Alterego-X on 21 November 2009
| 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. |
http://video.hbsp.com/?plid=731131&showID=730851
That's a co-autor of the books that DEFINED disruption as a theory.
At 2:33, that's a Wiimote in his hand.
While he is talking about disruption.
Where did you get the idea that the disruption must be finished in 3 years? Gunpowder disrupted crossbows over a century, so did steamships with sailing.
The disruptor already has the new downmarket, and already started upstreaming, From now on, it is all inevitable. Just a matter of time.
