Avatar Will Go On
All this TV drama has distracted from the ongoing drama of Avatar‘s box office.
Today was Day 28. And domestically, it passed $450 million today. It is doing better, day-to-day, than The Dark Knight at this point… and is now only about $4 million behind TDK’s record grossing pace of $454.7m in 28 days.
TDK did $16.4m in its fifth weekend. Given that his is a holiday weekend and Avatar‘s biggest weekend drop has been 33% weekend-to-weekend so far, I’d be estimating a drop in the high 20s and a 3-day total of no less than $35 million. By the end of the 4-day, Avatar will be the fastest grossing domestic film over the first 32 days by more than $15 million. And it will likely hit $500 million domestic before the start of next weekend.
So it is now clear that Avatar will pass The Dark Knight domestically. (It’s already more than doubled TDK’s international take.) And with more than $1.5 billion in the till by this time next week, Titanic‘s seemingly insurmountable $1.8b gross is looking surmountable.
It is fair, in this moment, to talk about adjusted gross. (Any way you slice it, Titanic is #1 with $2.8 billion in real dollars and $2.8 billion adjusted, worldwide.) it is fair, in this moment, to talk about the 3D bump in normal current ticket prices. (Avatar would have to gross at least $2.2 billion worldwide to match Titanic, taking a 25% bump into account.)
But it is not fair, in my opinion, in this moment, to downplay how massive a box office phenomenon any movie that comes close to the real-dollar Titanic number is. Prior to this, no other film in history has come within 2/3rds of the way to the number.
The next big question is whether this will all convert to a slowed DVD sell-thru market. Titanic was late to the DVD party. And Avatar could be too late to be a record breaker.
“It is fair, in this moment, to talk about adjusted gross”
When it suits.
Yeah, that is parsing the language a bit, but no matter….there is no way you can diminish the achievement of this film’s success. It’s not as if studios and filmmakers haven’t been trying for decades (since the ’50’s, actually) to turn 3D into a genuine draw for moviegoers….this one just pulled it off in spades.
And even adjusting for inflation, this film is still heading towards an all-time gross within the Top 25 – in over 100 years of cinema, that’s pretty damn impressive.
I still personally think a 25% bump is too high. Yes the 3D premium is around 25% for matinees and 20% for evenings and the IMAX 2D/3D bump is about 30% (the 3D Imaxes mostly aren’t “real” Imaxes. They are screens that are only slightly larger playing at multiplexes, not the standalones at museums and such which are entirely 2D mostly).
But here’s what that doesnt take into account. 3D has made up for nearly 75% of ticket sales and will likely hit 75% before the run is over. Imax will end up accounting around 15% (TDK was 11%) but Id say it’s safe to assume two-thirds of the IMAX number is overlapped with the 3D number and that seperate 2D IMAX accounts for just 5%.
That still leaves out the 15% or so of tickets with NO price premium. So let’s say 70% of tickets are 3D/3D IMAX with a price premium around 27% combined. That means 85 mil of the current gross is a 3D premium. Add the other 5% with an IMAX 2D premium of 33% and you get another 7.5.
Overall combined with the 15% of non-premium tickets, you come out with a bump of 20.55% overall. Am I wrong in assuming you didn’t take the 2D tickets into account when adjusting the overall gross Dave?
Anyway “Avatar” needs to do about 562 million domestically to come in 5th in attendance…err adjusted gross which would put it here among movies released since “Titanic.”
6. Avatar
5. Dead Man’s Chest
4. Spider-Man
3. Shrek 2 (or TDK?)
2. TDK (or Shrek 2?)
1. The Phantom Menace
It would need to do about 587 million to pass Pirates 2 which seems a bit far but who knows?
I was totally wrong about TDK because I assume TDK would make up the difference on weekdays. Totally wrong….btw Im not 100% sure Shrek 2 didn’t have higher attendance than TDK given that IMAX made up nearly 13% of TDK’s gross following its small re-release, and a 33% premium puts it less than a million above “Shrek 2” in adjusted gross. Aka too close to call…so “Shrek 2” may have had highest adjusted gross of the aughts.
Note on numbers….I meant to put that 80% of tickets are 3D/Imax 3D not 70%. This puts the overall bump around 22% and likely puts Dead Man’s Chest out of reach. 565 million would catapult it past Return of the King for 6th in attendance since Titanic. Not 5th.
Sorry about the triple post due to my sheer idiocy.
Okay…so 75% of tickets sold are in 3D and 15% come from IMAX. Estimating that two-thirds of the IMAX tickets are overlapping with the overall 3D number (there isn’t an IMAX within 200 miles of me doing 2D but 4 doing 3D) then estimating 75% of tickets at a 27% premium and an additional 5% of tickets at a 33% bump and 20% of tickets with no premium and you get a 22% bump. WHEW!
Given the current gross is at $450+ million and assumming that 70% of the audience seeing it are seeing it in either 3D, IMAX or 2D and that 12% of the attendees are also people, with the remaining 18% being made up of filmgoers, the gross of the movie is actually a significant percentage higher than it would be if fewer dollars were spent on it by the audience.
It’s obvious now what has to happen… the next Batman movie must be in 3D. If not, Avatar is still Mark McGuire and anyone who disagrees about it’s bump, is as delusional as McGuire was in all of his interviews this past week. Yes, number 2 all time in inflated grosses but no where close to total tickets sold. What does that teach us? 3D is a gimmick that a superhero movie has to use within the next 2 to 3 years.
“It is fair, in this moment, to talk about adjusted gross.”
Ah, so it is fair to talk about it NOW. But not one week ago when you said, and I quote “I am 100% clear on NOT believing in inflation numbers or tickets sold as stats.” OK so, NOW’s the time and you don’t believe in either, fair enough. Just one question how DO get your figures for your conversation on adjusted gross?
“Any way you slice it, Titanic is #1 with $2.8 billion in real dollars and $2.8 billion adjusted, worldwide.”
So wait, Titanic has $2.8 billion in real dollars (WTF?????) AND adjusted dollars??? Huh???
Please tell me it’s a typo.
In any case, calculating worldwide adjusted gross is significantly harder (I’m sure you won’t argue with that point at least) and harder still for older films but since you are willing to go there I will say that there’s an excellent chance “Gone with the Wind” and maybe some others could top “Titanic’s” adjusted worldwide gross.
“Avatar would have to gross at least $2.2 billion worldwide to match Titanic, taking a 25% bump into account.”
Just a few days ago, it was 30% (and I only even say this because you were splitting hairs over 3% difference that wasn’t even there). Go ahead, say you are being overly generous to haters or whatever the crap your last excuse was. (Just pick a number or something).
A show of hands, anybody actually finds these never ending columns on box office insightful, unbiased, consistent or logical? I’ll take just one of those.
“What does that teach us? 3D is a gimmick that a superhero movie has to use within the next 2 to 3 years.”
It’s not a gimmick. It’s a “Disruptive Innovation”. That’s an acutal term and do me a favor by not arguing with the use of “innovation” here – you’d only show that you miss the point. Gimmicks go away. Real innovations start trends and the trends of going 3D is not going anyway.
Avatar may not have originated the 3D fever. Like others like it, it owns it’s success in part to possibilities offered by the new technology but its success is exactly what what showed just how viable and popular it can be. Once someone’s 3D cherry’s been popped it may not be the same but it’s not going away. At least until holography or time travel experience or who know what else comes along to replace it.
Fools called Wii a gimmick. It’s not a gimmick. It’s sales may have slowed but the reason behind it have nothing to do with it’s motion sensing capabilities. All next generation concoles will have motion sensing from here on out.
The WII is a gimmick. No real gamer would only have a WII. It’s a great console for what it is… a weight trainer for women via WII FIT and EA FITNESS. That’s what it is. Real innovation has been happening with The 360 and the PS3. Once NATAL shows up. You will understand how much of a gimmick the WII has always been but that does not change that it’s a fun little device, that will get little kids into the bigger world of gaming. It’s like POT for little gamers!
That aside, sitting through Avatar gave me a headache that last five hours. I do not hold that against the film but until 3D stops giving people a headache, it’s a gimmick. It’s a gimmick that gives movies that would regularly earn a rather great 360m an addition 90m. It’s a gimmick that gets distributors or the exhibitors a few extra bucks. Good for them but I would not count on it being around much longer unless they fix that aggravation problem.
Oh and here comes the REAL funny part. In order for 3D to be a premium, the filmmaker actually has to know what’s he’s doing. People won’t be coming in masses and paying premium for “meh”.
Yes, kiddies, not everyone can do it well.
It’s irrelevant at this point to argue about the bump and adjusted gross at this point whether people think it’s a gimmick to use 3D or not.
It’s fairly certain that “Avatar” will end up 5th in adjusted gross TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE BUMP over the last decade between Return of the King and Pirates 2..if not higher.
Of the four films ahead of it, 3 are sequels. The other is the original “Spider-Man” which had a built in audience.
The last 3 non-sequal/adaptations to match it in attendance (again subtracting 3D) are “Titanic,” “Independence Day,” and “The Lion King.” Incredible.
@Jerryishere…lol
Thank you, Gonzo. And IOIOIOIO, lay off of the McGwire comparisons, do not work at all…..
Once again, 3D is NOT a new innovation and neither is performance capture, for goodness sakes – just ask the makers of Final Fantasy how much of a “premium” they got for their hugely successful movie or just how much of an “enhancement” the 3D grosses were for A Christmas Carol – the studios took baths on both films. It’s bullshit to call it that, pure and simple.
And being a die-hard baseball fan, this SO reminds me of all of the “purist” whiners for baseball, these past few years – we need asterisks for all of these records! Spare me – 80 years ago, players including Babe Ruth were doing coke and didn’t have to compete against any one from outside the U.S. I am NOT saying it justifies or excuses the usage of steroids, relax, but it’s just tough to dismiss 20 years of statistical achievement based on that, too. McGwire hit 49 home runs in his rookie season, remember?
And I guess I have to remind again…..Cameron did not break any rules, believe it or not. When George Mitchell is hired to do an investigation for the MPAA about the proliferation of 3D technologys, then we can maybe talk…..
“The WII is a gimmick. No real gamer would only have a WII. It’s a great console for what it is… a weight trainer for women via WII FIT and EA FITNESS. That’s what it is. Real innovation has been happening with The 360 and the PS3. Once NATAL shows up. You will understand how much of a gimmick the WII has always been but that does not change that it’s a fun little device, that will get little kids into the bigger world of gaming.”
Once again, complete lack of undertanding of my use of “innovation”.
Please tell me that PS3 integration of motion sensing capabilities was anything but an afterthought in light of what Nintendo was doing. Or that it is just a coincidence that project Natal is coming out now?
Wii is NOT a gimmick. It’s a perfect texbook example of a “disruptive innovation”. The point being that after it came out no new next-gen console could afford NOT not have some sort of motion sensing capability. Whether you like it or not Wii has an effect on how you will play in the future.
And for a first console of it’s kind, Wii worked amazingly well. Who knows what the big N is doing for the successor so your comparisons to Natal are as irrelevant as they are premature (and I say this as someone who is a fan of Sega and likes what I’ve seen of Natal).
And you know what else? If it wasn’t for it’s graphical limitations, Wii would be as self-sufficient as any single console.
“The next big question is whether this will all convert to a slowed DVD sell-thru market. Titanic was late to the DVD party. And Avatar could be too late to be a record breaker.”
One home video record that Avatar WILL almost certainly break is the magic 50% Blu-Ray share. I think that Terminator Salvation and Star Trek were at around 40% of units sold on Blu-Ray over DVD. Avatar getting that groundbreaking 50% on Blu-Ray is, i think, a gimme.
I’d take issue with the statement that Titanic was ‘late’ to the DVD party. If anything, it was too early. Titanic was issued on DVD in Summer of ’99, with a crappy non-anamorphic transfer and no special features. This was before the adoption of DVD hit critical mass (The Matrix was the title crediting with busting DVD into the mainstream, and it followed later that year). Disney, Spielberg, and Lucas sat on their treasured back catalog for a few more years and reaped the benefit when DVD went supernova.
“The WII is a gimmick. No real gamer would only have a WII.”
Wow, this thread got unspeakably dweeby since the last time I checked it.
Geoff, if it were a real phenom., would it not feel like it? More people will have seen other five more popular movies that dominated their times in the cinema. This film, without it’s BUMP, is behind Trans 2, and that’s how it’s coming across. It’s record numbers are inflated. It’s ENHANCED. It’s McGuire in terms of what it needed to do to get over the hump. Sure 3D is not illegal but it sure as hell needs to be regulated to the point, that some theatres cannot inflate the ticket price by double. Charging double for 3D or IMAX is just wrong but if that’s what you have to do to get a gross that’s beyond your level of popularity, then that’s what you have to do.
Once again you share a very fucked up view of the world Geoff. Any other weird things in the closet you would like to share?
I bet IO has some boy scouts tied up in his. But he doesn’t share.
It is fair to discuss it. It is not fair to spin it as though they are decisive issues.
Still moronic.
Whoah, IOIOIOIO – what exactly did I pull out of my closet? Don’t bother answering – just strange that you would need to truly personalize the discussion with such harsh language, as well.
But you still kind of avoided the topic – if there are have been decades of filmmakers and films that have tried to catapalize off of the “enhancements” of 3D movies and have pretty much failed to gain genuine traction, why are you launching such vitriol at some one who pulled it off? I mean, jeez, I can remember when I was eight years old, my father took me to see Jaws 3D, and he was complaining about paying $2 extra – this is not NEW, get over it.
And what exactly is your criteria for a phenom? Adjusted for 2010 dollars, The Dark Knight did about $545 million and we ALL know that you thought was a phenom – when Avatar passes that gross, will it qualify???
And you still haven’t explained the McGwire comparison – Cameron didn’t break any rules, it’s not the same thing. And if the prices for Avatar are too high or “unfair,” then people just will not pay them, bottom line. Wow, this is such an old argument – CD’s were overpriced, remember what happened?
I saw it in IMAX 3D for $14 at the Red Rock Casino; outside the theater, the lowest stakes for any Blackjack game are $15 per bet. Perspective, man….
The fact that Poland and Perm are such bitch, never ceases to not crack me up. It’s good to know the lap dog has a little bitch of his own now. Whose SHO NUFF? It sure the hell is not those two.
Geoff in five easy steps.
1) You shared some weird shit in a thread back. I simply referenced it. It’s called a call-back.
2) What did he pull off? Oh he got a bunch of old people to see a 3D movie. Good on him. It still does not change that this movie is nothing special, it’s derivative, and sort of dumb. The only highlight is Neytiri and she alone cannot save a movie that features creatures with built in firewire.
3) It’s not a phenom. Sorry, it’s not. If you factor out Avatar’s BUMP, it’s a 360m movie. 360m is nothing to laugh at, it’s not run of the mill, but it’s still nothing worthy of the status AVATAR has supposedly achieved. It’s not a phenom. If it were a phenom, shit would be different, and we all know it. Some of us just pay closer attention to what’s going on. Especially those who are not morons who hype figures about movies they like that never grossed as many pure NUMBERS OF PEOPLE IN SEATS as at least 7 more films in front of it. This is why TICKETS SOLD must become the stat in an area with movies that can get such a HUGE BUMP!
4) How can you not get the McGuire references? It’s not like McGuire did anything wrong. Steroids and HGH were not illegal back in this day. He simply used something that led to inflated numbers, which is the point of the reference.
Avatar is nothing more than a 360m picture that used 3D to inflate it’s gross. That’s the reference. 3D is the roids that helped something become bigger in GROSSES than it would normally be.
5) Perspective? What’s gambling have to do with the inflated gross of this picture? If you want perspective, then go watch some Monty Python. If not, then, go read some funny shit Perm and Poland, or POLERM (because we all know Poland is so mental that he would post as two people on his own blog) posted. It’s really hilarious that two unfunny yentas can be so hilarious to only one another in terms of ME! SHO NUFF!
“The WII is a gimmick. No real gamer would only have a WII.”
“Real gamers” are a niche market. A very large niche, but a niche none the less – they are dwarfed by the casual gamer market. The Wii has sold almost as many units worldwide as PS3 and XBox360 combined. Modern Warfare 2 (now the #4 selling game of all time) sold around 15million units and World of Warcraft has around 11 million subscribers, while the Facebook game Farmville has 80 million users.
Raph Koster, the designer of Ultima Online and Star Wars: Galaxies recently closed down his next-gen MMO and is making flash games for Facebook. He’s publicly called AAA games “Opera for snobs” compared to mainstream music.
I’m with Gonzo here. Wii and Facebook ARE textbook disruptive innovations. 3D mo-cap has the potential to be the same for movies.
Oh, I get it IO – it’s the OLD people that are carrying this film, that must be it. Sure, just like the only folks who voted for Obama were minorities and illegal immigrants recruited by ACORN, right????
Give me a break – where is your evidence that only old people are seeing this thing or paying for 3D? I have sure seen a lot of teenagers at any show I attended.
And now that we know your cutoff for phenomenon is $360 million domestic, let’s analyze, shall we:
– NONE of the Harry Potter films have been phenomenons. Too bad Warners had extremely popular source material to base them on an actually spent more on almost each of them than Avatar.
– Only one of the LOTR films was a true phenomenon.
– The Blind Side was NOT a phenomenon.
– Neither was The Hangover.
– Last year’s Star Trek was not a phenomenon, even though it sold more tickets than any other film in the franchise’s 30 plus year history.
– Sorry to say, the first Iron Man was also not a phenomonen – it only made about $320 million. Makes me wonder why they are even bothering with a sequel, this year.
– Oh, and neither of the Twilight films were true phenomenons, either. I’m sure you would agree with that.
– And The Passion of the Christ just eked out being a phenomenon by making just over that amount. But wait a second? It had an unfair “enhancement” – churches sent groups of people to it and a lot of them were OLD PEOPLE. Guess that might not make the cut-off either.
This is just “silly season” as our President once said – if you don’t like the film, fine, enjoy and live your life. Some of the films listed above I did not particularly care for, but I can still acknowledge that they were phenomenons.
Um, and McGwire did technically break the rules – you can’t backtrack and have it both ways on that argument. Cameron did not break any rules, BOTTOM LINE. He didn’t get any sneaky enhancements for his film and he sure as hell did not force any one (even the elderly) to pay an extra $3. And by the way, you do realize that Seniors get discounts, right? If it’s a dispportionate number of old people, then it’s almost a wash – my mother paid $11.75 to see Avatar in 3D IMAX in the evening. She’s in her early ’60’s and half of the theater was filled with folks less than half her age. Where’s the so-called bump?
And wow, I did a little stealth theater-hopping a few weeks ago and you describe it like I’m some social deviant going to strip clubs late at night. Glass houses, man…..look me in the eye (via blog) and tell me that you have never downloaded anything illegal on the internet and then pass judgment. Somehow, I doubt that.
Whether the movie is derivative or lacking in the quality you desire is quite irrelevant – it IS a phenomenon, just as TDK was. And I agreed with you on that, last year.
Wanna tell me nothing has changed – really???
Then why is every studio looking to retrofit their big movies for 3D, all of a sudden? Why was John Carter of Mars just announced? Why are pundits and even world leaders commenting on the film’s messages? And why the hell did I go to CES, last week, and EVERY major electronics company was showing off their new 3D HD models with the Avatar trailer as the demo?
Keep in mind the film opened less than a month ago – we’ll see over time if it has more influence.
i know nothing about facebook, but i believe Wii is a poor example of disruptive innovation because it only meets some of the criteria. Wii may have entered low-end as more of a gimmick, lower-performance tech for the ‘casual gamers/family’ niche, thus gaining a foothold in the market, but in order for innovation to be disruptive, the incumbent companies using established tech must ignore the low-end interloper and concentrate on their high-end, more profitable market only to have the low-end disruptor then innovate to broader and broader appeal and subsequently displace/drive out the established incumbents
instead, the other gaming companies are now jumping on the bandwagon and adopting and incorporating Wii-style motion sensor tech into their gaming platforms to broaden their market appeal, which is not in keeping with the concept of disruptive innovation. the established incumbents are not ignoring the lower-performance niche tech at their peril to focus on the high end, they are in fact incorporating the disruptor tech and are not in danger of being supplanted by what began as a lower performance/niche platform that innovated into a position capable of marginalising and squeezing out the higher end gaming platforms. Wii tech is innovation but not disruptive innovation
as for 3D and mo-cap as disruptive innovations, i don’t see how they meet the criteria thus far but i can’t wrap my head around it right now, maybe they do and i’m too tired to see it
an argument could be made for digital video camera photography following on from digital still photography as disruptive innovation; what began as niche, low-performance tech initially marketed to the relatively undemanding retail home video market is currently in the process of squeezing out and marginalising the incumbent, the traditional use of chemical film stock. digital video quality was initially poor, but the low-end tech has seen rapid innovation advance production quality to the point of quite possibly eclipsing the use of traditional film for the highest-end market of big-time movie-making
“Avatar” will go on alright. In classic Hollywood/Wall Street fashion, James Cameron is making noise about a sequel.
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
“in order for innovation to be disruptive, the incumbent companies using established tech must ignore the low-end interloper and concentrate on their high-end, more profitable market”
Eh… I don’t know about that. The “disruptive” part comes from the abandonment of previous development directions – in this case, it was all about the processing power, with the PS3 being so prohibitively bleeding edge that they sold the thing at a loss because no-one would pay what it cost to make. There doesn’t have to be a kind of mutual exclusivity or hubris with companies blindly falling off a cliff for the tech to disrupt the current status quo.
You’re right tho that 3D mo-cap doesn’t really fit the bill of “disruptive”, but it’s likely to redefine what we expect from top-budget action films in the future.
Kodak certainly felt the squeeze from the digital camera revolution…
“Titanic’s seemingly insurmountable $1.8b gross is looking surmountable.”
That “looks” like a waffle. Is there a single serious box office tracker who doubts that by February AVATAR will be the highest grossing film worldwide?
By next Thursday or Friday, it will pass TDK so now TITANIC’s domestic is looking surmountable as well. With only $67M separating the two, it’s pretty much a foregone conclusion. What only 2 weeks ago looked iffy by March might happen before January is over.
“Eh… I don’t know about that. The “disruptive” part comes from the abandonment of previous development directions…”
foamy, that is not what disruptive means as pertaining to disruptive innovation. by definition disruptive innovation results in the downfall/marginalisation of the established incumbents squeezed out by the disruptor, which begins low-end/low-performance niche and innovates into market dominance. this is simply not the case for Wii and the gaming industry, which is following the path of sustaining innovation, whereby the high-end gaming platforms are not being driven out of the high-end market by innovative Wii tech, they are instead incorporating motion sensor gaming, which is sustaining innovation because it’s improving the performance of existing products in the market
You kind of make my point, Deathtongue. “What only 2 weeks ago looked iffy by March might happen before January is over.”
Yes. There are serious box office trackers who are still not sure than $1.8 billion is going to happen. But last weekend and this weekend, which were the ones that we all had to wait for to be reasonable, are now pointing strongly in that direction.
$300 million more is not nothing. But it is looking like we will see that much more in foreign alone.
Domestically, really, the holds have been so strong that it is hard to believe and is hard to be comfortable arguing that they will stay at this level.
I think that as we have seen so many super-fast starting films in the last decade, we have become cautious about overprojecting because the history has been that the wall is close. Not so here.
It is time to start being conscious that the record is $1.843b and not just $1.8b.
And we haven’t really begun to consider whether Avatar will be a game changer in terms of holding a significant number of screens in March and April and even May. Disney has to start worrying about 3D screens for Alice In Wonderland.
“which begins low-end/low-performance niche and innovates into market dominance”
You don’t call 4 out of the top 5 selling games, plus selling as many units as the other 2 combined despite a year’s delay “market dominance”? Sony and Microsoft are too diversified to go out of business, unlike Sega they always had enough backing to switch tack. You don’t need the others to declare bankruptcy for it do be “disruptive”.
It also doesn’t need to be low-end either. In many cases (such as harddrives, which innovated in terms of size) the disruptive technology was more expensive than what it was replacing, which is why the incumbents felt secure. Some of those (Seagate) are still around today – does that make it non-disruptive because they adopted the 3.5″ standard?
“You don’t call 4 out of the top 5 selling games, plus selling as many units as the other 2 combined despite a year’s delay “market dominance”? Sony and Microsoft are too diversified to go out of business, unlike Sega they always had enough backing to switch tack. You don’t need the others to declare bankruptcy for it do be “disruptive”.”
declaring bankruptcy has nothing to do with it, it has to do with an initially inferior technology innovating to supersede the established tech as the default in the marketplace/industry – that is what disruptive innovation is – and in respect to the gaming platforms this is not occurring.
like i stated earlier, Wii only fulfils some of the criteria of disruptive innovation. it started as lower-performance/lower-end tech for a specific market — not hard-core gamers — and the Wii platform has done well for itself by quickly innovating and dramatically increasing sales to become dominant in its market. but the other higher-end gaming platforms are in no danger of being driven out of favour or marginalised by Wii in the eyes of hard-core gamers, the various platforms are co-existing — and further, the other gaming platforms are now incorporating the motion sensor tech popular to Wii to increase their market share and possibly even overlap/compete with the Wii market. this is by definition sustaining innovation, not disruptive innovation, because the higher-end platforms are choosing to evolve and integrate the new tech to adapt to/grow in the marketplace, which contradicts the very premise of disruptive innovation.
if disruptive innovation was occurring/had occurred, the other high performance gaming platforms would stick to focusing solely on the high-end hard-core gaming market. under the umbrella of disruptive innovation, the hard-core gaming consoles would then lose their hard-core gamers to the Wii console while sony/microsoft concentrate solely on the high-end until they are driven out/marginalised by the motion sensor platform, which would become the industry default for gaming applications.
but this isn’t what’s happening; instead the hard-core gaming incumbents are adapting and incorporating the Wii tech to increase their market share and complete directly with the interloper, which by definition is sustaining innovation, not disruptive innovation, which has very specific criteria.
“It also doesn’t need to be low-end either. In many cases (such as hard-drives, which innovated in terms of size) the disruptive technology was more expensive than what it was replacing, which is why the incumbents felt secure.”
i’m not sure where you’re getting that, but that’s not correct. there is both low-end and new-market disruptive innovation, but both involve what is initially a cheaper, simpler, inferior product that appeals only to a narrow segment of the market, but that segment values it for some specific reason: either the existing high-end options don’t appeal/aren’t necessary for their limited purposes or their specific needs somehow weren’t being served by the existing incumbent/s.
in the case of disk drives, the broad demand was for more capacity, not less; the smaller, cheaper drives with far less capacity were introduced (and they certainly were not more expensive than the conventional drives) in a very narrow application, such as in the first PCs, but unexpected and rapid innovations in capacity then followed and rendered the larger drives obsolete. and so on and so forth until today’s current drives (which no doubt will get smaller). this is an excellent example of disruptive innovation, because the initially cheaper, inferior product unexpectedly goes on to become the default tech.
innovating with more complex and expensive tech is the certainly the norm in most cases, but that isn’t the same as disruptive innovation
If we’re defining disruptive in terms of “platforms not co-existing” then virtually no innovation is disruptive – there are still record and tape manufacturers in business, and even companies that sell and service VMS/VAX systems. These are by no means mainstream, but they still co-exist. It then becomes a matter of personal opinion – do you become “marginalized” when another player with “inferior” tech has 50% marketshare? 75%? 90%? If you abandon your previous development and adopt the tech to try and claw your way back from 1% market share, is it sustaining?
If you look back 2 decades, that’s exactly what happened – the incumbents (Sega, Nintendo etc.) were using cartridge technology and then Sony came in using CDs, and that became the default. But Nintendo survived (unlike many of the other cartridge manufacturers) and came back from an abysmal market share to now be the dominant player. The Wii is essentially a Gamecube with a DVD drive and a motion sensor controller. Shouldn’t that then be the definition of a sustaining innovation by some criteria, because it just adopted the interloper’s innovations to compete directly and increase their market share?
I’m guess what I’m saying is that the line between sustaining and disruptive isn’t 100% cut and dried, and I suspect that we have a different sense of “this is adapting after being marginalized” and “this is normal competition”. Meh… that’s fine. I can live with that.
I should also clarify my comment regarding hard-drive pricing – to oversimplify the numbers, they were 50% capacity at 75% of the price. The incumbents were satisfied that no-one would pay for less space at more per byte. Then, as you say, rapid innovations followed – but only after they began to be widely adopted.
In the interests of fact checking, VAX systems ceased manufacturing in 2005 although they are still sold and serviced. The Wii’s drive does not normally play DVDs, but you can get 3rd party software to enable it to do so.
but foamy, cherry-picking one tiny ‘co-existing’ comment to define my entire argument or using it to try to refute or pick apart my argument is just sidestepping the issue. disruptive innovation as a concept is cut and dried, it’s not like i’m massaging it to suit my assertions, the defining criteria isn’t vague or debatable, it is what it is what it is.
at any rate, i think i get what you’re saying now(hopefully, i might be dead wrong):
you are using the term ‘disruptor’ and disruptor innovation in a loose sense, where you see Wii as the disruptor tech causing the market to evolve, because Wii is what you perceive as now having market share in the gaming platforms, so therefore you consider Wii as disruptor innovation.
but this simply isn’t what disruptor innovation entails, and i’m not sure how else to phrase it. it has nothing to do with market share or co-existing, disruptive innovation causes a paradigm shift in technology always resulting in displacement of the incumbent companies/tech, superseding the old paradigm to become the new. the incumbents, who didn’t or perhaps even couldn’t adapt are marginalised, just like traditional film cameras and the offset printing press.
Wii-style motion sensor gaming is innovation but it’s not disruptive innovation, it’s SUSTAINING innovation because by definition sustaining innovation doesn’t result in the downfall of the established companies or supersede the established paradigm, rather the interloping technology is adopted and absorbed by competitors to improve the performance of a range of existing products in line with consumer demand, which exactly describes the evolving gaming paradigm as it currently exists today.
motion-sensor tech will proliferate in the market as a result of incorporation and competition, improving rather than driving out the high-end hard-core gaming of sony/microsoft, which is still selling very well, as an added arrow to the quiver
(man i gotta go to sleep now, hope i didn’t beer-ramble too badly)
Heh… I thought you were going to take me to task for dropping in tape and records, which aren’t disrupting at all.
I think I’ve explained myself very badly, and this is starting to go around in circles at this point so it looks like we’re at “agree to disagree” territory. My feeling is that you can’t define disrupting tech by the actions of the incumbents – the degree to which they react (or don’t) says far more about them than it does about the tech. To me, disruptive tech is all about the introduction of a new price/performance curve that causes a sea change in the market – and I believe for the Wii it has dramatically changed the market leaderboard, te emphasis of new development, the consumer makeup, and consumer preferences. Pretty much by definition, that makes it non-sustaining which is typified by negligible impact on the market beyond number of sales.
In any case, your beer rambling is far more coherent than my beer rambling.
that’s kind of you, foamy, but i doubt that! (re: coherent late-night beer rambling)
hey, i understand what you’re saying, i really do, i just don’t think what you’re describing is technically disruptive innovation. here’s a concise definition from a site about clayton christensen (author of the theory) i found looking for a definition of disruptive innovation less than 8 paragraphs long:
“Disruptive innovation, a term of art coined by Clayton Christensen, describes a process by which a product or service takes root initially in simple applications at the bottom of a market and then relentlessly moves
I still play games on my APPLE II, so I’m not sure what you guys are on about. BILESTOAD forever.