I always thought it came from a thread made by squilliam where he was speaking about the PS3 being "domed" because of the shape of the PS3 console in regards to the curved top.

I just saw your reply after I posted.

Nope just simple facts, when the disruptor has different values and skills that the incumbent cannot or will not match, the disruptor wins, because the incumbent is unable to dislodge the disruptor's hold on the downmarket

The variables of the problem aren't binary! Disruptor's hold can have various degrees on a variable share of the total market. And the same applies to incumbent behaviour. And 3rd parties furtherly complicate all. Not to mention that particular you try to ignore about console generations being delimited in time, reducing the likelyhood of a long term disruption more and more as time passes since the beginning without the incumbent being really and irrecoverably defeated.

Wrong, the reason the disruptor is able to begin the disruption is that they have the values that the incumbent does not,either the incumbent takes on those values and skills and co-opts the disruption, or they don't there is no middle ground there, and it doesn't matter if there are multiple generations, the issue remains skills and values, either the incumbent adopts them, or they continue to lose ground, many disruptions take decades, but they still occur because the incumbent lacks the ability or willingness to adopt the disruptive values, it doesn;t matter if another generation occurs, since Nintendo will hav e further built up its skills, and will still retain the values of this generation, and unless SOny and MS find a way to adopt those values and catch up in those skills, they will lose.

^^
I don't agree, it's not well defined as an ON/OFF situation. Besides this, in previous posts you looked like you assumed incumbent reaction would be either wrong or inadequate or actually favouring disruptor's plans, while in your last message you acknowledge the possibility for the incumbent of adopting adequate countermeasures.

  The only adequate countermeasure is to co-opt the disruption, to disrupt the disruptor, but that is pretty impossible for Sony and MS to do, they don't have the values of Nintendo, this is not a knock against them, its what helped them in the old market, but it won't help them to fight off Nintendo's disruption, this is why I discounted their response.

Actually it is pretty much an on/off thing, either you have the same values and skills and processes, or you don't, if you don't then you can't appeal to the consumers that the disruptor has brought in, if you could, then they wouldn't have been non-consumers/overshot consumers prior to the disruption.

Great the 360 is looking amazing.

Or MS and Sony could find a different mix of old and new values and maybe some other new values different from Nintendo ones that appeals a set of users most probably partially overlapping the old and current new ones and including some more, as you know, there's no user totally equal to another one, another matter where you can't apply an ON/OFF distinction.

Disrupting the disruptor could be as simple as finding enough people that like some Nintendo novelties but hate some else and telling them, "here we have a different mix you could prefer".