Adding more bells isn't the only wayt to go upmarket. But in case you hadn't noticed, Nintendo is willing to add stuff to the systems, if they think it doesn't get in the way of the games.

If you are talking about asymetric motivation or skill, then Sony has neither as they are the incumbent, not the disruptor.

You misunderstand going upmarket. Sony will happily leave lesser markets because the margins are smaller there. These markets are their worst customers, ones Nintendo will happily take. Sony will keep doing this because they see it as serving their best customers. However, Sony will move to a point where they can no longer flee to a higher market, and this is where the counter attack comes in.

The reason Nintendo absorbs Sony's market is because their disruptive innovation gets better and better. The Wii Remote started off bad, but it got better. The first market jumped for the Wii Remote as they were the least demanding consumers, so they didn't mind the crappy Wii remote. Customers in the higher teirs are more demanding, and they see the Wii Remote as bad. Motion Plus comes and fixes that. My one big critism is Nintendo has not been making enough Motion Plus software, or, at least, should be making that over Galaxy 2 and Other M.

Didn't Nintendo use price cuts too?

Yes, but only one and only after Sony announced the Slim. They also only cut it by 20% over all. Sony and Microsoft have cut by 50% and redesigned the console.

I understand it: but currently and for the next, maybe, two gens, Sony can still add enough extra features to continue its game and Ninty will follow only later because doing it earlier would mean increasing too much costs and retail price (but focusing as always on the most important features). It actually must do it, because it cannot change things suddenly and each new gen planning starts many years earlier, but I agree that this Sony game can't last forever, because tech is now running faster than humans can absorb it, for entertainment purposes, put too much of it in a product and it becomes stressing instead of relaxing, like some overcomplicated VCRs of the past. So yes, in the next ten years Sony will have to start changing its business model, to be ready when the 3rd next gen from now starts. And it will have to start changing a lot of things even earlier obviously (*), but I agree that it is in the longer term the danger that overshooting the user can arrive to a point where it's not sustainable anymore. You can bet I understand that overshooting can become counter-productive, I myself hate overshooting, unless it's very mild and unobtrusive on the main features and easy on my pockets.

In the meantime, what you criticize about WM Plus, united to MS approach for Kinect is just what makes Sony's current approach for Move sensible. Quite unambitious, but quite safe too: on HD consoles motion controls come too late this gen to realistically expect to do more, so for the time being filling spaces left by competitors and leaving them to fight each other for something else is the easiest and safest thing to do (IMVHO the more daring options suggested by Christensen to Sony could have been effective if tried earlier, as soon as he suggested them, not so late). Next gen they must be ready from the start, though.

(*) It's clear from what happened with PS3, that the maximum acceptable launch price must not exceed $400 for the entry level model, and it must drop to $300 as soon as possible, so if Sony still wants to follow this model and Nintendo keeps its $200-250 launch price PROFITING, Sony the next gens has a only $150-200, more if it's still ready to lose on HW initially, available to add extras. PS3 clearly went out of control, but it's also quite sure Sony wished to launch it one year later than it did. With time, that $400 will have to decrease. Anyway, we can be sure that even if Sony adopts a model more sensible, profitable, and similar to Nintendo, more focused on essential gaming features, it will keep a small level of overshooting and overpricing, because it's something most people expect from Sony brand, so the key will be keeping it within a level sufficient but not dangerous. Even more the key will be to use very wisely that money, and amongst all the extra features Nintendo isn't willing to include in a given gen, choosing the most significant ones, avoiding to waste money on bells and whistles. You'll still hate the Sony model, but far less people will do it, or find it overpriced or wasting money on unnecessary things. That is, SLOWING, breaking the vicious circle you are correctly criticizing of fleeing to upper market so fast that eventually the public stops understanding and following.

Essentially you claim that Sony won't find the force to persuade itself to make the necessary changes in time, I don't agree because now it should be clear to anybody, including Sony, how things are going, and also because this time the last Sony move with Move (sorry for the pun), aiming it also at a more hardcore market, doesn't seem anymore dictated by a stubborn attachment to old models, but instead by having seen an opportunity, a space left almost free by competitors. It's not innovation, it's not counter-disruptive, it's not co-option, it's just a simple rule of business common sense that apply to every business model, you see a free space, you can occupy it with your products, you do it, plain and simple.

Yes, like I wrote answering Smashchu2, I agree that Sony will have to abandon bells and whistles, they generate a dangerous vicious circle, but keeping a smaller, more reasonable overprice, using the extra money to choose the most significant features Nintendo chose instead to not include in a given gen (but that it could anyway include the successive gen) not because it doesn't like them, but just because in that given gen they cannot be fit without exceeding the maximum launch price Nintendo planned or without sacrificing profit.

People expect some extras from Sony, and, if they like Sony, they are willing to pay a reasonable extra for them, the key is that this thing must never again go out of control, so Sony will have to choose very wisely.

I think you're wrong here

Killer app is not up to your opinion. Either systems get high sustained sales from people buying the system just for that application, or they don't. They didn't for CoD. That's not subjective. That's a fact.

I understand it: but currently and for the next, maybe, two gens, Sony can still add enough extra features to continue its game and Ninty will follow only later because doing it earlier would mean increasing too much costs and retail price (but focusing as always on the most important features).

Remember that this has not helped Sony in this generation, and it can be argued it never did. Also, Nintendo's plan is to do things differently. So following Sony is not their plan. Nintendo has rarely, if ever, followed Sony. Sony tends to use Nintendo's ideas and add in functionallity from other devices they make.

It actually must do it, because it cannot change things suddenly and each new gen planning starts many years earlier, but I agree that this Sony game can't last forever, because tech is now running faster than humans can absorb it, for entertainment purposes, put too much of it in a product and it becomes stressing instead of relaxing, like some overcomplicated VCRs of the past. So yes, in the next ten years Sony will have to start changing its business model, to be ready when the 3rd next gen from now starts. And it will have to start changing a lot of things even earlier obviously (*), but I agree that it is in the longer term the danger that overshooting the user can arrive to a point where it's not sustainable anymore. You can bet I understand that overshooting can become counter-productive, I myself hate overshooting, unless it's very mild and unobtrusive on the main features and easy on my pockets.

You're mostly right here (and you did naim Sony over shooting the market) but overshooting is never good. Nintendo could not disrupt Sony if they didn't overshoot (and Microsoft too for that matter). When there is overshooting, there is disruption.

In the meantime, what you criticize about WM Plus, united to MS approach for Kinect is just what makes Sony's current approach for Move sensible. Quite unambitious, but quite safe too: on HD consoles motion controls come too late this gen to realistically expect to do more, so for the time being filling spaces left by competitors and leaving them to fight each other for something else is the easiest and safest thing to do

It's really only more sensable because Microsoft with Kinect is bat **** insane. Remember that these controllers are a defense against Nintendo. There is very little safe about them because they have to bet they will work less Nintendo run away with the new market. But, yes, I think you've got the right idea.

(IMVHO the more daring options suggested by Christensen to Sony could have been effective if tried earlier, as soon as he suggested them, not so late). Next gen they must be ready from the start, though.

I agree on the first part, but not on the bold. Christensen says that the fall out of the counter attack is the end of great firms. While this alone wont end Sony, they probably wont have a PS4. You can kind of see this in the lack of a PSP2. Everyone expected there to be one because the system is dying and has almost no software support not to mention it's had a decent life span of 6 years. A PSP2 makes perfect sense. But instead of that, they release a new ad campaign. WTF? I think something is going on inside of Sony. I would not doubt that the bigwigs at the company blocked a PSP2 due to it's current place in the market and how much the Playstation line has pissed away in the last few years. They never attributed the 10 year plan to the PSP and the plan was Sony saying how the system was future proof. Now the PSP has a 10 year plan? I don't think Sony is giving the whole story.

(*) It's clear from what happened with PS3, that the maximum acceptable launch price must not exceed $400 for the entry level model, and it must drop to $300 as soon as possible, so if Sony still wants to follow this model and Nintendo keeps its $200-250 launch price PROFITING, Sony the next gens has a only $150-200, more if it's still ready to lose on HW initially, available to add extras. PS3 clearly went out of control, but it's also quite sure Sony wished to launch it one year later than it did. With time, that $400 will have to decrease. Anyway, we can be sure that even if Sony adopts a model more sensible, profitable, and similar to Nintendo, more focused on essential gaming features, it will keep a small level of overshooting and overpricing, because it's something most people expect from Sony brand, so the key will be keeping it within a level sufficient but not dangerous. Even more the key will be to use very wisely that money, and amongst all the extra features Nintendo isn't willing to include in a given gen, choosing the most significant ones, avoiding to waste money on bells and whistles. You'll still hate the Sony model, but far less people will do it, or find it overpriced or wasting money on unnecessary things. That is, SLOWING, breaking the vicious circle you are correctly criticizing of fleeing to upper market so fast that eventually the public stops understanding and following.

A little mismashed here. Overshooting is bad, even a little. There is no good overshooting and it should be a hole a company should patch before a disruptor comes and does it for them. However, Sony's model with the Playstation line was always broken, but it worked because they were on top and could get all the royalties from the massive number of games made. They always lost in their first year. If Sony gets a second chance, they have to make a system profitable from day one and they have to launch first (Sony always loses when they don't launch first).

Essentially you claim that Sony won't find the force to persuade itself to make the necessary changes in time, I don't agree because now it should be clear to anybody, including Sony, how things are going, and also because this time the last Sony move with Move (sorry for the pun), aiming it also at a more hardcore market, doesn't seem anymore dictated by a stubborn attachment to old models, but instead by having seen an opportunity, a space left almost free by competitors. It's not innovation, it's not counter-disruptive, it's not co-option, it's just a simple rule of business common sense that apply to every business model, you see a free space, you can occupy it with your products, you do it, plain and simple.

This is from a disruption stand point. A asymetric motivation is how Nintendo's market wont be absorbed when the counter attack happens. If Nintendo had the same motivation as Sony, then Sony could easily jump into the market and take it away. Since their motivation is different, than they will be able to block a counter attack.

Sony wont be motivated to change because they want to serve their best customers. Incumbents go upmarket because they will then be focused on their best, highest paying customers. They will be happy to leave the riff raff behind. Sony wants to cater to the graphics junkies because they see the most profit in them. It will only be too late that they realize it was a mistake.

Legs for the games do not mean legs for a system, unless the system has a sustained boost. And they did not get a boost.

Nov 07, 2009, Nov 14, 2009, Nov 21, 2009: O7 is before MW2 came out, and you can see the systems were alreay going up from the previous week. And on 21, the 360 sales went down. So there was no boost from the game, just the holiday boost.

Yes, I stretched the overshooting meaning, actually it's more correct to say that both old and new Sony customers expect from it a richer set of features and can pay something more for them, but from now on Sony must handle this WITHOUT true overshooting, so without making the added features and their costs go out of control. The ideal, as you wrote, would be profitable HW since launch, but I can still give Sony that if they keep losses on HW low and start breaking even on it within two years, it could be still acceptable, but to really play safe, considering MS aggressiveness towards Sony and its desire to hit it even losing money doing it, HW profitability within one year would be a lot wiser and safer. And don't we forget one thing: there are not so many multimedia features that can be added to a console that PS3 hasn't yet, so, unless something revolutionary in non gaming entertainment  is invented in the next few years, the room to add extra, non gaming features is doomed to shrink drastically, this by itself should force Sony to change its model fast.

Multimedia features becoming so mainstream that even cost-savvy Nintendo could include them next gen, will make a widespread reality two gens later than predicted what MS feared from PS2, consoles eating living room - home theatre PCs market that MS hoped to almost monopolize as it did with desktops, quite unrealistic ambition, considering that even the smallest versions of Windows, used in phones, are considered the most bloated, clumsiest and least stable and reliable in their market and would be an absurd solution, except for a geek niche, in a market like living room entertainment, where smooth and hassle-free functioning is an indispensable value. So we could say that ironically Wii apparently helped MS saving from Sony that market it so much craved for itself only to let it watch it devoured later not only by Sony, but also by a Nintendo itself stronger than ever. Yes, if MS remains in the market it will get a slice of the pie, but we all know it wanted it all for itself and just providing a monopolist OS on which it has an insane profit margin, instead of having to build the less profitable HW too...

Waiter! Chicken and Starcraft, please!   O-)