My thinking was that this was an interesting case study in the free market. MS was demonstrably not listening to it's consumers and they were literally "storming the caste" over a box that was apparently designed by lawyers and not gamers, catering more to DRM than simply being a gaming console that was easy to use and fun to play.
The outcry over the limitations that were going to be intentionally incorporated as standard functionality lead MS to reconsider their positions.
We have several Xboxes at home and no PS3s, before I go on. This is a nice concession, however having considered the lack of backward compatibility, we are basically back to square one as far as comparing to the PS4, which was the default choice prior to this announcement.
Given my experiences with two XBricks, I'm concerned that even if Xbox was $100 less, equal to the PS4, I'd give the PS4 a shot given we can't play the current library on the new system. We'd have to buy the current gen Xbox if another one bricks. It's kind of like considering the quality implications of a Chevy versus a Toyota in that arena. There's more than a little anger still after two RRODs (Red Ring of Death - the failure code for an Xbox which they are notorious for.) We've had to replace 66% of our units to put this in perspective and we suspect it will reach 133% shortly.
I've had three Xbox units. One was an original XBox that I got late 2004. I got the RROD with relatively little playing time on it. Replaced it in 2008 with an XBox 360. It went Tango Uniform on me in late 2010. Neither Xbox was ever hooked up to the network. Simply used them for stand-alone campaign mode play. Bought a 360 slim in early 2011 and have had no issues. Since February 2012, I've been on line at least 4 times a week for at least an hour at a time or better, and have used it probably 10 times more than both the other two combined.