theprof00 said:
Squilliam said:
theprof00 said:
MS is using a bottom-up "disruptive" product. It is very low end and is very limited. However, MS doesn't seem to understand that a disruptive product also requires a low price, so I don't understand their strategy right now. A bottom-up disruptive product is often identified by its low margin low quality that established brands are afraid of promoting. For example, Nintendo makes a lot of money on peripherals. Kinect is peripheral free. Nintendo wants to keep this kind of tech from becoming popular because it reduces their profit margin.
|
Price always depends on the perspective. Arguably the Kinect console at $300 is the same price the Wii launched at considering the thing which sold the Wii early on was 2-4 player Wii Sports. They are using a 5 year old amortised console (Xbox 360) rebranding it and using it as the basis for their technology. Since they tore the Kinect accessory down in order to lower its overall cost I would have to argue that its coming in on the low end of the price spectrum. Their use of accessories to justify cost does indicate where they are coming from. The Xbox 360 Kinect is supposed to replicate one Wii console two Wiimotes balance board for $300.
I didn't want to talk about Kinect in this thread, but I felt I had to since you were making so many interesting points...
|
I agree, I think it makes a lot of sense, they just have to make sure the consumer is aware of how "value-added" it is compared to a wii and balance board.
But anyways, good thread. I think a lot of the points you made are just very slightly innaccurate as to what the motivations are, but there is some soun reasoning behind it. However, I believe that the market Sony is targeting is not just their core market, it is an ignored market.
|
I hadn't thought of it as trying to be a top down disruption as I had never thought of the concept before you linked that information. Thanks for that.
Anyway I never intended to be right or to show that Move would definately be successful or defeat the Wii etc etc. I just wanted to show that Sony does indeed have a strategy even if it doesn't appear to be the case from the surface. They just have to do things differently to Microsoft and Nintendo because of the fundamental difference in what they are offering compared to what currently exists in the market. Im repeating myself here, but selling a better mouse trap is different from trying to sell the very first mousetrap.
