The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
Can Nintendo capitalize on the annualized hardware treadmill?
Stain
Registered User new member
Registered User new member
Flagship smart phones (Iphone, Galaxy S, etc) are updated every 6 to 12 months, depending on the manufacturer with a hardware upgrade. With exceptions, the form factor is new and improved and features are added (or removed). The components have increased memory and faster processor and with backwards compatibility the software ecosystem, such as the Apple store and Google Play store, continues to be supported.
What's to prevent Nintendo from emulating the same manufacturer process that smartphone makers refined and release a new hardware upgrade of the Switch every year? In this situation, a consumer would have an opportunity to attach themselves to the Switch ecosystem by acquiring the latest Switch hardware which would, at the time, offer the fastest device. In this way, the product would be properly framed to be software library itself as the product being sold and the the Switch device as the gatekeeper to access it. In such a situation, Nintendo is providing an upgrade path for all consumers every year, they are building an ecosystem that is completely complimentary to the Switch brand and the business model is entirely identical with how the smartphone business is run.
Here are the benefits: it completely addresses and mitigates the one disadvantage the console manufacturer faces; obsolescence. With the aid of marketing, consoles can enter into a new territory where aging technology and waning public interest can be a thing of the past and mobile technologies such as Nvidia’s Tegra SoC can be that window of opportunity for Nintendo to gauge public perception going forward. Console makers don’t need to go to all the trouble of making a great product, reap the rewards of a single generation cycle only to be put at risk and potentially lose all of the hard won market share. Nintendo can break the cycle of a new product launch every 5 years (in Nintendo’s case) with all of the marketing, production, development kits, and related expenses attached to it. By making an incremental annualized upgrade path a reality, they can move the consumer forward, offer them a product line that can maintain parity with the industry, while the most important part of their business, the library or ecosystem, continues to grow, expand and evolve. Not unlike smartphones, this is not about forcing people to buy a new console every year although they are clearly free to do so. This about empowering consumers and developers with the tools to tailor-fit their entertainment experiences to match their expectations in a fiercely competitive industry.
What's to prevent Nintendo from emulating the same manufacturer process that smartphone makers refined and release a new hardware upgrade of the Switch every year? In this situation, a consumer would have an opportunity to attach themselves to the Switch ecosystem by acquiring the latest Switch hardware which would, at the time, offer the fastest device. In this way, the product would be properly framed to be software library itself as the product being sold and the the Switch device as the gatekeeper to access it. In such a situation, Nintendo is providing an upgrade path for all consumers every year, they are building an ecosystem that is completely complimentary to the Switch brand and the business model is entirely identical with how the smartphone business is run.
Here are the benefits: it completely addresses and mitigates the one disadvantage the console manufacturer faces; obsolescence. With the aid of marketing, consoles can enter into a new territory where aging technology and waning public interest can be a thing of the past and mobile technologies such as Nvidia’s Tegra SoC can be that window of opportunity for Nintendo to gauge public perception going forward. Console makers don’t need to go to all the trouble of making a great product, reap the rewards of a single generation cycle only to be put at risk and potentially lose all of the hard won market share. Nintendo can break the cycle of a new product launch every 5 years (in Nintendo’s case) with all of the marketing, production, development kits, and related expenses attached to it. By making an incremental annualized upgrade path a reality, they can move the consumer forward, offer them a product line that can maintain parity with the industry, while the most important part of their business, the library or ecosystem, continues to grow, expand and evolve. Not unlike smartphones, this is not about forcing people to buy a new console every year although they are clearly free to do so. This about empowering consumers and developers with the tools to tailor-fit their entertainment experiences to match their expectations in a fiercely competitive industry.
0
This discussion has been closed.