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

[Avinash_Tyagi]

Alby_da_Wolf said:
@Alterego-X:
Gunpowder-swords and crossbows isn't a fitting comparison, as the progress of firearms made the old weapons a losing choice on the battlefield.
In this case we are looking at a scenario where ~50% gamers like the new controls, and ~50% the old ones. Amongst them not all like exclusively the former or the latter, the overall situation is that forces leading to coexistence of the two worlds are stronger than those leading to one replacing the other: old gaming isn't strong enough to prevent Wii from winning, Wii isn't strong enough to totally replace old gaming or reducing it to niche. If a disruption were in act we should be able to notice a growth, even a slow one, of Wii market share, instead it stopped under 49% and isn't growing anymore. If things change, we can reconsider the possibility of a disruption, no, let me rephrase it better, a disruption started and could restart even now, maybe it's getting again stronger, after the initial huge leap from 0 to almost 50%, right now and we don't know yet, but data we have available still say coexistence, sorry.
After Xmas we'll have more data, past Wii life will be longer and its future shorter, so if it doesn't start again growing, the possibility of a total disruption will be furtherly reduced.

  No, we know that it is working is in the response of Sony and MS, they are trying to basically counter Nintendo with NATAL and the wand.  The response of the disrupted incumbent company is to try and co-opt the disruptor, to try and prevent them from upstreaming further, this is NATAL and the Wand, they are trying to protect themselves from Nintendo.

 

”Of course, it is worse than this. Not only does an incumbent try to bring the innovation to its existing customers, it typically tries to bring it to its best existing customers. Ironically, these customers value the new attributes of the disruptive innovation the least.”

-Clayton Christensen