| theprof00 said: |
No No No. You've got it all wrong. While it's good your reading, you have to be reading it right. Like studying for a test, there is no point in doing it if you are doing it wrong in the first place.
You guys rely far too much on disruption like it's a perfect strategy that higher ups are just too old to understand. In terms of disruption, Kinect is completely disruptive in several areas, but it won't have the same effect the wii had.
A disruptive product has to be disrupting something. The Wii disrupted Sony and Microsoft by making the games easier to play and enjoyable by a wide audience of people. Kinect is not disruptive. For one, Microsoft is an incumbent, so they can not be disrupting. Second, Kinect has to be disrupting something. Since it has very similar values to the Wii, it would not be disrupting the Wii.
Kinect is the response from the incumbents. Microsoft made Kinect to stop Nintendo from expanding upmarket, where Microsoft's core consumers are.
Smash, I'm curious why you think the only solution is to either buy Nintendo or disrupt them. In just a few short months, the wii will be in red ocean, and with their announcements at e3 of classic titles and re-envisionings, they made it clear that they are re-entering red ocean, and Nintendo has not done well in red ocean when the competition is just as strong.
To quote Christensen.
Fleeing from the disruptive attacker feels good in the short term but further deprives the incumbent of the necessary skills to compete. The end can come swiftly and can appear stunning to the untrained eye. Typically, the best an incumbent can do is to belatedly acquire the winning firm and stave off ultimate destruction.
Nintendo is at the disadvantage here. Consider the stream of disruption. The competition is supposed to abandon markets and move upwards as the disrupter moves upwards. However, the competition is moving downstream to meet the wii. Additionally, consider the competition. Kinect is moving directly at the wii with the type of gaming and control style, and Move is aimed at gamers but with the expanded control style. So not only did the competition move downstream, but they ocupy several levels. Kinect is directly in the wii market, and Move is just above them in a smaller, nicher market composed of the traditional core.
Sony and Microsoft are not moving downstream. Nintendo has the lower markets locked. Sony and Microsoft are counter attacking Nintendo.
When the incumbent has retreated into the highest tiers of its market and has to fight because there is no room for further retreat, it is at a competitive disadvantage. As the game changes to the one the disruptor plays best, it is very hard for the incumbents to develop new skills quickly.
Nintendo is looking at some obstacles. Look at their history with the wii. They used a crappy controller that didn't do what everyone thought it would do. Then they expanded with the board. Then, they moved upstream with the motion . Now the competition is expanding downstream. Nintendo has the vitality sensor for some more expansion, but they currently have no means of moving upstream.
Your missing how disruption works. The Wii remotes goes at the lower tiers because it offers values the others are not providing. It moves upmarket because the Wii remote improves and reaches people who were undershot by it. They eventually make it better as they better understand customer's needs. So they improve and move upmarket. That is what Motion Plus is. This image should give you an idea.
They have the 3DS, but it has no additional functionality. Think about this: Apple is dominating the handheld market, and their product is even crappier than the 3DS. Crappy games, but expanded functionality. The fact of the matter is, Apple really does push more games than any other console out there all because the expanded consumer is satisfied with crappy games. Additionally, Apple has a network and social interaction, something Nintendo doesn't even acknowledge. How many people do you think are interested in 3D, but only on a 4 inch screen? As far as disruption goes, it makes sense. It's a much smaller screen, a small crappy screen for a crappy consumer. That's disruption. However, what expansion is it making? That's the whole point of disrupting. Why did wii succeed? It is because it expanded the market to people who were into gaming, but not the geek image of gaming. How does 3DS replicate this? The answer is that it does not. In fact, it is even geekier than before.
You are totally wrong. Disruption is about crappy product because the mainstream industry sees them as such. They are crappy customers because they are not a big money maker for the incumbent. They rely on their best customers who keep buying (i.e. Hardcore gamers). Don't think too much on the "crappy," part. Think about what new doors they open.
Apple will have no success in video games. They don't even have their own development staff. They have no hope of being able to break into it without that. Right now, they are on par with cell phone games, which have never broken intp the mainstream market.Apple is unlikely to disrupt anyone as Christensen doesn't even like to use it as an example. Most of Apple's moves have been Red Ocean.
Also, the 3DS is disrupting Sony's 3D business. In this case, Sony is the incumbent.
Now I'm not saying 3DS is going to fail. It is a DS. It will be impossible to fail. However, don't think for a minute that Nintendo is some agile, fresh, cutting edge-strategy kind of company and that Sony and MS are lumberingly slow Goliaths who are stuck in the old ways of doing things.
Again, Nintendo is disrupting Sony's 3D. Watch their press conference (Nintendo) and you can see it clear as day.
