Talk:List of largest technology companies by revenue

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Additional companies[edit]

This list is by no means complete. Community members should add IT companies that aren't on the chart, if and when relevant! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buryatrider (talk • contribs) 03:44, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Recommendations include: Ericsson (35% of world's telecommunications equipment!), Siemens, Phillips, Hynix ... Not sure about AT&T as it is indeed a provider ... but agree that very clear methodology is needed. could perhaps suggest hardware+software providers but not carriers in and of themselves. Suggested length of the chart should top 100 world manufacturers given the fact that the IT industry is fast paced and growth is unpredictably fast. Buryatrider (talk) 03:51, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's better to get up doing something than nothing at all. Will add the following companies. Suggest the community continue the debate, and add additional companies as the need arises.

  • Alibaba (446B!)
  • Tencent (426B) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.54.215.188 (talk) 01:37, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ericsson
  • Siemens
  • Phillips
  • Thales
  • Robert Bosch
  • RIM

HynixBuryatrider (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:57, 8 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]

I've added in companies that appear in the wikipedia category for information technology companies. I spent a considerable amount of time now on expanding the chart so that it covers a good 90 or so such companies. I suggest that we change the heading of this chart to "List of largest information technology companies" so as to reduce any further complications from debates as to what a "technology company" implies.Buryatrider (talk) 16:12, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Standard of Measure (Trivial)[edit]

When making a statement of the sort "The largest ...", one should specify what measurement is used. One could have several businesses claiming to be the largest because they use different measurements. Some possible measurements: annual revenue, annual net income, value of assets, value of inventory, annual number of units sold, number of employees, total square feet of buildings, maybe some others.

However, for this article, the table clearly indicates that it is by annual turnover. 206.53.197.24 (talk) 14:38, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would be interesting to expand the list to include other measures of size. Maybe a table that allows users to select a column, and have the results sorted by that column would be helpful. 206.53.197.24 (talk) 00:35, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't Samsung and LG be on this list as well, being gigantic electronics companies? They're no different from Hitachi. 206.130.173.41 (talk) 15:41, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This list is misleading. Where is Samsung? Nokia? Note that the definition of information technology includes software and support services. Where is Oracle? Microsoft? Etc. Citation link is broken. Good idea, but needs lots of TLC. Cc68 (talk) 03:52, 5 February 2010 (UTC)cc68[reply]

A proposal for an alternative list[edit]

Several omissions from the original list are noted above and the lack of public access to Datamonitor makes uncovering the definitions used by the source difficult, undermining verifiability. These comments have received no response from the original author.

Addressing these issues (omission, definition, verifiability) would seem pretty important. Articles on several companies make claims to being "the largest global technology company." A reference within Wikipedia to point to would help align these articles with one another. I've posted a short list based on public information compiled by the UK government and provided a clear definition of scope -- key for any article on the vague topic of the "technology" industry. I'd propose striking the original table.

Depending on what direction discussion goes (if there is any), I will expand the table to include employment, market capitalization, and R&D expenditures and extended to perhaps 25 companies. There are also historical reports available, so additional tables showing, say, five year snapshots back to 1990 are possible.Cc68 (talk) 05:12, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to see a definition for "technology company" that is being used here. At present it seems to be a list of companies with a heavy presence in consumer electronics. I would think of AT&T as a (communications) technology company for instance (market cap nearly $270 BN more than twice that of the leader of the list, and with an annual turnover of nearly $125 BB), or Teliasonera $25 BN etc. What about Siemens, €102.83 billion?? Is nuclear technology, or medical technology counted Johnson and Johnson US$ 61.587 billion ? etc etc
LookingGlass (talk) 12:31, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, a clear methodology is needed, ideally stated in the lead. Essentially this list is of IT, communications and electronics hardware and software companies. It does not include telecom services, pharmaceutical, medical equipment, engineering, aerospace or automotive companies. This is a reasonable definition but the methodology must be more explicitly stated.Rangoon11 (talk) 13:12, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

why does highest revenue mean largest company ?[edit]

World's largest software companies, Largest gold companies, tech company apple overtakes microsoft, Big Five (banks) put more emphasis on market capitalization than revenue. some tech companies like the remaining parts of nortel have much more value than their revenue suggests. This article should be moved to a page with a name reflecting the emphasis it puts on revenue or the data should be changed to include market capitalization like forbes does. List of companies by revenue doesn't say anything about its list meaning anything more than that.Grmike (talk) 06:38, 27 May 2010 (UTC)grmike[reply]

Need to update hitachi data: http://www.hitachi.com/about/corporate/outline/index.html

number of employees is 359000. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.173.234.142 (talk) 10:14, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In fact revenue means almost nothing because is very susceptible, it should default to market capitalization. If I buy at 100, and I spend 200, the revenue is 100. Revenue doesn't mean a lot in this article. http://budgeting.thenest.com/market-cap-vs-revenue-22757.html --193.205.162.64 (talk) 11:02, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Outdated info[edit]

Am I just talking madness or didn't Apple recently become larger than Microsoft corp.? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.220.106.35 (talk) 23:42, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Only by share price , not by turnover or profit.Darwin-rover (talk) 22:08, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How are companies selected for this list?[edit]

Why is Fujitsu not included in this list? And surely companies like Samsung are broader than IT... 188.222.64.130 (talk) 13:03, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah its a strange list , wheres Panasonic ? I was under the impression they were bigger than Sony ? Wheres Nintendo , Philips , Siemens etc.Darwin-rover (talk) 22:10, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

removal of article[edit]

There are many missing companies. The table uses only one metric of size. It may not be worth the effort to maintain or even meet guidelines for WP —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.237.186.136 (talk) 18:33, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Huge update needed[edit]

I have been working on List of companies by revenue when I came across this article. I have several points I want to make:

  • Why Datamonitor? Primary sources like annual reports exist.
  • Article is severely outdated and has many errors. For example, Uniden only has 0.3 billion dollars in revenue the past fiscal year (the article states $44 billion).

If no objections, I will update the article using primary sources such as annual reports and form 10-Ks and 20-Fs. Jonathansuh (talk) 19:17, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

note for update: fujifilm's 2008 revenue is clearly too large. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 15.194.43.10 (talk) 10:31, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree and fully support the proposed update. Before seeing the above I had removed Uniden, as well as TeliaSonera, which is a telco services company and not relevant to the list. A few other changes which I haven't yet made but think should be: 1. Ericsson (2010 revenues of around US$28.3 billion) should be included. 2. Sanyo is now owned by Panasonic, and should either be removed completely or at a minimum a note on its ownship given. 3. The market cap numbers are currently meaningless as the date at which they are taken is not given (and they may be taken at different dates). Since market caps tend to fluctuate considerably in any case I propose that this entire column be removed. 4. Philips should be included (€25.42 billion revenues in 2010). 5. If Hitachi and Toshiba are included, which are both highly diversified, then why shouldn't Siemens and General Electric? 6. Xerox should be added (US$ 21.633 billion revenues in 2010). 7 LG Electronics should be added (USD 48.2 billion revenues in 2010). 8. Alcatel-Lucent should be added (€16.00 billion revenues in 2010). 9. STMicroelectronics should be added (US $10.346 billion revenues in 2010)Rangoon11 (talk) 22:57, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Another missing name: Texas Instruments (US$ 13.966 billion revenues in 2010). Rangoon11 (talk) 23:06, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also Renesas Electronics (US$ 11.8 billion revenues in 2010), Research In Motion (US$ 19.907 billion revenues in FY 2011) and Qualcomm (US$ 10.99 billion revenues in 2010) Rangoon11 (talk) 23:10, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Contested deletion[edit]

This page should not be speedily deleted because... (your reason here) --172.223.135.152 (talk) 15:04, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Company Sub-50 billion[edit]

The companies mentioned here are well positioned to make 50 billion revenue within couple of years.

LG Electronics, Cisco Systems, Nokia, Oracle Corporation, Canon Inc., Mitsubishi Electric.--♥ Kkm010 ♥ ♪ Talk ♪ ߷ ♀ Contribs ♀ 04:44, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Other companies[edit]

What about Lockheed Martin, Accenture, Telefonica, and Qualcomm? Zalunardo8 (talk) 15:42, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And also, Sony Zalunardo8 (talk) 11:17, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

January 2014[edit]

Who ignorant people are referring to these technology companies as IT companies? Do you even know what IT is? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.232.222 (talk • contribs) 00:39, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Table sort not working[edit]

Sort by employee count does not work for Foxconn or Alphabet. Presumably the numbers are in the wrong format? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.60.43.240 (talk) 05:04, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dell[edit]

Isn't it a public company? MK (talk) 21:10, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Updates needed, original research in ranking, and other problems[edit]

The ranking given in the table is sourced to the Fortune 500 Global citation. People should not add or remove companies, or change the ranking, in contradiction to this source. Some people have been updating revenues, changing positions, or adding companies that are not on the Fortune list, resulting in a mixed comparison between different years. This creates an inaccurate, unsourced picture, and original research regarding the ranking. Please don't!

Also, the list previously contained market capitalizations, which were recently removed. I don't see the reasoning behind that, and suggest that they be returned. Companies are most often referred to as "largest" by that metric. The article is called "List of the largest information technology companies", not "List of the largest information technology companies by revenue". While it's not unreasonable to sort them that way, based on Fortune, it shouldn't exclude the possibility to compare market capitalization. A separate "by market capitalization" article could be created, but it would be more useful to have them in one.

The citations given in the "refs" column don't say exactly what they support. Again, I'm concerned that they may contradict the numbers used in the Fortune citation, and therefore the source of the ranking, by being from different fiscal years.

--IamNotU (talk) 14:56, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've now checked all the citations, and made sure they correspond to the correct fiscal year (ending no later than March 31, 2018), including for number of employees. I've moved them to the figures they support, and removed the ambiguous "refs" column. I also added a "fiscal year" column to show the differences, it could be filled out for the rest of the companies if sources are found. --IamNotU (talk) 02:11, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not mix fiscal years[edit]

The rankings in the list are currently made according to revenue for the fiscal years ending on or before March 31st, 2018, as found in the Fortune Global 500 source cited, and whatever other citations are given. Please do not update individual revenue figures and citations to later years, or change the rankings, unless the entire list is done at once, for example when the next version is published by Fortune, some time after March 2019. Otherwise the ranking order will be unsourced and incorrect. Also, needless to say, changes made to revenue figures without citations, will be summarily reverted. Thanks... --IamNotU (talk) 02:06, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Apple[edit]

Where did Apple go? It is the largest company by revenue but it disappeared for 2020 and 2021. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.160.49.199 (talk) 14:20, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edit made on Oct 22 has number of problems: Google is inserted, using Alphabet revenue number for 2022, despite Alphabet already in the table, and the table is for 2021. Suggest reverting this edit. Ddhawk (talk) 16:43, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I undid the Oct 22 edits which inserted 2022 Google(??) results overtop of Apple. The entire table needs to be updated for 2022 values, rather than single lines being edited. See comment above "Please do not mix fiscal years" ! Ddhawk (talk) 16:51, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What about GTA Telecommunications#1[edit]

My Father retired from there but he is deceased both my parents deceased today also govguam retirees My Name Jennifer Nededog Topasna 11 GCA alive on Guam whom just recently found documents court # stating my inheritance that i never knew of till yesterday statement says of tye year 2019 but year today 2023 so looks like i need to take a trip to retirement office later &submit real documents for discovery&get finalized 209.164.184.8 (talk) 19:56, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_largest_technology_companies_by_revenue&oldid=1208255843"