[deleted]
Untitled topic
1–10 of 14 posts
Re: undefined
#2Title refers to a pivot that came to be because of a mistake, not that the pivot itself is a mistake.
Re: undefined
#3Title refers to a pivot that came to be because of a mistake, not that the pivot itself is a mistake.
Came here to say the same thing. I got almost to the end of the article before I found out that he didn't regret the pivot.
Re: undefined
#4Title refers to a pivot that came to be because of a mistake, not that the pivot itself is a mistake.
I was also confused by the wording. The word 'mistake' makes it feel like a very negative article.
Re: undefined
#5Title refers to a pivot that came to be because of a mistake, not that the pivot itself is a mistake.
I only read it because I wanted to hear about how a pivot killed the company lol
Re: undefined
#6Title refers to a pivot that came to be because of a mistake, not that the pivot itself is a mistake.
Better title would have been: Unintential pivot became a success
Re: undefined
#7Title refers to a pivot that came to be because of a mistake, not that the pivot itself is a mistake.
Well, the pivot itself was not intended.
Normally, you read data and decide to pivot in a direction you're aware of based on the data.
In this case, I had in mind building a mobile version of Beepl, NOT a trivia game. I never intended the pivot to happen and for some while I was lost as to what the hell had just happened.
I might even argue that its not a pivot in its right sense because the end products are absolutely unrelated. I mean, how is a trivia game the pivot of a CRM? :P
Re: undefined
#8The title might have been in error but if he's hiring staff off the back of 23 people downloading a game each day, this might be a case of "truth in jest".
Re: undefined
#9Title refers to a pivot that came to be because of a mistake, not that the pivot itself is a mistake.
This is just a clickbait of the highest caliber. Not only the pivot didn't turn out to be a mistake after all, but the article is a blatant promo piece, and wasn't any mistakes anyway. Intentionally trying to implement new functionality is not a mistake, it's, well, an intentional action.