DOATS1 said:
i disagree with your points mainly because your points rely on the market being completely rational, and react the way it should. but no market does. gaming especially. new contenders enter all the time. |
It doesn't sound like we disagree much, if at all, actually. We agree that new contenders enter all the time (that's why I mentioned Apple. Although we should note that as time goes on, the costs to enter the market increase over time, and thus we will see a gradual slowing of new entrants). We agree that the market isn't always reasonable.
My point was that if the market behaves in a predictable fashion, Microsoft is in the better position to leap frog Nintendo. I then go on to point out that I could make arguments for Sony or Apple, too, because the future is so hard to predict.
So, yeah. If the market is predictable (or, as you put it, people behave in a "completely rational" manner), Microsoft is in a good position, but it's so far in the future than something entirely unpredictable could happen.
We agree? I think?
http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a324/Arkives/Disccopy.jpg%5B/IMG%5D">
http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a324/Arkives/Disccopy.jpg%5B/IMG%5D">







