[HN Gopher] Companies that had successful pivots ___________________________________________________________________ Companies that had successful pivots Author : karimf Score : 302 points Date : 2021-12-31 09:36 UTC (13 hours ago) (HTM) web link (github.com) (TXT) w3m dump (github.com) | the-dude wrote: | Acorn to ARM. | ninechars wrote: | Holy crap I had no idea! We had an Acorn in my primary school | back in the stone age. | karimf wrote: | Added ARM to the list. Thanks! | mattbee wrote: | Pivot is a bittersweet description, and ARM was a new spin-off | founded in 1990 alongside Apple. Acorn renamed itself to | Element 14 Ltd in 1998 and sold off the assets from their home | computer business. They built DSL kit for a couple of years | before ending up as part of Broadcom. | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arm_Ltd. | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Element_14_(company) | easrng wrote: | Didn't Element 14 manufacture Raspberry Pis at some point? | the-dude wrote: | What is interesting too is that none of the other | microcomputer manufacturers of the time tried to create their | own CPU. | | We have IBM + the rest of the mainframe guys and Sun. | mattbee wrote: | Not that it helped Acorn survive, of course! Right up until | the end, RISC OS ran on interrupts, too much delicate | kernel code, cooperative multitasking, and unprotected | memory. | | They weren't the only CPU pioneers; Argonaut didn't think | it unreasonable to create a custom CPU to push polygons on | a Nintendo cartridge - | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_FX | the-dude wrote: | The Super_FX seems to be a coprocessor. More companies | created silicon ( Commodore? ), but not CPUs AFAIK. | mattbee wrote: | It was a whole new RISC CPU. Lots of co-processors are | whole CPUs. Argonaut spun a company off, and it's still | shipping - the inventor said it outsold ARM and MIPS | before the PS1 (from https://web.archive.org/web/20071217 | 092221/http://www.armcha... ) | zbuf wrote: | We can add this to the debate above about whether Netflix was | really a pivot. Acorn made computers and eventually decided | they needed their own processor. I'm sure one could debate | whether that was evolution or revolution, but what we know for | sure is that Acorn is not around today and ARM (the spin-off) | is. | aardvark179 wrote: | There are a few of these that don't really feel like pivots to | me. For example Netflix changing from delivering things via DVD | to doing it by streaming just feels like evolving to suit the | market. Would we consider a publisher as pivoting because they | now sell ebooks and run news websites instead of printing books | and magazines? | mensetmanusman wrote: | Does anyone else think a new blu/dvd shipping company could | work well again with same day shipping assuming the continued | fragmentation gets worse and worse? | maneesh wrote: | Netflix still runs a dvd rental business, with a much higher | offering of titles (less content restriction than with | streaming) | Jensson wrote: | They pivoted from having a bunch of people managing mailing | DVD's to people to having a bunch of people managing computer | servers. It is really different and there is no reason to | assume they would succeed at that, if they built a subpar | service they would have lost. | jrh206 wrote: | I certainly view Netflix as a pivot. The things the company has | to do, day to day, are just drastically different. | deltree7 wrote: | So does Amazon, Apple, IBM and hundreds of other companies | davnicwil wrote: | Wasn't the streaming delivery piece intended from the start | though, but they just had to wait for the infrastructure to | support it so did DVD delivery as a stopgap? I had always | assumed this was the case. | ng55QPSK wrote: | the "Net" in netflix was: you could order on the net, only | the delivering changed. | Beldin wrote: | Yes, it hinges on the definition of pivot. From a customer | point of view, this is a mere evolution. That this imposes | vastly different requirements on the underlying business is | not really the problem of the customer. | | In a similar vein, how would you describe the move of just | about every primary, secondary and tertiary educational | institutions to online teaching? | | I don't consider that a pivot. It was necessary to continue | to deliver the basic added value of these institutions. | However, that did require a whole slew of new skills from | teachers. So sure, YMMV. | bottled_poe wrote: | In one respect, this "pivot" is simply changing the medium for | delivery of the service. On the other hand, this represents a | major shift in the structure of the company, introducing change | in basically every department. It seems very naive to presume | this shift would be simply an adjustment of the business | structure. I would guess the Netflix business as we know it now | would have very little resemblance of what it was during those | DVD days. | [deleted] | astura wrote: | The real pivot was going from DVD distribution to movie and tv | show production. This, of course, only happened because the | switch to streaming made it so that Netflix were dependent on | content producers. Netflix knew content producers would just | create their own streaming service in time and they'd lose all | their leverage. | jaredsohn wrote: | Basically is converting from being Blockbuster to being HBO. | gcanyon wrote: | Ted Sarandos, chief content officer for Netflix, once said, | "The goal is to become HBO faster than HBO can become us" I | worked for HBO when he said that, and took it very | seriously. | rkk3 wrote: | > There are a few of these that don't really feel like pivots | to me. For example Netflix changing from delivering things via | DVD to doing it by streaming just feels like evolving to suit | the market. | | Reed Hastings allegedly barred the delivery team executives | from his leadership meetings when they were _responsible for | 100% of the companies revenue_. It was a massive, legendary | pivot. | | Pivots are nothing else but evolving to suit the market, at the | cost of an established existing business or use case. | | > Would we consider a publisher as pivoting because they now | sell ebooks and run news websites instead of printing books and | magazines? | | I don't see why not, except that their legacy/core businesses | are still or until recently responsible for the majority of | their revenue [1]. I think there is a difference between adding | a new distribution channel and altering the fundamentals of the | business. The pivot for publishers has been more from ads -> | subs. | | [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/05/business/media/nyt- | earnin... | jasode wrote: | _> There are a few of these that don't really feel like pivots | to me._ | | Because no authority dictates the meaning of "pivot", it looks | like the concept diverged and became wider: | | - "pivot" as switching from a _unprofitable or failed business | idea_ to a profitable one. A "phoenix rising from the ashes" | type of pivot often associated with startups that finally | figured out the elusive "Product Market Fit" instead of | shutting down. This seems to be the original meaning | popularized in 2011 by Eric Ries "Lean Startup" book : | https://www.amazon.com/Lean-Startup-Entrepreneurs-Continuous... | | - "pivot" as any change in business focus whether the previous | one was profitable or not. | rexf wrote: | That's a good point. I thought pivot meant "switching from a | unprofitable or failed business idea to a profitable one". | | In that sense, IIRC Netflix's founder had the early vision to | offer streaming services (one day in the future), so it | wasn't a pivot. It was part of the plan. | | I mean he named his company "Netflix". Does that sound like | DVD delivery? No, it sounds like inter(net) + flicks. | Retric wrote: | Netflix went from legal access to any DVD produced, too needing | content deals with the entertainment industry and making their | own content. The technical difficulties are minor by | comparison. | | That's generally what pivoting means, going from chemical to | digital cameras for example is a similarly huge jump even if | the customers largely stay the same you lost a huge revenue | stream from selling and or processing film and now need to | spend a lot more on R&D. | robbedpeter wrote: | The content delivery aspect that Netflix coordinated with | ISP's was a pretty phenomenal technical feat, and could be | seen as a pivot into networking at scale. | aardvark179 wrote: | Changing from film cameras to digital ones is exactly the | sort of thing I wouldn't call a pivot. Many of the components | and skills are identical, but you are adding sensors and | storage. That's just the sort of adaption to an evolving | market that any reasonable company should do. | | A pivot suggests a sudden and radical change in course. Slack | feels like one, companies that have switched from | manufacturing to (apparently unrelated) software feel even | more so. | | I'd also say Nokia doesn't feel like a pivot. They were a | company that did anything internally for which they did not | find adequate solutions on the market. They produced a lot of | different things over the decades and the radio business is | one that found external success and grew over time. Do we | consider large conglomerates to have repeatedly pivoted as | different portions of their business waxed and waned? | Retric wrote: | A pivot is mostly a question of abandoning the old model | efficiently rather than simply starting to do something | else. Kodak was mostly a chemical company, selling film | every week and a new camera every decade. | | Going from manufacturing pencils to building aircraft | doesn't make use of existing workforce, equipment, or | customers so why not just expand into a new industry and | keep the old one as long as it was possible? Netflix or | digital cameras on the other hand eats into their customer | base. Someone buying a digital cameras is no longer buying | film from you, it's a destructive transition. | Ensorceled wrote: | You're still selling movies and cameras. | | If we take this approach EVERYBODY has pivoted. Walmart | has online sales that are "eating into" their in store | sales. CVS has home delivery, eating into their foot | traffic... | Retric wrote: | Kodak actually pivoted to making pharmaceuticals. That | leveraged what they where actually good at, high | precision chemical manufacturing. | | Survivorship bias means you see a lot of company's that | have successfully pivoted, and the brands that failed | often get bought up after the fact. | Jensson wrote: | > You're still selling movies and cameras. | | That doesn't matter, the organization is the people in | it, if you have to make huge reorganizations in what the | people at your company do then that is a huge pivot that | is dangerous and likely to fail. Digital companies are | not like other companies, you are thinking of companies | where brands is the main thing and you can just slap | together a new product in a year. It doesn't work like | that in normal businesses, Kodak couldn't just say that | all their factories specialized on making goods related | to old cameras be repurposed to digital cameras. | | Some of the expertise can transfer over, but if that is | not your competitive advantage it doesn't matter. Kodaks | competitive advantage was not camera lenses etc, so they | had no way to pivot to digital cameras. Digital cameras | destroyed the business they were good at. | | > If we take this approach EVERYBODY has pivoted. Walmart | has online sales that are "eating into" their in store | sales. CVS has home delivery, eating into their foot | traffic... | | No, not everybody has pivoted. Lots of companies failed | to pivot and died. Walmart is aware of this and has | started to build expertise around digital sales already, | because Walmart doesn't want to die in case digital sales | overtakes physical sales. | vidarh wrote: | I think Netflix is more of an argument than Kodak. | Netflix kept selling access to movies, though the way | they did so changed dramatically. | | But while Kodak did sell cameras, Kodak sold cameras | mostly to drive sales of their film. The film and | chemicals were their high margin product ranges. | | The pivot to try to drive their earnings mainly from | their cameras was a fundamental change of business model | in a way that Netflix shift to streaming (or Walmart or | CVS online and delivery) wasn't. It turned a long term | recurring high-margin revenue stream into a punctuated | low-margin revenue stream. (not that they could have | prevented the eventual collapse of their film business) | PeterisP wrote: | The key pivot was not changing from film _cameras_ to | digital _cameras_ , where indeed many components and skills | are identical, but from film business (the majority of | which is/was film and development | process/chemistry/equipment/services, not cameras) to a | camera-only business. Some companies did that pivot, some | (like Kodak) did not. | bluGill wrote: | Kodak was never known for good cameras. That was cannon | and Nikon who both pivoted to digital. Kodak made great | film and didn't have a simple pivot in pictures. Their | simple pivot was pharmaceuticals which as others noted | they did do. | RF_Savage wrote: | Nokia climbed up the value chain in their vertical. From | telephone cable into PCM line concentrators. From those | into small exchanges. Then to the DX-200 digital telephone | exchange. They merged/bought Televa (small exchanges and | Gen0 Cellphones) and bought out Salora from Mobira (Gen0 | cellphones and commercial radios). When Gen1 NMT became a | thing they started making phones for it and later | basestations. With GSM (Gen2) they ware making basestations | and handsets from day one. | | And they still make basestations and exchanges to this day. | So they kainda are at their roots. | mtgx wrote: | xtiansimon wrote: | > "The technical difficulties are minor by comparison." | | You mean serving video to a pc? Because I also think about | the infrastructure/last mile. And it's one thing to have | 10000 customers and quite another to have 10000000 (or | whatever #) | hk1337 wrote: | Didn't they still need to workout deals or licenses with the | entertainment industry to rent out the DVDs? Didn't | Blockbuster have to do that to provide VHS and DVDs in the | store? | | I still think it was a pivot but not for that reason. | Evolving can still be pivoting. Netflix shifted their | business from providing physical media to streaming media. | astura wrote: | No, definitely not, in the US anyone can rent out any | physical media legally without any permission from the | anyone due to the first sale doctrine. Same as me freely | selling or loaning my DVDs and books without asking anyone | first. | | Before Blockbuster/Hollywood Video came to my town there | were dozens of the video rental stores, all of which were | mom-and-pop operations. | | Nintendo tried to stop video game rentals during the NES | era but failed - there was legislation banning video game | rentals that was not passed and then they sued blockbuster | for making photocopies of their manuals. I think I remember | reading that rental stores having to send multiple | employees into multiple stores to purchase Nintendo games | because Nintendo had an agreement with retailers not to | sell multiple copies of the same game to a single person to | discourage rental and reseller purchases. | Beldin wrote: | Not quite accurate. If you become a distributor of | content, then you fall under the rules for distributors. | | That's (part of) why videos typically had that "not for | rent" / "only for home viewing" stuff. There's a | difference between you lending or renting out a dvd once, | versus this being a business model. | | How this works out exactly in a US legal context, you | ask? Well: always follow legal advice from strangers on | the Internet. Also IANAL. | bluGill wrote: | While legally you are correct, you want to make deals | anyway, if you do you can get plenty of DVDs in on | release day (they might sit in your backroom for a few | days to ensure it was shipped fast enough). There are | other things you can get in a deal if you make one. | mkr-hn wrote: | See also: compulsory licensing for music. You don't | _need_ the permission of the copyright holder, but | licensing deals are usually cheaper than the rate set by | law. | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_license#United_S | tat... | wbl wrote: | Netflix still runs the DVD service. | [deleted] | ErikVandeWater wrote: | But it's obviously a lesser degree of pivot than a pivot that | discards your current customer base. I also wouldn't be | surprised if being a huge buyer of wholesale DVDs got them | good contacts in the media/film industry. | | Also, the transition from film to digital was more gradual | than it appears, as many features now thought of as digital- | only were actually available on late generation film cameras. | cutenewt wrote: | I'd agree that if you're 1) delivering the same promise to | the 2) same customer base -- yes, it isn't as big of a | pivot and some of the other companies on the list. | orblivion wrote: | Looks like you can still rent DVDs from Netflix | https://dvd.netflix.com/Movies | axiomdata316 wrote: | Wow thanks for sharing this. I know I'm weird but I think I | would still rather get DVDs because you have such a wider | selection. And you can get very unique and hard to find | movies. You're not locked into licensing deals between large | movie studios. | [deleted] | cromulent wrote: | Yeah, I would agree. Keeping up with the times and the market | is different to pivoting, as is diversifying and monetising. | Did Disney "pivot" from hand-made animations to theme parks and | digital streaming? More of an evolution, I think. | cortesoft wrote: | Yeah... does every new technology change mean a pivot? Or | evolution of business strategy? | | If Netflix counts as a pivot, I feel like every company more | than a few decades old should be on the list. IBM for sure, | car companies because they now sell electric cars, banks | because they now offer online services... | maneesh wrote: | I agree that Netflix moving from dvds to streaming could be | argued as an evolution instead of a pivot, but I would | argue that moving from streaming and delivering others' | content to producing their own content was a very | significant shift worthy of being called a pivot. | zalebz wrote: | There is a great podcast called Land of the Giants and they | have a "season" about Netflix (as well as Amazon, Google, | Apple); based on the information I learned there I would | certainly say it was a risky pivot. | thraxil wrote: | I actually think Netflix's move towards producing their own | shows and movies was more of a "pivot" than going from DVD to | online streaming (which I don't see as really any different | than Blockbuster going from renting VHS to DVDs). | aardvark179 wrote: | Yes, I'd agree with that. | ur-whale wrote: | To be fair, Netflix's DVD via email business model was very | successful before they pivoted to streaming while many of the | others initial idea was ... <hrm> | | In the case of Netflix, here goes a company that smartly and | efficiently adapted to changing market conditions rather than | "pivoting". | k__ wrote: | In 2006, I even knew people here in Germany who were "renting | mailorder DVDs from the US". | | It dawned to me a few years ago that this service was Netflix, | before they went streaming. | perlpimp wrote: | This promotes thinking in terms of survivorship bias IMO. | mhh__ wrote: | Valve: They used to make games, now they make money. | huffmsa wrote: | With a brief foray into the hat making business in-between | hn_throwaway_99 wrote: | This was really interesting, a lot of these I never knew about, | like Segment was originally pitched to YC as a classroom tool. | | Related, though, perhaps it's just a bit of semantics, but in | general, I consider a "pivot" to be where a company hasn't found | traction with their current product, so unless they switch | they're going to die. | | Like another commenter who mentioned Netflix, that feels very | different than some of these companies that were just evolving or | growing with the market. I mean, in one sense, since technology | is always changing you _better_ evolve at some point or you 're | guaranteed to die. Moving from DVDs by mail to streaming was a | pretty obvious switch, and not something that really took Netflix | by surprise (though they famously had some major hiccups as they | tried to make that switch). | | In general, though, lots of interesting and cool stories here! | delgaudm wrote: | Foursquare comes to mind. They were the "location check-in app" | hotness for a while. They abandoned the app and now are a | significant player in the surveillance ^H^H^H "location-based | experiences" space. | rubayeet wrote: | I am not sure Shopify belongs to the list. It didn't exactly | pivot, Tobi Lutke made a website with Rails to sell snowboards, | and realized there is an untapped market for SaaS e-commerce | product, so he generalized the framework powering the website. | magneticnorth wrote: | I find this to be one of the most interesting kinds of pivots - | the original business idea wasn't good enough, but along the | way they encountered problems with no good solution, and were | savvy enough to go to market with that solution once they came | up with it. | puyoxyz wrote: | Same applies to Slack then | reed1234 wrote: | How's that not a pivot? | jazzyjackson wrote: | Well, does Toni still sell snowboards? | raldi wrote: | MP3.com was initially a search engine. | | The nice thing about running a search engine, even if it only | ever gets a trickle of traffic and could never compete with the | big players, is that you can look at the logs and spot trends | early. The founder noticed people were searching for something | called "mp3", saw the domain was available, bought it, and then | looked up what it was and eventually rebuilt the company around | it. | deepnotderp wrote: | Intel- memory to microprocessors? | AussieWog93 wrote: | I run a small business, and know others who do the same. | Honestly, I think pivoting is the norm rather than the exception. | | Many of the people I know started in a similar place, but their | businesses evolved into all kinds of weird and wacky enterprises. | hellbannedguy wrote: | k__ wrote: | This. | | I had a client who once sold anti-virus software and even | ZetaOS. | | Somehow they pivoted to selling mobile speakers and toys. | calmlynarczyk wrote: | It really begs the question "what is a company?" if one can | shift between such disparate markets. Surely mission doesn't | define a company then. Perhaps ability to accumulate capital | for a means? | Enginerrrd wrote: | I also run a small business and I agree with this. I think it | becomes more notable when you have to change the heading on a | large company and all its bureaucracy. | calmoo wrote: | An example that is missing is MongoDB. | 0dayz wrote: | That list I think is a good lesson/motivator that the "golden" | product youre developing may not become the product defining your | company but instead a side project. | ehnto wrote: | Makes you wonder what you are actually building then, if it | wasn't the product that ended up making you succesful. | | I notice a few of these stories involve stumbling on an itch | that badly needed scratching while doing something else with as | much purpose. One of the big challenges of entrepreneurship in | software is finding a problem worth working on when you're not | actually experiencing any problems that aren't software | related. | | In that sense, perhaps you're building up experience in a new | industry when building an idea, which introduces you to new | problems, sometimes better problems. | ng55QPSK wrote: | Nokia is incorrect (afiu the tire/rubber business was span-off | some years ago Nokian), even the source cites it better "The | company has operated in various industries over the past 150 | years. It was founded as a pulp mill and had long been associated | with rubber and cables, but since the 1990s has focused on large- | scale telecommunications infrastructure, technology development, | and licensing." | silisili wrote: | Yeah the source sentence is awfully vague to the point of | confusing. Nokia was a paper mill, and their own website says | as much in less ambiguous terms - https://www.nokia.com/about- | us/company/our-history/ | justicezyx wrote: | I think at least for me, before working at an early start-up, the | wrong idea is that pivots are exceptional. | | No, pivots are what startup do. | | They are Bron out of pivots, because the founders could not find | a way to implement their ideas in other venues. | | So all startups pivots, and all successful had pivoted | successfully. | taspeotis wrote: | > The company then decided that the market for cameras was not | large enough for its goals | | Such a Cave Johnson move. | wombatmobile wrote: | Google: Don't be evil | ARothfusz wrote: | There's always Wrigley's that went from offering gum as an | incentive to buy soap to just selling the gum... "Make something | people want" | | > In 1891, 29-year-old William Wrigley Jr. (1861-1932) came to | Chicago from Philadelphia with $32 and the idea to start a | business selling Wrigley's Scouring Soap.[14] Wrigley offered | premiums as an incentive to buy his soap, such as baking powder. | Later in his career, he switched to the baking powder business, | in which he began offering two packages of chewing gum for each | purchase of a can of baking powder. The popular premium, chewing | gum, began to seem more promising, prompting another switch in | product focus. Wrigley also became the majority owner of the | Chicago Cubs in 1921. | | -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wrigley_Company | productceo wrote: | Love the list. Thanks for putting it together. | peter303 wrote: | MicroSoft's first products were programming languages for PCs. | BASIC for the Altair in 1975. | philmcp wrote: | Very nice, never too late to pivot | | p.s. you could also add FanDuel to the list | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FanDuel#History | lowdose wrote: | I didn't see TomTom in the list. After Google stole Maps TomTom | successfully pivoted to health. | raldi wrote: | My favorite part of the Nintendo story is that back when it was a | playing card company, the heir to the family business took a trip | to America that included a meeting at the largest card company in | the world. | | He had expected it to have a luxurious, palatial campus... but | its entire headquarters turned out to be like the fourth floor of | a single building in a generic office park. He was like, "This is | the absolute pinnacle I can ever hope for if I succeed beyond my | wildest dreams running the playing-card company. I need a new | idea." | | You can read all about it in an outstanding book called I Am | Error that, beyond extensive interviews with the historic key | players, also takes an incredibly deep dive into the technical | details. | [deleted] | lqet wrote: | Now their headquarters are _7_ floors in a generic office park | building! The new strategy turned out to be successful I guess | :) | | https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bb/Ni... | robmiller wrote: | I worked on the design of their US HQ in Redmond. Despite | anything the architect could dream up, they like the metaphor | of the cube... | Jensson wrote: | They aren't the top gaming company though. Tencent has some | pretty big offices. Point is that they didn't want to be in a | market where the top is that low, then you have to be the | best to get a decent size, in computer gaming you can be one | of many and still be much bigger. | | https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3a/Tencent_. | .. | eganist wrote: | In fairness, they're probably the best vertically | integrated family friendly electronic gaming company, and | so long as they don't goof in that specific vertical, | they've probably got a lock on it for a while. | | At least until Disney truly decides to venture into | hardware. | AussieWog93 wrote: | Is Tencent really a gaming company? I suspect the revenue | they get from all of their gaming ventures combined would | be a drop in the ocean compared to WeChat. | [deleted] | raldi wrote: | Looks better if you zoom out a little: https://i.imgur.com/UY | UpUDT_d.webp?maxwidth=1200&fidelity=hi... | froh wrote: | Wait, "seven floors of an office park building" are all | seven floors of this depicted building, lol... | baron816 wrote: | How about The Pokemon Company's headquarters: https://en.wiki | pedia.org/wiki/The_Pok%C3%A9mon_Company#/medi... (fyi they | don't take up the whole building). | | That actually is a playing card company. | k__ wrote: | The Wizards of the Coast are quite a big company too. | Belphemur wrote: | Wizard of the coast is mostly a publishing company. I think | the playing cards came later. | Illniyar wrote: | Actually they originally hit it big with Magic the | Gathering. They bought D&D and the rest much later. | | I'm pretty sure Magic the Gathering is still the largest | moneymaker for them even now. | daniel-cussen wrote: | Yeah Magic the Gathering is precisely the playing card | moneymaker that would have fit Nintendo's aspirations. | cortesoft wrote: | They bought TSR, who made D&D | city41 wrote: | I also enjoyed all the failed endeavors they tried such as | rice, love hotels, a taxi service, and several others. They | were truly just throwing things at the wall for a while. | | https://nintendo.fandom.com/wiki/Instant_rice | | https://didyouknowgaming.com/post/623464734830788608/did-you... | | https://nintendowire.com/features/happy-valentines-day-did-y... | christophilus wrote: | Woah. I hadn't heard of the foray into love hotels! That's | pretty wild. | gxespino wrote: | Anyone else annoyed that the way this table is laid out the pivot | comes first before original idea. My brain doesn't work this | way... | robotkad wrote: | Fun to think that games spun out fickr and slack. I wish we saw | more kids looking up to Fake and Butterfield rather than say, | Musk. | astura wrote: | Mentions Western Union but no mention of American Express | (express mail -> financial services)? Western Union hardly even | counts as a pivot because their original money wiring service | operated entirely through their telegraph network, which is where | the term "wiring" came from. | lebuffon wrote: | Here is more background about the nature of the pivots at WU. | | WU had already pivoted once in the 1970s to become a satellite | communication company being one of the first companies to have | five birds in orbit. (Westar series) | | Sometime around 1980(?) things were so bad they went into | chapter 11, bankruptcy protection. At a senior executive | meeting the reports were all bad. A guy named Art Tarini spoke | up and said "What about money transfer? Can't we do something | with that?" The reply was something like "Art if you think you | can help give it a try" | | Art setup a call centre and had a small sales force to sign up | agents in small stores in the north east side of the USA as | money transfer locations and created paper forms to record the | transaction details. All agent transactions were sent over the | telephone. | | They were scheduled to be in bankruptcy court at the end of the | year, but the new money transfer business was making so much | money they cancelled it. | | Told to me by Art Tarini in 2001. (Paraphrased from memory) | | Later on (1990?) a computer terminal was created with Turbo C, | communicating over modems to a back office system. In 1989 when | US law changed to allowed transfers to other countries somebody | asked "I wonder if Mexicans in the USA would want to send money | home?" A new platform was created to handle foreign exchange | and the rest is history. | | Telegraph service was shutdown in 2006. It was still doing | ~$10M per year in revenue then. Money transfers were about $4B. | dsiroker wrote: | While this is helpful, just looking at _successful_ pivots | suffers from survivorship bias. Anyone have examples of _failed_ | pivots? | agomez314 wrote: | Wonder how long the list is for companies with unsuccessful | pivots | alangibson wrote: | While reading that list, I had a realization that many good | 'pivots' arent so much pivots as upgrades of a successful feature | into a product. I wonder if anyone had tried to formalize that | into a product development methodology. | ninjaturtlez wrote: | Didn't Figma start out as a drone company? Compared to that a lot | of these seem like reaches | the-dude wrote: | Mt. Gox | xwdv wrote: | What was originally a Magic The Gathering Online Exchange | became a massive crypto empire eventually toppled by greed and | mismanagement. | zhoujianfu wrote: | Although apparently it never actually operated as a trading | card exchange... that's just what the domain was originally | "intended" for. | k__ wrote: | _" 2007, the service went live for approximately three | months before McCaleb moved on to other projects, having | decided it was not worth his time"_ | | lol, interesting. | Softcadbury wrote: | I'm thinking of Epic Games and their game Fortnite. The game was | some kind of tower defence at the begining. They swithed to | battle royal and made one of the most played video game of all | time. | | Ok, it's a small pivot, but it changed the company and gave them | so much money that they were able to create their own game store | (and fight Apple in court). | xenihn wrote: | There's pre-cliff bleszinski Fortnite, and post-cliff | bleszinski fortnite. It would have not become as huge as it is | now if he had not been ousted. | sombremesa wrote: | > They swithed to battle royal and made one of the most played | video game of all time. | | More specifically, they saw the success of PUBG and decided to | copy it immediately. I suppose that still counts as a | successful pivot! | rkk3 wrote: | Apple Computer and Microsoft seem notably absent. | aphroz wrote: | Samsung was exporting dried Korean fish | Someone wrote: | It wouldn't surprise me much if they still do that. It is a | highly diversified company. | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samsung: | | _Notable Samsung industrial affiliates include Samsung | Electronics (the world 's largest information technology | company, consumer electronics maker and chipmaker measured by | 2017 revenues), Samsung Heavy Industries (the world's 2nd | largest shipbuilder measured by 2010 revenues), and Samsung | Engineering and Samsung C&T Corporation (respectively the | world's 13th and 36th largest construction companies). Other | notable subsidiaries include Samsung Life Insurance (the | world's 14th largest life insurance company), Samsung Everland | (operator of Everland Resort, the oldest theme park in South | Korea) and Cheil Worldwide (the world's 15th largest | advertising agency, as measured by 2012 revenues)_ | | Reading https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samsung_C%26T_Corporation | it doesn't seem they still trade in dried fish, but who knows? | jbverschoor wrote: | Facebook is not in the list... They pivoted from friendlist -> | wall -> timeline(twitter) | after_care wrote: | What's the difference between a pivot and an expansion? Did | Netflix pivot to online streaming, or did they expand into online | streaming? | jeffrwells wrote: | I founded a company called Milo (https://www.getmilo.com/) - we | started as a "One Medical For Pets" modern veterinary clinic and | actually had 3 hospitals before realizing that the real value was | in the software we had built to make our teams more efficient. | Now we're pure SaaS | | It is definitely challenging to pivot and fighting sunk cost bias | is massively hard | Havoc wrote: | Some of those are so unrelated I'd hardly call them pivots. More | like currently successful companies that used to do something | completely different under same brand name | raldi wrote: | A classic non-pivot is the Prodigy service, created as an IBM | spinoff in the 1980s as a sort of proto-Amazon. To their great | annoyance, instead of shopping, users insisted on chatting with | each other all day. | | They could have embraced this and beaten AOL to the punch, but | instead they issued an edict that from then on, users would only | be allowed to send 30 messages a month, and after that, they | would cost 25 cents each. This was the start of the company's | death spiral. | delecti wrote: | This is a perfect use case for the original meaning of "the | customer is always right". If customers want to send messages | then you change your business to a message system. | willhinsa wrote: | Wow, I had no idea. This is such an interesting story! | | > The price increases prompted an increase of "underground IDs" | (known as 'UG's for shorthand)--where multiple users shared a | single account that they turned into private bulletin boards by | using emails that were returned (and therefore not billed) due | to invalid email addresses. Those invalid addresses were the | simple names of the person or people for whom the messages were | intended. When those people signed in and checked the email, | they would find "returned" messages with their names. They | would then "send" a reply by typing the name of the first | sender, which would also be returned. When that person logged | on next, they would see their message, and the cycle would | repeat. | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prodigy_(online_service)#Price... | Semaphor wrote: | For anyone else who has never heard of them: | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prodigy_(online_service) | pjerem wrote: | An amazing discovery, thank you. Some companies names like | BioWare, WhatsApp or YouTube totally makes sense now. | bodhiandpysics1 wrote: | And of course the pivot to end all pivots: | | APPLE!!! Which started as a company that made computers, then | became a company that made mobile music players, and now is a | company that makes phones. | allendoerfer wrote: | Or every car company that started as a company that made | gasoline consuming cars and now is producing rolling electric | computers. | | Or every other company, which now essentially makes computers. | DonHopkins wrote: | I've heard electric cars aptly described as iPads with | wheels. | | So conversely, you could say that when Apple rolled out the | iPad, that was a pivot to electric cars without wheels. | | https://twitter.com/hartsman/status/555953649004716034 | | https://twitter.com/charlesvonbrown/status/14578242568012636. | .. | | https://network1consulting.com/tuesday-tip-tesla-motors- | cont... | | https://www.reddit.com/r/TeslaModel3/comments/8qvxwq/finally. | .. | | https://www.macfilos.com/2021/03/17/first-impressions-of- | the... | | https://www.itbusinessedge.com/business-intelligence/how- | tes... | satyrnein wrote: | My phone thinks of my car as one of its accessories. | dangus wrote: | I don't think Apple can count as a pivot because they never | abandoned their core/existing business, and most of their | activities are surrounded by and complimentary to their core | business of general purpose computing devices. | | A smartphone itself is just as general purpose as the Macintosh | or Apple II. | | I would classify Apple as "growing into a conglomerate," not | "pivoting." | | Apple right now has a movie screening in theaters, but I don't | even call that a pivot. It's a complementary product to Apple's | main business, because TV+ subscriptions have been fueled by | its built-in-to-the-OS nature. Buy an iPhone, get it free for a | year, and now you're hooked. Putting the content in theaters is | just a cherry on top. | | Maybe you could argue that offering the iPod and iTunes on | Windows was a pivot. The iPod being wholly disconnected from | the Mac was like a different business, and it dominated Apple's | revenue for a while. | | If Apple had discontinued the Mac and focused on iPods, this | would qualify as a pivot. But what ended up happening was that | the iPod enhanced Mac sales and led to the Mac essentially | being made into a portable device with the iPhone ("iPhone runs | OS X" as Steve Jobs said in the keynote). | | The Apple Watch could be a strong argument for a pivot product, | as it's essentially an entry into the jewelry market. The Apple | Watch business is supercharged by selling interchangeable | bands, which have nothing to do with computing. However, it's | still not a pivot: it _requires_ an iPhone, which itself is | basically a Mac, and the Watch itself is also still just | another general purpose computing device based on macOS /OS | X/NextSTEP. | JohnJamesRambo wrote: | Then they made the commercial with the kid saying "What's a | computer?" in the backyard which still enrages everyone I know | when it is mentioned. | zackmorris wrote: | Oh man, I didn't know that Groupon started as The Point, a tool | to help people organize to work towards a goal. The biggest goal | ended up being to save money.. | | Does anyone know of a service today for helping people organize | around a cause? | rozab wrote: | I recently learned from a loading screen message that Discord has | almost the same origin story as Slack. They were making a mobile | MOBA called Fates Forever but pivoted when they realised how poor | the current systems for communicating in games like MOBAs are. | Unlike Slack though, I don't think code was shared between the | projects. | | https://toucharcade.com/2015/09/14/ex-fates-forever-develope... | lqet wrote: | > Netflix had considered offering movies online, but there were | speeds and bandwidth problem in mid-2000. | | One of the more interesting things I learned from the | (outstanding) documentary "Enron - The Smartest Guys in The Room" | [0] was that Enron planned an online movie streaming service | together with Blockbuster in the late 90ies (to start in 2000), | but failed for the same reasons. | | > Enron would store the entertainment and encode and stream the | entertainment over its global broadband network. Pilot projects | in Portland, Seattle and Salt Lake City were created to stream | movies to a few dozen apartments from servers set up in the | basement. Based on these pilot projects, Enron went ahead and | recognized estimated profits of more than $110 million from the | Blockbuster deal, even though there were serious questions about | technical viability and market demand [1] | | But of course Enron "pivoted" to outright fraud some years before | that. | | [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDyMz1V-GSg | | [1] | https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/0895330037658884... | reaperducer wrote: | _Enron planned an online movie streaming service together with | Blockbuster in the late 90ies (to start in 2000), but failed | for the same reasons._ | | I lived in Houston during that era, and for some reason a bunch | of the local energy companies dabbled in internet video and | infrastructure at the time. | | As you mentioned, Enron. But there's also Williams | (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Williams_Companies). It built | one of the first live business news channels. I knew a few | people who worked there, but I can't remember the name of it. | Naturally, it was focused on energy. The idea was that people | in the energy industry would have it on a screen next to their | computers in their offices. | | It worked, a bit. I saw the channel in the break rooms and | lobbies of several oil and gas companies I visited at the time. | But, like the Enron/Blockbuster thing, I think it was a little | ahead of its time. While today a big oil company would think | nothing of deploying thousands of screens to its cubicles | around the world, back in those days, it was considered a crazy | extravagance. Plus, everyone was still using tubes, not flat | screens, so a big chunk of desk real estate would be lost at a | time when offices were far more paper-reliant than they are | now. | | Some of the big oil and gas companies saw how the railroads | were getting into telecom, and follow that, as well. (The "SP" | in "Sprint" is Southern Pacific Railroad.) They figured if the | railroads can run phone calls over microwave relays along their | rights-of-way, the oil companies could run fiber through their | pipelines. And they did. | | Again, I'm most familiar with Williams. It built a huge fiber- | optic network across the country by running cables through its | pipelines. One of its services was called VYVX (pronounced | "viv-ex"). For years and years, it was the primary way to move | video between television stations at a time when satellite | hookups were a lot more expensive than they are today. | | I know at least part of the Williams network became what we | know today as Level3. I wonder if the original network is still | in use. Kind of ironic to think about all those | environmentalist web sites flowing through fiber running | through oil pipelines. | [deleted] | anyfactor wrote: | Even after doing multiple assignments on Enron and going | through multiple lectures about it, I am still not hundred | percent sure what Enron's business was. The most easy to grasp | description of their main activity was they were into energy | based commodities trading. Yet they had their sticky finger in | every industry. | | It was such a massive complicatedly diversified company, I | think it is reasonable to say if it wasn't whistleblowers we | wouldn't have never realized what went wrong. | hashimotonomora wrote: | Dealmaking. It was hedge fund run by M&A fanatics. | WoahNoun wrote: | The natural gas pipeline industry had it's regulations | changed around '85 that made it so pipeline operators had to | let anyone use their pipes. This meant Enron didn't have to | actually own pipes. They could just buy and sell natural gas | from the wellhead to the refinery. They made a lot of money | doing this. They then tried to copy that to anything else | that can conceivably move over a fixed, expensive | infrastructure like electrical power lines, broadband lines, | water pipes etc. They wanted to be in heavy industry with an | "asset lite" model. | | The Enron physical pipeline business still exists as Kinder | Morgan as Enron sold it off because they didn't want to deal | with the physical infrastructure anymore. | | Everything else was just financial engineering. | deltree7 wrote: | Enron, Lehman Brothers and similar companies would have | easily thrived in the 2020s. | | Up until 2015, there was really a true cost of capital. | Investors wanted to see real products, real cashflow, else | you head straight to bankruptcy. | | 2015+ changed a lot of things. You can fraud / lie / deceive | your way to success if you form a cult around it. Trump, | Nikola, NFTs, Crypto, Hertz, Gamestop, AMC, Blackberry, | Tilray, Sundial have all shown you can astroturf, gaslight, | propagandize a subset of population to fund your fantasies in | a world awash with capital and very few assets to invest. | dan-robertson wrote: | Hertz feels weird to me as an example for two reasons: | | 1. The company wasn't really leaning into the thing where | they became a meme stock when they filed for bankruptcy for | some reason. They did start an at-the-market offering but | that was stopped pretty quickly by the courts. | | 2. It did actually go up for non-meme reasons so the crazy | people buying stock of a bankrupt company, or rather, the | people who believed what they read on Reddit and bought the | stock and didn't sell it, we're vindicated as the company | did somewhat recover. | Ozzie_osman wrote: | The one I never really quite understood was Slack. Who builds an | internal chat client, while building an online game, and then | decides to build a b2b business around that chat client? | | The rest at least have some logic to them. You build something, | people use it for something else, so you generalize. Or you | pursue a neighboring market or use-case. But the Slack one just | seems so random. | rileyphone wrote: | Check out the "How I Built This", Slack is one of the more | interesting ones. | ycombinete wrote: | I've heard similar stories many times, where someone discovers | a gap in the market through an actual need that they have while | trying to do something else. | | Like the Kitopi Cloud Kitchen. The story I heard is that the | guy already had a successful sweet business, and got the idea | to have little mini distribution kitchens for it, instead of | opening a new business everytime he wanted to extend his reach. | Then decided to make that idea a whole business model. | xcambar wrote: | [tangent] | | Wow, I didn't know Kitopi Cloud Kitchen. This is truly a | disruptive idea (I never use this word), as it breaks with | the traditional idea that restaurant food cannot be | industrialized and has a connection with the chef but also | the place. | | Even after reading this, it is hard for me to think "I could | order food from this restaurant but the actual meal will come | from a partner kitchen". | | Brilliant from a business perspective, yet somewhat | questionable culturally. | ycombinete wrote: | One cool part about it is that because the portions are so | industrially controlled there a whole slew of reliably | calorie counted restaurants available. | bobsmooth wrote: | Lots of youtubers jumped on this to create their own | virtual restaurants. MrBeast Burger being the most popular. | ehnto wrote: | Is it dropshipping for food, or do the restaurant fronts | still devise the recipes? | noisefridge wrote: | It's not that surprising when you know the history. This is the | founders' second or third try at live chat with media. | | At Ludicorp, in the early oughts, they were building a game | called Game Neverending. They built a chat feature into that | game. Then they added the ability to drop photos into chat. | Digital cameras and cameraphones had just become affordable, so | suddenly that was the main feature of the game. Flickr had to | drop the single live chat window when they became too popular, | and then it became a web-based photo sharing community. But | they always had plans to bring it back, they just never got | around to it. Once Flickr was acquired by Yahoo those plans | became even more difficult to realize. | | Like many companies in the middle-oughts, Flickr did everything | over IRC. When they were acquired by Yahoo, most of them moved | to San Francisco, but some employees never left Canada. So it | was a distributed, remote workplace the entire time. It was | natural to do everything over IRC and add bots and such to help | you do things. | | When the Flickr founders left Yahoo, they founded Glitch, and | it was also quite distributed, half in Vancouver, BC and half | in the Bay Area. I'm not sure how they came to build their own | sharing-media-in-IRC solution again, but they had the tools to | hand. | | A fun aside: as Glitch was failing, but before they pivoted to | Slack, they downsized. And a lot of those downsized employees | reformed as "Tomfoolery" and created a product called "Anchor", | which was basically Slack! There aren't a lot of traces that | this thing ever existed but here's an article from Fast | Company: | | https://www.fastcompany.com/3013553/meet-tomfoolery-the-comp... | | I assume that those employees realized that their internal | tools were actually the best thing that they had made. Anchor | was led by a former Yahoo executive who had I think been COO at | Glitch. Tomfoolery/Anchor didn't get much traction and was | acquihired by Yahoo just a few months later - most of those | employees were ex-Yahoo anyway. | | A few months later Glitch pivoted to Slack and the rest is | history. | | It's unclear to me why Tomfoolery failed when they had all the | knowledge about how Glitch's Slack worked and a head start of | many months. I remember a period in 2013 when a group I was | involved in was choosing between Flowdock (yet another thing | that was basically Slack) and Anchor and the recently-launched | Slack. Anchor didn't have the rich integrations of Flowdock. | Slack was very new and immature and was worse than both of | them. But Slack improved faster and people like Stewart | Butterfield had way more goodwill. | shortstuffsushi wrote: | A similar case for a company I previously worked for. They | started out making high quality photo albums, I believe | targeted primarily at pets. They built in the deep-linking | experience, so that you could send links to friends, etc. They | eventually realized that every app ends up building in their | own linking, and in turn became branch.io | xcambar wrote: | Early people at Slack were nerds and unhappy with the | communication tools that were available at the time. | | So they went the nerd way and hacked together something they | would not spend most of the time complaining about. "Hacked | together" is important. It was not dedication, it was | "scratching your own itch ". | | The hack was satisfactorily working. For them. | | And when Glitch failed, they were left with (among other | things) their communication tool. "Someone" thought it was | worth trying to market it, following the proverbial dogfooding | strategy, because there was nothing else left to do anyway with | Glitch. | | And boom. Slack. | | Source: memories of an article read many years ago that I can't | find traces of, but was quite fascinating. | hhh wrote: | Discord did the same, but it was originally just for one | community. | jollybean wrote: | I believe the story is: their game failed, and they went back | to Sequoia to return $5M in outstanding investment. Sequoia | told them to 'keep it, and build something'. So they tried the | Slack thing. | | What's funny is that he's the same dude who founded Flickr, | which also started out as some kind of game. Ha ha. | axiosgunnar wrote: | Shows that VCs are investing in teams, not what happens to be | that team's current pitch deck du jour. | shrimpx wrote: | Segment is similarly weird. They were building EdTech and then | decided that this boilerplate file called analytics.js was the | coolest thing they had built and they pivoted the company | around that. | Beldin wrote: | I don't know Segment, but EdTech is all about analytics. | Everyone wants hyperspecific data, e.g. do students who | attend the first three lectures do better than students who | didn't do that, but were there the last lecture? | | So not so surprising, "from a certain point of view" [0]. | | [0] Sir Guinness. | shrimpx wrote: | Ok, good point. I think their analytics.js was just | tracking website usage, but you're probably right that they | were planning on deep-inspecting that data in the way you | suggest. | rhtgrg wrote: | You have a lot of responses, but none actually address your | question... | | > Who builds an internal chat client, while building an online | game, and then decides to build a b2b business around that chat | client? | | Someone who's done something similar -- successfully -- once | before, that's who. The experience gained from Flickr certainly | helped with Slack. | gompertz wrote: | If I recall correctly, Slack was built utilizing IRC on the | backend. | | I remember that resonating with me as I was sole developer on | an in-house invoicing system at a Fortune 500, and I added a | whole corporate chat functionality using IRC libs. It only took | a few days to implement. It made me aware how easy it can be to | build a billion dollar business by mistake. Too bad not my | billion dollar business! | transcriptase wrote: | Valve: We used to make games; Now we make money. | pembrook wrote: | Another example is Unsplash. | | Unsplash was originally a marketing attempt by a company named | Crew, a marketplace startup trying to connect businesses with | freelance designers. | | After Unsplash took off and the talent marketplace didn't, the | company became Unsplash. | iqanq wrote: | Investigating around the whatsapp pivot, I found their old blog. | | https://web.archive.org/web/20110927080704/http://whatsapp.w... | | >So first of all, let's set the record straight. We have not, we | do not and we will not ever sell your personal information to | anyone. Period. End of story. Hopefully this clears things up. | | Heh... :-) | Belphemur wrote: | Technically they didn't ... Facebook/Meta did. | | I remember when I had to pay 1EUR per year for What's App that | was only 8 years ago... | axiosgunnar wrote: | Well since they sold Whatsapp, the company, that was holding | all of the data, to Facebook, they literally sold all of the | data at once. | user-the-name wrote: | Nintendo existed for nearly one hundred years before they started | making video games. Saying that all they did up until then was | not successful is ridiculous - you do not run a company for an | entire century by not being successful. | Kranar wrote: | That's not what the article says. It says that Nintendo tried | to pivot away from the playing card business into several other | businesses, each of which ended up failing except for | electronic toys/video games. | | Given that Nintendo no longer operates a taxi service, love | hotels, or sell instant rice, I would say the article is | correct about that statement. | ferdowsi wrote: | Apollo GraphQL (which just raised a $130M Series D) pivoted from | Meteor, a company built around supporting the frontend framework | MeteorJS. | | https://softwareengineeringdaily.com/2020/01/17/apollo-graph... | davidhariri wrote: | This is great. I'm curious to know what the line is between pivot | and new company. Is it same successive founders? Same domain? | Same cap table? | JJMcJ wrote: | Interesting fact, Nintendo still makes playing cards, including | the standard 52 card decks. | | Ran into one once, very high quality plastic cards. | mensetmanusman wrote: | Century old example showing pivoting is as old as business: | | " When 3M began in 1902, the five founders had a simple goal: to | mine for corundum, a mineral ideal for making sandpaper and | grinding wheels. Turns out, what they thought was corundum was | really another low-grade mineral called anorthosite." | | 3M pivoted to selling sand paper without the sand, I.e tape, and | that helped them survive long enough to try again at sand paper. | (Transparent tape, invented by 3M, helped them grow during the | Great Depression because people fixed stuff instead of buying | anew.) | | Funny to see sandpaper still being improved upon after 100 years: | https://youtu.be/NZDCRFi8dKY | creeble wrote: | My favorite "internal slogan" of 3M is (or was): Make it by the | mile, sell it by the inch. | jbay808 wrote: | I wish every company had this motto! It's so often that when | I need some material, nobody will sell me less than a mile of | it. | reaperducer wrote: | For those who don't know, 3M means "Minnesota Mining and | Manufacturing." | cm2187 wrote: | Not sure if the original business needs to be dead for it to be | considered a successful pivot. You could include amazon with aws. | Or Dassault (planes) with Dassault system (CAD). And all the big | asian conglomerates. You could even include the east india | company which started as a trading company before becoming a | colonial administration! My point is that these pivots are quite | common. | [deleted] | sgslo wrote: | > Segment - Classroom lecture tool - When the product was | deployed in the classroom, all the students opened their laptop | and went straight to Facebook instead of using the program. | | There is an excellent YC podcast featuring Segment's founder that | walked through this pivot. Excellent listen: | https://www.ycombinator.com/library/6B-on-finding-product-ma... | pezzana wrote: | It might be interesting to classify the various kinds of pivots. | For example, one that gets covered from time-to-time is the one | where customers start using the product differently than the | founders intended. The examples here are WhatsApp, Yelp, Flickr, | Groupon, Play-Doh, Segment. But there are a lot more like that. | | If you had a language for talking about pivots and why they | happen, it might be possible to avoid (or induce them) more | deliberately. | wenbin wrote: | Education tech startup -> musical.ly -> acquired by Bytedance -> | TikTok | mentos wrote: | Pixar - 'How a bad hardware company turned itself into a great | movie studio' | andi999 wrote: | What about unsuccessful pivots? Like Borland pivoted from | compiler to services. | raldi wrote: | Twitch started out as Justin.TV, where Justin Kan wore a camera | on his head 24/7 and livestreamed the results. | | Then they expanded to a small handful of streamers, then anybody | could stream, but it never really took off and they were running | out of runway. | | Then they noticed that the one area growing faster than any other | was videogame streaming, and rebuilt the whole company around | that. | karimf wrote: | How could I miss that? Added Twitch to the list. Thanks! | AQuantized wrote: | Years later a guy named Ice Poseidon took advantage of the fact | that Pokemon Go required you to walk around outside to play to | do irl streaming, and the deluge of streamers trying to get | around the videogame requirement caused them to pivot back to | allowing non-videogame streams. | cmrdporcupine wrote: | Apple. Went from being an unprofitable 1990s personal computer | manufacturer like IBM, Dell, Compaq, etc. to being a high end AV | consumer electronics company like Sony. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2021-12-31 23:00 UTC)