3 ms·

Usually it's the other way. I don't know of any studies (although I'm sure they exist) but after a certain size, companies stop being agile. Too much management

Usually it's the other way. I don't know of any studies (although I'm sure they exist) but after a certain size, companies stop being agile. Too much management, too much protecting what they have rather than seeking out the new. And then along comes some small, lean, agile competitor running out of their garage and disrupts them. Sometimes the large company can buy them. Sometimes, they can copy the idea in time and name recognition carries them through. But it's not uncommon for the big giants to topple when this happens. Game development seems to be in a weird spot though. Many game devs seem to follow the pattern of making a name for themselves by releasing some hit, leaving, and then making an indie game "by the makers of X". Not going to stop companies like EA from regurgitating the yearly Madden / CoD release or whatever, but it does keep things interesting.

Icathian 6y ago
I want to agree with this post, and in general the calcification of big companies allowing for disruption is true, but I just don't see big companies "toppling" very often. Who are the real mainstays who have actually died? Sears, Toys R Us, Lehman? The Xerox, Fuji, IBM's of the world, who really exemplify the calcification you describe, are humming along well enough. They may not be the 800 pound gorilla, but they definitely seem to be doing well enough.
- TheCraiggers 6y ago
  Toppling is not always instant. Sears took decades to finally die (and if not for some questionable management decisions, might not have). And like I said, it's not always absolute. A large company can still continue on as a shadow of its former self. A large shadow, a still influential shadow, but a shadow nonetheless. IBM, Xexox; tiny players compared (and only compared) to what they were a few decades ago. Obviously they are still large, but they're not dominate. They're not controlling the future like they were decades ago.
munificent 6y ago
It's really about the intersection between two lines: * As a company gets bigger, it becomes complacent and slower to respond to changes in the market. * As a company gets bigger, it gains economies of scale and powerful anti-competitive tools like regulatory capture, price dumping, etc. It also is able to capture more and more resources because the less competition there is, the more it can drive up prices or cut costs (and quality) without loss of customers. The question is which of those has the greater slope. Given that the number of publicly traded companies is trending downwards at least here in the US, my strong suspicion is that the latter wins.

Icathian 6y ago

I want to agree with this post, and in general the calcification of big companies allowing for disruption is true, but I just don't see big companies "toppling" very often. Who are the real mainstays who have actually died? Sears, Toys R Us, Lehman? The Xerox, Fuji, IBM's of the world, who really exemplify the calcification you describe, are humming along well enough. They may not be the 800 pound gorilla, but they definitely seem to be doing well enough.

TheCraiggers 6y ago
Toppling is not always instant. Sears took decades to finally die (and if not for some questionable management decisions, might not have). And like I said, it's not always absolute. A large company can still continue on as a shadow of its former self. A large shadow, a still influential shadow, but a shadow nonetheless. IBM, Xexox; tiny players compared (and only compared) to what they were a few decades ago. Obviously they are still large, but they're not dominate. They're not controlling the future like they were decades ago.

munificent 6y ago

It's really about the intersection between two lines: * As a company gets bigger, it becomes complacent and slower to respond to changes in the market. * As a company gets bigger, it gains economies of scale and powerful anti-competitive tools like regulatory capture, price dumping, etc. It also is able to capture more and more resources because the less competition there is, the more it can drive up prices or cut costs (and quality) without loss of customers. The question is which of those has the greater slope. Given that the number of publicly traded companies is trending downwards at least here in the US, my strong suspicion is that the latter wins.