I cannot give this list any credibility when it does not contain ARPANET/INTERNET. As far as tech companies and their core ideas being disruptive, Cisco should maybe have made the list.
And Motorola for the 'mobile phone'.
I don't know that I would have put the mobile phone per say, but their whole concept of "cell" based radio communication to achieve the density and coverage required was pretty god dammed disruptive for all mobile data solutions.
It's silly to say Aople is an "idea." Apple would be a footnote in history if not for Steve Jobs' relentless pursuits. GPS and credit cards are ideas, as is Google's PageRsnk algorithm, but companies are not.
I agree. Ideas are cheap, even worthless unless you can execute.
The post-1997 Apple that Jobs created (by whatever means necessary), focusing the company on great products are his enduring legacy.
I think you guys might not be considering the context in which Apple was founded as why Apple is on the list. Wasn't the point back then that "every person should have a personal computer"? Whatever the exact wording of it is, is pretty damn disruptive in the mid-1970s when basically nobody had personal computers. Apple's execution back then was at least being credited with the first personal computer. I'm not sure that should have been in the top 10, but it was certainly disruptive in the context of mainframes and how computers existed before Apple.
I don't know that I would have put the mobile phone per say, but their whole concept of "cell" based radio communication to achieve the density and coverage required was pretty god dammed disruptive for all mobile data solutions.
Agreed. While cellular technology existed for years Motorola was the first company to actually make a phone for consumers. Together they have changed the world. By the way it's 'per se' which is Latin for 'in itself'.
Usually, when a magazine or media outlet has a countdown of the best 100 songs or best 100 inventions or whatever, they always have questionable inclusions on that list, and this list is no different. The list was probably made by just a few people, so it merely represents the opinions of a few people, and there's often things that are forgotten and things that do get included, but do not deserve to even be on the list.
Leo Laporte and John Dvorak (both with a publishing and media background) have previously said exactly where these idiotic lists come from and it's even dumber than you think.
They clearly don't order items based around the purpose of the list. They put junk bonds ahead of Apple, which makes sense coming from billionaire-owned Bloomberg but those don't matter at all to most people.
Putting Google ahead of Apple in anything is a good way to get people linking to and talking about it. People fall for it every time. It looks like they picked a whole bunch of things that would get people to react but wedged them between more mundane items to give some legitimacy. I'm surprised they didn't put twerking, sexting or selfies in above Al-Qaeda.
They clearly don't order items based around the purpose of the list. They put junk bonds ahead of Apple, which makes sense coming from billionaire-owned Bloomberg but those don't matter at all to most people.
Putting Google ahead of Apple in anything is a good way to get people linking to and talking about it. People fall for it every time. It looks like they picked a whole bunch of things that would get people to react but wedged them between more mundane items to give some legitimacy. I'm surprised they didn't put twerking, sexting or selfies in above Al-Qaeda.
Thanks for digging up a good link (re: Dvorak), Marvin.
I don't know that I would have put the mobile phone per say, but their whole concept of "cell" based radio communication to achieve the density and coverage required was pretty god dammed disruptive for all mobile data solutions.
Agreed. While cellular technology existed for years Motorola was the first company to actually make a phone for consumers. Together they have changed the world. By the way it's 'per se' which is Latin for 'in itself'.
Those questioning the Walmart inclusion probably don't "get" Walmart. Walmart is so radically different from every store that came before that it revolutionized retail. Walmart's use of data and its relationship with its partners "changed everything." As I understand it (told to me by an economics professor who I assume knew what he was talking about), Walmart doesn't stock products like a traditional store. The products on the shelves are literally not part of Walmart's inventory, they are still technically on the books of the provider. If they don't sell, Walmart doesn't eat the cost, but they are very quick to get that crap off their shelves so they can move something that will sell. Therefore they get very involved in the business operations of their partners (not unlike Apple and their manufacturing partners, perhaps) to drive every penny of waste and extra cost from the sales stream. Before Walmart, that's now how things worked. So if you're a business magazine, like say BusinessWeek, this type of innovation and disruption is fascinating and laudable. So whether the list overall is crap or not, I can certainly understand why Walmart was very very high on this particular list.
Those questioning the Walmart inclusion probably don't "get" Walmart. Walmart is so radically different from every store that came before that it revolutionized retail. Walmart's use of data and its relationship with its partners "changed everything." As I understand it (told to me by an economics professor who I assume knew what he was talking about), Walmart doesn't stock products like a traditional store. The products on the shelves are literally not part of Walmart's inventory, they are still technically on the books of the provider. If they don't sell, Walmart doesn't eat the cost, but they are very quick to get that crap off their shelves so they can move something that will sell. Therefore they get very involved in the business operations of their partners (not unlike Apple and their manufacturing partners, perhaps) to drive every penny of waste and extra cost from the sales stream. Before Walmart, that's now how things worked. So if you're a business magazine, like say BusinessWeek, this type of innovation and disruption is fascinating and laudable. So whether the list overall is crap or not, I can certainly understand why Walmart was very very high on this particular list.
I don't believe that. They nearly bankrupted Rubbermaid because they wanted to increase prices due to an increase of the price of resin which is used to manufacture their products. Walmart refused to accept the price increase, and switched to a different brand. Walmart didn't give Rubbermaid the chance to see if its products would sell at a higher price.
I am still trying to figure out why several people wanted to put the discovery of the antibiotic properties of penicillin on a list of allegedly disruptive ideas.
Now to get back on topic, this list is absolutely meaningless and nonsensical.
I am still trying to figure out why several people wanted to put the discovery of the antibiotic properties of penicillin on a list of allegedly disruptive ideas.
Comments
Woz was a few tricks pony
- Apple I
- Apple II
- disk drive
- Apple IIc
- Apple II OS (with Randy Wigginton)
- the Basic interpreter for the Apple II
- ...
I think that's not too bad for just 1 guy
fine. 6 trick pony ;-)
I cannot give this list any credibility when it does not contain ARPANET/INTERNET. As far as tech companies and their core ideas being disruptive, Cisco should maybe have made the list.
And Motorola for the 'mobile phone'.
I don't know that I would have put the mobile phone per say, but their whole concept of "cell" based radio communication to achieve the density and coverage required was pretty god dammed disruptive for all mobile data solutions.
It's silly to say Aople is an "idea." Apple would be a footnote in history if not for Steve Jobs' relentless pursuits. GPS and credit cards are ideas, as is Google's PageRsnk algorithm, but companies are not.
I agree. Ideas are cheap, even worthless unless you can execute.
The post-1997 Apple that Jobs created (by whatever means necessary), focusing the company on great products are his enduring legacy.
I think you guys might not be considering the context in which Apple was founded as why Apple is on the list. Wasn't the point back then that "every person should have a personal computer"? Whatever the exact wording of it is, is pretty damn disruptive in the mid-1970s when basically nobody had personal computers. Apple's execution back then was at least being credited with the first personal computer. I'm not sure that should have been in the top 10, but it was certainly disruptive in the context of mainframes and how computers existed before Apple.
Agreed. While cellular technology existed for years Motorola was the first company to actually make a phone for consumers. Together they have changed the world. By the way it's 'per se' which is Latin for 'in itself'.
Walmart ahead of TV and where is the Radio, you got to be kidding me with this list!
Radio is over 100 years old and does not meet the 85 year requirement for this list.
He said he knew it would be special but yet he left the company.. Right..
Not quite. He didn't continue to do stuff there but he continued to be an employee. And still is, as far as I know.
One of Dvorak's articles about that is here:
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2357842,00.asp
There was a list put up by Fortune and CNN a while back and it had just been put together by one guy:
http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/167068/apples-tim-cook-leads-silicon-valley-delegation-in-new-leadership-rankings
They clearly don't order items based around the purpose of the list. They put junk bonds ahead of Apple, which makes sense coming from billionaire-owned Bloomberg but those don't matter at all to most people.
Putting Google ahead of Apple in anything is a good way to get people linking to and talking about it. People fall for it every time. It looks like they picked a whole bunch of things that would get people to react but wedged them between more mundane items to give some legitimacy. I'm surprised they didn't put twerking, sexting or selfies in above Al-Qaeda.
I cannot give this list any credibility when it does not contain ARPANET/INTERNET.
/\
THIS. The Internet has revolutionized our lives (along with the PC).
One of Dvorak's articles about that is here:
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2357842,00.asp
There was a list put up by Fortune and CNN a while back and it had just been put together by one guy:
http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/167068/apples-tim-cook-leads-silicon-valley-delegation-in-new-leadership-rankings
They clearly don't order items based around the purpose of the list. They put junk bonds ahead of Apple, which makes sense coming from billionaire-owned Bloomberg but those don't matter at all to most people.
Putting Google ahead of Apple in anything is a good way to get people linking to and talking about it. People fall for it every time. It looks like they picked a whole bunch of things that would get people to react but wedged them between more mundane items to give some legitimacy. I'm surprised they didn't put twerking, sexting or selfies in above Al-Qaeda.
Thanks for digging up a good link (re: Dvorak), Marvin.
The Top Ten List of Lists that List the Most Click-Baits.
AI's grammar police need to apply that figurative chokehold a little loser.
Nope. Penicillin (read antibiotics) is number one.
Penicillin was discovered 86 years ago, so it (just barely) missed the cut.
Those questioning the Walmart inclusion probably don't "get" Walmart. Walmart is so radically different from every store that came before that it revolutionized retail. Walmart's use of data and its relationship with its partners "changed everything." As I understand it (told to me by an economics professor who I assume knew what he was talking about), Walmart doesn't stock products like a traditional store. The products on the shelves are literally not part of Walmart's inventory, they are still technically on the books of the provider. If they don't sell, Walmart doesn't eat the cost, but they are very quick to get that crap off their shelves so they can move something that will sell. Therefore they get very involved in the business operations of their partners (not unlike Apple and their manufacturing partners, perhaps) to drive every penny of waste and extra cost from the sales stream. Before Walmart, that's now how things worked. So if you're a business magazine, like say BusinessWeek, this type of innovation and disruption is fascinating and laudable. So whether the list overall is crap or not, I can certainly understand why Walmart was very very high on this particular list.
I don't believe that. They nearly bankrupted Rubbermaid because they wanted to increase prices due to an increase of the price of resin which is used to manufacture their products. Walmart refused to accept the price increase, and switched to a different brand. Walmart didn't give Rubbermaid the chance to see if its products would sell at a higher price.
Now to get back on topic, this list is absolutely meaningless and nonsensical.
I guess preventing death isn’t disruptive.