Nope not wrong. Googles failures are more a result of a boneheaded approach filled with lots of promises and little substance. Google will either lick its wounds and start playing the long game or they will lose interest and let their cloud gaming ambitions die. MS has been far more savvy in how they approach the market with streaming. They will not have a problem on content and they will have the traditional gaming alongside rather than alienate 10 of millions of individuals. Cloud gaming in time will either be successful and make accessibility to loads of awesome games easier for many or it won't. MS is taking that bet and he is rightly saying that Sony and Nintendo aren't positioned to do that on a fundamental level. He isn't wrong on that.
No he's definitely wrong. He's equating not having ONE element of a vast myriad of Components: you need:
Games
Network infrastructure
Hardware infrastructure (Cloud GPUs)
He's trying to argue that they have the network infrastructure so that automatically puts them at an advantage. But your have GeForce Now launching who OWN and CREATE the GPUs the games run on. Microsoft doesn't make their own GPUs and no I'm not saying this puts Nvidia above MS. What I am saying is that the technical components and elements are only part of the story and why they are a
Competitive Strength
The lack of it does not exclude competitors like
Nintendo, Sony, or Nvidia.
As it stands Sony has the single most successfully cloud gaming service even several months after Google's big entry.
Nvidia just make big moves.
If Phil is banking on them not being able to compete just like Google did he's in for a rude awakening.
to further this, Sony even stated in their investors meeting last May, that have over 100 million consoles around the world capable of acting as Cloud game providers.This and the expansion of remote play greatly offsets their need for data center infrastructure.
