What Companies Have Been Successful In One Line, Totally Changed Products And Succeeded?

[BeaMyra]

The thread on Kodak's possible bankruptcy got me to wondering. People were saying Kodak was not on target when it switched from being successful at camera/film to try to compete with copiers.

So I was thinking, there must be companies that were successful in one line of products or service and saw, this isn't gonna fly in the future, then switched over to a new line of product or service and succeeded.

I don't mean companies that had MORE than one successful line, I mean ones that basically abandoned one successful line and moved to another success

[Rain Soaked]

How about Nokia? Started out as a lumber mill. Then eventually ended up in communications. I doubt they are still doing lumber any more.

[Yarster]

Didn't Nintendo start out making card games before they went to video games? I'm not sure if that counts as a new 'line' per se, since they are both games of a type, but certainly a new medium.

[cckerberos]

Didn't Nintendo start out making card games before they went to video games? I'm not sure if that counts as a new 'line' per se, since they are both games of a type, but certainly a new medium.
They still make playing cards (http://www.nintendo.co.jp/n09/trump_items/index.html) and other board games (http://www.nintendo.co.jp/n09/index.html), though (they just don't sell them overseas).

[astro]

"Cracked" Magazine went from an also ran humor mag that died in 2007 (http://www.cracked.com/article_14968_r.i.p.-cracked-magazine.html)to a very popular internet site.

[tellyworth]

IBM successfully moved from mechanical tabulators to electronic computers.

[AK84]

Western Union went from Telegrams to money transfers, although not exactly as different as Nokias.

[BeaMyra]

Western Union went from Telegrams to money transfers, although not exactly as different as Nokias.

That's an excellent example as they were king of telegrams and totally abandoned that.

[BACI]

If I'm not mistaken, Mazda started life as a cork company, and Sharp's initial business was making pencils.

[jovan]

A good counter-example to Kodak would be it's arch-rival: Fuji Film.

Fuji is still making film, but realising (a little late) that there was not much future in that business, they fairly aggressively diversified. They are now a major manufacturer of LCD screen components, they make digital cameras, medical equipment and they also make cosmetics and health food. All of these are based on expertise they developed (ha!) by making film.

[dontbesojumpy]

not sure if this counts, but Mitsubishi started out as a shipping company that diversified to suit various business endevors (marine insurance for the ships, coal mining for ship fuel, and so on and so forth). they settled into a three-tiered company of banking, trading and machinery.

my friend went to japan and brought me back a Mitusbishi writing pen. because they are like the Bic of japan.

[dontbesojumpy]

Sharp started out as a mechanical pencil company and ended up in electronics. (i just saw this was already posted. oops).

[dontbesojumpy]

Hasbro started out as a school supply company before moving into toys.

Mattel began life as a picture frame company...

Corning made lightbulbs before moving into high heat glass (not a big stretch, maybe?)

H-P started out in a garage making audio oscillators...then computers...

Toyota began as an self-stopping mechanical loom company which provided the capital to move into autos later on...

Samsung was a producer of (in this order) noodle, sugar and wool before electronics.

kind of a random fun fact: did you know Firestone Tire and Rubber made...Missiles?

[JacobSwan]

Skinners Union went from shoes to carburettors. SU Carbs
Tandy started out making luggage before buying Radio Shack.

[raindog]

Berkshire Hathaway ;)

[Gagundathar]

Samsung made noodles?
Holy Og!'

[AaronX]

not sure if this counts, but Mitsubishi started out as a shipping company that diversified to suit various business endevors (marine insurance for the ships, coal mining for ship fuel, and so on and so forth). they settled into a three-tiered company of banking, trading and machinery.

my friend went to japan and brought me back a Mitusbishi writing pen. because they are like the Bic of japan.

I don't think Mitsubishi pencil is closely related to the machinery side. Mitsubishi pencil also sells as Uni-Ball, and their Signo DX 0.38 mm is my favourite pen.

[LSLGuy]

A lot of these examples, particularly the Japanese ones, are simply holding companies that got big enough to start buying all sorts of smaller companies in lots of different industries. And over time, some members of the portfolio grew while others shrank or were sold, giving the illusion the parent is moving into or out of certain industries. Conglomerates like this mostly fell out of favor in the US back in the 70s, but are still very common in most of Asia.

Delta Airlines started out as a crop dusting company. The "Delta" refers to the Mississippi river delta where they sprayed. At least one other significant US airline started out as an aircraft manufacturer back in the 1920s; I'm not recalling which one, nor whether they still exist today in any form.

[anson2995]

A good counter-example to Kodak would be it's arch-rival: Fuji Film. Fuji is still making film, but realising (a little late) that there was not much future in that business, they fairly aggressively diversified.

Kodak did the same thing, but they spun all of those other business off into separate companies like Carestream Health (http://carestream.com/PublicContent.aspx?langType=1033&id=449350), Ortho-Clinicial Diagnostics (http://www.orthoclinical.com/en-us/localehome/whoweare/Pages/OverviewHistory.aspx), Exelis Geospatial (http://www.exelisinc.com/business/geospatialsys/Pages/default.aspx), Global OLED Technology (http://www.oled-info.com/oledworks-signs-patent-license-agreement-global-oled-technology), and Eastman Chemical (http://www.eastman.com/Company/About_Eastman/History/Pages/Introduction.aspx).

Kodak has diversified, its just that they sold off all of their non-film businesses and have nothing left.

[MilTan]

At least one other significant US airline started out as an aircraft manufacturer back in the 1920s; I'm not recalling which one, nor whether they still exist today in any form.

They very much exist. United Aircraft and Transport Corporation split up into 3 companies in the 1930s, each of which you might be aware of ;) The three companies? Boeing, United Airlines and United Technologies (a conglomerate consisting of Pratt & Whitney and Sikorsky, among others).

[Robot Arm]

Two Englishmen formed the Swallow Sidecar Company in 1922 to make motorcycle sidecars. They moved into automotive coachwork and chassis, and became S.S. Cars Ltd. After World War II the initials "S.S." fell out of favor and they became Jaguar Cars Ltd. in 1945.

[Little Nemo]

Another Japanese example: Yamaha started out making musical instruments. It still has a musical instrument department (it's the world's largest manufacturer of musical instruments) but it's diversified into consumer electronics and recreational vehicles.

[Lightlystarched]

Restoration Hardware started out as a specialy store for vintage hardware - door knobs and things. Now their main business seems to be huge grey Belgium furniture.

[BrotherCadfael]

When I was a kid Honda was a very-well known brand of motorcycle, and that's it, in the US, at least. When they started producing cars in the mid-70s, it seemed really weird.

[Tim R. Mortiss]

Motorola started off making car radios (hence their company name) before gradually evolving into cell phones and routers.

[Crafter_Man]

Ball Corporation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ball_Corp.) manufactured canning jars for over 100 years. It is now a major defense contractor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ball_Aerospace_%26_Technologies_Corp.).

[RealityChuck]

The Regina Music Box company. Switched to vacuum cleaners around 1903, which kept it in business another 90 years.

[joebuck20]

Yamaha started out making pianos before moving into motorcycles.

[LSLGuy]

B.S.A. was a British motorcycle manufacturer in the 1950s-1980s. IIRC they've since died & perhaps been reincarnated; I'm too lazy to look it up right now.

At any rate, B.S.A stands for Birmingham Small Arms. In the late 19th & early 20th century they made rifles & pistols.

From a manufacturing point of view there's a bunch of overlap between making rifle parts & motorcycle parts. From a sales & marketing POV, not so much.

[jjimm]

A guy I knew used to do decking installations, but the next time I met him his company was using the workshop to produce foam earplugs. Does that count?

[JoelUpchurch]

Apple started out as a computer company. Now it is a phone company that has a sideline in making computers. There are rumors that there are going to start selling their own brand of television.

Meanwhile I read that Vizio is going to start selling desktop and laptop computers.

[Chronos]

Ball Corporation manufactured canning jars for over 100 years. It is now a major defense contractor. That's the one I was going to mention (although I would have brought up civilian aerospace: They made the optics for the Hubble Space Telescope, for instance). And they've since spun off their canning jars line, so they qualify for the OP's provision of "no longer making their original product".

[anson2995]

Apple started out as a computer company. Now it is a phone company that has a sideline in making computers. There are rumors that there are going to start selling their own brand of television.

Meanwhile I read that Vizio is going to start selling desktop and laptop computers.

But almost all of the examples cited in this thread are companies whose focus shifted within the same category over time. Apple's iPhone is still a computer, after all. They didn't go from making Macs to selling shoes.

Kodak is trying to go from selling film and cameras -- which were the core of their business 10 years ago -- to selling inkjet printers. It's a completely unrelated consumer product.

[pkbites]

NM

[Toxylon]

B.S.A. was a British motorcycle manufacturer in the 1950s-1980s. IIRC they've since died & perhaps been reincarnated; I'm too lazy to look it up right now.

At any rate, B.S.A stands for Birmingham Small Arms. In the late 19th & early 20th century they made rifles & pistols.


For decades, and still today, B.S.A is most known for airguns.

[Exapno Mapcase]

It happened a lot in the early days, say late 19th century and pre-WWII 20th. It's almost impossible to do today.

The difference is that companies back then were manufacturers. If you owned a manufacturing plant and had lots of skilled workers, you could shift from manufacturing one thing to another in a hurry. For evidence, look at WWII, during which plants essentially shut down civilian consumer product manufacturing, went over to military parts, and reconverted all within four years.

That world no longer exists. As I said in the Kodak thread (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=637390), Kodak is stuck with tens of millions of square feet of manufacturing facilities that are worthless. Worse than worthless, because they cost money to maintain and tear down and remediate. Whatever Kodak switches to won't bring that back. Therefore they're competing in a footrace with smaller, nimbler companies despite the handicap of a millstone around their corporate neck. Any start-up who can offshore to China, or India, or Indonesia has the advantage. And the highest of high-tech industries need plants built from the ground up to suit them.

I don't know of any comparable company that has succeeded in this in recent years, and I mean in the last decade or so. The comparison also has to be in the U.S. because as noted the way corporations are set up in Japan and Korea are wildly different from U.S. practice, not to mention U.S. culture and law. I'm 99% sure it literally can't be done.

[JoelUpchurch]

But almost all of the examples cited in this thread are companies whose focus shifted within the same category over time. Apple's iPhone is still a computer, after all. They didn't go from making Macs to selling shoes.

Kodak is trying to go from selling film and cameras -- which were the core of their business 10 years ago -- to selling inkjet printers. It's a completely unrelated consumer product.

If you define anything with a microprocessor as a computer, then Apple could start making cars and toasters and still be in the same business. Motorola just went from radios that went in your car to radios that went in your pocket. Yamaha went from making steel frames for pianos to making steel frames for motorcycles.

Making machines to make prints from film to making inkjet printers wasn't as big a jump as you imagine. Kodak was just trying to jump from a commercial business to a consumer business. I'd say they were trying to make less of jump than Hewlett Packard did to get into the same business. I can remember when all H-P made were the little thermal printers to to attach their lab instruments and calculators.

Most of the companies that went into a completely different business, was because they bought the company and it turned out to grow more than the main business.

If you look at the current structure of Fujifilm Holding it becomes obvious that the Fuji and Kodak plans weren't that different, but Fuji executed better.

http://www.fujifilmholdings.com/en/business/group/index.html

[robert_columbia]

What about the Hudson's Bay Company? It started as a fur trapping and trading company, and now it's sort of a Canadian version of Sears, though I can see how retail clothing sales might be attractive to a company that sold fur to clothing manufacturers.

[CalMeacham]

Ball Corporation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ball_Corp.) manufactured canning jars for over 100 years. It is now a major defense contractor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ball_Aerospace_%26_Technologies_Corp.).

Similarly B.F. Goodrich used to make rubber and tires (they advetised that they were the guys without the blimp). Now they're a major military contractor, too.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodrich_Corporation


Sometimes the other business is spun off as its own business. So Adolph Coors, the beer company in Colorado, got into the alumina crucible business and eventually spun it off as a separate company, because they still make beer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coors_Brewing_Company

http://www.coorstek.com/

[ralph124c]

Bausch&Lomb was an old-line optical firm, that got out of that business (telescope and binocular lenses and assemblies) entirely (they now do soft contact lenses). Not totally different, but different manufacturing technology.
I'd say that the USA stands at a threshold-do we want to cede manufacturing to China and the 3rd World? It looks like we do.
Of course, once the dollar collapses, that may change.
Oh, one other thought: Bally Mfg. used to make pinball machines-they shifted entirely to making exercise equipment.
They seem to do OK in that.

[FatBaldGuy]

The Wright Bicycle Company switched in 1903 to making airplanes.

[Robot Arm]

Oh, one other thought: Bally Mfg. used to make pinball machines-they shifted entirely to making exercise equipment.With forays into home video games and casinos along the way.

[anson2995]

Kodak is stuck with tens of millions of square feet of manufacturing facilities that are worthless. Worse than worthless, because they cost money to maintain and tear down and remediate.

In fairness, they sold off 4 million square feet at the Elmgrove plant, and they've leased out a sizable chunk of their unused buildings at Kodak Park. And I'm not sure if they still own the Hawkeye complex or sold it as part of the ITT deal. Kodak doesn't have a lot of real estate left.

[RealityChuck]

Despite its name and reputation as a manufacturer, GE is as much financial services company than anything else.

[Darth Panda]

3M started as a stone mining company, and now mostly makes adhesives and adhesive based products.

[Mahaloth]

Stroh's Beer became an Ice Cream company. Not sure if they have the same owners or are the same company anymore, but in Michigan, you can get both the ice cream and the beer.

[Beware of Doug]

I'm curious how many of these aren't continuing concerns, but just old nameplates bought out for whatever goodwill might remain in them.

Packard Bell (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Packard_Bell_(1926)) comes to mind. Starting in the '20s as a maker of radios - sold strictly west of the Rockies - they eventually were bought out of existence and the name purchased for a maker of PC-clone computers - by an Israeli venture team!

[Beware of Doug]

Another manufacturer, Brunswick Corp. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brunswick_Corporation), started out making pool tables and billiard equipment, branched out after 1920 into phonographs and radios, then went back into the sporting business - eventually limiting their focus to bowling, boating, and fitness.

I'd say they're not doing too badly, having been a going concern since 1845!

[Bartman]

In fairness, they sold off 4 million square feet at the Elmgrove plant, and they've leased out a sizable chunk of their unused buildings at Kodak Park. And I'm not sure if they still own the Hawkeye complex or sold it as part of the ITT deal. Kodak doesn't have a lot of real estate left.

Same deal with their facility here in Colorado. They sold off 1,400 acres in 2005 and just this week they sold another 300+ acres with 500,000 of building floorspace, 2 miles of rail lines, and possibly most importantly the associated water rights for the property. I think that largely clears out the property. Not much if any value left there.

[Exapno Mapcase]

In fairness, they sold off 4 million square feet at the Elmgrove plant, and they've leased out a sizable chunk of their unused buildings at Kodak Park. And I'm not sure if they still own the Hawkeye complex or sold it as part of the ITT deal. Kodak doesn't have a lot of real estate left.

Kodak Park is freaking enormous. Elmgrove was a blip by comparison. I don't believe they've leased out 10% of the Park. Maybe not 1%. There's 3 million sq. ft. for lease right now.

[scr4]

I don't think Mitsubishi pencil is closely related to the machinery side. Mitsubishi pencil also sells as Uni-Ball, and their Signo DX 0.38 mm is my favourite pen.

Mitsubishi is a huge conglomerate, but Mitsubishi Pencil is not part of it, and never has been.

[scr4]

A recent Planet Money podcast (http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/01/06/144806987/the-friday-podcast-who-killed-lard) explained how Proctor & Gamble originally made candles and soap. With the advent of electric lighting, the candle business was drying up, and they were also stuck with a supply chain of cottonseed oil. So they found another use for it: hydrogenated vegetable oil, which they sold as Crisco.

[WarmNPrickly]

Kodak is trying to go from selling film and cameras -- which were the core of their business 10 years ago -- to selling inkjet printers. It's a completely unrelated consumer product.

I'm curious why you think this is so different. They are already printing to make film. Different inks and different print heads, but the same rules apply. They already have expertise in color.

[Johanna]

MTV started out showing music.

[dontbesojumpy]

Similarly B.F. Goodrich used to make rubber and tires (they advetised that they were the guys without the blimp). Now they're a major military contractor, too.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodrich_Corporation


Sometimes the other business is spun off as its own business. So Adolph Coors, the beer company in Colorado, got into the alumina crucible business and eventually spun it off as a separate company, because they still make beer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coors_Brewing_Company

http://www.coorstek.com/

as i noted, firestone makes missiles under various defense contracts.

what's the connection between making tires and war...?

[dontbesojumpy]

I'm curious why you think this is so different. They are already printing to make film. Different inks and different print heads, but the same rules apply. They already have expertise in color.

this is like saying a painter should be good at graphic design. related, not the same.

having developed my own film AND working on printers, i assure you they are not in the same ballpark any more than mining for gold is akin to running currency mint.

[Namkcalb]

MTV started out showing music.

With the return of Beavis and Butthead, they still do.

[WarmNPrickly]

this is like saying a painter should be good at graphic design. related, not the same.

having developed my own film AND working on printers, i assure you they are not in the same ballpark any more than mining for gold is akin to running currency mint.

Kodak didn't develop film though, they made it. They made the ink that went onto the film. They printed the ink onto the film. Granted, they probably didn't use ink jet printers, but that just requires changing viscosity and surface tension, and presumably they had chemists on hand experienced in developing ink, since that what hey did.

[BeaMyra]

MTV started out showing music.

OK you win the prize for best answer :D

But seriously thanks for the replies, this is really interesting, I didn't know 90% of them.

[Raguleader]

this is like saying a painter should be good at graphic design. related, not the same.

having developed my own film AND working on printers, i assure you they are not in the same ballpark any more than mining for gold is akin to running currency mint.

They are entirely within the same ballpark. They are both used to produce images. Given that Kodak's customer base is (presumably) made up mostly of photographers, it makes sense for them to produce a line of printers that photographers can use to print photos now that many have switched to digital cameras for various reason. They are trying to capitalize on the brand-recognition from that market.

I mean, just look at Canon. Another camera company that produces scanners, copiers, printers, etc., yet nobody looks askance at them for selling printers.

[Pitchmeister]

It happened a lot in the early days, say late 19th century and pre-WWII 20th. It's almost impossible to do today.

The difference is that companies back then were manufacturers. If you owned a manufacturing plant and had lots of skilled workers, you could shift from manufacturing one thing to another in a hurry. For evidence, look at WWII, during which plants essentially shut down civilian consumer product manufacturing, went over to military parts, and reconverted all within four years.

That is, interestingly, exactly what happened to Yamaha. They repurposed their weapons manufacturing from WWII to make motorcycles - as JoelUpchurch already pointed out, apparently making steel frames for pianos and motorcycles isn't all that different, so tanks and other weapons are probably also similar...

[dontbesojumpy]

They are entirely within the same ballpark. They are both used to produce images. Given that Kodak's customer base is (presumably) made up mostly of photographers, it makes sense for them to produce a line of printers that photographers can use to print photos now that many have switched to digital cameras for various reason. They are trying to capitalize on the brand-recognition from that market.

I mean, just look at Canon. Another camera company that produces scanners, copiers, printers, etc., yet nobody looks askance at them for selling printers.

I'm not saying it's an absurd change in direction to go from making film to making printers, i'm saying the engineering and manufacturing process is totally, 100% different and almost CERTAINLY didn't have any overlap. it's not like you can re-calibrate the good ol' film machine to start making usb computer printers. it's also not like a person trained on the chemical layering of 35mm celluloid film just knows how printer ink should be made. A and B are both letters, but they sure are not the same thing.

again, gold and money were at least once related--that doesn't mean the gold miner knows how to make coins.

when industries diversify or expand, it's usually under the umbrella of things that makes sense, sure. but it's a giant corporate restructuring, too.
think about going from making film cameras to digital cameras. it's not like they just reconfigured their existing machines. it's not like the know-how of film engineers was enough to just start making digital cameras. it was a major undertaking...requiring new engineers (or at least extensive training for old ones), new processes, new training for factory employees, and so on and so forth.

my dad used to be in charge of facilities at Macklenburg Duncan (M-D building supplies). they did alminum extruding and decided to expand into anodizing.

they had to build a new facility, hire a whole new segment of employees with specific know-how and had new engineers come up with new methods and machines--all of which came from out of state.

basically it was the same as if they, say, decided they wanted to lathe baseball bats--aluminum ingots can be whatever, right?? same ballpark...? as the product line goes, it falls under the umbrella of aluminum products, but required 100% different set of <everythings>. it could have been a new factory making virtually anything for as much restructuring as was required.

[CalMeacham]

Kodak didn't develop film though, they made it. They made the ink that went onto the film. They printed the ink onto the film. Granted, they probably didn't use ink jet printers, but that just requires changing viscosity and surface tension, and presumably they had chemists on hand experienced in developing ink, since that what hey did.

In the Box Brownie days, Kodak definitely developed film. Their procedure was that you bought their camera loaded with film, shot off the lot, and shipped camera with exposed film back to them. They developed the film and printed out the pix and returned them to you with fresh film in the camera.

[dontbesojumpy]

it's worth stating that digital photography was born outside photography companies (texas instruments was the first to patent a digital camera, followed by advancements made by Sony--who was there-before 100% not involved in photography at all).

Kodak was on the leading edge of utilizing and furthering this technology, but my point is just because a film camera and a dSLR both look the same and are both called "cameras" doesn't mean they are, from a manufacturing, engineering or business standpoint, the "same thing."

while it's logical a camera company would proceed as technology advanced, it took advancements made by specifically non-photography related electronics companies to bring said advancements to fruit.

i guarantee the first engineers and technicians Kodak hired to begin research into digital photograph were cherry picked from companies like Sony or TI or other electronics firms...
i wouldn't really consider them the 'same ballpark.' it's more like a gap that's been bridged...

[Dioptre]

A good example of a single-line company changing is Ball Corporation, which started out making tin cans. Turns out that tin cans and orbital launch vehicles share similar design features!

[ralph124c]

As I said, the parallels (Kodak with Polaroid ) are chilling:
-both firms had a dying business
-both firms blew billions in unrelated businesses (in which they had no competence (Polaroid blew $2.5 billion on a medical imaging system-didn't sell one; Kodak tried to compete in inkjet printers-with substantial losses)
-both firms hired CEOs from outside their industry-who put them in dire straits)
-both could have used their enormous cash reserves to SIMPLY buy an existing business (Polaroid could have bought their main competitor in the ID business for $51 million, Kodak could have bought HP printer division
Why don't these genius CEOs read their own MBA course materials?

[Tom Tildrum]

IBM successfully moved from mechanical tabulators to electronic computers.

And from there to consulting services.

[John Bredin]

Coleco of early video-game fame was initially the Connecticut Leather Company. Wikipedia entry. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coleco)

[Dewey Finn]

it's worth stating that digital photography was born outside photography companies (texas instruments was the first to patent a digital camera, followed by advancements made by Sony--who was there-before 100% not involved in photography at all).
TI might have the first patents, but Steven Sasson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Sasson), a Kodak engineer and RPI graduate, built the first one.

[Dewey Finn]

-both could have used their enormous cash reserves to SIMPLY buy an existing business (Polaroid could have bought their main competitor in the ID business for $51 million, Kodak could have bought HP printer division
Why don't these genius CEOs read their own MBA course materials?
When do you imagine that Kodak could have bought the HP printer business? It's been an enormous cash cow for them for decades.

[Exapno Mapcase]

As I said, the parallels (Kodak with Polaroid ) are chilling:
-both firms had a dying business
-both firms blew billions in unrelated businesses (in which they had no competence (Polaroid blew $2.5 billion on a medical imaging system-didn't sell one; Kodak tried to compete in inkjet printers-with substantial losses)
-both firms hired CEOs from outside their industry-who put them in dire straits)
-both could have used their enormous cash reserves to SIMPLY buy an existing business (Polaroid could have bought their main competitor in the ID business for $51 million, Kodak could have bought HP printer division
Why don't these genius CEOs read their own MBA course materials?

Because if you buy someone else's business you get nothing. The point was to get use out of the sunk costs of the tens of millions of square feet of manufacturing facilities and the tens of thousands of employees. That required developing businesses of your own.

[casdave]

BASF. They have had a habit of moving in and out of all sorts of products. They have their origins in dyes, moved into chemicals, then on to recording media such as film and tape, then into digital storage media and are now currently working with Monsanto in the biotech industry.

Ingersoll-Rand, they have not so much switched products as much as taken on huge acquisitions which have then been expanded even further. Its easier to say what they are not involved with, which is not very much at all.

[dontbesojumpy]

TI might have the first patents, but Steven Sasson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Sasson), a Kodak engineer and RPI graduate, built the first one.

Sasson CONSTRUCTED the first digital camera, using the already-patented Fairchild Imaging CCD (http://http://www.digicamhistory.com/1970s.html), which was a further development of the 1971 patented T.I. electronic photography system.

He did not develop the technology, he simply integrated it. I'm not in any way diminishing his contribution, I'm merely pointing out the fact it was hardly done with existing Kodak Photography know-how, manufacturing process or engineering.

[Saffer]

The best example I can think of is Wrigleys (the chewing gum company).

They started out selling soap then started including baking powder with the soap as a promotion. People became more interested in the baking powder so they stopped making soap and focussed on baking powder. Later, they started including chewing gum with their baking powder as a promotion. Again, people became more interested in the chewing gum so they stopped selling baking powder and focussed on the chewing gum.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wrigley_Company

[Koxinga]

I heard of a company called New England Wire and Cable that was on the point of shutting down before they started making airbags for the Japanese.

[ralph124c]

Because if you buy someone else's business you get nothing. The point was to get use out of the sunk costs of the tens of millions of square feet of manufacturing facilities and the tens of thousands of employees. That required developing businesses of your own.

Well, in the case of Polaroid, they essentially owned the ID badge business till about 1985. Then a small Texas firm came out with a digital picture system.
Polaroid contined on with its film-based system-and their market share went to zero.
Had they purchased that small Texas firm, they would have had the market share they had lost.
I actually worked for a small firm that supplied components to Polaroid- arond about 1998, we were invited to bid on a component for them-I met with some of their engineers. They were attempting to increase the range (of their flash illumination) by increasing the power. Looked around at all the empty offices and conference rooms, and thought "we had better sell on a COD basis only!".:eek:

[Tapioca Dextrin]

Lines Brothers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lines_Bros) were one of the world's biggest toy makers. During WWII, they diversified into making machine guns.

[Dewey Finn]

That's not at all unusual. Many manufacturing companies in the UK and the US (and perhaps in Germany and Japan as well) switched to making armaments during WWII.

[Kenm]

The Wright Bicycle Company switched in 1903 to making airplanes.And Studebaker from wagons to horseless carriages.

[digs]

Kodak didn't develop film though, they made it. They made the ink that went onto the film. They printed the ink onto the film...

Umm... no.

Making photographic film takes a whole lot of chemistry (you really don't want me to bore everyone with details... but yes, you could ask me about the Magenta Dye-Coupling Layer...that had its own unique set of problems). And it's nothing like "printing colors onto film". Maybe more like laminating Jell-O and different plastics together without screwing up their light-sensitivity.

Ink-jet printing is easy-peasy by comparison. And totally different.
MAKING ink-jet printers even more so.

[GreenElf]

3M, the Scotch tape company, had some financial success with board games for awhile.

Nintendo, the company, started years before it developed the Famicom.

[ralph124c]

Not a good example-but there used to be a hightech printer mfg. in New Hampshire ("Printronics"?)-they made the first high speed line printers. They got out of the business when margins got thin..and went into making kitchen utensils.
I don't know if they are still in business.

[Dewey Finn]

That would be Centronics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centronics). Today they are most famous for the parallel port that was used for connecting printers until USB became universal. But Centronics sold the printer division to GENICOM and bought EKCO, a housewares manufacturer.

[goldmund]

Apple started out as a computer company. Now it is a phone company that has a sideline in making computers. There are rumors that there are going to start selling their own brand of television.


The more interesting bit of diversification would be iTunes. Apple parlayed their new consumer electronics offerings into total domination of another industry.

In their settlement with the Beatles' Apple Records in the early 80s, it was agreed that Apple could continue to use the Apple name, but would not enter into the music business. Fast forward to today, and Apple is the largest music retailer in the world. They now fully own the trademark, after paying Apple Records off to the tune of a cool $500m. Now, Apple Records pays Apple for the rights to use the name.

[anson2995]

Sasson CONSTRUCTED the first digital camera, using the already-patented Fairchild Imaging CCD (http://http://www.digicamhistory.com/1970s.html), which was a further development of the 1971 patented T.I. electronic photography system.

He did not develop the technology, he simply integrated it. I'm not in any way diminishing his contribution, I'm merely pointing out the fact it was hardly done with existing Kodak Photography know-how, manufacturing process or engineering.

And Adcock's work was based on the work of Kenneth Wood at Westinghouse, which was built on work done at Ampex and other places. Nobody invented digital imaging out of thin air. As with every other notable innovation, it's a progression of scientific advancements in small steps.

Frankly, the path from Sasson's prototype to the first consumer digital cameras in the mid-1990s require a lot more innovation, some of which took place at Kodak and some of which did not.

The relevant point here, I think, is Kodak's failure to commercialize their technology. Despite all of their great research, they've struggled at creating consumer products for decades. That's the root cause of their troubles today.

[Clothahump]

The best example I can think of is Wrigleys (the chewing gum company).
As long as we're gumming up the works....

Thomas Adams was an inventor. He dabbled in many things, primarily glass sales and photography. In 1869, he encountered Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna, former dictator of Mexico, who was then living in exile in New York. Santa Anna was trying to sell chicle as a replacement for rubber. Adams bought some from him, experimented with it in a variety of ways and gave up his camera to kickstart the chewing gum industry in the USA in 1871.
http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/bladams.htm

[bup]

I heard of a company called New England Wire and Cable that was on the point of shutting down before they started making airbags for the Japanese.Reference caught.

[Sunspace]

What about the Hudson's Bay Company? It started as a fur trapping and trading company, and now it's sort of a Canadian version of Sears, though I can see how retail clothing sales might be attractive to a company that sold fur to clothing manufacturers.Not just a trapping and trading company. It had the rights to the entire watershed of Hudson's Bay (an area of 3.9 million square kilometres), which made it a larger landlord than many European countries. It ceded the territory to the UK in 1713, and the territory eventually became part of Canada and the USA.

The retail stores started as operations to supply the fur traders.

[digs]

3M, the Scotch tape company, had some financial success with board games for awhile...

Oh, we still have some "3M Bookshelf Games", and I hadn't thought of them as an example. And I'm guessing 3M made some changes even before that.

Since 3M stands for "Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing".

[Tapioca Dextrin]

And Studebaker from wagons to horseless carriages.

Lamborghini started life making tractors (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamborghini#Origin).