4 ms·

The top companies in the US are all new ones (except for GE). AT&T is irrelevant today, as is IBM after it got disrupted by startups Microsoft and Compaq.

grzm 9y ago
Sure, there's turnover. And there will likely always be cycles like that. That only means that companies don't last or innovate forever, not that they can't innovate. Out of curiosity, what criteria are you using for "top companies"? Looking at the top 10 of the Fortune 500 (http://fortune.com/fortune500/ http://fortune.com/fortune500/) and their founding years: 1. Walmart (1945) 2. Berkshire Hathaway (1889) 3. Apple (1977) 4. Exxon Mobil (1870) 5. McKesson (1883) 6. UnitedHealth Group (1974) 7. CVS Health (1964) 8. General Motors (1908) 9. AT&T (1983 as AT&T, 1877 as Bell Telephone) 10. Ford Motor (1903) By market cap (2017, first quarter) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_public_corporations_by_market_capitalization#2017 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_public_corporations_by...) 1. Apple (1977) 2. Alphabet (1988) 3. Microsoft (1975) 4. Amazon.com (1994) 5. Berkshire Hathaway (1889) 6. Exxon Mobil (1870) 7. Johnson & Johnson (1886) 8. Facebook (2004) 9. JPMorgan Chase (1871 as J.P. Morgan & Co) 10. Wells Fargo (1852) I'm not listing these as counterfactual, but only as an example. I know there are different ways of measuring "top" companies, and these are two. It's also arguable that these don't capture the idea of "top innovators". I'm interested in knowing what you're using. I'm probably missing something obvious.
- skookumchuck 9y ago
  By market cap. I'm a bit curious of your founding dates. Alphabet was formed from a restructuring of Google. Google was founded in 1998, not 1988.
  - grzm 9y ago
    I looked them up on Wikipedia. Good catch! Typo. And if I were consistent, I would have made a note on the restructuring as I did in a couple of other cases. The commenter apologizes for the error. ;)
    - skookumchuck 9y ago
      I also checked Berkshire Hathaway (1889). It actually goes back to 1839. But does a series of mergers and acquisitions actually count here? The modern form came from Warren Buffett buying shares in it in 1962, and eventually buying them out years later. Buffett's version of the company has pretty much no resemblance to the company he bought out, they aren't at all in the same business, and he mentioned in 2010 that BH was more of a hindrance than a help. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkshire_Hathaway#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkshire_Hathaway#History Notably absent from the list are behemoths of the past, like RCA, Kodak, Sears, IBM, Ford, GM, US Steel, Union Pacific, etc.
      - grzm 9y ago
        My point (which I'll repeat once and then I'm done) is not that established companies never get disrupted or innovate forever, but to push back against the idea that established companies can't innovate (and that The Innovator's Dilemma contends that disruption is the only way innovation happens), which I took from "Innovation doesn't come from established corporations." (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16665304 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16665304) I don't see anything you've added that contradicts that.

grzm 9y ago

Sure, there's turnover. And there will likely always be cycles like that. That only means that companies don't last or innovate forever, not that they can't innovate. Out of curiosity, what criteria are you using for "top companies"? Looking at the top 10 of the Fortune 500 (http://fortune.com/fortune500/ http://fortune.com/fortune500/) and their founding years: 1. Walmart (1945) 2. Berkshire Hathaway (1889) 3. Apple (1977) 4. Exxon Mobil (1870) 5. McKesson (1883) 6. UnitedHealth Group (1974) 7. CVS Health (1964) 8. General Motors (1908) 9. AT&T (1983 as AT&T, 1877 as Bell Telephone) 10. Ford Motor (1903) By market cap (2017, first quarter) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_public_corporations_by_market_capitalization#2017 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_public_corporations_by...) 1. Apple (1977) 2. Alphabet (1988) 3. Microsoft (1975) 4. Amazon.com (1994) 5. Berkshire Hathaway (1889) 6. Exxon Mobil (1870) 7. Johnson & Johnson (1886) 8. Facebook (2004) 9. JPMorgan Chase (1871 as J.P. Morgan & Co) 10. Wells Fargo (1852) I'm not listing these as counterfactual, but only as an example. I know there are different ways of measuring "top" companies, and these are two. It's also arguable that these don't capture the idea of "top innovators". I'm interested in knowing what you're using. I'm probably missing something obvious.

skookumchuck 9y ago
By market cap. I'm a bit curious of your founding dates. Alphabet was formed from a restructuring of Google. Google was founded in 1998, not 1988.
- grzm 9y ago
  I looked them up on Wikipedia. Good catch! Typo. And if I were consistent, I would have made a note on the restructuring as I did in a couple of other cases. The commenter apologizes for the error. ;)
  - skookumchuck 9y ago
    I also checked Berkshire Hathaway (1889). It actually goes back to 1839. But does a series of mergers and acquisitions actually count here? The modern form came from Warren Buffett buying shares in it in 1962, and eventually buying them out years later. Buffett's version of the company has pretty much no resemblance to the company he bought out, they aren't at all in the same business, and he mentioned in 2010 that BH was more of a hindrance than a help. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkshire_Hathaway#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkshire_Hathaway#History Notably absent from the list are behemoths of the past, like RCA, Kodak, Sears, IBM, Ford, GM, US Steel, Union Pacific, etc.
    - grzm 9y ago
      My point (which I'll repeat once and then I'm done) is not that established companies never get disrupted or innovate forever, but to push back against the idea that established companies can't innovate (and that The Innovator's Dilemma contends that disruption is the only way innovation happens), which I took from "Innovation doesn't come from established corporations." (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16665304 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16665304) I don't see anything you've added that contradicts that.