> Smaller company playing a disruptive strategy against giant competitors. Although before that, Nintendo owned the games console industry, so it wasn't exactl

> Smaller company playing a disruptive strategy against giant competitors. Although before that, Nintendo owned the games console industry, so it wasn't exactly a small startup. It had market-leading software franchises to sell its hardware. > seems so many technology firms have one or two hits then get wiped out when a new product under-performs. Absolutely true. It's one of the main reasons why the IBM PC (running DOS) and then openly-licensed Windows came to dominate the PC market rather than Acorn, Apple, Commodore (Amiga), Sinclair and hundreds of other proprietary manufacturers. That was never a viable strategy in the games console market because most consoles were sold at a loss, ie software sales subsidized hardware sales.