This is very fun, I am not going to make advocacy of Malstrom but it is fun since a lot of you don't know the exact definition of a Disruptive Product.

Do you want an example of it?

Let's the definition that Christensen and Scott Anthony say in Seeing What's Next:

Because identifying nonconsumption is easy, the important issue is whether a company is doing something about it. Companies can reach nonconsumers with new-market disruptive innovations such as the telephone or the wireless technology. Succesful new-market disruptive innovations follows 2 patterns:

1.They introduce a relative simple, affordable product or service that increases access and ability by making it easier for customers who historically lacked the money or skills to get important jobs done.

2. They help customers do more easily and effectively what they were already trying to get done instead of forcing them to change behaviour or adopt new priorities.

Nintendo 3DS directly attacks to 3D Stereo Gaming, it gives the opportunity to experience 3D Stereo for a fraction of the cost and without adopting an expensive HDTV with 3D Support. This is the reason why 3DS is completely disruptive.

Perhaps you don't see it because you're such a big fan. Anyways, I've already stated that I liked what he wrote before so there's nothing personal in my dislike of him as of late. I know he's a clever guy and he's made some good points but he is seriously getting worse and worse with the holier than thou and the condescending finger of all knowing and his points (which are also fewer and farther in between than before) drown in the cacophony of self indulgence and glee over his own majesty (he is not only slightly rude but also resorts to broad generalizations at times, defining entire segments of the population after his own skewed criteria, treating them as homogeneous groups). The fact that he has a following makes it all even worse, they are all feeding his already sizeable ego and I think someday in the very near future his initial fans will fall off one by one as he goes the way of anyone who gets a lot of attention; sacrificing what made you popular to begin with in order to promote yourself and your work (most authors and writers fall into this pit at some point) and reveling too much in your own glory to produce anything worthwhile.

I still respect the man somewhat but I fear he is past his prime as a blogger, at least in my opinion. Its like Michael Bay movies, they used to be okay but now they're just noise.

Truth is, call it what you will, but it's still a piss poor argument. If someone is right a 1000 times and wrong once, does that mean they are always wrong? No. But that is what you implied. If I am wrong about predicting the weather once, but I predict the state of the economy right, does that mean I'm bad at making predictions? No. But this is exactly what you are saying. So, when I wrote it, it looked like ad hominem. 

But I find it funny. Malstrom made his blog and website to learn about Nintendo. He has delved into other topics as well, but focused on the videogame business. You, on the other hand, made a blog with only topics, and thus, it's only purpose, it to disprove Malstrom. No surprise to see you in this topic saying how Malstrom has been so wrong (when you have never been right). What does that say about you.

History of poor predictions?

You know. He's got a good true/false ratio if you look att ALL of his predictions and not just the ones he got wrong (One not even being gaming related).

He's made a few mistakes, but really, you're cherry picking, I mean politics isn't really his bag, on the other hand, he's been right about a lot more

And he did admit he screwed up with the election, even if he had reasons. But he also has good political insights, like how he knew assuming the Hispanic population here isn't a unified demographic either party can count on, and the recent elections have shown that.

All we know about the 3DS so far is that it will feature 3D so making predictions is pretty hard at this point. But...

We know the original DS was part of a "new-market disruption" (I hate these business terms, really...) because it was mainly meant to bring in new consumers. Nintendo was mainly fighting disinterest with the original DS, it was not trying to get overshot customers as handhelds were already pretty simple.

But while the DS brought in many new customers it left Sony's core market (which also buys handhelds!) intact which is why Sony could always ignore the DS and did not take it serious - it didn't affect Sony's market because Sony wasn't aiming for those customers at all.

But the thing with "new market disruptions" is that they can also affect your core market if the company behind them is able to achieve a value change among your core customers.

With 3D being the first thing revealed about the 3DS this could very well mean Nintendo will try to "convert" Sony's core market to their values and if that happens Sony could very well be in serious trouble. The funny thing is Sony doesn't get that (which happens quite often with new-market disruptions, apparently). Anybody read the interview with Koller? He thinks Nintendo has gone nuts by forcing 9-year olds to adapt to complicated 3D graphics. He thinks Nintendo is still staying in their expanded market. But I don't think so. I think they'll battle over the core market, too. But it will be a fight over values, not just market share.

With the Wii Nintendo had to realize that as long as the core market (with the old values) is intact developers will try to ignore them if possible. So Nintendo's basis for Wii's success is just their own 1st party titles which is a rather weak basis for a market leader (see 2009 - one mistake and sales went down). So Nintendo has to convert these customers to their values.

The interesting thing here is that we've never seen a value-fight over the same customers in this industry, at least not such an obvious one.

Of course we have to wait for more details to know if this is really happening right now but if this is true it will be crucial for both Sony and Nintendo. If Nintendo is able to convert the core market to their values Sony's business is going to burst like a bubble. (Again, if Koller is any indication to go by Sony still has no clue about Nintendo's plan!)

Of course this could turn out different but maybe I'm right. I surely hope so. It would be interesting.

@UncleScrooge

You say it´s crucial not only to Sony but Nintendo as well...what happens if Nintendo isn´t able to convert the core market to their values?

"what happens if Nintendo isn´t able to convert the core market to their values?"

The point is that some of the core market has been overshot by the excesses of this generation, and that is what Nintendo likely is going for. Note how GTA IV sold less than Vice City and San Andreas despite the anticipation.

@LordNight

What are some other examples of overshooting in the core market, besides GTA 4?