Smashchu2 said:
Alby_da_Wolf said:
Smashchu2 said:
Alby_da_Wolf said:
Smashchu2 said:
Alby_da_Wolf said:
^^
When Malstrom says "disrupting the disruptor", you could call it counter-disruption, the meaning is roughly the same.
In that particular case I'm talking about disrupting Nintendo pricing strategy for WM+, but WM+ would keep its leadership, its lead is too big and Move is too late. It would cost Nintendo some bucks, though.
Edit: about 3DS I agree, Malstrom rightfully bashes some quite outlandish claims, when he's right, he's right.
|
Except for the fact that Malstrom has never said "disrupting the disruptor." That's just dumb. There is a disruptor, and an incumbent. The incumbent (Sony) can not also be a disruptor (Nintendo). Heck, they don't want the industry to be disrupted becuase this tampers with their cash flows. I also don't know what your talking about with disrupting Nintendo's price strategy. The only thing I can think of that would resemble that is Wal-Mart with their low prices (which was a disruption), but the Move is more expensive then the Wii Remote.
I think you should look over that post Malstrom made about you. You do not get disruption.
|
Oh my, you're right! How could I think Malstrom were even able to conceive such a thing? In fact Christensen himself, not Malstrom, suggested it as a possible strategy for Sony http://www.forbes.com/2007/08/01/sony-games-innovation-lead-cz_cc_0802christensen.html . So in your opinion Christensen is dumb. OUCH!!! 
About prices, we'll see, it depends on several things: Move's pricing and above all its actual success or lack of, but also Sony's marketing strategy and aggressiveness about Move having built-in 1:1 tracking and Wiimote needing WM+ to achieve it.
It looks instead that it's Malstrom that's unable to accept a possible disruption (possible, not sure, we still don't even know whether Sony will even try to adopt a disruptive strategy) whenever it doesn't coincide with his wishes.
If I had rocksteady certainties like Malstrom and his same attitude, I'd be tempted to write "GAME. SET. MATCH". But I haven't and it's too early and we can't know yet how well or bad Move and Natal will fare.
|
You STILL don't understand disruption. Take a look at what Christian is talking about.
The final option is for Sony to try to “disrupt the disruptor.” Instead of following a me-too strategy, Sony could seek to truly develop a category-changing project.
1. What he is saying has nothing to do what you said. What he is saying is that Sony should sidestep Nintendo and make a disruptive product that redefines the industry. What you think he is saying is Defensive Co-option, which is where the incumbent tries to stop the disruptor at a tier. This is what Sony is doing.You use disruption way to lossely.
2. The comment on price seems all over the place. Move is more expensive then a Wii Remote so, if it is competing, it has the price disadvantage. It has to have more value or be unique enough to counter the Wii Remote (not even Motion Plus). If it is too similar or as good as the Wii Remote, consumers will chose the Wii Remote based on price.
3. You really need to stop while you're ahead. Malstrom has destroyed any credability to have left. You look like a fool now and your post reflect this.
|
1. Christensen lists a 1+3 possible strategy, the first, that he strongly advise against, being not reacting at all and 3 reactive strategies, the third being more than reactive, proactive, disrupting the disruptor, the second, using PS2+motion control as temporary measure we know it didn't happe, the first is plain copying, but this one hasn't been completely followed by Sony, Move has more than a few things similar to WiiMote, but it adds 1:1 tracking and it uses EyeToy, it's not disruptive, as far as we know. Natal, OTOH, if successful would be an example of disrupting the disruptor.
2. We still don't know anything for sure about pricing but chances are that if it's low enough and marketing aggressive and effective enough too it could force Nintendo to start including WM+ capabilities for free.
3. You should get a mirror: I'm not the one so eager to declare Malstrom's victory over me (*) to deny the belonging to disruption theories of an idea introduced by Christensen himself and to define it just dumb. And although I wasn't precise in some points, we are still at a point when Malstrom hasn't been proven right yet, nor I have been proven wrong, so Malstrom hasn't destroyed anything, but he's still in time to destroy himself.
(*) which is absolutely possible, as, if I didn't repeat it enough, unlike Malstrom, I have no certainties and I admit he could be totally or partially right, but right now we don't know enough about what will happen next Autumn.
|
1)Again, you don't understand disruption. Microsoft is using a growth oriented co-option. Disruption is based on changing the name of the game and pulling the rug from under the incumbent. This means changed the values of the product and the rules the industry works by. Microsoft is not making new rules, but copying Nintendo's values. If Nintendo's motivation is not unique, Microsoft will absord the new market. What Christensen is advocating is Sony make their own disruption, which would mean new values. Neither Sony nor Microsoft are adopting new values but either sticking with their own or accepting Nintendo's. By definition, this is not disruption.
2) We know the price. it is $100 for a starter pack, which everyone will be buying. This will be $300+$100 for 1 Move, and a PS3. The Wii is $200 cheaper and comes with a game. Move has to be unique in some way or it will not succeed. MP is a cheaper sustaning innovation, so Sony has to hope that either Nintendo screws up big time or their software will be a success. If Sony is doing a defensive co-option, they are doing everything wrong and will likely fail
3)You're wrong. Get over it and get out while you still can. Heck, I haven't read the book and I know more then you do. I don't mix up co-option with disruption. Yes, we know nothing, but using both Nintendo and Sony's track records, and the fact Sony has no way to counter the Vitality Sensor or Zelda Wii, and their device has a lot of lag and is more expensive, and that Sony has not changed their values, it's 99.9999999999% likely they will fail and you still don't understand disruption.
|
1) Here you don't get my point. I trust what Christrensen writes about it, and also part of what Malstrom itself writes on the issue, Malstrom wrote a lot of right things and did some right predictions too, but I see also a big difference between what each one says: in that article I linked in one of my previous posts, Christensen says that a simple copy of the disruptive product is the less courageous and less effective too possible reaction, besides not reacting at all. He also says that if uninspired and sloppy, such a reaction is sure to fail and backfire too against the incumbent. But Christensen doesn't totally exclude a possible effectivenesse, at least to take time. A simple copy, Christensen writes, is anyhow the less effective option. But in Sony Move's case, even if it were a defensive co-option, we know it isn't an exact copy, it uses some Sony previous tech, PSEye, combined with a stick inspired to WiiMote with WM+ installed, so if promises of precision and good feel in the use are true, we know it at least won't be the worst case listed by Christensen (least effective option + bad execution). Also Christensen suggests that Sony buy time with the best possible sub-optimal strategy in the short term, while developing its own disruptive strategy in the longer term. We know Sony isn't following the sub-optimal strategy suggested by Christensen to buy time, but we also know that the actual strategy chosen is at least a little bit better than the worst option and we don't know how much time Sony needs. This is what I call a lack of certainties, while Malstrom is quite sure of Move's failure, and this is a certainty and quite different from what Christensen says. About Natal, eliminating completely the hand controller, come on, I'm not a MS fan, neither a Natal fan, and withot a precision up to finger movement it can't be a new universal controller, but I can clearly see that it has at least a disruptive potential, how big it is depends on how many new and old things turn out better without a controller in your hands.
2) Starter kit will be UNDER $100. http://www.joystiq.com/2010/03/10/playstation-move-bundles-announced-starter-kit-under-100/ Also, we don't know about possible price cuts or bundles with new PS3s. Obviously it will have to offer something different and good games, I agree.
3) I'm neither right nor wrong, I'm not mixing anything, I simply say that we still don't know enough to be sure Sony will fail. We don't know whether Vitality will succeed or not, neither what will be the scale of its possible success, so we don't know whether Sony will need to counter it. We don't know Sony strategy. We don't know whether people will like it or not. About lag, it was measured with a 60fps camera: filming a 60fps screen with a 60fps, unless they are synchronized together, introduces sampling noise. Moreover, they clarified that that 133ms figure includes camera lag too. And the demo was shown 6 or more months before definitive HW and the first retail version SW are available. So we really don't know very much yet about its actual lag. We simply don't know enough, yet Malstrom says it will fail. Christensen instead says it will fail IF it will have the flaws and commit the mistakes he describes. It's not the same. Just another thing: my criticism to Malstrom has actually nothing to do with disruption theory, he could use whatever else theory, his biggest fault is assuming his favourite target, after having made many mistakes we all know and we don't deny, not only won't try to repair, but it will keep on doing everything wrong and so it will disastrously fail.
