Alby_da_Wolf said:
Not. I understand disruption, but I don't adore it like a divinity. And I must not prove Nintendo won't be disruptive a second time in a row because I just didn't state that, can't you read? I just wrote that nothing can grant it, it's quite different. Giving to my words a wrong meaning to prove your point proves yourself wrong, not me. Usually the disruptor wins. Usually doesn't equal unerringly. And even this high likelyhood needs the disruptor to keep on devising and following the right strategies (and developing and releasing the right products!) to be achieved. So there are still a lot of doubts. And E3 2010 will remove a lot of them, but not them all. |
Seeing as you think Nintendo is the incumbent, I think otherwise.
Nintendo is described as a disruptor becuase they are disrupting the industry with a disruptive innovation (the Wii Remote). Listen to Scott Anthony yourself, a co-author for disruption. He pretty much lays out disruption for the video game market and implies that Nintendo is a disruptor, and Sony is an incumbent (..."new-market disruption" which targets customers who have needs that were previously unserved by existing incumbents.... Wikipedia)
What your doing is saying you know something, but not showing it. You also "claim" you know a lot about the counter attack, but you don't give any real evidence of it or say what will happen (anyone can say disruption will end if they abandon the strategy, DUH).
And I must not prove Nintendo won't be disruptive a second time in a row because I just didn't state that, can't you read? I just wrote that nothing can grant it, it's quite different. Giving to my words a wrong meaning to prove your point proves yourself wrong, not me.
And, I'll write it again: next gen nothing can grant Nintendo will be able to release something with the same disruptive potential of Wii, surrendering to Wii2/Zii/Whatever without fighting and before even knowing what it will be and whether it will be successful or not doesn't make sense at all, it's just the wet dream of Sony and MS haters. And maybe of Steve Jobs.
And you never say why they can't. It's not that your saying they can't, your saying there is a possibility they can't. The difference is actually that one is an assirtive claim and the other one is walking on eggs shells as not to be wrong. In order to say what you did, you must also be able to say "Nintendo can't make a disruptive products," half of "Nintendo could make a disruptive product or they could not make a disruptive products." Which, when broken into two sentenses is "Nintendo can make a disruptive product." and "Nintendo can not make a disruptive product."
Confused? Well, what it is saying is that you must beleive that both can be true, so you also saying they can't make another disruptive product. So, I ask again, why can't they.
Now, since you claim you know so much let's put it to the test: How the the counter attack work? How will Nintendo avoid beeing beated by Sony and Microsoft, and how could Sony and Microsoft beat Nintendo? If you know disruption, you can answer this question.
