Malstrom is really good when it comes to describing disruptive technologies and the blue ocean strategy. And he has a deep understanding of them. He was consistently wrong about politics and I think he's reading too much into Nintendo's actions right now. Once he leaves the field of disruptive products / blue ocean strategy he isn't much better than most people at predicting things. Everyone who understands these books would be able to make such predictions and tell why Nintendo was successful with the Wii and DS.
Here's a fun fact: In his book Clayton Christensen describes why established companies like Nintendo could eventually get into trouble when they try to introduce disruptive technologies and why they could get off track. It fills a whole chapter of the book. Why doesn't Malstrom write about that? It's really interesting because Nintendo is a special case. And it would be great fun to argue about it since different people might come to different conclusions. (Especially Malstrom since it would contradict his "3D obsession" observation).
