richardhutnik said:
snyps said:
bananaking21 said:
snyps said:
richardhutnik said:
synps, as you have shown, they have not been #1 the past 30 years. There were periods where other companies went past them. If you want to argue they have sustained the longest period of profitability and have been the longest survivor, I would say pretty much that is true with a few remaining companies like EA and Activision being with them. But, they have not been top dog every year over the past 30 years. There have been years they were not.
Also, I would HIGHLY suggest you look at total revenues and marketshare, NOT profitability. What you have now is a large market with very small profits. That is an issue.
And you do not have Atari and Sega in there either, who were rivals, and were beating Nintendo in the early years. Even then Nintendo was not top dog.
In short, your charts are biased. |
revenue means squat. marketshare means squat. Profit is king! Nintendo wooped atari and sega.. there's no point in showing it here. I'm biased? Of coarse I am. That's not a question. Who's bring the facts!?! You're biased against the truth. Nintendo came out of every generation with the highest profits. Admit it.
|
|
|
First, in the 1981-1983 timeframe, Nintendo was coming into their own. They licensed out their games for home market. This is pre-NES and no way did they end up topping Atari or many others in revenue. For you to bring them up, and not show Atari, and then Sega later on, is pretty sad.
Second, marketshare matters, NOT profitability, as far as dominance goes. You need to look at that, because it matters. Is is very important. From a pure busines side, profitability matters, but not as far as dominance. Reality you have is that also dominance also means a time period where you are most profitable generally.
In regards to the issue of Nintendo, they have had control of the portable handhelds, which is now looking to be threatened by the other smart devices. There is a shift, and Nintendo has expressed concerned. Factor in their up and down status over their life regarding consoles, with the Wii U look like a miss now, and you see why analysts seen Nintendo at risk. To deny they aren't at risk, is to ignore reality. The Wii U isn't getting next gen third-party software, and Zelda and others aren't as big of a draw. And then the 3DS is threatened by iOS and Android. Kids get smart devices first, then maybe a game system second. They are more likely to grow up on Angry Birds than Mario at this point.
That is the reality of things here, and why the concerns, and why Bushnell said Nintendo COULD (didn't say they were) on a path to irrelevance. But, to even hint this is made into people saying it WILL happen, and to call them loser idiots. And yes, people have said that of Bushnell by people who worship at the temple of the Mario Monks.
|
