Malstrom: Nintendo’s Shield & Defense = “Sustained” Disruption?

[Avinash_Tyagi]

Alby_da_Wolf said:
His attitude apart, what's wrong about how Malstrom applies game and disruption theory to console market is that for disruption to happen the new market must marginalize the old one, and this actually didn't happen by any means: Nintend hovers around 48-49% market share, this isn't disruption, simply Nintendo found a new market as big as the old one, plain and simple. This thing is confirmed by two facts confirming each other: the overall 7th gen market is bigger than the previous, as it's already >100million after 3 years of Wii and PS3 life and 4 years of XB360, and Nintendo is attracting new gamers that didn't like videogaming before.
But the new market didn't make the old one disappear, so no market disruption sorry.
A partial disruption of old ideas, OTOH, happened, the new market is as big as the old one and Sony and MS would like a slice of it, so they'll try to develop their motion cotrols to get some. But it will be more a sum than a replacement.
And Malstrom's statement that Nintendo does only small errors and great things done right could even be right, although Nintendo too, actually, did some big mistakes in the past, but when he adds that Sony and MS always do the opposite, like the birdmen of that article of his, he's plain ridiculous.

Actually that's wrong, the old market is being marginalized, Sony and MS are trying to move away from it with NATAL and the Wand, their attempts are going to be largely failures, but they are accepting that the old market is dying.  If it wasn't they wouldn't be trying to enter the new Market.  The risk of leaving the old market to grab a slice of the new one wouldn't outweigh the potential benefits.

 

Really, so then why has Nintendo always been profitable in gaming and Sony and MS not