The Sony name helped quite a bit as far as public perception was concerned. Without question. But ultimately it was their wide licensing practices that ensured the platform had something for everyone that kept it growing.

As for the whole blue ocean strategy, once that business model finds its home, the blue ocean becomes a red ocean as competition moves in search of success in the same territory. There are no permanent rights to a market for getting there first.

At this point having strong brand recognition and a working product for broad and new demographics continues to bring success, but there is no such thing as permanent success; it's always a moving target.

It mainly depends on whether MS wants to keep Natal exclusive to their console, or whether they want to commercialize it for use with Windows in the future beyond the tech demos.

That's something you'd have to check with the MS bean counters to see which plan would reap the most potential profits.

Technically, they could keep the Natal based games exclusive to the Xbox while still offering a lot of the motion user input, facial recognition, voice recognition, etc. for use with every day computing tasks.

It could change the way a lot of people interface with their PCs, assuming it works in practice.

So Nintendo's success is due to marketing towards casuals, and Sony's success was due to marketing towards image-conscious nerds who are afraid of looking bad when they play games?  Suddenly Chad Warden's making a lot more sense.

I agree with the articles point that MS is driven way to much by it's PR department.
But natal isn't out yet so guessing that it wont deliver it's problem is a little premature to me

Nintendo fanboy article confirmed within the previous 10 pages?

The guy seemed awfully concerned about an all hype poorly functioning accesory (his opinion it seems). Perhaps he was just butt hurt he never got the opportunity to play on Natal himself, at least then his opinion would have some element of professional journalism.

A problem the article doesn't understand is Natal is aimed at the people who have never been hyped for games, and have probably never read a game review. So in all essence the hype for them in news media and casual entertainment media is very good.

Dude, are you just using "disruption" as a synonym of "being successful"? 

The disruption theory is a very well defined business practice that involves finding and serving the least demanding customers, with products thats quality is too low for the core market, earn big profits in the expanded market, and later go upstream against the competitors and their sustaining innovations.

"tecnology advancements" are, by definition, the OPPOSITE of disruption. It is a sustaining innovation. 

"selling hardware at a loss" is called the "razor and blades model", another well-defined business strategy. Yes, it can work, but that won't make it disruptive alone. 

"gearing the games to a more mature audience" is either sustaining innovation, (making it better), or maybe "blue ocean strategy" (finding a new audience).  But unless thesee were crummy products for crummy  customers, it is not disruption.

If a couple interesting/good games are made for it i just might have to get another system. I am sure people will come up with really neat ideas for it. I just hope they are able to get what games they do make for it to play well.

Cool it guys... be bigger men then that :P

Hahahaha! Thank you for that!