Source: http://malstrom.50webs.com/shield.htm, Portion of Malstrom's Shield article
-(Growth Driven) Co-option of the Disruption
After the disruptor proves the New Market does exist and is viable, incumbents attempt to mimic the disruptor in order to gain access to the New Market. This co-option is a counterattack that will stop the disruptor (for the disruptor loses the new market base to move to upper tiers). Unless the disruptor has no shield (asymmetries of motivation), or if the motivations of the disruptor and incumbent are the same, co-option will successfully prevail. An example of co-option would be incumbent telephone companies responding to wireless technology to sell it to new users. The incumbent missed much of the new growth but is eventually able to tap into the New Market. Since wireless had the same motivation as the incumbents, the disruptors had no shield and were absorbed.
In order to withstand counter attack, sufficient asymmetries of motivation must be developed for the disruptor (what Christensen refers to as the ‘shield’). For example, Microsoft can imitate the Wii with a Wii remote knockoff but the motivation for creating it is very different from Nintendo’s. Microsoft will not have the passion to go after non-users and low demanding consumers in the way Nintendo did. If the reader happens to be a professional analyst and needs translation, this means what matters now is no longer the size of the dog in the fight but the size of the fight in the dog.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I decided to just paste one of Malstrom's argument as a suggestion, seeing as how I agree with this opinion. In this portion of the article, Malstrom gives three outcomes as to what the incumbents' console strategy (used by Sony and Microsoft) is and how the incumbents will react when the disrupter (Nintendo) uses a different strategy. I am showing this segment due to the fact that it relates to the topic of what will happen if Sony and MS decided to imitate Ninty in the controller aspect. If MS tries to make a Wii remote knockoff, they will prolly lack the motivation necessary to go any farther. Sure, a game or two will support it, but they won't have the motivation Nintendo has to push this kind of innovation into the users hand. Microsoft just doesn't have the fight in them to go that far because they have already invested a lot of time forming their image. Also, another part of Malstrom's argument to back up the argument as to why Sony and MS can't imitate the Wii remote:
A reader says, “The incumbent can simply copy the innovation and stop the disruptor.”
Ahh, but reader, when the incumbent brings the innovation to its market, it never works the way the incumbent plans it.
”Of course, it is worse than this. Not only does an incumbent try to bring the innovation to its existing customers, it typically tries to bring it to its best existing customers. Ironically, these customers value the new attributes of the disruptive innovation the least.”
This explains why die-hard Xbox fans are the most vocal against a Microsoft Wii-mote knock-off.
-Clayton Christensen, “Seeing What’s Next”. Page 50
Not only will imitation piss of the audience they already have, but it will give credence to Nintendo for having the right strategy all along.
Explanation of sig:
I am a Pakistani.....my name is Dan....how hard is that? (Don't ask about the 101...apparantely there are more of me out there....)
