Dinosaur
Who cares what the editors of Forbes think? The only way Forbes would be relevant is if you hopped in a time machine back to 1985.
The tech industry feeds off its reputation for being innovative but, according to Forbes at least, it may not be warranted. In a new list of the "World's Most Innovative Companies," the business magazine has ranked the top 100 companies. Aside from Tesla, which could arguably be listed as a tech company and took the coveted …
"The difference between them is the bonus given by equity investors on the educated hunch that the company will continue to come up with profitable new growth"
In other words: this is a list of the 100 companies most over-valued by the market. So how come Apple didn't make it?
It isn't called Silly-con Valley for nothing. About the only innovative things I've seen come from there in the last 10 years is the unrivaled ability to fuck shit up and over-complicate just for the sake of vendor lock in. Sure, it's "disruptive" but not in the good way.
They've drank their own kool-aide and inbred at the same time.
Chipotle is only innovated in their hip way of giving customers food poisoning. Currently most well known innovation is in technology and pharmaceuticals.
I am actually surprised Forbes did not include Theranos; another infamous innovator. And nominate Elizabeth Holmes as the top CEO.
The Shadow knows.
I don't see tech companies as being very innovative, they just use computers which are hardly new. Certainly the likes of Uber aren't fucking innovative. Taxi companies have existed for years. As has screwing over workers. And customers. And not paying tax.
Under Armour is #6, Monster Beverage is #7, but ARM Holdings is #12?
Amazon.com - a glorified Walmart - is #11, also ahead of ARM Holdings?
What did Salesforce.com - #2 - innovate?
Chipotle Mexican Grill - #39 - is now an innovator. They sell burritos and guacamole, and occasionally E. Coli. Maybe that's where the innovation is.
Luxottica Group - #78 - is a monopoly on over-priced designer eyewear and lenses. Very innovative, apparently.
Randomly throwing darts at a board with company names would have given better results.
Amazon is also AWS, not only the store. Facebook too is more innovative when it tries to design new ways to move and store your data to be analyzed and resold, not for its web frontend and silly features.
Pharma is innovative? I didn't see many true innovations lately, especially since most of them usually come fro more fundamental researches which are not usually carried over in their labs because the ROI is unknown.
But Forbes is a financial company, it looks at money, not ideas and quality.
Forbes is making a common mistake. Innovation is about using a new way to attack existing problems to create a new solution. Amazon, for example, is a giant, worldwide retailer. Bezos' genius was to take a couple of ideas floating around at the time and combine them. The ideas were to use the Internet to allow customers to shop and to use the backend of a catalog shopping firm. In some respects, Amazon has always been a giant catalog shopping firm with the shopping done online.
Also many technologies considered innovative are actually rather old. Digital photography is much older than most realize by about 20 years and was invented by Kodak. It was popularized later when enough people had computers that digital image manipulation and sharing became reasonable.
That's the "innovation premium" that investors are prepared to pay. Presumably the rise in share price has compensated for the near zero dividends.
Or not.
IIRC if you want dividends you need to go with Yahoo. :(
Like Facebook having a P/E in centuries.
What is the value of the list? Who knows? Forbes business development manager, that's who.
I reckon it's their ad manager - after all, that seems to be the only thing keeping Forbes alive. Which makes the comment a bit "pot vs kettle", or do I really have to mention DevOps? :)
What with given the past here and the present at Forbes. However:
"Forbes also only included companies that had more than seven years' worth of public financial data and a market value of over $10bn – thereby removing 99 per cent of the companies that do the bulk of the innovation in the world."
That last isn't really quite right. In economic terms we try to make a distinction between invention and innovation. The first is the creation of some new thing. The second is the general improvement of some thing through multiple iterations.
Small companies are generally more inventive than large. And large generally more innovative than small.
This post has been deleted by its author
> Genuine question.
It's short of "information technology" (IT), or if you're trying to sound really modern, "information and computing technology" (ICT).
This means: stuff involving computers crunching data (the precursor of information).
> the big car makers who are transitioning to hybrid drives
Hybrid drive is a terrible idea from a technological point of view and it was Japan's attempt at getting their cars into lower tax bands, which if anything is market, not technology, innovation.
> There is the suspicion
No disrespect, but you need to get an education.
This post has been deleted by its author
This post has been deleted by its author
Do you work remotely?
As far as I'm aware, these "lists" are penned with your colleagues over the coffee machine / water dispenser, or done by the horoscope guy (not sure if this is a step up or down).
The very few ones where the journo went to the trouble of coming up with an actual methodology, you will know because, understandably, they go to even more trouble to make it clear that they actually followed a methodology.