What assumption am I making here exactly?
- That PS4 has a significantly more powerful GPU? Nope that's a fact.
- That PS4 has significantly faster RAM? Nope that's a fact.
- That the Xbox One team is increasing clockspeed for a insignificant speedboost (single digit percentage-wise), which does both inherently increase the cost of production and risk of operation (albeit likely just as marginally as the resulting computing power increase is)? Nope that's a fact.
To me, it is clear that increasing clockspeed this late in the game is primarily spin. It's about winning back some of the mindshare of core consumers. The Xbox One may only be 1% faster than before, but Microsoft is hoping to win back 10% mindshare. Sure - you can say this is pure conjecture, but really, the corporate tailspin caused by post E3 preorder numbers, and the resulting backpaddling and constantly on-going spin on Xbox One and all of its features, especially hardware-power-wise, is painfully obvious.
We don't know how much more powerful PS4 is. All we do know is, that it is built with significantly better components, that are more elegantly assembled, and that we will pay a 100$ less for it all. That's really all I need to know right now.
That's ridiculous. Unless you're claiming they're lying about the changes I have no idea how anyone can refer to actual, physical hardware changes as "spin". It doesn't matter what their reason is for increasing their specs might be. You can speculate about this all you want, but it's irrelevant to this discussion. The actual hardware specification and differences, and whatever changes they made that may affect those numbers are not.
And you're making some general statements, "more, more more" in a thread where we're talking about specific numbers and questioning their accuracy. Then the only numbers you have in there are just numbers you're coming up with out of thin air. Yes we don't know, and that's kind of the point of the discussion. To get close to accurately finding that out with numbers backed up by credible sources and followed up with logical conclusions. That's called hard facts.
In addition nobody is questioning the points you are making. Those are not in question. Your generic conclusions however had to have came from you either researching the hardware numbers yourself or reading other people's posts or articles discussing these numbers. And that's what this is about.
PS: I bolded your assumptions. That's what I would refer to as assumptions. Phrases like that just don't belong in a conversation about hardware specs and simply don't help. The only fact you have in your entire post is that it's $100 less. Now that is a known fact.