I know all of that. My arguments are highlighted.

I will address them in turn along with others following afterwards.

Nintendo doesn't have the shield. They have no strategy that the competition is adverse to adopting. Directly from CC (clayton christensen), it's not that they WON'T adopt the strategy, but that they CAN'T adopt the strategy. That is what the shield is.Look back to the comment CC made about cell phone companies. They started it first and the bigger businesses let them have the market until the big phone companies realized they could make a lot of money in the market.

A shield is one like the apple ipod (which, by the way, CC does call disruption). They moved into mp3 format playing with the kind of hard disk space that matched up with the napster/torrent/etc amount of raw data size. The companies that were in cd-based players didn't want to get involved. Look at the first mp3 players. Creative Labs MuVo, Hango portable jukebox, Diamond Rio. NO CD Player makers. No Magnavox, no phillips, no Sony. The reason why? Because these (specifically American) mp3 companies were being sued left and right by the MPAA, the amount of startup capital for transitioning to new tech was too high (considering the very low margin profit in cd players due to heavy red ocean pricing), and because it was still new.

Now,Sony saw that there was a market burgeoning in the high capacity audio device market. However, many of these mp3s seemed to be promoting piracy.Sony owned 2 or 3 record labels and would lose money if audio moved to mp3s. So, instead of putting a drive inside the player, they made switchable drives, ie minidiscs and injected a piracy protection measure in order to "guide" the mp3 movement in a safer direction. In the end, it failed, because Sony just could not get into the market. Nobody wanted the minidiscs.

That is a true shield. The explanation that you've given straight from the words of malstrom is hollow. Again, you ignored the points I made at the end about what CC said about disruption. Maybe you addressed one or two of them. But you continue to ignore the most crucial part. 'Continued disruption HAS NEVER and MOST LIKELY WILL NEVER occur.' -CC

Secondly I don't know what you mean by integrated hardware and software company. I don't know what you mean by Nintendo being one and Sony/MS not being one. I'd like some clarification on that.

Next, I want to clarify again. Move is easily a co-option. I can see that now, but I still disagree about Kinect being a co-option. I can see underserved markets in the wii. They're plain as day. However, this isn't an issue as neither of us will change our minds.

Let's not change this into an argument of who is disrupting whom or what is disruption and what isn't. Let's focus on the bigger picture of whether or not Sony and MS will survive. From everything I've read about disruption from christensen (and believe me, I check Malstrom's page every day for updates. I even became a member so that I could read more of his stuff and comments etc), there is no evidence that buying Nintendo is the only way to survive, and there is no evidence that either company are going to pull out or fail.

Like I said in the previous post, they are too large to get bogged down by this. I made so many points that need to be answered before you even get to this reply. You ignored almost everything.

EDIT:
Additionally, I just wanted to point something out. While you are "debating" correctly. (ANd what I mean by that is by the book debate-team stratgegy of repeating only your strongest points) You make no concessions as to when you may be wrong. While I am attempting to work this out in a discussion that leads to the truth, you make statements that when challenged, get little response. "All of Sony's eggs are in the 3d basket". "Sony and MS will collapse and only Nintendo will remain". "This will bankrupt" etc etc.When you don't address the things that you are blatantly wrong about, it makes you appear very one-sided or "willfully ignorant".

EDIT2: Also, don't go listing Malstrom's 3 Nintendo Shield's like I don't know what I'm talking about or haven't read as much as you have. The main obstacle in this discussion flow is that you assume I haven't read any of this stuff. You quote things that I'm questioning like I'm unaware of the answer that's been put forth by Malstrom. For example, I write "what are Nintendo's shield? What is preventing the competition from co-opting?". I'm not interested in what Malstrom or anyone else wrote. So far as I can see, what Malstrom wrote is misguided. He focuses too heavily on the "motivations" aspect of asymmetries of motivation. Yes, Nintendo has different motivations. They have different values compared to the "old market". That is easy to see. But once again, his argument deftly circumvents the true definition of asymmetry of motivation, being that the competition is supposed to be incapable of adopting the motivations of the disruptor. In kinect, there is no motivational incompatibility. For example, the tv show based nature of the wii. Kinect is designed to navigate through movies, and there's been talking of channel surfing etc based on kinect input. Then the other supposed "shield" being the active fit fun type of gaming. How is kinect different? Then finally, the other supposed shield, being nintendo's kind of online. I can see you shaking your head as I say that this shield is complete garbage. But the fact is, Nintendo's kind of online isn't what is going to make it sell more than kinect. It's a completely useless shield.

As Snake wrote in another thread:

Solid_Snake4RD on 08/13/10 22:17 GMT

So Sony could simply duck-tape two PS Eyes at a known distance, write those two or three lines of SW needed and tah-dah! For just $60, a stereo-3D detection system with better specs than a $150 Kinect!   

Seeing as you keep trying to call Nintendo the incumbant, I don't think you do.

Nintendo doesn't have the shield.

Wrong. The sheild is the asymetric motivation. It's the reason the company wants to make the new market or go for the lowest one. "Asymmetries of motivation occur when one firm wants to do something that another firm specifically does not want to do."

Nintendo wants to expand gaming. Sony and Microsoft show no interest in doing this. What you said was off of what Cristensen said.

 'Continued disruption HAS NEVER and MOST LIKELY WILL NEVER occur.' -CC

What he is describing is call a Wheel of Disruption. This is when a company can keep disrupting and keep market leadership because of it. It is not what you think it is.

Secondly I don't know what you mean by integrated hardware and software company. I don't know what you mean by Nintendo being one and Sony/MS not being one. I'd like some clarification on that.

This means that Nintendo's hardware engineers and their software developers are integrated and work together. They design the hardware for the needs of the software. Sony and Microsoft's game divisions are not like this at all. All of their software developers are 3rd party companies they own and the two rely so much on 3rd party support anyway. This is why Nintendo has made every innovation in video games in the last 15 years and the other two can only copy it.

Let's not change this into an argument of who is disrupting whom or what is disruption and what isn't. Let's focus on the bigger picture of whether or not Sony and MS will survive. From everything I've read about disruption from christensen (and believe me, I check Malstrom's page every day for updates. I even became a member so that I could read more of his stuff and comments etc), there is no evidence that buying Nintendo is the only way to survive, and there is no evidence that either company are going to pull out or fail.

From Christensen's mouth: Typically, the best an incumbent can do is to belatedly acquire the winning firm and stave off ultimate destruction.

As far as the state of Sony and Microsoft, both will leave the market. Sony has lost most of the money they've made from the PS2 generation (if not all). They are sinking. This is probably why we didn't see a PSP2 despite it would be the mosty logical option if they wish to stay in the handheld business. Kinect is such a horrible product that it will kill the XBox line. People remember your blunders in the bvideo game biz. Nintendo has never lived down the Virtual Boy. Microsoft can never remove the stink that is Kinect. Investors want them out anyway, so they likely will have to bail when Kinect goes haywire.

 I made so many points that need to be answered before you even get to this reply. You ignored almost everything.

The reason I did is because I don't to bog myself in your arguments. You were trying to call Nintendo the incumbant, Kinect disruptive, and even XBox Live as disruptive. This means you do not know what disruption is. You are trying to bend it to fit your needs.

Also, don't go listing Malstrom's 3 Nintendo Shield's like I don't know what I'm talking about or haven't read as much as you have.

This is coming from the guy who called Nintendo an incumbant. No, you have not read enough, because you got the basic definitions wrong. You still tried to say Nintendo has no sheild (which is flat out wrong).

Pfft, we all know the real sales of Move will only be on PS3Chartz, not VGChartz, and will almost certainly be over 9,000,000.

I do agree that the primary target of all promotion relating to PS Move should be the core gamers, which is to say those PS3 owners who would classify themselves as "Sony fans", rather than simply "PS3 owners". The people who B_3_L_I_E_V_E that PlayStation (R) 3 is the future (nobody has that in their sig any more ).

I'm pretty sure Sony has learnt its lesson regarding profitability, and won't be loss leading (or loss trailing, whichever may be the case) with PS Move. It doesn't seem like overly expensive technology, and at the price at which they are selling it, it should be nicely profitable from day one. I think they have to really market this thing before Kinect comes out, to show the unconverted that Kinect isn't this year's only new motion control device. Ideally, they'll want to go below the belt, and point out all the things that Kinect is unable to do, while Move can (chief amongst them being buttons).

From the time Kinect launches, marketing should be toned down a little. Initial reception of Kinect, from what we've seen and heard, won't be fantastic. Indeed, somebody I was talking to today insisted that Kinect fully supported four players simultaneously playing. With that done, Move should be marketed as the definitive motion control device for the holiday season.

From there on, with luck, "Move" will be a household word, as such, so in 2011 and beyond, a simple "Supports/Features/Requires PlayStation Move" during game adverts should be sufficient to create interest in the higher-quality Move games, and to sustain interest in Move.

Move's daddy EyeToy will be so proud. Of course, he's only Move's adopted father. EyeToy always liked his illegitimate son Natal more, but now he's having trouble kinecting with him.

I disagree about what market each are in. Malstrom says Sony and MS are in the old market and Nintendo is in the new market. That's pretty much a direct quote. I'm not going to continue arguing the merits of each market, but I've pointed out various markets and their submarkets and how the two can actually be distinct from one another. Portable gaming is a distinct market from console gaming, as it is distinct from pc gaming.

But how can that be? PC games are all over the consoles, and the only difference is the input?

The difference lies within the type of person that owns the platform. PCs have a variety of different ways to game, from downloads, to demos, to shareware, to piracy, to beta testing, to facebook games, and flash. Because of all those different ways to game, the market must be approached in a variety of ways, and advertised likewise. Just the fact that both malstrom and christensen both say that playstation was disrupting the pc through gaming should be enlightening.

But, the wii is the disruptor, it will continue being the disruptor in the old market until the competition disappears and the wii becomes the standard. You don't even know the basics of disruption.

So then why has the wii began engaging in sustaining innovation? Wii motion plus, iplayer, netflix, string of classic-core games announced at e3. These are not creating new markets. They are evolutionary sustaining innovations. "An innovation that improves a product in an existing market in ways that customers are expecting." Along with that are the revolutionary sustaining innovations of the balance board and vitality sensor. Sustaining innovation is the hallmark of the incumbent. Sustaining information creates disruptive opportunities.

The facts support my position, but you see them as supporting your position. It doesn't mean either of us are wrong. We just disagree on what is what. Instead, we can focus on your statements that Sony and MS have to buy out Nintendo to survive, or that both of them are going to collapse, or that sony has all their eggs in 3D, or how Nintendo has the shields to prevent kinect or move from successful co-option. Or , we don't have to talk about it at all, because if we disagree on the above, then we'll be hard pressed to come to some agreement here. All I can do, as I have been doing, is present concrete examples from Clayton himself and point out how incongrous Malstrom's theories are. Nintendo does not have a shield anywhere near what CC examples have, and Sony's success does not hinge on 3D.

Kinect will appeal to an underserved demographic and create a new market that Nintendo is incapable of getting involved in due to their reliance on peripherals. It has a lot of the requirements, or descriptive factors associated with being disruptive. It's hated by the mainstream, people question its use, and it's called a poor product in terms of gaming needs.

So let's just disagree about everything. I come to this resolution after seeing how you dodge my questions, restate your points, and just generally go against what I see are the facts. A hilarious reaction is brought up whenever someone mentions that console gaming would still be up over this time last gen without the wii. In fact, the only time the market slowed down was because wii topped out. The response comes, "No, it would not, because DS wouldn't exist. DS is the spiritual equivalent of the wii. And if Nintendo didn't think of wii, they wouldn't have thought of DS." I often facepalm when I see this circular logic written in some thread. We are talking about wii as a disruptive technology and how it's crushing the industry, right? So much for transforming the industry with a new standard and bringing the old kingdom crashing down.

See, the problem with the wii is not just that it doesn't have adequate shields, but rather that the entire industry wants to do what the wii does. It's been mentioned by nearly every developer and analyst. Games cost too much too make. Games cost too much to buy. We need smaller games. We could be selling more peripherals. We could stop hurting our profit margin by putting in only the most cutting edge tech. We can't quality control our consoles because of the competition. The razorblade model is failing. Sales of these hardcore, expensively made games is dropping.

The market will change. But it won't change because Nintendo has annihilated the market, it will be because Nintendo evolved the market.