pakidan101 said:
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. 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. WRONG. It's not at all the same. It's actually very far from the same, and it's the basis of the entire shield argument. The question is why MS didn't create a wiimote in the first place. The answer is they were trying to do something different. Microsoft is still looking to giving the customer what the customer wants (bigger, better, faster, stronger). Nintendo is looking to provide the customer with a new way to play games. Nintendo wanted to make the WiiMote an extension of the body. To improve the connection between the game and the person, the interface. This type of thinking does not exist within Microsoft at all, if it did, MS would have had a controller that actually differed from it's previous one. 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. True. But Microsoft can't do everything that NINTENDO can do, because of the assymetries of motivation. Essentially the Xbox360 is more capable as a platform to deliver to more people than the Wii.But do people really care about that? The only difference is that the Wii leveraged an air-mouse with motion capabilities from the start whilst the Xbox360 did not. No, that's not what nintendo did. They offered a new way to play games. The only real improvement in the industry this generation. 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.”
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.”
-Clayton Christensen, “Seeing What’s Next”. Page 50
This explains why die-hard Xbox fans are the most vocal against a Microsoft Wii-mote knock-off. 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. | 
