Sony named 10th most innovative company. Where is Nintendo?

[omgwtfbbq]

your mother said:

omgwtfbbq said:

your mother said:

Although I understand this list is not focused on gaming but on businesses as a whole, from a strict innovative viewpoint I fail to see why some of these companies are on the list at all.

In fact, most of the top companies are there because of their marketing skills more than their contributions towards innovation.

Apple: There are many outstanding mp3 players that have won product design awards (www.red-dot.de); Apple knows their marketing,

Google: There are many search engines; Google knows their marketing (remember their "we only focus on search"?)

Toyota: Their Prius is actually not nearly as environmentally friendly as they claim it to be (http://omidr.typepad.com/torque/2007/03/toyotas_prius_i.html); Toyota knows their marketing

And on, and on, and on...

And all this Nintendo vs Sony vs Microsoft stuff? Give it a rest, guys. The list is not about consoles.

well marketed companies will always get the "innovative" view, because that's generally how they sell themselves.

Google, however, are an exception in this case, Google are on the list not because of great marketing, since they do not market at all. They are on the list because their search algorithm was innovative, and it gave better results. They became popular through word of mouth alone.

Of course, they haven't really done much innovative since then, but don't discount the reason why they're where they are.

Word-of-mouth is in itself a form of marketing.

And what about Google Earth, Gmail, Froogle, and their new puppy YouTube?

What I meant was Google built their name on a better search engine algorithm, true, but like any other search engine, they have started to diversify and guess what? They used their "in-good-standing" brand name to branch out.

And if you look at the way they have branched out, plus the YouTube acquisition, they are only continuing to build their brand awareness, albeit on a different level now. Before it was "we only do search, so we are the best"; well, now that their search engine supremacy has been established, they are "innovating" on other fronts.

And on, and on, and on...

That is completely besides the point, yes, word-of-mouth is marketing, but Google is not responsible for it, and that is not the reason Google is where they are now (which is what we were originally discussing). No need to get caught up on semantics.

Also, what about Google Earth, Gmail, Froogle, Youtube?

Google Earth was developed by a company called KeyHole Inc, Which Google bought. Buying companies is hardly innovative.

Gmail was developed in house, and is a fantastic webmail system (which I use primarily), but it's hardly innovative. It's not like they invented webmail, they just developed a very good webmail system. They were the first to give 1GB of space, I'll give them that.

Froogle, was once again, just another price comparison service. They existed well before Froogle. (I haven't really used it so I can't tell if it's any different from regular price comparison services)

Youtube: See Google Earth. Purchasing != Innovating.

I'm sorry, I love Google as much as the next guy but they are not innovative. Branching out into new areas is not innovation, MS wasn't innovative with the Xbox, they were innovative with Xbox Live. They weren't innovative with Zune, they were innovative with... no, nothing there, it was just a crappy iPod clone. Innovation is doing something completely new, something no one has done before. And all the innovation is doneby thousands of small companies and single people with great ideas an just get bought by Google.