@alterego

If that happens I will be all for it. Like I said, I would love it if Nintendo upped their quality next gen.

@demotruk

I don't like to be informed by people who are trying to sell me something. That page has it in it's best interests to make disruption seem really powerful.

After a quick look, I read "sirius and sat.fm need to invent their own niche in order to survive." It seems like MS is creating that niche with the Natal, doesn't it?

""Nintendo seems to make the games and the hardware at the same time, ensuring their development plays well together (something I suspect MS and Sony aren't doing to a great extent)."""

i think he said enough whoever said that ;)

So look it up somewhere else then. Do you want me to write out something that has been written about at great length again, just for you? It wouldn't be a short post. You have the internet at your disposal.

@theprof00 If you are that interested in disruption, did you try reading Malstrom's Disruptive Storm?

This one is more about explaining disruption itself, and less about "Ninty wins M$ stinks"!! If you dislike that attitude of him. (although you need to scroll over ridiculous amounts of Reggie photos)

Edit: I found another good graphic

@demo
It just seems that everytime I say something, you say it's wrong.
Maybe you can play devil's advocate and tell me what could possibly cause the disruption's climax to fail?

From the examples I've seen on that site, it seems that a disrupting product is one that takes the place of another similar type of product based on various reasons. In the Sirius example, where Ipod disrupted it, Ipod was fulfilling the same goal of providing extensive music to a car driver. I don't see how Wii is replacing the types of games ps360 owners play with it's own games. That is why I say, until they make those kinds of games they cannot complete the disruption.

If this makes no sense, then let me know, from your own personal insight, what could keep ps360 alive. I come here primarily to learn, not to argue.

Thanks ego, you're a good guy.

I'll try getting through that article. Malstrom annoys me so much lol. It just seems like his logical process starts with:
"If Nintendo were the winner, then ->" and works backwards.
I'll give it a shot though.

Nice graphic, I'm saving it now.

It seems like all three are practicing disruptive strategies.
Sony with Blu Ray
Xbox with Live!
and Nintendo with Motion

If you simply read up on the subject you're talking about, I won't have to correct you on the concepts all the time.

Microsoft or Sony would have to launch a counter-disruption (which it seems they are beginning to do). This can be successful unless the disruptor has a "disruptive shield", with are assymetries of motivation. In other words Microsoft or Sony would have to start wanting the same things Nintendo wants in order to defeat them. Malstrom describes them in this article: http://malstrom.50webs.com/shield.htm

Microsoft has counter-disrupted things in the past, including recently the playstation, but only because Sony's and Microsoft's motivations are similar to eachother. Microsoft has more trouble with a company like Apple because Apple has different motivations.

Eventually Nintendo will make games that will fulfill the demands of the core market, but they won't fulfill them in the sense that they will provide the best graphics, or the best AI on the market etc. It will be more that the controls (and the other values) will be so good that even HD gamers will have switched over. Graphics, AI etc. will also improve (more slowly than controls) and make the switch easier, Nintendo will not be competing to have the best graphics or the deepest experiences but they will improve in those areas as they become economical.

What are blu-ray and Live! disrupting? Remember that disruption involves providing "crummy customers with crummy products", I'm not sure if blu-ray or Live can be described in this way.