Alright so recently I have noticed that there are ups and downs to two major strategies I see tech businesses and other businesses doing. One strategy is to focus on one industry and product while the other is to expand business into multiple industries and release many products. I'm wondering which of the two different paths users of VGChartz think is the best. (Disclaimer I know these aren't the only two paths a company can take, I'm just asking which of these two is better)

I'd call the first group specialists. I can think of very few companies that fit this category the biggest one that we all know of is Nintendo. Another example to a lesser extent would be RIM. Nintendo in the last 40 or so years has been dedicated to video games they have released video game console after video game console. Video game after video game never really branching out of the game industry. RIM also a specialist has pretty much recently just released devices based on its BlackBerry OS, so that means cell phones and the recent BlackBerry tablet. Both of these companies specialize in their specific field. But recently Nintendo and BlackBerry have both come upon disappointing profit margins with only game consoles and cell phones to support them. When sales of those devices go down the whole company suffers.

The second group I'd call Ex-panders. They don't stick to one industry or market they go in new directions constantly if their is money to be made in another industry or device they are quick to pounce on it. The biggest three examples of this I can think of are Sony, Apple and to a lesser extent Disney. If these three companies see a new industry or market for a new product they pounce. Unlike the specialists they expand constantly creating new products. A perfect example is Apple was always a computer company, then it became an MP3 company then it became a phone company and TV(Via Apple TV) company and then tablet company. Every time they see a chance to take advantage of a new market and industry they pounce. The upside with this is they aren't reliant on a single industry, if Sony's gaming division suffers they can supplement it with movie income. If Apple's computers suffer I-Phones more then make up for its loss. The downside these products all cost money to make and develop you need to spend considerable resources expanding for every new device and industry Sony goes into they spend a ton of money. So if say multiple industries failed at once such as film, music and game consoles all being hit simultaneously the company would be in big trouble.

So whats better, at first glance it would appear the specialists are at a disadvantage relying on one industry and line of products to support themselves. While the second set of companies spend so much on expanding and rely so heavily on multiple products, they spread themselves thin which could lead to an equally devastating problem.

Apple and Disney are fairly specialised and focus on a single industry. Better examples of ex-pandas would be the massive conglomerates like Yamaha, Mitsubishi, General Electric, Samsung, LG, Hyundai or the Virgin Group

Both have their strengths and weaknesses. In a strong market expanders do the best, in a weak market specialized do the best.
Expanders have the ability to branch off easily and invest lots of money into new things and can accept failure and losses, typically, specialized have better products and are more flexible, while financial instability in their market can spell doom.

For example, if video game industry bottomed out, who would be hurt the most? But, who is currently hurt the most?
In times of industry boom, who did the best, who did the worst?

Apple is a tech company and Disney is a entertainment company but other then that they aren't really specializing in one single industry. Apple makes all kinds of technology based products though I'd agree your suggestions are much larger expanshionists then Apple. Disney is also not just film they also make games and music and technology. I recently saw a TV show on how they were creating interactive devices which projected an image onto a surface and you could interact with the image. Not to mention their theme parks are also a huge industry and make tons of money. So they are hardly a single industry specialist.

Although if you consider music, games and movies as all the single entertainment industry then that would cut down the companies that follow the expansionist policies deeply. I could have tried to make the thread more complicated by specifying smaller industry specialists , bigger industry specialists and expansionists. But it would get too complicated and wouldn't answer what I hoped to learn from this thread.

The main question is "Is it better to expand into multiple different product markets or specialize in one"

If you're a big company it's better to be an ex-pander. Larger companies own many smaller companies. Then you sell the companies is low growth areas, and buy companies in large growth areas.

Apple does this but does it internally. They made the Imac, huge growth...then growth flat lined, but it's okay because they moved onto ipod, then iphone, then ipad, next it'll be icloud and online services... etc. For corporations it's about growth!!!!!!!!!!!

But I think you need to define what better means.... is it stock price? earnings per share? revenue? market share? What is "better" may differ between private vs. public companies.

Apple not being specialized? Are you sure?

both are required

its common business sense to have both micro and macro level buisnesses

its so that all people are looked after

Apple is a specialized company as in they focus on technology. But if you read my post above I'm talking specific industries not broad based things like the entertainment industry or technology industry. As in relying on one type of product for BlackBerry its their OS. BlackBerry and PlayBook both use the same OS they are very similiar products.

Apple uses iOS alot. However they branched out of just there computer industry. MP3 players like the I-Pod were completely different products then i-Mac was or Pippin etc...etc... Apple is always looking to expand and create new products to reach new industries and new consumers rather then focusing entirely on one industry. So yah I-Phone and I-Pad are virtually the same device but I-Mac is not and I-Pod's while some of the new ones run pretty much like an I-Pad they are still MP3 players.

Better as in if your company does this it will be more successful. Pretty much all of the above stock price, earnings per share, revenue what do you think is the best route.

Honestly I agree with most users that both have their pro's and con's its because I can't decide which one is more successful that I am asking here. I want the input of VGChartz users, so far the input is good it would appear nobody thus far has come to the conclusion that one is better then the other. I have also not concluded one to be better then the other.

Unless your industry goes down. Sticking to that industry to the bitter end is not smart in my opinion. Or if your company does one thing and one thing only but gets crushed by competitors doing the one thing your company is good at, then its adapt or die.

It's a bit more complicate matter, in theory it's more convenient to expand since for a shareholder it's safer have a varied portfolio of investiments rather than investing on a single project. The real question is: do I have the resources (financial, human, tecnological and the knowledge) to profitably operate in different markets? Also to succesfully enter a new a market, the company needs to overcome some "enterance barriers", this process may require a lot of time and money, so the other question is: Am I willing to risk and to sustain the costs of the enterance?