bdbdbd said:
Congrats, you just made the stupidiest post in the whole thread. Could you point out where he is wrong? Nintendo made profits: FY 2004: 316 000 000 FY 2005: 777 000 000 FY 2006: 894 000 000 FY 2007: 1 489 000 000 FY 2008: 2 480 000 000 And the current FY is on track to surpass 4 billion in profit.
So, there really is a reason to say Nintendo is making brilliant business decisions. Besides. if you look at it, you'll notice that Malstrom isn't writing his own "theories", he's writing about the blue ocean strategy and disruption. And in order to argue the staregies, you really need to have quite a lot of merits. He even points out historical facts (i believe these originate from Christensen) and even has a few videos where people are pointing out the disruption in various products) What Malstrom is doing, is only observing the market and then writes about what it means in disruptive terms. And i must say Malstrom has a very good insight.
@Yushire: Sean Malstrom isn't his real name. He writes with an alias, which is a very good way to evade ad hominems.
|
I didn't point out where he is wrong because that is not what I wanted to say. My message is mostly to make people be more critical about what he writes.
If he wants to write about nintendo and the blue ocean strategy, then fine. I would expect that he would mention all the times nintendo got it right and about the times they got it wrong.
Is nintendo doing really well with the blue ocean strategy? Yes.
In a critical sense, did they do everything they should to perfection? Probably not. There are probably areas where they could have made things better.
Now take Malstrom's articles. Which one is he doing? Is he writing a critical vision of nintendo and the blue ocean strategy or is he just glorifying everything nintendo makes and relating it to the blue ocean strategy? I think the answer is quite clear.
