Talk:List of the largest information technology companies

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Who ignorant people are referring to these technology companies as IT companies? Do you even know what IT is?

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 (talkcontribs) 03:44, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

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)

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.

Ericsson Siemens Phillips Thales Robert Bosch RIM HynixBuryatrider (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:57, 8 March 2012 (UTC).

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)

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. (talk) 14:38, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

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. (talk) 00:35, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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)

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)
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)

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

Need to update hitachi data:

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

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. -- (talk) 11:02, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Outdated info[edit]

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

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

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... (talk) 13:03, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

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)

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 (talk) 18:33, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

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)

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

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 $10.346 billion revenues in 2010)Rangoon11 (talk) 22:57, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Another missing name: Texas Instruments (US$ 13.966 billion revenues in 2010). Rangoon11 (talk) 23:06, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
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)

Contested deletion[edit]

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

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)

Other companies[edit]

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

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

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 (talk) 05:04, 29 April 2016 (UTC)