3 ms·
Except if you look at the successes they are as based on engineering and business talent as much as design. Spotify, p2p + licensing deals. Klarna, Erlang + cre
by gozo 11y ago
Except if you look at the successes they are as based on engineering and business talent as much as design. Spotify, p2p + licensing deals. Klarna, Erlang + credit checks. King, game development + gamification.
- jmknoll 11y agoI'm not sure that I would hold up King.com as an example of either engineering or business talent. On the technical side, I've not seen anything very impressive about their games, and their business practices seemingly consist of ripping off (later settled out of court) an indie developer who built a game in memory of his late mother, and dragging him into a protracted legal battle. Edit to include sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_(company)#Trademark_and_cloning_disputes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_(company)#Trademark_and_c... http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/candycrush.asp http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/candycrush.asp
- gozo 11y agoNot so much technical skill, as being able to run one of these "mass" game studios says something about the availability and flexibility of the talent pool. They've been profitable since 2005 so they've been doing something right. Point being, unless you want to call gamification design, their success was far more based on engineering and business. Like you said it wasn't an original idea, but they could relativly quickly produce a clone of something and monetize. I'm not claiming that this is a particularly great way of doing business, just that it's inaccurate to say that it was design.