Alterego-X said:
And that is where the disruption disagrees. In case of counterattack, it's always the downmarket-based disruptor that wins. Microsoft already lost 9 billion dollars in the video game industry. And compared to that, what did they win? 30% market share in an industry, where they still don't know how to earn any money?
To even counterattack Nintendo, let alone destroying it, they would need to lose more billions of dollars. IIRC, Nintendo already has 10 billion $ to spend if it is needed. But it won't be needed, because when THEY expand, they earn even more money with it. Even if Microsoft would manage to steal some market share from Nintendo, Nintendo would still be much more profitable than Microsoft.
You are right that having more money is an advantage for Microsoft, but it is not an infinite one. No company would lose all of its profits on a single unprofitable division. Bill might be a visionary business leader, but eventually if the next generation xbox wouldn't dominate the market either, the executives, and the investors will start asking themselves: Exactly WHY are we spending billions on being the part of an industry that didn't bring any profits to us?
|
Always fails? Ahh, I see how disruption works basicly if it doesn't work its not disruption therefore disruption never fails. Its quite a genius philosophy because it can never be proved wrong.
You're piling the assumptions really high here. Lets see, they have to lose money to compete with Nintendo? So you're essentially assuming that Microsoft knows as little about business strategy as you? Since you don't know anything about how Natal and the other things will be used you shouldn't pass judgements on things you know nothing about.
Tease.
