| Smashchu2 said: 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. USPS and UPS are NOT different. THey offer the same product. Shipping and delivery of parcel and mail. USPS had confirmation, it just wasn't as good as UPS's was. Additionally, when Fedex appeared, they did the same thing. They did the same thing, but did it in such a way that a portion of the market really wanted in the first place. Christensen flatly explains that they took the businesses because the businesses weren't getting the kind of shipping they wanted. You could fit Kinect right in there in place of what I wrote, and it would be the same situation. There is a portion of the market, plus more currently potential markets, who want what the wii represents, but isn't getting the KIND of service they need to actually play. 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. Kinect is as different from the wii as the wii was to 360 and ps3. It's the same distinction. This whole debate is not that I do not understand disruption, but that we disagree on how similar or dissimilar the products are. You say kinect doesn't open doors, I say it does. I give evidence as to why and you disagree. Just as in the whole paragraph about the iphone gaming where you detailed exactly what disruptive products are supposed to be and I provided examples that were clear as day. We disagree, that's all. 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. You write below that "an incumbent is the leader in the mainstream market. Currently, that is Nintendo. bent 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. . You are so jaded and lost if you think that sony and microsoft will be gone. Christensen's theory of disruption comes with the caveat that continuous disruption has never been achieved. Sony and Microsoft's secession will only happen if this never-before-happened feat is acheived. We aren't talking small companies here looking to sell the products as profit like other companies that have been disrupted and died off. These are companies that use their consoles as launch-pads for other things, trojan horses if you will. MS will also pour billions into their system without regard for losses. They will not ever leave. Sony lost billions on ps3, and they are already working on ps4 and 5. They aren't going anywhere, because playstation isn't just about gaming. It's about pushing cutting edge technology and create economies of scale for the rest of the company. Think about it this way. The reason why BR blue laser diodes became cheaper was because the ps3 was mass produced. I'm sure you know what an economy of scale is, so I won't bore you with the technicalities. Sony has done the same with ps1 and discman/cd drives, and ps2 with dvd drives. Because they have a product that demands so many of these things, not only do they have a console to sell, but they are likely getting their (for example) Bluray parts cheaper than most rival companies. 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. There IS a seperate market. Just like overnight shipping is a seperate market from regular shipping. Just like Board games market is different from tabletop games market from card games market. They are all different types of gaming. In the grand scheme of things, all of these including video games, are in the "games" market. But there are subdivisions of each. If you were to agrue that gaming genres are in the same market, I would agree, but what you propose is so, how shall i put it, "convenient" to your argument. I can give you so many examples of how different types of things are in seperate markets. Like books. Books are in a different market from manga, manga from comic books, shit even graphic novels are seperate from those things. Then there's art books, self help books. They're all different and appeal to different people. There's a little bit of crossover here and there, but if you belong to any of these markets, you don't say, "so, how can we make recipe books sell more to comic book buyers". Because you can't. You can make a comic-FORM recipe book (which is where the crossover appears), but it's not a comic because a comic is more than just the form. It's the same thing when you look at the two kinds of gaming and say "how do we make a motion controller more appealing to people who like standard controllers." You don't. You make a motion controller and hope that there is crossover because of the value of gaming, not the motion controller itself. It's a fools errand to think that you can steal marketshare from the traditional gaming market. Look at the numbers. The number of traditional console-type gaming sold is even higher than it was this time last generation. 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? Do you even read the things you post? I would imagaine not, otherwise you wouldn't be saying that I don't understand disruption. Read that link you provided. It contradicts a lot of what you've said already. Now, I can't define whether MS or Sony are "co-opters" but I'm pretty sure he just said that one of the ways in which disruptions fail is when incumbents co-opt. The disruption fails because the entrant hasn't made use of a strategy that restricts the incumbents from adopting. So far Sony and MS have had no qualms about entering the motion control market. They simply didn't see a need for it. They didn't want to waste money developing tech to enter something they thought would be a fad. This isn't a restriction. There are no barriers to entering the market. Needless to say, kinect is the one that is actually creating a barrier. Kinect is peripheral free based system. If the next system were to be a kinect system, Nintendo would avoid that area of the market like that plague because they make their money on hardware. THAT is a barrier. What barrier is there to motion control market smash? What barrier? There is no barrier except not wanting to waste their time with it. Wii has proven the market, and Sony and MS are all too happy to join. 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. Are you out of your mind? Sony has all their eggs in 3D? Where you get these ideas from I do not have the vaguest clue. SONY has their hand in nearly every cutting edge market. They are in holo. They are in 3D. They are in stereoscopic. They are in DLP. They are in BR..... maybe I'm misunderstanding you. Do you mean that Sony is putting all their video gaming eggs in the 3D basket? I laugh heartily to myself. You think so little of the competition Smash, so little. PS3 is getting 3D as a free upgrade. A FREE UPGRADE. Do you really think they care that much about 3D? Do you think they are going to make a 3D only system next gen? Or what? They aren't even majority share in 3Dtvs. They are majority share of BluRay, and even BR couldn't kill Sony or the ps3. Sony knows like everyone does that 3D is a fad..maybe a long lasting trend, something to do every couple months. But they want to have a tv available if people want to buy them. That is how Sony works. 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. You still haven't responded to how utterly wrong you were about apple, and you won't answer how utterly wrong you are now. If you don't write anything else, I'd like you to tell me exactly why you think Sony and MS are going to die because of Nintendo when Christensen himself says that: a) continous disruption has never occurred and is unlikely to ever occur
"d)" is the exact same thing that is happening to Nintendo in the enxt couple months. |
