If you view my post history (if you included me in this notion, that is) you'll see that I usually commend some of his points but I feel that they drown in his incredible arrogant style and delusions of grandeur and the fact that he, literally, only writes about one thing; Nintendo's struggle against the evil world and their brilliant plans that no one understands.

Has he got some valid points sometimes? Yes, to claim otherwise is just silly. Is he still a bore that write the same piece over and over under the guise of different article titles and slightly different angles? Yes, that as well. The fact that many people elevate a blogger near divine status to is quite disheartening and it leads me to believe that it lies more in the fact that they like what he says because it agrees with their preferences and less with being really brilliantly fantastic at anything.

Read his full articles they are far better than his blog posts

I'd second this. What actually drew me to Malstrom was how he was going left while every thing else was going right. He Provided (for me) an alternative view on the happenings with gaming. What was of great interest was how in the world Nintendo was able to accomplish what they did with the Wii this generation and the talk of blue ocean and disruption in relation to gaming was an informative read. I can see how some (many) people may find this persona annoying but I feel the grandure nature of it is part of his appeal like him or loathe him.

After reading Birdman fallacy and even some of his earlier articles preceeding that one he called the Wii's success before anyone else and he was right so I don't just take what he says with a grain of salt. I don't agree with everything he says, though. And I'm not supposed to. Just like I don't agree with everything Nintendo does. I'm not some sort of parrot, I think for myself and I think others should do this more often as well. And I've definitely taken notice of your posting history, I've been here long enough ;) I wasn't trying to call you out in particular I was actually being broad in that anytime a malstrom article or blog is posted in a thread the discussion always veers off into what an asshole the guy is.

better than most. really good

His attitude apart, what's wrong about how Malstrom applies game and disruption theory to console market is that for disruption to happen the new market must marginalize the old one, and this actually didn't happen by any means: Nintend hovers around 48-49% market share, this isn't disruption, simply Nintendo found a new market as big as the old one, plain and simple. This thing is confirmed by two facts confirming each other: the overall 7th gen market is bigger than the previous, as it's already >100million after 3 years of Wii and PS3 life and 4 years of XB360, and Nintendo is attracting new gamers that didn't like videogaming before.
But the new market didn't make the old one disappear, so no market disruption sorry.
A partial disruption of old ideas, OTOH, happened, the new market is as big as the old one and Sony and MS would like a slice of it, so they'll try to develop their motion cotrols to get some. But it will be more a sum than a replacement.
And Malstrom's statement that Nintendo does only small errors and great things done right could even be right, although Nintendo too, actually, did some big mistakes in the past, but when he adds that Sony and MS always do the opposite, like the birdmen of that article of his, he's plain ridiculous.

Actually that's wrong, the old market is being marginalized, Sony and MS are trying to move away from it with NATAL and the Wand, their attempts are going to be largely failures, but they are accepting that the old market is dying.  If it wasn't they wouldn't be trying to enter the new Market.  The risk of leaving the old market to grab a slice of the new one wouldn't outweigh the potential benefits.

Really, so then why has Nintendo always been profitable in gaming and Sony and MS not

^^
The old market is dying? Where? When?
Malstrom microwaved his jurassic pizza and some people are mistaking it for a freshly made one...

RolStoppable said: Alby_da_Wolf said: ^^ The old market is dying? Where? When? Malstrom microwaved his jurassic pizza and some people are mistaking it for a freshly made one... Wait, didn't we two talk about the same exact thing before? The old market remained at the size it is only because the business is run at a loss. Kinda like American car companies who maintained market share by throwing money at it. If a part of the market loses profitability it is also a clear sign of disruption, especially when the new part of the market shows that the overall interest in the product didn't decline, but actually increased.

As Sony and MS always followed a business model different from Nintendo, losing on HW for the first years, we'll have to wait for the end of this gen to tell if there was a loss overall. But if >51% keep on buying old style, maybe losses aren't only due to higher costs, but also to bad management, both things dare different from the old market dying for natural life limit reached. All this stated, there is a fundamental requirement missing for disruption: size. As long as the new market isn't much bigger than the old one, we can't talk about disruption, spinning that the old market is artificially kept alive clashes with the hard fact that people are still buying the old style products, if the product had become almost undesirable and worthless, people wouldn't buy it unless they give it to them for free, and this isn't by any means happening. What is obvious is that Nintendo is overall market leader and that most losses on both its competitors sides are due to poor management, arrogance, sloppiness, underestimating competitors and other similar faults, but this has nothing to do with a presumed and not proven death of the old market.

Obviously half-assed and late motion controls by MS and Sony won't change Nintendo leadership and MS will at best get very thin slices of the new market this gen, but leadership and disruption are two different things. Anyway, this Xmas is going to be so huge that it will influence market shares partition for months after (as dead season sales will have even more difficulty than usual to significantly change the shares reached by each competitor), we'll have to wait and see another 6-7 weeks. And then each one will crow over a victory whatever it happens, so nevermind...   

Serious question:

How long do you think a successful disruption usually takes? It appears you're arguing for 3 years. Please tell me you don't think it only takes 3 years.

http://video.hbsp.com/?plid=731131&showID=730851

That's a co-autor of the books that DEFINED disruption as a theory. 

At 2:33, that's a Wiimote in his hand. 

While he is talking about disruption. 

Where did you get the idea that the disruption must be finished in 3 years? Gunpowder disrupted crossbows over a century, so did steamships with sailing.

The disruptor already has the new downmarket, and already started upstreaming, From now on, it is all inevitable. Just a matter of time.