Considering a "Mini-PC" with 32GB of RAM & >=780M iGPU can be had TODAY on Amazon for ~$400 the only reasons to get a 'Steam Machine' is it is "plug & play" (no setup) and has (on paper) better performance.

I'm sorry but the supporting arguments for the ETHER verson of Ally are at best very weak.

First, most OEM's have a seemingly $1K "line in the sand" drawn for new "Gaming PC" offerings, and with anything BELOW that price point to be under performing with very obvious compromises in components to reach that price point.

The 'better' performing 'Handheld Gaming PC' (an oxymoron if there ever was one!) prices can be fairly locked in > $1K as they might or could be competing with Gaming laptops.

Honestly, if a buyer is considering one of the 'weaker' handhelds they would be better served by merely getting a 'Steam Deck' then an Ally in the first place. Much better price/performance and not stuck with WIN11.

If the buyer is giving up on performance all together and thinking of leaning into Streaming, then there are "Streaming" specific devices that are available for MUCH LESS COST or even an Odin2 (mini) costs much less and can play both Streaming services OR you can stream your PC games to. It also can be used to emulate nearly countless other platforms (similar to the x86 counter parts) but at a FRACTION of the cost of an x86 device.

Thank you for sharing this information with us. kadashika

If this were true Valve doesn't understand the console market.  People want to plug in two cords in the outside of their devices and get gaming.

Buying RAM and opening up a box is already two steps backwards for most casual gamers.  Higher-end gamers buy their own systems.

The more and more I read about this thing the less realistically I see it finding more than a niche.  The financials don't square out.

My faith in Consumer Reports has vastly waned over the years.  Their priority of marking automated safety systems as beneficial over basic human awareness is highly concerning.  An example: Bright headlights that are marked higher because it allows thee driver "to see further," but ignoring how it blinds all oncoming drivers, is not a safety trade-off I want to encourage.  And yet--here we are.

Automated braking?  The first time I witnessed this was on a Jeep.  It was braking randomly on curvy roads because it detected oncoming vehicles in the curve as a threat.  Cars behind us could potentially rear-end us.  Atrocious!  Worse than the intention!

I have a suspicion that Teslas automation makes drivers WORSE, because of the false sense of security.  Anecdotal and all, but it's a rare Tesla driver that bothers to signal on lane changes.  Possibly because they have depended on the car automating it for them?

I was a subscriber of CR for years.  I could easily manipulate the driver feedback survey they sent out yearly.  There were no checks or balances for verification of my answers.  That in and of itself isn't scientific.  There's a survey bias present in just answering their surveys.  All-around a very messy way to gather data, and therefore:untrustworthy.