By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
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.



Around the Network
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.

 

 



Stwike him, Centuwion. Stwike him vewy wuffly! (Pontius Pilate, "Life of Brian")
A fart without stink is like a sky without stars.
TGS, Third Grade Shooter: brand new genre invented by Kevin Butler exclusively for Natal WiiToo Kinect. PEW! PEW-PEW-PEW! 
 


Cristensen spoke about Sony himself?

awesome



I LOVE ICELAND!

"Remember when Sony announced the PSP at E3 2005? Immediately, Nintendo churned up the DS and had it ready to show at E3 2006. And it looked pretty bad. The DS phat didn’t get much better aesthetically. But it shows the DS was pretty rushed. Remember, the DS was originally billed as ‘third pillar’ because it was designed as a response to the PSP. It wasn’t originally seen as the successor to the Gameboy Advance"

HA, I WAS RIGHT! Oh yeah, lol at Malstrom owning Alby.



Leatherhat on July 6th, 2012 3pm. Vita sales:"3 mil for COD 2 mil for AC. Maybe more. "  thehusbo on July 6th, 2012 5pm. Vita sales:"5 mil for COD 2.2 mil for AC."

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.

 

 

And Christensen said that the Move would fail



Around the Network
SaviorX said:
"Remember when Sony announced the PSP at E3 2005? Immediately, Nintendo churned up the DS and had it ready to show at E3 2006. And it looked pretty bad. The DS phat didn’t get much better aesthetically. But it shows the DS was pretty rushed. Remember, the DS was originally billed as ‘third pillar’ because it was designed as a response to the PSP. It wasn’t originally seen as the successor to the Gameboy Advance"

HA, I WAS RIGHT! Oh yeah, lol at Malstrom owning Alby.

Huh? Sorry but in that article Malstrom answers some claims from Apple analysts and fans that have absolutely nothing to do with me, although there would be some interesting things to point out in Malstrom's answer, but I don't feel like doing it...

Anyhow I must actually thank some Malstrom fans taunting me because they prompted me to search for "disrupting the disruptor" and I found that Christensen's article http://www.forbes.com/2007/08/01/sony-games-innovation-lead-cz_cc_0802christensen.html where he writes about disruption, defence from it and these two things related to Nintendo and Sony and I found that he says quite different things from Malstrom. Notably he never writes that a particular strategy is destined without doubt to fail or succeed, he writes more about risks to take and risk/benefit ratios, probability of succeeding or failing, size and effectiveness of the possible success, risks of the incumbent damaging not only its finances but its image too if it executes the simplest defensive strategy of just copying the Wiimote in an uninspired and sloppy way, etc. Quite interesting stuff, even for one like me that doesn't like economics very much, but that after reading Malstrom made me wonder whether we read the same Christensen.



Stwike him, Centuwion. Stwike him vewy wuffly! (Pontius Pilate, "Life of Brian")
A fart without stink is like a sky without stars.
TGS, Third Grade Shooter: brand new genre invented by Kevin Butler exclusively for Natal WiiToo Kinect. PEW! PEW-PEW-PEW! 
 


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.

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.

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.

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.



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.



Stwike him, Centuwion. Stwike him vewy wuffly! (Pontius Pilate, "Life of Brian")
A fart without stink is like a sky without stars.
TGS, Third Grade Shooter: brand new genre invented by Kevin Butler exclusively for Natal WiiToo Kinect. PEW! PEW-PEW-PEW! 
 


I don't know about you guys, but after reading Sean dishing it out to stereoscopic gaming on PS3, I'm really looking forward to watching him gulp down some refreshing glasses of 3DS Koolaid.  This is going to be a real treat!



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.

1)Again, you don't understand disruption. Microsoft is using a growth oriented co-option. Disruption is based on changing the name of the game and pulling the rug from under the incumbent. This means changed the values of the product and the rules the industry works by. Microsoft is not making new rules, but copying Nintendo's values. If Nintendo's motivation is not unique, Microsoft will absord the new market. What Christensen is advocating is Sony make their own disruption, which would mean new values. Neither Sony nor Microsoft are adopting new values but either sticking with their own or accepting Nintendo's. By definition, this is not disruption.

2) We know the price. it is $100 for a starter pack, which everyone will be buying. This will be $300+$100 for 1 Move, and a PS3. The Wii is $200 cheaper and comes with a game. Move has to be unique in some way or it will not succeed. MP is a cheaper sustaning innovation, so Sony has to hope that either Nintendo screws up big time or their software will be a success. If Sony is doing a defensive co-option, they are doing everything wrong and will likely fail

3)You're wrong. Get over it and get out while you still can. Heck, I haven't read the book and I know more then you do. I don't mix up co-option with disruption. Yes, we know nothing, but using both Nintendo and Sony's track records, and the fact Sony has no way to counter the Vitality Sensor or Zelda Wii, and their device has a lot of lag and is more expensive, and that Sony has not changed their values, it's 99.9999999999% likely they will fail and you still don't understand disruption.