|
Alby_da_Wolf said: 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). |
1) I'm not sure I get what you meant. Sustained innovation is a challenge for Nintendo, right?
2) What you describied isn't an incumbent, it's merely a company that overshoots it's customer, thus creating conditions for disruption, but incumbent (hence original meaning of the word in latin) born when there's a disruptor and vice-versa. In other words, when company aware of a competitive company (though may underestimate it), it acts accordingly (fight or flight), thus became incumbent merely due to it's behaviour/business decisions. In layman's terms, you can't define black without white and vice-versa. Back to initial point - Nintendo isn't an incumbent right now. You probably misused the term, rightfully implying that there're some threats to Nintendo as a business.
