Click for ginormous graphic:

Source:
The Most Disruptive Companies in Tech by Focus

Category: Data Analysis, Web/Tech

Please use the comments to demonstrate your own ignorance, unfamiliarity with empirical data and lack of respect for scientific knowledge. Be sure to create straw men and argue against things I have neither said nor implied. If you could repeat previously discredited memes or steer the conversation into irrelevant, off topic discussions, it would be appreciated. Lastly, kindly forgo all civility in your discourse . . . you are, after all, anonymous.

14 Responses to “The Most Disruptive Companies in Tech”

  1. Al_Czervik says:

    With all the talk about “the next Steve Jobs” and disruptive technologies, I haven’t heard/seen any mention of Jeff Bezos and Amazon. He has changed the retail business as radically as Sears & Roebuck. His influence on publishing can be compared to Gutenberg. And he has also developed a really good distribution platform for digital music, movies and TV shows.

    AMZN bottomed around late-2001 at around $7-$8 and it now sits around $225-$230. In terms of percentage increase, that’s more than Steve accomplished with his share price over the same period.

    Taking nothing away from Steve Jobs, the disruptive influence of Bezos since the late-90s is astonishing and deserving of similar recognition.

  2. Francisco Bandres de Abarca says:

    It would appear that Netflix management is now most actively disrupting . . . Netflix.

  3. ZackAttack says:

    Bwah! Zynga! Crappy little Flash games that don’t hold a kid’s interest for 5 seconds.

  4. gordo365 says:

    Four of these are FREE! Any ideas about what might be driving median incomes down?

    A tech startup with 30 employees that might grow to 3000 if it’s product is HUGE home run, is a completely different animal than a 200,000 employee car manufacturer with a huge supplier ecosystem.

  5. James Cameron says:

    Tata Nano? It may have invaded the Indian market, but it would have a very difficult time in a lot of other markets because of safety and pollution concerns. There’s a reason why it’s only 2k.

  6. rip says:

    @BR: Being a NASDAQ guy that has profited handsomely thanks to Apple, you are grasping at straws.

    Lots of luck with that.

  7. nathanbutnet says:

    How is Salesforce.com not included here and Google Apps is? Not a credible list by a long shot.

  8. bonzo says:

    That three gorges story is from last year.

    Amazon is massively disrupting older technology businesses (bookstores, bricks-and-mortars stores in general, paper publishing) and who only knows what their mechanical turk will eventually destroy.

    Whereas Apple is merely gaining market share from other computer companies due to a temporary technology lead. Not much more disruptive than Samsung.

  9. Soylent Green Is People says:

    Redfin. Their “Scouting Report” caused a mini riot in the realtor community last week. The “iffy” data and threats of Multiple Listing Service (MLS) expulsion resulted in Redfin spiking the Scouting Report. Read up on how realtors view Redfin and see the disruption they are causing, merely due to a little light shed on an archaic practice.

    Information hoarding industries, like the travel agents and news papers before them, will find the buzz saw of the internet a harsh mistress. The NAR understands this now, but is transfixed like a deer caught in headlights – not knowing if right or left is a correct pathway. Consumers and the market will decide this for them.

  10. Apurva says:

    The Tata Nano has nowhere close to 17% market share in small car segment. It is faring quite poorly and being ailed by problems with news of it catching fire being quite frequent. Moreover, there was no disruptive approach that Tata undertook to make Nano and it is quite frankly proved to be a failure in India.

  11. Buzz says:

    Pandora is here to stay. It has retired my iPod Shuffle forever. Now they need to work on their business model to generate cash.

  12. Al_Czervik says:

    This was a bit premature. With the benefit of 12 years of hindsight, this may be the exception that proves the magazine-cover-indicator rule .

    http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,19991227,00.html

  13. baldheadeddork says:

    The Tata Nano information is very old, if it was ever right. This is from an FT article this week:

    “The Nano, meanwhile, has headed in the opposite direction. Sales have been consistently dismal, and are now worsening – recording a 47 per cent fall in September compared with the same month a year before. More than two years after its introduction, the Nano only recently crossed the 100,000 mark; before the launch the carmaker hoped to sell about 500,000 cars a year.”

    http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/7092436e-ee34-11e0-a491-00144feab49a.html?ftcamp=rss#axzz1aVdO1MaB