Alby_da_Wolf said:
2) No, that's one of my point: I can't know it, you can't know it and MS and Sony can't know it, so it wouldn't make sense for them to surrender without fighting. Obviously Nintendo already knows at least roughly what it will do, because development of consoles takes years and they most probably already started, but like MS and Sony, Nintendo too doesn't know the competitors most secret plans. 3) No, you still get the wrong meaning: saying that nothing can grant Nintendo will keep on being disruptive absolutely DOESN'T equal to say that it cannot, it just means that nothing can grant it for sure, very different. "Nothing can grant" means we cannot be sure, but the chances for Nintendo to succeed can range from 0 to just under 100%. 4) Again, "nothing grants it" doesn't mean that they can't. They can, but it's not granted. I DON'T say I'm sure they can't, I'm saying that it's not sure whether they'll succeed totally, partially or not at all. Note: it looks like the issue in points 2 to 4 isn't about concepts, but semantics... About point 1, I'm guilty, I mildly exaggerated just to fuel the discussion... 5) Possible counter attacks? Even this is not sure, but just like Nintendo MUST be reasonably sure, and appear so, of what it's doing, so MS and Sony must too. To have a chance they need two things to start: HW that works seamlessly and good SW running on it. When they got these two, they need a third thing: persuading people that their product is different enough, or a lot better, or both. Obviously also persuading people that their product doesn't lack anymore an important feature that was previously their competitor's exclusive can help. Yes, the borderline between counter-disrupting or just reacting as the incumbent normally does, so playing into the disruptor's hands is quite thin, MS and Sony must never give the impression of a "me too" attitude, or they'll lose, they must appear sure, to persuade the others, that what they are doing is different and better. Marketing and PR are heavily involved, but design too. And just as for Nintendo, nothing can grant they'll manage to stop disruption, but they MUST try. If they just fill the feature gap, they are dangerously close to play as incumbent, if they keep their differences, add new significant differences to their novelties and persuade people, they are closer to stop disruption. Not to win, even if they succeed, Wii remains this gen's winner and Zii still has high chances of being market leader next gen, but in a less overwhelming way. BTW, the longer Sony and MS manage to keep Wii under 50%, the deeper the dichotomy between Wii and HD markets become, and SW offer is shaped by this and contributes to shape it on its turn, so again, the key for them is to make their use of motion control different enough, because just conforming to Nintendo would give the edge to the latter. But at the same time persuading people that their products don't lack anything anymore. One last thing about going upmarket: are we sure Nintende really wants it? Attracting power whores to "steal" them from Sony and MS could increase Zii's costs more than what Nintendo could like. But even just attracting hardcores that aren't power whores requires at least additional investments on SW. Nintendo already has its hardcores, but attracting Sony's and MS' ones obviously requires something else, otherwise they'd already be Nintendo gamers. Nintendo main goals are to get huge revenues with huge profit margins and to be market leader, if trying to crush Sony and MS requires to significantly lower its margins, it will gladly leave costly minorities to them. This also because the potential world market is still huge, a lot bigger than getting a bigger share of the current one, there are hundreds million possible future gamers to be conquered when emerging countries' average incomes will grow enough, keeping the entry price low is of the essence to arrive first on these new markets. But hey, even the current less expensive console, PS2, still has a luxury price for emerging countries middle classes income, so maybe it will be someone else, not Nintendo, neither Sony, nor MS, to conquer those markets. But apart this, upmarket is neither the only direction, nor the potentially most lucrative, Nintendo already won this gen disrupting and expanding the market, as long as there are potential new markets bigger than the existing one, it can be done again (and it's not about just expanding demographics cutting price to meet income, different countries, different cultures mean that different and new things must be done). |
<!-- @page { margin: 0.79in } P { margin-bottom: 0.08in } -->
THIS JUST IN. Alby_da_Wolf does not understand disruption.
1)How can you exaggerate calling someone an incumbent? They either are or they are not. Also, the DS is not disruptive. It is a Blue Ocean Strategy. It's goal is to avoid competition by creating a new market with untapped demand, and they archive this with a value innovation. You can tell it's not disruptive because it can co-exist with the PSP.
2)This proves you don't know disruption. Clayton Christensen wrote a book called “Seeing What's Next.” In it, he described how the incumbents will respond to disruption and how the disruptor can beat them out. I'll get to this more in a minute.
3)Yes it does. What you are saying is nothing can grant them, meaning, to say that, you have to believe there is possibility they can't. So, I'll ask again. Why can't they? Not stop being a wimp and answer the question.
4) 4 is the same thing. Stop dodging the question and answer it, or just admit you can't.
(thankfully, you do admit you were wrong in 1)
This is why you don't understand disruption.
Sony and Mirosoft are counter attacking. Anyone with a passing knowledge of disruption can see they are. Because, look, now they are all into motion controls.
Yes, the borderline between counter-disrupting or just reacting as the incumbent normally does, so playing into the disruptor's hands is quite thin, MS and Sony must never give the impression of a "me too" attitude, or they'll lose, they must appear sure, to persuade the others, that what they are doing is different and better.
Not really. Most of what you said is a skewed version of what actually happens. They have three responces
- Growth-Driven Co-Option
- Defensive Co-Option
- Cede the market.
Defensive co-option of just stopping Nintendo at the higher tier they can. This isn't going to be doing it differently. This is doing holding the line and keeping your customer base from jumping ship. It can be “me too.” Microsoft's is a Growth Driving Co-Option, meaning they are trying to take the new market. They can't copy.
And just as for Nintendo, nothing can grant they'll manage to stop disruption, but they MUST try.
Nintendo is the disruptor. Why are they trying to stop disruption. They are stopping the counter attack. Microsoft and Sony are not disrupting.
Not to win, even if they succeed, Wii remains this gen's winner and Zii still has high chances of being market leader next gen, but in a less overwhelming way.
No, they are more likely. If the market is disrupted, Nintendo's ways are the norm and Sony and Microsoft can't compete. Next generation, if they get one, will have Nintendo dominate the market and Sony and Microsoft fighting for a shrinking piece.
BTW, the longer Sony and MS manage to keep Wii under 50%, the deeper the dichotomy between Wii and HD markets become, and SW offer is shaped by this and contributes to shape it on its turn, so again, the key for them is to make their use of motion control different enough, because just conforming to Nintendo would give the edge to the latter. But at the same time persuading people that their products don't lack anything anymore.
You always write a lot but say a little. Anyone could say what you did. It has nothing to do with disruption.
Also, Nintendo is going to take more and more market share and more and more gamers convert to Motion Controls.
One last thing about going upmarket: are we sure Nintende really wants it?
This proves you don't know disruption. Look at these.
See how the disruptor always wants to go upmarket. Also, cost wont go up like you think. The new generation is about “feel” not “sight.” Disruption changes the name of the game. We are no longer playing Poker, but playing Uno. If you use the old rules here, you will always be wrong. The “hardcore,” of the new world will want much better motion controls, not better graphics.
Nintendo main goals are to get huge revenues with huge profit margins and to be market leader, if trying to crush Sony and MS requires to significantly lower its margins,
Umm, this is what every business wants, including Sony and Microsoft.
Now, let me tell what is happening and what is going to happen.
Sony and Microsoft have counter attacked Nintendo in a hope to stop them. Up to this point, Nintendo has flown under the radar becuase of their asymetric motivation (expanding gaming). This is why Sony and Microsoft refuse to respond earlier. They have no interest in expanding gaming. However, now they make inroads.
As disruptive attackers follow their own sustaining trajectories, they make inroads into the low end of the market or begin pulling less demanding customers into a new context of use. What happens when the disruptive entrant begins to make inroads? A good way to visualize what incumbents can do when faced with a disruptive attack is to consider how humans respond to a perceived threat. Our body immediately reacts. We produce adrenaline. Our heart rate goes up. Our respiration rate goes up. Blood flow redirects from nonessential areas to critical areas. Our body is prepared for one of two actions: fight or flight.
Fleeing is a natural option from them because their more profitable and best customers are at the higher tiers anyway, so they leave the markets behind. But, eventually, they can not ignore the big giant that has appeared, so they will attack. They will attack, however, when there is no place to run. Sony and Microsoft may be there as they are fighitng for a shrinking market (they control 50% between two systems and this does not include multiple console ownership).
When the incumbent has retreated into the highest tiers of its market and has to fight because there is no room for further retreat, it is at a competitive disadvantage. As the game changes to the one the disruptor plays best, it is very hard for the incumbents to develop new skills quickly.
Disruptors will thanks to an asymmetric skill and an asymmetric motivation. Christensen calls these a sword and a sheild. The sheild is the motivation that prevents a counter attack (Nintendo wants to expand gaming). The sword is the skill that allows them to cut upmarket (Nintendo is an integrated hardware/software comapny). Now, in the new market, the strengths of the incumbent are it's weaknesses, and vis versa for the disruptor. Again, this is playing Uno instead of Poker.
The end can come swiftly and can appear stunning to the untrained eye. Typically, the best an incumbent can do is to belatedly acquire the winning firm and stave off ultimate destruction.
This is the counter attack. Nintendo will ultimatly win since they have the skill and the motivation that Sony and Microsoft lack. The only way for them to survive is to buy Nintendo, and they both can't do that.
All of that can be found here.
The reason I don't think you know disruption is you never prove it. You can use the words, but the the idea. What you said can be parroted by lots of other members here and isn't surprising in the least.
