  It also will be a better value than Steam, so it might take customers away from Steam.

So, if we are talking about the next few years, then Nintendo is going to be the clear winner in traditional markets.  Gamepass will be the best streaming service and it might grow a lot if it gets good penetration into markets where consoles are not popular.  And Apple's mobile games (including Apple Arcade) will be a steadily growing service as well.  All 3 are in a good position to succeed in their own ways.  If I have to pick a winner going head to head, I'd say Nintendo.  But Gamepass and Apple can get to a lot of regions that don't have access to a Switch.  All 3 can be successful.

I agree the experience will always be inferior. However there will be a time when it won't be that much inferior and the market will recognize it.

Kind of like an Innovator's Dilemma case study... sooner or later it will happen.