We all know why Sony have said nothing. They have never had the weaker console, why would they start now?
This...isn't true. Now PS4 was more powerful than XBO across the board, but their other systems? Nowhere near as clear. PS3 had a poorer RAM implementation and weaker GPU than 360 (conversely, PS3 did have the stronger CPU). PS2 had lower resolution, polygon throughput, RAM than Xbox and Gamecube (even Dreamcast in regards resolution and VRAM; Dreamcast supported VGA output and generally had better texturing and mipmapping); conversely, PS2 had the best pixel/particle fillrate of all systems that generation (even ports of games like Zone of the Enders to 360 had the particle effects scaled back on those ports).
PS1 had less RAM than Saturn and N64, lesser hardware for 2D than Saturn, less theoretical polygon throughput than N64 and Saturn and weaker texture stability than N64 and Saturn, but had better 3D GPU than Saturn and better FMV output than Saturn and N64 (due to built-in MPEG decoding hardware and use of CDs as delivery medium, which was something N64 could not leverage).
PS4 is the outlier in terms of Sony's home console systems regards being outright most powerful. They don't have the aversion to power the way Nintendo took post-Gamecube, but they are not as gung-ho on being the most supremely powerful as people seem to think, historically speaking. A balanced hardware approach has usually been their approach, combining with push of some sort of new delivery medium of game software. Basically they carry on Nintendo's older console philosophy in terms of power/price optimization combined with their own focus on new medium delivery mechanisms for each system.