[netcan]

Maybe.

I'm not saying that philosophy is bad, just that reality is complicated.

"Scrap the project and move on" works in some contexts, not others. The way startups/products actually work, often, is evolutionary. If your texting idea didn't work, but you see a chance to pivot into something... are you really going to just fire everyone and tell investors "sorry?"

That said, the "one thing well" philosophy really does have big engineering advantages. You can't have everything. I'm just raising the "retrospectives" warning.

In any case, the "$1 per year" was never a real business model. They never even got around to actually charging it... because anything that limits the usership of a messaging app will sink it. It's the opposite of "support everything" strategy that made them successful.

"Sell to Zuck" was always the plan.

[baktubi]

Yeah I agree with the idea of pivoting. I suppose to clarify:

* Pivoting would leverage existing technology built in the process of initial concept. Which to me is the equivalent of scrapping the initial idea (while salvaging the generally-useful IP/technology).

* Adding a bunch of tangential features to a product to increase revenue is a colossal fuckup scenario (maybe the language is a bit over dramatic).

For instance, Google is great at search; gmail is cool; docs was innovative (albeit limited); and then… https://killedbygoogle.com/

Unfortunately, after seeing this time and time again it’s tough for me to get behind mainstream tech. I loved the old Microsoft/Nokia phones; and the Zune. You can tell a lot or love went into the design/engineering but then projects just get axed by corporate interests.

Meanwhile, you can by a mechanical device or appliance from 1950s and it’ll still work just fine.

[netcan]

Again, I don't disagree with you... just think reality makes it messy.

Pivoting via "scrap & salvage" is pretty tough for a startup. The tech behind whatsapp was evidently good, but the IP behind a messaging app is probably not enough to give you an edge. Users are.

Made up scenario: whatsapp loses the SMS replacement game. They have millions of users, but not a billion. Meanwhile, they find that a subset of users like to use whatsapp for dating (or customer support, etc. doesn't matter). They pivot to focus on those customers, and evolve into something else.

This might be a (drama noted) colossal fuckup scenario in an engineering sense. A tractor that you are now converting into a ship.

Evolving is definitely a worse way of engineering than starting with the intention of designing a ship, with neatly defined tonnage, speed and size requirements. Instead, it takes a miracle to implement basic ship features like floating.

Evolving is how a lot of actual software gets invented. Spreadsheets were intended for accountants. They weren't meant to be used as a database, incident report generators, a casual programming environment, or a HR tool. It became those things by evolving.

It happened that way because inventing UIs is hard, and evolving into them happened to work. It's still true that "colossal fuckup scenarios" arise because of this approach. Excel programmer spent decades making excel better at things it's architecture wasn't good at. It's ugly and messy, but life is sometimes ugly and messy.

Flexibility is valuable. Knowing the spec in advance is valuable. Very valuable. They're in conflict with each other to some extent