^^

Yes, it's confirmed you don't understand the difference between "it's not granted that a thing will happen" and "it's granted that a thing will not happen".

I won't explain it again.

But about the points 2-4 it's just as simple: we can't know for sure, it doesn't mean it won't happen, but we don't know with enough precision, yet, what Nintendo, Sony and MS will do next.

About the part

   And just as for Nintendo, nothing can grant they'll manage to stop disruption, but they MUST try.

   Nintendo is the disruptor. Why are they trying to stop disruption. They are stopping the counter attack

   Microsoft and Sony are not disrupting.

"They" was referred to Sony and MS, sorry if I wasn't clear enough.

About point 5, and all the stuff about disruption: again, we will know quite soon what kind of counter-attack MS and Sony will do, but now we don't have enough details. And we still have to see their actual effectiveness, whatever kind of counter-attack they will happen to be.

The article by Christensen mai kindly posted answering me http://www.forbes.com/2007/08/01/sony-games-innovation-lead-cz_cc_0802christensen.html is about what Sony could do and it's quite clear, it's also clear that if Move and its games are definable as a "me too" reaction, it will be the weakest possible counter-attack amongst those that Christensen lists in the article, but we don't know every detail about all this yet. and we dont' know how the public will react, yet. Even less we know what Sony, MS and Nintendo itself are preparing for next gen. I admit that up until now disruption worked very well for Nintendo, but for the future, I am neither Malstrom nor Pachter and I haven't got a crystal ball.

My point is just that we haven't got enough data for the future, I'm not dodging the questions, my answer is just "we can't know with enough precision, yet".

So when you state that you are sure about how disruption will proceed, I can answer you neither "yes" nor "no", but just "maybe", or to use a phrase that appears to short-circuit your valves, "it's not granted". 

Edit:

You cite:

"When the incumbent has retreated into the highest tiers of its market and has to fight because there is no room for further retreat, it is at a competitive disadvantage. As the game changes to the one the disruptor plays best, it is very hard for the incumbents to develop new skills quickly."

From the very pen (or keyboard) of Christensen, two simple statements that don't contradict what I'm saying: the first one is, can we say with absolute precision the incumbent retreated into the highest tiers of the market? Up until now, it's more like Sony initially chose to avoid fighting Nintendo and instead it fought MS for second place as soon as economies of scale and widened SW library allowed it. It cannot be considered a retreat, because the market was growing and still is, although slower, and also because Sony is persuaded some PS3 features give it a market that is at least partially independent from Wii's and XB360's ones: we could even say that Sony had since the beginning some skills and values Nintendo hasn't, multimedia player capabilities, although they were eventually revealed as less lucrative than Nintendo's ones and Nintendo isn't by any means interested in them.

The second is the bolded part, that's precisely what I'm saying: the game changed to the one the disruptor plays best and it's very hard for the incumbent, etc...

Very hard, NOT impossible, very hard means Nintendo has good chances, not absolute certainty of victory.

BTW, the article you linked proceeds mentioning also cases in which the disruptor doesn't succeed and cases where disruptor and incumbent fight and hurt each other without a real winner but with actually two losers instead.

What you'll never find in Christensen articles (or in any other economists' ones) is absolute certainty, because he can accurately describe and predict what will happen when the initial conditions are met and if disruptor and incumbent follow the typical behaviours he observed before, he can check whether in current cases the conditions are met, but he can't tell for sure three things: whether in current and future cases disruptor and incumbent will keep on following the typical behaviours and, in future cases, not even if the conditions will be met again.

If you read the last parts of the article you cited, he proceeds also roughly describing some cases in which the incumbent's reaction can partially or totally succeed.

But let's also read another part of that article:

A) By the time the Bell companies firmly established themselves, they developed unique competencies related to transmitting the human voice over relatively short distances. They established skills in acoustics, network management, customer service, and so on. Western Union had none of these skills. Its business did not need to solve these problems. It was on the wrong side of asymmetries. Western Union couldn't suddenly become a viable competitor after the telephone had been improving for twenty-five years. Similarly, Digital Equipment Corporation couldn't match the flexibility of the personal computer assemblers' processes, Sears couldn't match the inventory turns and low prices of the discount retailers, and so on.

B) It is important to note that almost thirty years elapsed from the introduction of the telephone before telephony operators began making serious inroads against Western Union. Similarly, wireless telephony existed for twenty-five years before it seriously began to erode the wireline business. Both innovations grew for a very long time in markets that were different from the incumbents' cores. Incumbent firms that take action when data shows a downturn in their core businesses take action too late. The only signal to take timely action is sound theory.

A) Sony's and MS' situation is that their skills are not as dramatically outdated or even worse absent like Western  Union's, DEC's and Sears' ones were.

B) The long timespan of some disruptions can change things in unpredictable ways: while in telephone vs telegraph Bell managed to enjoy a very large part of the success of the disruption it started, in the case of cellphones vs wired phones not in every country the disruption fruits were gathered totally or partially by the companies that started the disruption.

There is enough just from these things, to say that we can't be 100% sure.

No, your dodging the question, and you have shown no evidence you know anything about disruption.

You are the worst person to argue becuase the points get lost in a mess. You avoid every direct question, which is why I consider you wrong. A person with a strong argument can give up an answer. Even a person who doesn't know whjat they heck they are talking about would at least give a wrong answer. You are flat out no giving one, which leads me to beleive you don't know, and any answer you give would reveal that you are lieing.

I have yet to see anything from you that you know disruption.

Also, you fail at interpritations. You are saying that the Nintendo could not disrupt and I've explained how you are (by saying they could not, you are saying it is possible, despite the fact you never say why it is possible. Heck, even if I was wrong, you could at least answer why it is not possible).

Alby_de_Wolf will never be wrong because anytime he could be, he dodges the question and tries to deflect. No point in argueing him. Give me a reason to beleive you and I might.

EDIT:Note how his post talks about very little. He responds to absolutly nothing and hangs on one thing I said (which wasn't relevant anyway). Why wont he comment on all the stuff I said? Because if he does, he might be wrong.

I added some things to my previous answer before reading this last post of yours.

Edit: BTW you keep on doing the same error, wherever Christensen talks about high likelyhood for disruptor to succeed and very hard for the incumbent to devise and carry out an effective reaction, you transform it into certainty.

Edit 2: The other error you are repeating is giving to my anwers a different meaning. Or is it done on purpose?

Edit 3: The plain fact that I state that I cannot be sure implies automatically that I can definitely be wrong, so don't put this thing in my words, you firmly believe I'm wrongly persuaded I'm right because you have certainties, I haven't. You are indeed scared by anybody's uncertainties about your certainties. And the other error you repeat is equalling "uncertain that something is" with "certain that something isn't", for the last time, THEY AREN'T THE SAME!!!!!

I disagree with your pyramid definition somewhat. In my mind the higher end specialised tasks are higher end and the more niche (hardcore) the game is the higher on the pyramid it belongs. The further down the pyramid the wider the potential adoption base and the product is becoming more like an appliance. Nintendo positioned and created a gaming system which was more like an appliance than any other game console ever created so they started lower and worked their way up with games and down with applications like Wii Fit. They have to sell the machine to sell the games so the lower they position the console on the pyramid then the wider the base and the greater potential sales of higher tier services. So if they make a game system more powerful they can capture a higher proportion of the pyramid and if they make that game system even more of an appliance they can capture a much wider base. Wii Fit is an appliance more so than a game. Thats why I believe an application store is the most important point to moving downstream because they can unlock its general potential however as a result they can sell a system which is bought for something other than gaming at least initially.

I have always believed that Wave and Move are coming at Nintendo from completely different angles. You can see it with many people here stating that the Wave (Natal) may not even need games to be successful. Specialist products can be disrupted by generalist products when the specialist products are rolled into a wider base. GPS units are a key example of specialist products disrupted by their inclusion in cars and mobile phones which are generalist products. Another area where specialist products can be disrupted is mobile gaming. The iRange of products holds 20% by revenue for 2009 of the entire mobile gaming market. Nintendo are being disrupted in the handheld market which is why they named Apple as their biggest competitor and which is why the 3DS exists. The 3DS is a defensive move against this disruption. Its a completely different market  strategy and distribution method which is far cheaper enables far cheaper games to be sold and at a much lower price than they can sell the same games.

You know what. That actually was a good read guys.You might not like to argue with him. But im still glad you did lol

Cheers! I like it when you guys have links, too keep it up.

Reggie already said that the follow-up to the Wii will have much more than just HD. The Wii still has a lot going for it, so we won't see the next console for a while.

Ya i think the same way. I actually think they will support it well up to 2018 give or take a few years.

The next consule will come when its needed, for Nintendo to keep fighting. there will be a day. but like you said its not going to be just Wii HD

Its going to be a crap load of stuff.

Iwata and Reggie had already states that HD is not enough for their next console. They are likely to had other tricks.

Natal and move are counter attacks for the disru[ption of the wii mote, but Nintendo is already away with a new device: the vitality sensor. if they can nailed it with SW as Wii sports for the wii mote and Wii fit for the balance board, they will continue to difference themself even more.

Last for the online, looking at Iwata investor's conference, it seems to be important to Nintendo and they will likely improve and widened that (maybe 3G for the 3DS... who knows). They seems concerned to push customers to go online (wifi point at Mc Donald in Japan, connect program in europe)

He's essentially admitting defeat here. For years he's been "predicting" Wii HD, and for years he's been proven wrong. Now he's trying to back out gracefully so he can regain some shred of respect from the few people that still listen to him.

And most probably he's doing his best, like lots other analysts like him, to let the stock market gracefully retreat too and give his clients the time to save the investments he previously suggested...