| disolitude said: Has this guy ever written a non-nintendo fanboy article? In his eyes it looks like Nintendo = disruption. Well guess what, Sega genesis = disruption towards then Nintendo empire in gearing the games to a more mature audience Sony playstation = disruption for tecnology advancements and selling hardware at a loss. Malstrom should really get off his Nintendo high horse... Yes Nintendo is number 1 thanks to their disruption, but there was time when nintendo was being disrupted. |
Dude, are you just using "disruption" as a synonym of "being successful"?
The disruption theory is a very well defined business practice that involves finding and serving the least demanding customers, with products thats quality is too low for the core market, earn big profits in the expanded market, and later go upstream against the competitors and their sustaining innovations.
"tecnology advancements" are, by definition, the OPPOSITE of disruption. It is a sustaining innovation.
"selling hardware at a loss" is called the "razor and blades model", another well-defined business strategy. Yes, it can work, but that won't make it disruptive alone.
"gearing the games to a more mature audience" is either sustaining innovation, (making it better), or maybe "blue ocean strategy" (finding a new audience). But unless thesee were crummy products for crummy customers, it is not disruption.
