pakidan101 said: Source: http://malstrom.50webs.com/shield.htm, Portion of Malstrom's Shield article
-(Growth Driven) Co-option of the Disruption Microsofts motivation? They want to create a total multimedia package for people, sell it and make a lot of money. Essentially the same scenario as Nintendo except replace multimedia with just games. Microsoft as a company is so successful because if you to make a program for personal computers you make it on their platform generally. They provide some of the best tools in the industry and we have heard time and again how much easier it is to program for their system that competitors. They act as a facilitator in partnership with third parties to create the compelling offerings they have in the marketplace. Windows is a prime example of this. Microsoft is a company that attempts to encompass all of the market, so to say that their motivations aren't aligned with providing something for everyone is crass. Everything that the Wii can do, the Xbox360 can do. But not everything the Xbox360 can do the Wii can do. Essentially the Xbox360 is more capable as a platform to deliver to more people than the Wii. The only difference is that the Wii leveraged an air-mouse with motion capabilities from the start whilst the Xbox360 did not. However, here is where the asynchronous capabilities come into play. Microsoft can leverage their dominance of the #1 Game platform in the world (PC) to make up for their slow start in this field. They can and will respond to the Wii. Heres some examples - The Sims - 100million sales, MMORPGs, Strategy games, online flash games, adventure games, puzzle games, first person shooters/RPG games that come from the PC and only do PC/Xbox360. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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: Speculation on their motivations. Read above. A reader says, “The incumbent can simply copy the innovation and stop the disruptor.” 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. |
Tease.