Yes, I can see something like that too, that would really be a scenario where portables actually disrupt home consoles.

Edit: but obviously in a future where portables can offer enough power and home consoles computing power growth has come to a point where, from that point of view, successive generations don't offer anymore big practical leaps.

What you are saying is that once the TV manufacturers are able to use the same screen as the 3DS that Nintendo would not be the disruptor anymore. This is flat out wrong. It also shows that you do not understand disruption and just think it's a buzz word.

It's a value innovation. How can you not understand that!? Nintendo does not lose it's skill or motivation once others can use it. When they get a hold of it, they cram it. The incumbents do not know how to use it. I said that in my last post. Can you not read? (Heck, I even quoted Christiansen, the author of the books).

The turth is that you are flat out wrong. I have given facts that prove you wrong. You don't get disruption. Go read it instead of saying you know it and then only use it after I say it to you. (Heck, I posted a good article writen by the man himself. Go read that).

You give facts for the past, but you make the disruption jargon look like buzzwords because you can't know the future, so you must keep very vague when it comes to it: you talk about Nintendo's values, skills and motivations, but while I'm sure you can tell me exactly what they were and what they currently are, you can't specify them for the future. I showed you the reasons why the current advantage Nintendo holds in portable 3D can't disrupt other markets now for its limits and won't in the future because if its limits are overcome, there won't be either exclusivity or head start for Nintendo in the other markets. So, while it's true that Nintendo won't lose skills and motivations, it will need at least new exclusive skills and values to keep different, because, here you're wrong ruling it out, those about 3D can already be understood and acquired by competitors and they can also already develop their own values and motivations to differentiate themselves from Nintendo. This obviously doesn't deny that Nintendo could not only succeed, but also furtherly disrupt in the future, it's just that we don't know how and we know it will need something else besides what it currently has.

Okay, watching the Game Overthinker some more, and to call Malstrom the poor man's version makes you something that the Game Overthinker is against. You're just using a pat argument to try to dismiss something you don't like.

CEOs of multimillion dollar corperations make decisions about the future all the time. And they are never vauge. There is no "gray," area in business. It either is or it isn't. You are going to here tomorrow or not. They can't be vauge. (I say you use it like a buzzword because you say "disruption," but your words sound like that of someone who doesn't get it).

Also, disruption is about truning the tables. The advantages of Nintendo will not work in the incumbent's market but work perfectly in the disruptive market. How do you not know that!? You claim to know disruption but you can't even get the 101 stuff right. You know how I know you don't know disruption? Becuase you say stuff that would be said by someone who doesn't get it. Take the console race for example. Nintendo could not compete with Sony and Microsoft in the old market. They were "going to go 3rd party." But now, it is said they can't compete with Nintendo on motion controls. Hmmmmmm If that is true, why can it not be true for Nintendo to disrupt 3D with their values?

Yes, the competition has their own values because all companis do. But disruption is a value innovation. Disruption is about creating new values for the products, usually making it easier to use, more convenient, cheaper, or more custimizable. This comes right from the mouth of Scott Anthony. Also how he notes it NOT the technology, but the business model. Just because they have the technology, does not mean they will be able to use it right.

So, using disruption, here is what happens. 3D is overshooting customers. Reggies in his E3 2010 talked about the problems of 3D, namely the glasses (which he mentions three or four times I beleive). Sony, in their press conferences mentions real 3D experience. True 3D they called it. This means that there is a disruption. Nintendo will now grow the new market, which will be the 3DS. It is going after making more of an experience. Making 3D games easier by using 3D. Make them more engaging. And also making it easier on the yes and easier on the pocket book. Sony and other 3D manufacturers (of TV and movies) will see it as crappy 3D. They will ignore it. But, eventually, the 3D gets better, either by a new device or by the games themselves (we'll see how in the future). They will make inroads upmarket. Sony and the others will respond. Sony will likely make a PSP 3D to combate it. But, they will bring this to their best customers who do not want it. Also, Nintendo will have a skill and a motivation. Their skill is they are an intergrated hardware and software company. They can make the 3D games around the 3D system. The others can't because they are not intergrated. Sony has movie and television departments, but they do not work together. Nintendo's departments work together. Nintendo's motivation is tricky, but it is likely their want to expand the market. So, they will see this as expanding 3D. The counter attack (likely a PSP 3D) will fail on the market, and Sony will fall. Nintendo will then rule the new 3D market until a disruptor enters again. There, using disruption, I can predict the future.

(BTW, you mention how they need skill, motivation and something else. What? Clayton Christensen himself says that a disruptor will defeat the incumbents so long as they have the asymetric skill and motivation, which he calls a sword and a sheild. So you are dead wrong there).

Now on the very last bold: first of, you've never explained what it needs. What does it actually need? Second, the thing I've realized is that you never want to be wrong. You'll never admit fault and you'll just try to stay on the fence. You can't be wrong if you see both sides as a possibility. But, this means you'll never be right.

CEOs have to predict the future. If they live in today, they will fail. Disruption deals a lot with that. In today, a disruptor is not a threat. But what about in a year. Or two? Or five? Or ten? Nintendo wasn't a threat to Sony and Microsoft in 2007. But in 2009 and 2010, they are. Now, they are struggling to fight off Nintendo lest they lose their market for good.

BTW, new rule I'm making. You don't know disruption. So, from now on, when I see you say disruption I will promtly schould you and link you to many fine sources where you can read yourself rather then saying the same old tired wrong answer. For your reading pleasure (and viewing)

• Malstrom lays out disruption. Good first read. He paraphrases Christensen.
  
• Scott Anthony on Nintendo's disruption
• A video on disruption that lays out some ground work and even points out  disruption in an industry.
• Youtube channel by Scott Anthoy's company
• This is the one on the counter attack. READ IT!

Note: added numbers to your post to anwer the points.

8) OK, let's play kindergarden... If you care so much about your fetish, I'll give you that I have only rough ideas about disruption, and you know it perfectly. But I know how to apply a theorem, a rule, a law, etc, while you try to apply it, the disruption laws in this case, without knowing all the variables. This is my issue when I read claims that disruption will proceed as planned, but too many important parts of the supposed plan are left too vague.

1) and 7): I don't say CEOs are vague, I say YOU are vague, you have no idea of their future plans.You BTW incumbents' CEOs too must have that ability.

3) and (9) True, but different business models imply that incumbents could anyway find ways of using the new tech more suitable to their needs, or understand the new values before it's too late, in (9) there is an example made by Christensen I already knew about Kodak and the digital cameras market, Kodak initially reacted in a typical incumbent's way, so wasting part of the $2billion it invested, but in the end it got the things right with its entry-level cameras. (BTW my digital camera is a Kodak, it has some crappy minor shortcomings, but when I bought it it offered for the lowest price the same or even more than its closest competitors, while really superior cameras cost more than twice back then). Actually Christensen is very correct and honest, as he often offers examples of incumbents devising the right reactions after the initial defeats.

4) Here are the points where you are most wrong: in this specific case, what you say isn't simply true, except the part about expensive 3D techs overshooting customers (actually defining 3D with glasses "overshooting" is a far too gentle euphemism). You are just right about the fact that Sony and others will lose money on the most expensive 3D techs for home 3DTVs with glasses (I predicted this too since the start, actually almost everybody predicted it). But about PSP 3D, if they don't add some of their own, it will be in the worst case just an uninspired clone that will get a much smaller market share than 3DS, but it won't have anyway significantly higher production costs than it and it won't make Sony lose money, just profit a lot less than Nintendo. This in the worst case, but you can't know whether they'll do instead a more inspired and different product with a wider appeal. And you are just wrong about incumbents losing all that they invest in 3D, just because even the awkward and expensive 3D with glasses is anyway stereoscopic 3D, so, while the HW investments on glasses and all the stuff related will lose money or at best profit, but remain niche, the contents part, games, other SW, movies or whatever else, but also HW devices like consoles, players, recorders, etc, except TVs and glasses, are almost tech agnostic about 3D, as WereKitten tried to explain you http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=3507082 , as long as a 3D tech is a stereoscopic one, what's developed for one is good for all the others. There isn't a barrier, because parallax barrier (sorry for the unintentional pun) doesn't create one, it's a stereoscopic 3D tech SW compatible with the others. You are right about Nintendo motivations, but you are wrong about the incumbents losing all, they'll just lose glasses. It's a situation vaguely similar to Christensen's example about Kodak.

5) This, again, is related to one of my points: the intelligent choice of parallax barrier gives Nintendo a big head start and most probably the leadership of next gen portables, but it doesn't create enough asymmetry, because it is a 3D display tech totally compatible with the contents produced for other stereoscopic displays, like the ones with glasses. Nintendo gets the head start advantage, but the possible initial asymmetry tends to fade, not to increase, and it doesn't create a situation where competitors are locked in their old world.

6) and 7) What's this need of doing a prediction at all costs? I haven't enough infos, neither you have, to make a reliable one. You say CEOs predict future, this is partially true, they actually try to predict future trends, but then they make their own plans, so they try to shape the future in the way that's best for their interests as well. But they don't tell us in advance. And they must take into account that competing CEOs will try the same on their turn, and sometimes their own interests and plans and the ones of some others will clash, so they could be forced to react, correcting or changing their original plans. This makes a prediction impossible before you not only know the incumbents' reactions, but also how they are welcomed by users.

Again about 5) and 6) : "something else" is referred to whatever Nintendo will have to add to keep asymmetry, because the one created by parallax barrier tech will be temporary and will give its biggest benefits to 3DS itself. I can't know what will be, considering development cycles, next Nintendo moves about home consoles can now be between medium and advanced stages, but Ninty hasn't revealed anything about them yet, while about the portable successor of 3DS, it can be at most in its earliest development stages, if Nintendo even already started it, do you know anything about it? I don't. So I can only call them "something else". You are too jumpy also about this, I wrote it has to invent something else, I don't know what it could ever be, but I never denied it will be able to do it, for what we know, Nintendo could have already invented something new, even more, we CAN be sure that it has already invented something for Wii2. But we don't know as well what Sony and MS will do.

Two last things:

- If 3rd parties developing for Nintendo can get its new values (some are sloppy or just don't get them, true, but some others succeed, although Ninty dominates SW sales on its platforms), why shouldn't its competitors be able to do the same?

- Nintendo will expand 3D market, I'm sure too about this, but, intentionally or not, it will also benefit everybody and everything else, except 3D with glasses, but including competitors.

Well, yes.

Complaining about something you don't fully understand and haven't experienced yourself is stupid. Also trying to deliberately find faults because you want to complain about it is stupid. Did I also happen to mention how stupid it is to complain about the very first part of the game that is yet to be released?

That's like if someone frequently complain how every upcoming movie sucks because he doesn't like their posters.

If that is true, then also praising a game you know very little about is stupid. We haven't experienced it yet. It might be garbage. And it's also dumb to deliberatly find praise for it.

This is like if someone frequently praised how every upcoming movie is awesome because he really likes the posters.

It goes both ways. So either we say absolutly nothing until the game coms out, or you accept that people are going to talk smack about Other M.

@Alby:I don't care what you think, we are talking about disruption. This means that disruption is the idea we use to discuss 3D. Not technology. Not how you think it works. But disruption. I'm not sure if I'm even going to respong to your post because you ignore disruption 101 AGAIN. If you are not going to educate yourself, I see no reason to talk to you.

Also, interesting though: When I need to quote something, I use articles or videos done by the authors of disruption, the people who know way more than myself. When you cite someone, it's another member on VGChartz.

@bolded: this doesn't make any sense, disruption isn't a metaphysical entity that works on this world from outside of it, if you claim it will happen partially or totally thanks to that tech, that tech matters. If that tech fails to create asymmetry out of a limited scope, it won't help disruption to continue unless the disruptor doesn't find something else to keep the asymmetry once the asymmetry generation potential of that tech is exhausted. And it's not "how I think that tech works", parallax barrier IS a stereoscopic 3D tech, it's not me saying that, you can check wherever else if you don't believe me. Being that, it has many effects, including disrupting more expensive and awkward 3D display techs, but also creating compatibility, instead of barriers and asymmetry, for anything else than the display, as long as they use stereoscopy too. You can't remove this fact from the picture because you don't like its consequences. Don't you realize you're doing it again? Whenever current verified facts (like the properties of that 3D tech and their consequences on development of SW and every HW different from displays) or possible future facts (like the possibility of the incumbent of devising the right reaction and the public liking it, that BTW Christensen never denies, he offers real life examples of it, instead) go against the results you'd wish to get applying the theory to reality, you simply don't consider them and you become vague, you stick to theory without totally applying it, but filling variables and hypotheses with the real values only when you like them. The sooner you correct these errors, the sooner you'll really be able to apply what you learned to reality, although I suspect you already know how to correctly apply theories, it's only when Nintendo, Malstrom and disruption are involved that you totally shortcircuit and you desperately try to fit the theory  to reality, starting from the result you wish to obtain and proceeding backwards.

Edit: and don't lie, you didn't answer to my previous post because I provided facts that you don't like.

I made a post here, but I have a better idea. You're gong to quote where they say trhis stuff. Where does Christensen talk about competitors adopting the technology? Please quote him (or other disruption analyst) on where they talk about an incumbent adopting the technology of the disruptor.

To get you started, here is a video.

Here