So which will be more Successful- Kinect or Move

[Squilliam]

Pyro as Bill said:

Squilliam said:

Both of my national news 6PM shows covered Kinect. I think it'll easily outpace Move at least in terms of public awareness.

Kinect actually does things which the standard remote cannot do or cannot do easily but it doesn't do things which you would call the mainstay of the standard controller as well whereas Move has significant overlap. How many times have we heard the words 'oh but it could have been done on a normal controller' in relation to a Wii game?

Kinects target audiences are people who don't play games, people who are intimidated by the controller or people who are underserved by the current Wii. Move is targetting an area up stream of Nintendos own offerings and is in the natural path of an updated Wii or future core Wii titles.

Kinect is simple and easy to plug in. It uses a rear facing USB port and it doesn't require batteries/charging. Move requires a lot more attention from the owner than the Wii does given the Wii only needs two sets of batteries to keep charged for two players.

So I say Kinect.

I think you're looking for disruption where there is none. The Wii experience is too alike to Kinects than different.

People were put off by a traditional controller but if they are intimidated by a remote control they are going to be even more intimidated by an xbox and Kinect. I also think you're overestimating Microsofts ability to make something accessible. There is no low-end here for MS especially not at expected prices. I don't think kinect would fall under the category of 'crappy product'. 'Crappy customers' may apply though.

That's not to say Kinect won't do better than Move.

• In almost every case, a disruptive technology enables a larger population of less skilled people to do things that historically only an expert could do. And to do it in a more convenient setting. In hundreds of industries, this is a very common characteristic.
• You can’t disrupt a market in which customers are not yet overserved by the prevailing offerings. [...]
• The successful disruptive business model facilitates or lubricates existing patterns of behavior. It’s not predicated on consumers changing behavior. [...] People don’t willingly buy products that do a worse job of what they’re trying to get done.
• The disruptive technology almost always takes root in a very undemanding application, and the established market leaders almost always try to cram the disruption into the established application. In so doing, they spend enormous amounts of money and fail.

http://www.skmurphy.com/blog/2010/06/09/distant-early-warning-signs-of-market-disruption/

What conditions must be present to create disruption?

 

1. The market for the product or service is experiencing, or is likely to experience, an increased rate of demand. This demand might be created by social, business or regulatory change.
2. The economic outcomes in providing, acquiring or adopting the new product or service must be significantly better than the prevailing offerings.
3. The business model or core technology used for the innovation must be both fundamentally different from the prevailing offerings and sustainable.

http://www.customerthink.com/article/strategies_create_disruption

There are two slightly different definitions.

But yes, its probably not disruption in a sense that all proponents of the theory would call it that. However it does come into the market at a distinct position which is actually IMO fundamentally lower than the Wii at least on paper. Its designed to offer simpler gameplay, new gameplay possibilities and new media consumption possibilities at the level of the original Wiimote concept without the attached nunchuck and lower. I.E. Its targeting people who aren't gamers and people who are 'overserved' which is ironic really by the Wii.