11–18 of 18 posts
Visualization, shmisulization. Only so much that bouncy balls can do to sex up a strangely parochial list. No ARM, no Tesla. But Blackberry is on the list? Seriously? How many CEOs are currently asking themselves "how can we be more innovative, like Blackberry?"
Nice visualisation, but what's the value in this? Symantec's a "global innovator" (really? I'm skeptical, but am I missing something?) And splitting companies into "electronic components" and "computer hardware" seems dubious too, since there's presumably a lot of overlap.
If you're going to do balls in D3, at least do it with force:
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/09/04/us/politics/de...
So yeah, this is sexy, but also quite useless.
Visualization, shmisulization. Only so much that bouncy balls can do to sex up a strangely parochial list. No ARM, no Tesla. But Blackberry is on the list? Seriously? How many CEOs are currently asking themselves "how can we be more innovative, like Blackberry?"
A failure of Blackberry to have a respectable market share does not mean the company isn't innovative. I think any company with its back against the wall is probably attempting to be innovative at every turn.
I haven't delved into the list's methodology, but at a glance it appears to basically be a count of in-house patents, which is a reasonable approximation of the amount of innovation a company produces multiplied by the number of patent lawyers on its payroll. If the second variable is large enough, the first one need not be that significant...
That being said aesthetically it's very pleasing and with some rigour there might be something of value here.
I knew it. When I saw the title with "D3" and "sexy" (or some other over-used overhyped adjective), I just knew it was going to involve some non-sensical clump of animated balls. This is far less useful than even a simple table. If you're going to do balls in D3, at least do it with force: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/09/04/us/politics/de...