| theprof00 said: |
When you say Kinect is not disruptive you list Nintendo's disruptive device as being easier to play (and enjoyable) by a wide audience of people. You say that the values of Kinect are similar to that of the wii, and therefore not disruptive. I question that value set. I don't know what line of reasoning you're using, but it is not a doctrine of disruption that the value sets have to be different. Take for example the postal market. First there was the United States Postal Service, then there was UPS, which offered things like tracking of your packages, 2 day delivery, and confirmation signatures. Then came FED-EX, who's product Clayton Christensen uses as an example of top-down disruption using a niche product aimed at the top premium consumer to move downstream into the other markets. Both UPS and FEDEX had the same values. High precision, high speed package delivery.
No, you are looking at this the wrong way.
The US Postal service and UPS were different. Kinect and Wii are very similar in terms of values, or at least in what they are trying to do. Disruption is about doing it differently. In that alone, Kinect is not disruptive.
You are looking at this wrong.If there was no Wii and Microsoft decided to make Kinect, then you would be right. However, the Wii exist, so you are wrong. Also, Kinect is not disrupting anything, so it would not fit in to the strategy.
However, in accord with your distinction, FED-EX was not an incumbent when it came out. However, Nintendo is. I'm wondering if you are confusing the word incumbent for market leader, because Christensen makes it perfectly clear that it is the market leaders that are most susceptible to disruption, since they all have a lot invested in their product and all applications of it.
No, the US postal service was the incunbent and UPS disrupted them, much like Microsoft is the incumbent and Nintendo disrupted them. We bare pst the first stage of disruption.
At the moment, Nintendo is the market leader and like it or not, they make most of their money on hardware peripherals and their near total exclusivity on games reinforces peripheral sales. Their competitors are targetting 2 demographics that are on the overlapping periphery of Nintendo gamers, and the ones that bring in the least amount of sales. Sony is focusing on the hardcore, and MS is focusing on the super casual. Markets like these develop from consumers who use a product but wish there was a better alternative to the product.
Nintendo is still the disruptor. You don't understand the difference. An Incumbent is the leader in the mainstream market, and compete on sustaining invovations, which Microsoft does. Nintendo is the disruptor because it brought in the disruptive innovation. Nintendo wouldn't be the incumbent until Microsoft and Sony are gone (and they will be gone) and Nintendo is the standard for the industry.
This video explains the relation. Nintendo is the incumbent when Microsoft and Sony are pushed out of the market.
Also, I'd like you to consider your description of Sony and MS as incumbents. It has been said countless times by all sides that they are in different markets. Now, Christensen specifically uses Sony in a number of cases in which they were disruptive as examples. However, they were already a company at that point, but they moved INTO another market with disruption. In this specific case, Sony and MS are not part of the motion control/casual market, they are not incumbents, and they are moving into the market on the periphery. MS moreso than Sony. Sony's Move seems like more of a red ocean strategy, but could be top down disruption since they appear to be "introducing" a new element into the casual market. To contradict what I posted yesterday, kinect does not seem to be in the same market, rather it appears to be in an overlapping market of Nintendo's market and a new market.
This is misdefining the incumbent. The incumbent controls the mainstream market. This market would be video games. There is NOT a serperate motion control market. Your definition of the market is too small.
Just consider what you are saying. Kinect is made to stop Nintendo from expanding upstream where its core consumers are. Who are 360's core owners? Halo gamers, FPS gamers, XBL users, Action and roleplaying gamers. Nintendo is not even close to MS's core gamers. They would have to completely change the system to move that far upstream. MS, rather, is the one that is moving, and it is moving downstream to occupy a market that even Nintendo is not a core part of. I know one of the key ways that red ocean is identified is using the term "better" rather than "different". Kinect does seem in some ways to be a "better" casual device, but it's easy to see that it is really a different device. MS is courting the people that don't even want to hold a controller, or stand on a board to do yoga. Plus, the camera has many other useful functions, like the news about being able to read sign-language.
Your mindset would the same as bed executives. Nintendo will make motion control better to cut up market and take Sony and Microsoft's markets.
Again, Microsoft is the INCUMBENT. They are not the disruptor. Please read this. Christensen rights how the incumbents respond. This is a response from the incumbent. That is what this is. You can also tell this because Microsoft had no interest in the Wii's market until recently, now they are ALL about the Wii. Seems a little strange huh?
Also, the 3DS is disrupting Sony's 3D business. In this case, Sony is the incumbent. Which is strange because I like 3D and wouldn't consider the 3DS a crappy product. It may be somehow disrupting the 3DTV market, but Sony is not the leader in the market like I said in another thread. Everyone seems to think that Sony is the one being disrupted because they are updating the ps3 to work with 3D, for free. It is so incorrect to think the 3DS is disrupting the PS3, if that is indeed what you think. The only thing it will be disrupting is the 3Dtv market, and not specifically Sony. Sony isn't even that heavily invested in one aspect of 3D tech. Didn't you see its cylindrical display that shows 3D without glasses in every direction? That's even better than 3DS tech. Additionally a 3D tv can allow several people to watch the same thing as long as they have glasses. The 3DS is only viewable by one person at a time. I'm not arguing the facts with you here, but I am really on the fence about what 3DS is actually disrupting. Would you kindly post a link from malstrom or christensen on the issue?
This is you not understanding disruption. Nintendo wants Sony out. Shouldn't that be obvious? Sony is putting all their eggs into the 3D basket, and Nintendo plans to dump it. This is a business move.
Now please, if you are going to use disruption, learn it right. You read one article and tried to apply it to Microsoft as best you could. It makes no sense. You people need to read more Malstrom.
