| Demotruk said: All of those require extending the definition of disruption, they are not the strategy we are talking about.
Live! didn't disrupt anything, it may have had flaws but it wasn't aiming at low-end underserved customers. It simply provided a different service to single player games, and improved over time. If it was really disrupting it would have massive growth while the incumbent (single player and local multiplayer starts to stagnate and eventually decline). Over that period the Wii is what has had massive growth, Live! has grown but notso much compared to the industry as a whole. It simply doesn't fit. Blu-ray is way beyond disruption. Disruption is never 'a better product'. Blu-ray is sustained innovation, it's the normal progression for formats to be replaced by better ones, not disruption. Niche is not disruption either. Don't worry, it's not unusual to misunderstand disruption. Most people go away with a superficial idea of it, and think that they are being disruptive by making a 'better product', or something for a niche group. But it can be rectified by reading more about it. |
1st P: Wouldn't single children, or rurally habituated gamers be the ones that were underserved by local multiplayer? And wouldn't you say xbox has had massive growth from the 1st to the 360? I think it's almost triple the sales as before hasn't it? It seems that Nintendo just disrupted the disrupter right?
2nd P: I think the normal progression would have been upconverter DVD players. It was attempted and failed against BR.....hang on.... I see, they only disrupted upconverter player companies, not DVD,..right?
looking at this chart I can fill the steps:
Live:
starting from top left.
No, yes, yes, no, yes ("Jump in" sounds pretty urgent to me), yes=GO
BluRay:
no, yes, yes(soon), no, yes(HD is almost mandatory now), yes(exclusive HD content)=GO
