Pacher Explains Why He Predicts WiiHD Believes Will Will Lose MarketShare

[Alby_da_Wolf]

mai said:

Alby_da_Wolf said:

1) Nintendo must compete with itself, it's its biggest challenge, making something that's as good or better, for its future times, than Wii is this gen.

2) The existence of a disruptor has never been a prerequisite for the incumbent's existence. Nor another disruptor is necessary for the previous disruptor to become incumbent, it could prevent it, instead, as the previous disruptor wouldn't lower its guard nor relax on its habits. Potential disruption from Apple probably made Nintendo act ahead of time and try to disrupt again the portable market with 3DS early launch, as PSP is a decent competitor, but not a threat for DS by any means.

1) It has nothing to do with the subject under discussion, sorry.

2) You simply wrong. There's incumbent for every disruptor, disruptor for every incumbent (or group of them).

1) Yes, it's the main challenge implied in Nintendo's goal of sustained innovation.

2) Sorry, it's you that are partially wrong. While it's true that a disruptor must have an incumbent, not necessarily the incumbent always has to face a disruptor, disruption happens more or less often, but there are also periods when there aren't disruptors. Incumbents exist when at least one of the players can achieve a market share strong enough and after doing it it relaxes on conservative habits. The incumbent Christensen describes is not the only possible one, it's the particular incumbent that has those peculiarities and typical behaviours when the incumbent vs disruptor game is on or is going to start. It's also true that market leaders becoming incumbent are indeed preparing the market to be disrupted, but there's not a strict rule that says how long the incumbent can enjoy its power before disruption rises and hits (otherwise disruption could be pre-empted).