Alby_da_Wolf said:
Smashchu2 said:
Alby_da_Wolf said:
Smashchu2 said:
Alby_da_Wolf said:
^^ When Malstrom says "disrupting the disruptor", you could call it counter-disruption, the meaning is roughly the same. In that particular case I'm talking about disrupting Nintendo pricing strategy for WM+, but WM+ would keep its leadership, its lead is too big and Move is too late. It would cost Nintendo some bucks, though.
Edit: about 3DS I agree, Malstrom rightfully bashes some quite outlandish claims, when he's right, he's right.
|
Except for the fact that Malstrom has never said "disrupting the disruptor." That's just dumb. There is a disruptor, and an incumbent. The incumbent (Sony) can not also be a disruptor (Nintendo). Heck, they don't want the industry to be disrupted becuase this tampers with their cash flows. I also don't know what your talking about with disrupting Nintendo's price strategy. The only thing I can think of that would resemble that is Wal-Mart with their low prices (which was a disruption), but the Move is more expensive then the Wii Remote.
I think you should look over that post Malstrom made about you. You do not get disruption.
|
Oh my, you're right! How could I think Malstrom were even able to conceive such a thing? In fact Christensen himself, not Malstrom, suggested it as a possible strategy for Sony http://www.forbes.com/2007/08/01/sony-games-innovation-lead-cz_cc_0802christensen.html . So in your opinion Christensen is dumb. OUCH!!!
About prices, we'll see, it depends on several things: Move's pricing and above all its actual success or lack of, but also Sony's marketing strategy and aggressiveness about Move having built-in 1:1 tracking and Wiimote needing WM+ to achieve it.
It looks instead that it's Malstrom that's unable to accept a possible disruption (possible, not sure, we still don't even know whether Sony will even try to adopt a disruptive strategy) whenever it doesn't coincide with his wishes.
If I had rocksteady certainties like Malstrom and his same attitude, I'd be tempted to write "GAME. SET. MATCH". But I haven't and it's too early and we can't know yet how well or bad Move and Natal will fare.
|
You STILL don't understand disruption. Take a look at what Christian is talking about.
The final option is for Sony to try to “disrupt the disruptor.” Instead of following a me-too strategy, Sony could seek to truly develop a category-changing project.
1. What he is saying has nothing to do what you said. What he is saying is that Sony should sidestep Nintendo and make a disruptive product that redefines the industry. What you think he is saying is Defensive Co-option, which is where the incumbent tries to stop the disruptor at a tier. This is what Sony is doing.You use disruption way to lossely.
2. The comment on price seems all over the place. Move is more expensive then a Wii Remote so, if it is competing, it has the price disadvantage. It has to have more value or be unique enough to counter the Wii Remote (not even Motion Plus). If it is too similar or as good as the Wii Remote, consumers will chose the Wii Remote based on price.
3. You really need to stop while you're ahead. Malstrom has destroyed any credability to have left. You look like a fool now and your post reflect this.
|
1. Christensen lists a 1+3 possible strategy, the first, that he strongly advise against, being not reacting at all and 3 reactive strategies, the third being more than reactive, proactive, disrupting the disruptor, the second, using PS2+motion control as temporary measure we know it didn't happe, the first is plain copying, but this one hasn't been completely followed by Sony, Move has more than a few things similar to WiiMote, but it adds 1:1 tracking and it uses EyeToy, it's not disruptive, as far as we know. Natal, OTOH, if successful would be an example of disrupting the disruptor.
2. We still don't know anything for sure about pricing but chances are that if it's low enough and marketing aggressive and effective enough too it could force Nintendo to start including WM+ capabilities for free.
3. You should get a mirror: I'm not the one so eager to declare Malstrom's victory over me (*) to deny the belonging to disruption theories of an idea introduced by Christensen himself and to define it just dumb. And although I wasn't precise in some points, we are still at a point when Malstrom hasn't been proven right yet, nor I have been proven wrong, so Malstrom hasn't destroyed anything, but he's still in time to destroy himself.
(*) which is absolutely possible, as, if I didn't repeat it enough, unlike Malstrom, I have no certainties and I admit he could be totally or partially right, but right now we don't know enough about what will happen next Autumn.
|