Forbes' World’s Most Innovative Companies: Apple #5

[*LTD*]

Full list:

http://www.forbes.com/special-features/innovative-companies-list.html

Methodology:

http://blogs.forbes.com/tompost/2011/07/20/the-most-innovative-companies-today-and-tomorrow/

Forbes’ World’s Most Innovative Companies: Apple #5

“Which leading-edge corporations are most likely to succeed now and in the future? That’s the subject of an eight-year study by Harvard Business School Professor and master of disruptive innovation Clayton M. Christensen, along with colleagues Jeff Dyer, a professor at Brigham Young University, and Hal B Gregersen, a professor of leadership at INSEAD,” Tom Post reports for Forbes.
“Their insights can be found in their newly released book, The Innovator’s DNA (Harvard Business School Press) — and are the subject of our Aug. 8 cover package on the world’s most innovative companies and leaders,” Post reports. “Check out the ranking of the world’s 100 most innovative companies, produced with Michael McConnell, a senior advisor at HOLT, a division of Credit Suisse.”

Forbes’ World’s Most Innovative Companies:
1. Salesforce.com
2. Amazon.com
3. Intuitive Surgical
4. Tencent Holdings
5. Apple
6. Hindustan Unilever
7. Google
8. Natura Cosméticos
9. Bharat Heavy Electricals
10. Monsanto
…
20. Nintendo
…
54. Adobe Systems
…
56. HTC Corp
…
77. Oracle
…
84. Intuit
…
86. Microsoft

----------------------------------------------------------------

Note that Intuit is actually above MS. That's pretty funny.

What's a little odd is that Amazon is placed ahead of Apple.

Well . . . their checkout system isn't bad. Right?

Have fun!

 

[Apple OC]

where's FaceBook?

 

[*LTD*]

where's FaceBook?

They haven't done all that much lately. Facebook is Facebook. Their impact continues to be enormous, but not necessarily innovative to a sustained degree.

It's more of a forward-looking list. See below.

From the methodology:

Many such lists ask executives to vote on which companies they think are most innovative—popularity contests based on past performance. Our method relies on investors—voting with their wallets—to identify the companies they expect to be innovative today and in the future. Among them are familiar ground breakers like Amazon, Apple and Google. You’ll also find Salesforce.com, a disruptive cloud-computing company whose Chatter, a new social software application, takes the best of Facebook and Twitter and applies it to enterprise collaboration.

 

[Rodimus Prime]

They haven't done all that much lately. Facebook is Facebook. Their impact continues to be enormous, but not necessarily innovative to a sustained degree.

It's more of a forward-looking list. See below.

From the methodology:

Many such lists ask executives to vote on which companies they think are most innovative—popularity contests based on past performance. Our method relies on investors—voting with their wallets—to identify the companies they expect to be innovative today and in the future. Among them are familiar ground breakers like Amazon, Apple and Google. You’ll also find Salesforce.com, a disruptive cloud-computing company whose Chatter, a new social software application, takes the best of Facebook and Twitter and applies it to enterprise collaboration.

I think the you pointed out the flaw in the list over all. It was asking investors to vote with wallets so end result I would not say it is worth much. It pretty clear it is about preceptoin noting relating to the truth.

 

[QuarterSwede]

I think the you pointed out the flaw in the list over all. It was asking investors to vote with wallets so end result I would not say it is worth much. It pretty clear it is about preceptoin noting relating to the truth.

Exactly. That explains how Salesforce.com beat out Apple. Innovation in business vs. innovation in the consumer space.

 

[KingCrimson]

Why is the consumer space inherently more important then business?

 

[Rodimus Prime]

Exactly. That explains how Salesforce.com beat out Apple. Innovation in business vs. innovation in the consumer space.

I would think in both cases they were asking the wrong group to look at innovation.