Squilliam said:
In terms of motivation for Nintendo, the question is whether they actually believed the Wii would disrupt the market or not. They didn't seem to understand the market at launch, they were going to offer the Wii at $199 without Wii Sports and they only increased it to $249 when they found out the launch price of the PS3. Their actions support the concept of going to as of yet uncharted waters 'Blue Ocean' but as for disruption it doesn't seem that they read the market correctly at all. Had they done so ahead of time they would have anticipated demand at their price point better and likely launched at $299 and at the same time produced a console which could go much further up-market within the timescale of a single console generation. If the Nintendo WIi is truly disruptive then it would be impossible for Sony and Microsoft to not only halt but force their market share backwards whilst growing their own. As an aside, funnily enough Apple seems to be the better disrupter at this point. From what I can tell they are disrupting the portable music market, music distribution, standalone GPS units, traditional handheld gaming and the personal computer with various products from iTunes to iPod to iPhone to iPad and iTouch. To this end the 3DS seems like a retreat up-market against Apple because its focusing on the core customer and focusing on capabilities that cannot be replicated on a phone. Whilst at the same time, Apple can sell games which would normally cost $30 on the DS for between $0 and $15 so not only are they targeting the distribution model, they are also targetting the extreme low end of the handheld games market. So if the 3DS comes with 3G, it will be because Apple forced them to put it there. |
Completely agree.
Previously, DS was a great disruptor because of the interesting functions it had and applications it provided. It was disrupting the digital language-translation market (Many Japanese use handheld Japanese-English dictionaries, and a large portion of it got soaked up by the DS because these dictionaries are 400-800-1200$), it disrupted tutorial markets like recipe books, sudoku, puzzles, etc, and it disrupted self help industry with things like brain training, weight lifting tool guides, and had other things like schedulers and planners etc etc, as well as provide some really great gaming opportunities.
The new 3DS barely brings anything to the table. What about it is so different from the DSi? 3D, Graphx, visuals. Things things are described as being Red Ocean strategies yet some people describe them as somehow being disruptive, to a market which the same people saying is dying. It's really baffling, honestly. And yeah we agree that Apple is doing a very good job disrupting several markets. Also helps that they have a ravenous fanbase.
I think Nintendo are at a loss as well, but Christensen, the disruption god, has said that nobody has been able to sustain disruption. I think that is what we are seeing with Nintendo at this point in the game. I think something that has been left out previously, is that one of the factors for a disrupting product is one that pushes a market that the competition CANNOT enter. It's not that they don't want to enter it as opposed to entering it will only take away their profits, in the example of the ipod, Sony could not enter because it would spell ruin for labels and CD sales, a trend we currently are seeing in a big way. In many of cases presented by Christensen, it works, but with the Wii it doesn't. The competition IS following and challenging and at very little risk. They're just peripherals through and through. Sure they spent a lot of money on them, but really how much do you think Sony and MS will be hurt by it? The answer is "not that much". They will make back a very good portion of the investment with the early adopters and fanatics and if they fail, they are still and always will be, optional.
:P
