On the other hand, many massively successful online services have been launched when the network infrastructure was not really there to deliver it. I'm thinking of how unlikely it seemed that HD video could be reliably streamed, or the abandoning of physical distribution of video/software in favor of downloads. These services were running when the vast majority did not have the bandwidth to properly use them. Those needs did push the networks to improve, and I think part of this is what we are seeing now with AT&T. Of course, it will make things difficult early on, but not very far into the future we will be wondering what all the fuss was about.
Basically.. the chicken vs the egg scenario. Yes, new businesses may launch before the infrastructure is there for mass adoption... but this doesn't map directly to Disney here for a few reasons
1) such rollouts are based on the concept that 'while not everyone has that access... enough do to make it viable'.. meaning they know they can't serve everyone, but they can get customers and then grow when capacity expands. Here, not everyone is a customer, but that's ok.
2) these rollouts are usually in a new medium/path.. meaning they are starting a new userbase and hope to convert other legacy users. But the legacy users still have their legacy services.
Disney's example would be more like the cable company deciding video streaming is the future.. and turning off all their broadband video transmission systems... hoping that eventually their IP networks will catch up to the demand. In the meantime, they off EVERYONE, including the legacy customer base.
This is a stark difference from creating a new space with new customers vs forced cutoffs and adoption.
Disney isn't taking this with the 'hey, if you have a smartphone we offer this perk...' strategy.. they are going 'all in' and saying this digital-centric strategy is the way you experience the parks.
If you are going to lead people into a new space that has lots of risks/growing pains.. the so called 'bleeding edge'... you need to have compelling stories to make people jump. Right now, FP+ is having a hard time selling itself as a compelling upgrade because it doesn't expand the legacy service, but forcefully tries to redefine it in ways that customers perceive as negatives.
There is also something to be said about the size of the exposure. If this goes bad, how much of your transaction is affected? Here, for Disney the scope is so ambitious the risk of failure having widespread impacts on a guest's vacation are quite high.
I'm kind of suprised they didn't put the customer satisifaction elements up front in the rollout. Imagine if wearing a band only had new experiences you could get.. without changing old. People would be far more accepting... and then you start coverting legacy systems when the technology has a bridgehead. But here, they've gone for all the operational objectives first... DRAGGING customers... rather than LURING customers. That plays a huge roll in customer perception.
