| theprof00 said:
|
Seeing as you keep trying to call Nintendo the incumbant, I don't think you do.
Nintendo doesn't have the shield.
Wrong. The sheild is the asymetric motivation. It's the reason the company wants to make the new market or go for the lowest one. "Asymmetries of motivation occur when one firm wants to do something that another firm specifically does not want to do."
Nintendo wants to expand gaming. Sony and Microsoft show no interest in doing this. What you said was off of what Cristensen said.
'Continued disruption HAS NEVER and MOST LIKELY WILL NEVER occur.' -CC
What he is describing is call a Wheel of Disruption. This is when a company can keep disrupting and keep market leadership because of it. It is not what you think it is.
Secondly I don't know what you mean by integrated hardware and software company. I don't know what you mean by Nintendo being one and Sony/MS not being one. I'd like some clarification on that.
This means that Nintendo's hardware engineers and their software developers are integrated and work together. They design the hardware for the needs of the software. Sony and Microsoft's game divisions are not like this at all. All of their software developers are 3rd party companies they own and the two rely so much on 3rd party support anyway. This is why Nintendo has made every innovation in video games in the last 15 years and the other two can only copy it.
Let's not change this into an argument of who is disrupting whom or what is disruption and what isn't. Let's focus on the bigger picture of whether or not Sony and MS will survive. From everything I've read about disruption from christensen (and believe me, I check Malstrom's page every day for updates. I even became a member so that I could read more of his stuff and comments etc), there is no evidence that buying Nintendo is the only way to survive, and there is no evidence that either company are going to pull out or fail.
From Christensen's mouth: Typically, the best an incumbent can do is to belatedly acquire the winning firm and stave off ultimate destruction.
As far as the state of Sony and Microsoft, both will leave the market. Sony has lost most of the money they've made from the PS2 generation (if not all). They are sinking. This is probably why we didn't see a PSP2 despite it would be the mosty logical option if they wish to stay in the handheld business. Kinect is such a horrible product that it will kill the XBox line. People remember your blunders in the bvideo game biz. Nintendo has never lived down the Virtual Boy. Microsoft can never remove the stink that is Kinect. Investors want them out anyway, so they likely will have to bail when Kinect goes haywire.
I made so many points that need to be answered before you even get to this reply. You ignored almost everything.
The reason I did is because I don't to bog myself in your arguments. You were trying to call Nintendo the incumbant, Kinect disruptive, and even XBox Live as disruptive. This means you do not know what disruption is. You are trying to bend it to fit your needs.
Also, don't go listing Malstrom's 3 Nintendo Shield's like I don't know what I'm talking about or haven't read as much as you have.
This is coming from the guy who called Nintendo an incumbant. No, you have not read enough, because you got the basic definitions wrong. You still tried to say Nintendo has no sheild (which is flat out wrong).
