Pacher Explains Why He Predicts WiiHD Believes Will Will Lose MarketShare

[Alby_da_Wolf]

mai said:

Alby_da_Wolf said:

1) Sure, but I don't strictly stick to Christensen theories too, or better, I don't believe the competitors are really playing either as ideal disruptor or as ideal incumbent now (while at the beginning of this gen Nintendo was very close to the ideal disruptor and Sony to the ideal incumbent, and I can't really qualify MS role with its clumsy throwing away its head start).

2) BTW, "incumbent" is very used to define former monopolists or oligopolists of utilities like phones and electricity, and their behaviour towards emerging competitors, both those playing traditionally and the disruptive ones. In the wider sense "incumbent" is defined by the behaviour towards smaller but growing competitors in general, and Christensen knows this meaning, what he found studying the disruptors' success stories is that the typical incumbent reaction doesn't change towards disruptors, it often keeps on reacting to them in the same way it uses towards normal competitors, and that's the reason why it so often fails.

1) If by 'ideal disruptor' you mean 'disruptor that sucessfully attacked incumbent', and by 'ideal incumbent' - 'incumbent that failed to repulse an attack of disruptor' then pracrically all that happened is according to the book*. Though the latter may be a bit premature to say, since the reaction of the market to the PS Move is yet to be seen. But I think it's clear even to those of us, who aren't great visionaries, that what Sony might get wrong about Wii and Wii games they got it completely wrong with the Move. Unless, of course, they have smth unexcepted up their sleeve at E3 for Move. Natal is a big question mark, can't say anything 'cos I didn't see anything.

2) I wasn't aware of that, I use the term 'incumbent' strictly as a part of Christensen theory.

 

* There's aritcle  somewhere that quotes Christensen who gave Sony a couple of advices how to  successfully co-opt Nintendo disruption tech. Guess what? They choose the worst out of three options - PS Move, and reject an idea to turn PS2 into Wii competitor. BTW I believe the latter idea was much discussed on the Internet in 2007. So yeah, they are pretty successful in choosing the worst options out of all possibilites so far =)

UPD: Here it is.

Yes, I already knew that article, but thanks for the link anyway. And true, if they stick to a "me too" way to use Move, it will automatically become the less effective possible reaction, I totally agree that in that case the best Sony could hope, with a huge amount of luck, is to just slow Nintendo a little bit. Both Sony and MS need to put something of their own in their motion controls, particularly defining their own SW styles that make the difference from Nintendo, if they want to start without a heavy handicap next gen. Kevin Butler ads approach is not bad about this issue, anyway, basically in that ad "from the future" he says that Sony will aim at a more realistic experience and he boldly suggest better too: it remains to be demonstrated, but showing self confidence and "seasoning" it with some humour to avoid looking too arrogant like in the past is good marketing for Sony. This gen is lost anyway, they can only do damage control, that's why it is in a certain way less troubling for them just achieving it and nothing more, because it's really not possible this gen for them to get something better. But when next gen begins, they must be ready.

To know how good their damage control is, and how effective Nintendo moves will be too, we'll have to wait next Autumn, though, Summer slump will prevent us to fully see the effects of what will be presented at E3.

...No, wait, we already know how it will end: Kevin Butler told us!  

About 1), yes, it's what I was meaning.