Can you (Alby) show me some examples of certainties given by Malstrom? I've just not noticed them when reading his articles as I find them very interesting and overall pretty accurate about what is happening. Perhaps I miss this due to focussing on the majority of what he is saying being on the mark.

He writes that the disruptor always wins, or, more precisely, that Nintendo will win and disrupt Sony because Sony keeps on behaving like an incumbent and this, in Malstrom's opinion, automatically means defeat, while Christensen actually writes that the disruptor has high probabilities to win because the incumbent, very often, hasn't an adequate and sufficient reaction and the effectiveness of the most conservative reactions is very often limited compared to the scale of disruption. Christensen does neither exclude totally the possibility that the incumbent adopts disruptive behaviour on its turn, nor that staying incumbent its conservative reactions can be effective, he simply writes that there are many factors that oppose resistance to the first option and that the second option has scarce, but not nonexistent, probabilities of succeeding. I'm surprised that nobody notices that what Malstrom and Christensen write are actually quite different from each other, because reading directly what Christensen writes instead of indirectly, quoted or mentioned by Malstrom, the thing is very evident. Malstrom has the habit of stretching what Christensen writes.

Why would you ever ask Wolfy here about disruption? He doesn't get it. Note that Malstrom always quotes what Christensen is talking about and has write articles on what is going on, using Christensen's own words. I have never seen Wolfy here quote him but say stuff off hand. For all you know, he could be making it up.

What Christensen actually says is that the disruptor will not be able to stand unless it has a sword (unique quality of the disruptor) and a sheild (their motivation). With out both, the disruptor can never cut upmarket. Nintendo has both a sword (being a hardware and software copany) and a sheild (expanding gaming). Becuase of this, Sony and Microsoft can not stop Nintendo.

Malstrom wrote two articles on this. Find them here

Did you actually look at what he wrote about the new system? He said 3D was not going to be the selling point, and that it's likely a ruse.

You fail again. I already linked Christensen's article twice. There won't be a third time. About the rest, we understand different things reading either Malstrom or Christensen and we both won't change our minds, so it's pointless to keep on discussing. But about that allegory of Nintendo having sword and shield, what if Sony and MS have a gun and a kevlar jacket?

Thanks. Well I was asking him to show me rather than tell me and thus he has done what you said he does. That is, not quoting directly. No worries on that front; I'm a poor, old history teacher and look for actual evidence rather than assertion.

 Sorry, you're too late!  Sean has just now declared the 3DS disruptive, without knowing anything else about it!  If you haven't noticed, Sean actually went through the stages of grief: Denial, bargaining, and now acceptance.  This is bigger than the hardcore embracing motion control, that took months.  Sean switched his stance in mere hours!  Look at him slurping up that 3D Koolaid.  Dude must have been parched!

Oh sorry, I linked Christensen twice, answering other people, but I didn't answering to you: here http://www.forbes.com/2007/08/01/sony-games-innovation-lead-cz_cc_0802christensen.html. Using the link given by Smashchu2 you can find the relevant articles by Malstrom and compare what Malstrom writes to what Christensen writes.

Is Malstrom really going to stop writing about the game business? I can't believe that! ¬¬