User talk:Samsara/IT giants

Further classifications are possible, e.g. business vs. personal computing; this would single out IBM, SAP, Oracle, Sun.

I decided against including Canon because their business is mostly engineering; they do use semi-conductors and rudimentary operating systems in their devices, but the same can be said of most branches of engineering these days.

I'm also thinking about a separate template for web companies that could include eBay and Amazon besides Google and Yahoo!; these four seem the most significant forces on the web. - User:Samsara (talk • contribs) 12:11, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

What is this template for?
There needs to be a clear definition of which companies should and shouldn't be in the template.

For example, how is Yahoo! more of an "IT giant" than Amazon or eBay? Are we talking revenue here? Influence?

EMC and Cisco certainly belong if Oracle and Motorola are on the list.

It just boils down to what the point of this template is. Is it specifically IT or computing in general or just consumer companies? Without a clear description of what the template is, it can balloon into pretty much anything... Paul C/T+ 22:06, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * To my mind, certainly Amazon sell goods. They're neither an IT nor a computing company. It does say "major". I'm not quite as familiar with Cisco and have to admit to having never even heard of EMC. Revenue would be a good guide, as would influence. A lot of companies depend on what Google, Sun or Novell get up to, for instance. Google certainly have a lot of computing intellectual property, their business was originally built on a novel algorithm. You may wish to educate me on whether Yahoo! can be considered a computing company in a similar sense. They seem to be the main competitor to Google. I don't see the same rationale being true of eBay, whom I would also classify as a service provider. Maybe these kinds of major web businesses could go in a separate template. - User:Samsara (talk • contribs) 15:26, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually... now that I think about it, the way the template is currently, it is very hard to keep WP:NPOV... deciding what does and doesn't "deserve" to be included in the template implies a value judgement unless you can come up with specific criteria for what does and doesn't belong in the template. For example, Amazon has many web services and provide e-commerce expertise for many large companies (Target, Borders, etc.) they also own A9 (a search engine) and Alexa.  Why shouldn't they be in the template?  Why should they?  where do you stop?  What is "major"?  Without a clear direction, this template may belong on WP:TFD... Paul C/T+ 03:22, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


 * BTW, EMC is a very large (almost 10 billion in revenue) computing corporation, they mostly sell storage for large companies tho. Take a look at the companies I added if you aren't familiar with them, they all play major roles in different areas of computing. eBay too, they own Skype and PayPal and you can bet that they see Google as their main competitor (GTalk, Google Wallet (coming soon), Google Base). Cisco pretty much provides all of the networking equipment out there... so they basically run the internet, a pretty big company (20+ billion). Paul C/T+ 03:22, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Your concern applies to all pages and templates similar to this one on Wikipedia. Editing nonetheless succeeds by means of consensus among editors. Some editors seem to think most of Wikipedia should be deleted. I disagree with those editors. BTW, the reason I chose "computing" over "information technology" was to prevent this becoming a long list of telecom companies. - User:Samsara (talk • contribs) 22:07, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd be curious to see similar templates on wikipedia. The only one I found didn't survive TFD even though it was brought back after a deletion review because despite the ambiguity of the template it was found to be useful. I'm not sure this template is nearly as useful... but there would be less people looking at the TFD request, so who knows. Paul C/T+ 16:59, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


 * FFS, will you nominate it if you're that desperate? - User:Samsara (talk • contribs) 17:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

DSPs, computer services
I would add TI to the list of hardware companies as a result of dominance of DSPs (the brain of the mobile phone). Also I would add a tab for computer services outfits like IBM, EDS, Accenture, Capgemini and CSC.
 * I'd like to learn a bit more about the "computer services". This template is about computing in the technical sense. I'm happy to clarify this if I've made it ambiguous. If we start including management consultancy firms, too many articles will want to be included. - User:Samsara (talk • contribs) 13:57, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Extra section for dot-com corporations?
Amazon, eBay, Yahoo! and Google aren't software companies. They're dot-com corporations. I think there should be another section for such dot-coms. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 04:43, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * That's nonsense. Of course they are software corporations. What do you think runs on their servers? Spaghetti? - User:Samsara (talk • contribs) 07:59, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Just because they aren't normally thought of as selling software to the public doesn't mean that they don't do it. Also, they are important because of the software they use and develop to offer their particular service. pschemp | talk 14:56, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * This template focuses on the technology, not on the business. So regardless whether eBay and Amazon distribute desktop software (Google and Yahoo both do), their business is in existence because of the software innovations they made (well, Yahoo is probably not that innovative, but software is still what they do). Software is software, whether on a server or a desktop. - User:Samsara (talk • contribs) 16:49, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * But a spaghetti server is an interesting concept...end world hunger? :) pschemp | talk 18:35, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I forgot to consider that they could be considered to provide Internet software, and that they need to develop software for their servers. However, most people will consider them dot-coms, and since there are several dot-coms in the list, I was considering a seperate section for them. It seems consensus is against this. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 04:08, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * We could think about redesigning this template as a Venn diagram, although I have no previous experience of this - it would depend whether there is a way to implement the tag on Wikipedia. Anyway, I won't be spending sleepless nights over this. - User:Samsara (talk • contribs) 10:47, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Asus
I feel Asus should be on this list. Asus makes motherboards, graphics cards, PDA's, laptops, cell phones and more. They made over 250 million US dollars in 2004. If Asus is not a IT giant then I don't know what is. - CaptainAmerica 04:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * No complaints, I'll add it then. - CaptainAmerica 17:57, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Who removed Asus... and why? - CaptainAmerica 00:29, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Microsoft
This Template appeared on SGI a few moments ago. Nice job to all involved. Anyway, my query is why Microsoft is considered hardware/software ... they dont seem to be in the same league as the others along that row. Jayvdb 09:20, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * They make game controllers (mosty joysticks, but a few game pads), keyboards and mice, and supposedly (even though don't quote me on it) I believe they sell a lot of them. Therefor, I think that would make them a Hardware company - 216.138.170.250 12:56, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Template needs to be revised
I was the guy who suggested that Computer Services Companies be included. Now I feel that some Companies included in Software should not be there at all. Yahoo, Google, Live, E-Bay, Amazon are not Software Companies (though they do develop Software) they are Web Services Companies. This is more accurate than dot com. The major Software outfits are Microsoft, IBM Software, Oracle, SAP, CA and Symantec. So a new tab here please. Also the Hardware tab needs to be loooked at again. Maybe there should be a separate tab for Semiconductors, Servers, Storage, and Communications/Networking Equipment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JamieFoster (talk • contribs)


 * I agree, this article is getting too big. - CaptainAmerica 17:21, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Google and Yahoo produce desktop software, as does amazon (they have an embedded music player, let's avoid the grey areas by being more inclusive). I am currently considering a wholesale revert of changes made in the last two months, as previous discussion has been entirely ignored by the editors. (yes, you, Jamie, and please learn to sign your posts. Use ~ - it's not difficult! - User:Samsara (talk· contribs) 11:20, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Revised Template
I've made alot of changes. i have added Telecommunications Equipment Companies which is what Cisco, Nokia, Motorola etc really are. I have also removed Google, Yahoo, Amazon, E-bay from Computer Software and placed them in a new Web-Services/dot com tab. We have to be careful because there is so much overlap between computing and telecomms. Many people would argue we should include major phone companies like ATT, BT, France Telecom, NTT, Verizon etc. Many people would say the same about ISPs and major mobile phone companies. It difficult to known where this thing ends. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JamieFoster (talk • contribs)

Electronics Manufacturing Services
The reason I have included EMS is because of the following. Your Apple iPod, HP Compaq notebook, Cisco router, XBox 360, Ericcson phone switch or whatever is not manufactured by these companies. It is EMS outfits that produce them under contract for the big brands in Taiwan, China, Philipines, Poland, Mexico or wherever Labour is cheaper than in the US or Western Europe. So the likes of Foxconn and Solectron are totally crucial to the computer hardware industry (both in terms of components and assembly), even though the man in the street has never heard of them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JamieFoster (talk • contribs)

Definiton
We need a clear and solid way to define what a IT Giant is. Any ideas? - CaptainAmerica 23:12, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

ii== Its OK ==

Our IT giants template is pretty good. We have covered the major areas of IT in terms of Hardware, Software and Services. In addition pretty much all the most important IT companies are featured. I am not sure if we should include Novell and Redhat in Software. Although they are important outfits and Linux is a key OS they have very small revenues when compared to say Microsoft or IBM. So although influential they are not at the moment giants. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.94.221 (talk • contribs)

No Advertising
I've noticed that some jokers think they can insert tiny companies that I've (or anybody else) never heard of. It usually happens in the IT consulting tab. This template was created to list the really important hardware, software and services companies. The ones that shape the industry. Although standards bodies and open source are of course vital to the computing industry too. This isn't meant to be the Yellow Pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.93.156 (talk • contribs)

Apple
No Apple in the list? Why? Thunderhawk89 21:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Because you didn't read closely enough? Its there right after hardware/software companies. pschemp | talk 22:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Solved =D Sorry Thunderhawk89 19:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I have to wonder why apple is on the list. While I would not disagree that apple ohpone has had a major impact, apple is small fry in the cellular hardware world. Apple only make one handset, while Nokia sell more handsets in one week than apple has every sold. Just feel that a better justification is needed for apple to be in the list, or for the list to be expanded. 78.105.230.196 (talk) 17:39, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Why is Apple on the list of Major Cellular Hardware providers? Apple have a single product. The other companies in that list actually produce and sell serious cellular hardware. Nokia have sold in excess of a billion handsets. Apple have probably sold a million, if they are lucky. Clearly this change exists because of the hype surrounding the iphone. I firmly believe apple should not be listed as a major cellular hardware provider. Rummypedia (talk) 05:40, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * A million is an underestimate, but I completely agree. Also, Apple has never manufactured any mobile hardware (unlike many of the other companies in the cellular hardware section) - as far as I'm aware, all iPhones are made by contract manufacturers. The iPhone's hardware isn't particularly spectacular either - it's the software that makes the device. Apple is just not a major cellular hardware company. Dark-Fire (talk) 22:23, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Most sought after phone in the world, and you want to say they aren't major. Bizarre. DreamGuy (talk) 13:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Not in my experience - do you have a source for that claim? They have designed two phones and manufactured none - companies like HTC, Nokia, Samsung and Sony Ericsson pump out tens of designs and tens of millions of devices every year. And even if your claim could somehow be proved to be true (which, in most of the world, it is not), Apple's strength is the software it puts on its phones - not the hardware. Also, the fact remains that the other companies in the Cellular Hardware section are in a different league in terms of the number of devices they design and sell. To randomly put Apple in that section is incredibly biased as it implies that Apple is in the same legaue - I bet that Sendo was never on this template. Dark-Fire (talk) 17:12, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You want a source for the iPhone? You can't be serious? It's not random to include it, and not only is Apple easily in the same league as the others, it's above most of them. But, hey, not sure why you bother to post comments here anymore after the template was voted to be deleted as completely worthless.DreamGuy (talk) 22:03, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * "The result of the discussion was no consensus." Anyway, both Rummypedia's comment and this pie chart demonstrates my point, to an extent. And even among the "Others", there are still companies which outclass Apple in terms of the number of designs and devices they produce - companies like HTC and RIM. A good solution would be to come up with a manufacturers' worldwide market share threshold, which manufacturers have to surpass in order to be included in the template - it makes absolutely no sense to have a company like Apple, with a tiny market share, and a grand total of two mobile phone designs, listed as a major cellular hardware company. I don't know where you're based, but outside the US, the iPhone isn't particularly popular, and the US is generally recognised to be years behind most of the world in terms of mobile technology and mobile phone penetration rate. Also, the source I want is something which says that the iPhone is the most sought-after phone in the world, based upon real evidence rather than speculation - the iPhone does not compare well in terms of features to phones in Europe, and it lacks the handwriting recognition features that are apparently liked in the far east due, to its capacitive touchscreen (the reason that many other manufacturers are still using resistive touchscreens). Dark-Fire (talk) 16:01, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * And now I've just properly pointed out that the article is going to be deleted - something which you're apparently incapable of doing. And yet you have the time to defend Apple. Such a fanboy. Dark-Fire (talk) 16:12, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Order of listing within the template
I propose to follow a strict alphabetical order in the template. It seems to me, that additions have been made at rather arbitrary points within the list. I'll sort this for now, but please add only in a way preserving the order. Thanks, MikeZ 16:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

IT consulting giants
There is a new template for IT consulting companies: Let's not clutter the current template with that, it was beginning to get unwieldy... Paul C/T+ 10:23, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

This version is way too bulky...
The seperation lines give extra lines the lines beofre and after itself, the companies list occupies less space than the seperation lines...... --202.40.137.201 07:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Fixed. :-) --AMK1211 16:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Point?
I'm trying to figure out... what's the point of this template? If somebody's looking at the IBM article, why would he be interested in going to the Foxconn article? If they are related, what does this template provide the reader with that a category wouldn't? Yonatan talk 20:44, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Hexaware Technologies Limited
Whatever the purpose of the template, no company (such as the above-captioned one) can be considered a "giant" with revenues of US$56 million and net income of US$8mm. Deleted. Bongomatic (talk) 08:54, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

TeliaSonera not under Telecom tab
I noticed (as a proud Swedish person) that the major Nordic (Swedish-Finnish) Telecoms company TeliaSonera is not put in under the "Telecom" tab. What surprises me is that the Norwegian equivalent Telenor is on, but not TeliaSonera. As far as I know, Telenor and TeliaSonera are about the same size, both with significant interests in Eastern Europe and Asia/Middle East. TeliaSonera is also a major share holder in Turkcell who is also under this tab.

What do you think of adding it?

Thrór (talk) 15:50, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Alcatel-Lucent
I added Alcatel-Lucent in cellular hardware. They not only have a wide range of boring low end phones, they are big players in the mobile phone infrastructre. 78.105.230.196 (talk) 17:44, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

self note
Minors Notebooks --Ramu50 (talk) 04:09, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Advent
 * Averatec
 * Getac
 * Zepto
 * Smoothcreations

Giants are global not local
This template should contain IT giants who operate globally, not large players in a single market. I also think this template is already getting too big and certainly shouldn't have more sections added. If anything, you could take out sections like cellular hardware as that's telecoms not strictly IT. Opinions? --TimTay (talk) 08:29, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

All the ones I provided do operate globally. Note that some company are service provider, they only choose selective countries on each different continent. Shall I split them into 2 template? --Ramu50 (talk) 17:15, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I think two templates would be better. This one is getting awfully crowded. --TimTay (talk) 17:30, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Let's for a second before, I make any changes. Sorry my school servers was down a bit. --Ramu50 (talk) 19:06, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Initially I started editing template, because I think a lot of the computing stuffs, people just don't know enough. When editing a lot of template, I found some of them seems to be only inclusive on some parts, such as Linux Distributions (they included the major and ignore the minor). Well I don't want to says its bias, template after all are made to be navigational. I mean making them to be all inculsive and neat, as my aspect of revolutionizing education initiative is one of the reason I edit Wikipedia. Though I've no expectation that people will follow it. But I just feel editing the template would help some people who want to learn or just want to get over life. After all, people use Wikipedia most to learn right? Thus hoping to use the Wikimarkup Language Licensing. However, creating an inclusive would be a good foundation.

Splitting the template into 2, it would seems like a good idea. But you need to know that a lot of companies only focus on 1 or 2 aspects or products, and while the only some big companies are able to do both the 1 or 2 aspect and General Electronics Interest (e.g. utilities, peripherial).

So I am confused should be keep it as one template, which would be easily understood. Because this template kind of look like the companies of NASDAQ which in turn would be common sense. However, splitting them, is that bias or too centralized on one topics, and not giving the space to think outside the box?

I spoke of this, because I was thinking of including the minor companies, but after some years of research, I found out that they are pretty raw, like the thousands of Open Source frameworks, applications...etc. So if you organize them into all type of categories (like C Programming Creative Developement, Semantic XML variants...etc.) it would really serve well as a guide, but the question is do people prefer to look at the big cloud / aspect of all companies or would they prefer to view it as an centralized topic they want to focus on?

Example More directly speaking, those companies can form a Workgroup, Association or Consortium and believe what they want and self-improve and self-evulate as a group and they can even develop projects like KDE, GNOME. So when you look into those companies, they won't have a feeling of only the major Linux Distributions are king, while other are being ignore. They are special in their own way. The reason why Open Source is such a big developement but have so little value is because, Open Source allows you to express your idea. But people don't have the management skills and a lot of Smartphone look like a template sort of speak, yet everytime when you see them update, they include the expected aspects (like application, TeVO), instead of newly invented ideas). Traditional developers think you have to differentiate between what you want and what you need, but that is not the way. Its like the part of Microsoft that people don't see, Microsoft is actually one of the leaders at combining all aspect together as you see in their Window Live (group work + more intensive CRM such as Office Live) which also including expression / creative idea (Expression Studio, Visual Studio [except they are like CMS], the computer write the code for you but you don't know how to write the code, hence consequences usually will comes (like unexpected events happening in your assembly language level]) while you think something is wrong with Expression Studio (the creative or technical aspect, yet there is nothing wrong with it at all).

Not sure do you get what I mean --Ramu50 (talk) 19:06, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Split template
Template: Computer Manufacturers


 * NOTE: whoever built the above template (see the scant 2 groups under "Manufacturers": just "Motherboards" and "Notebooks") obviously believes Personal Computers is all there is in the Computer concept. What about Mainframe manufacturers, for example? --AVM (talk) 17:08, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

List needed For (Computer Manufacturers) split
 * Cooling Companies
 * Driver developing segements
 * Flash based storage
 * Electronics (boot ROMs, Logic Devices, ICs or any companies that is similar to Via and SiS which mass produce a lot of MCP processors (for nForce), XScale chips (for Intel), Integrated Audio chips for (AMD Chipset)...etc.
 * NIC
 * TV Tuners card

For IT Giants
 * Game Engine Developing Companies (preferably studios not owned by a company)
 * Mobile Devices
 * Graphic Software

Note: that 3G Networks I am thinking have to be separated from this template sooner or later, because the money is gradually decreasing. I mean ever since after the hype of LCD and Plasma, the value of Display have dropped extremely fast, the only thing that is worth money is the processors. Due to the iMac specification promotion, possibility of LCD all-in-one computer might be coming back. All types of new TVs popping all at once, OLED, LaserTV, 3D-HDTV, Multitouch screen, Form factor characterization design of Surface Computing, Globe Computing is a great comeback and gradually being forcingly pushed by the MIDs design rush. --Ramu50 (talk) 00:47, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

New Purpose
I have a new idea for a purpose for this template. I figure people watching this page are about the best audience, but am also posting on Portal:Companies/Templates... How about a couple navboxes; "Top 100 Global", "Top 100 {CountryName}". This Category could help facilitate either a "IT Hardware" navbox or "IT Software"; maybe based on the Forbes or Fortune lists?Mjquin_id (talk) 22:33, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Sega
This template should be added to Sega article, as the template is not there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Junkcops (talk • contribs) 00:17, 30 December 2008 (UTC) [EDIT] It is already there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Junkcops (talk • contribs) 23:25, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Criteria for Electronics Manufacturers
A starter article that I put together for Benchmark Electronics has just been moved to the main article space. I am thinking of adding the company to this template under Electronics Manufacturers tab. What are the criteria for this category? Does Benchmark Electronics qualify? TanKaram (talk) 18:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Up for deletion
Just way too broad of a category the way it's currently used. Might work if broken down into 13 different templates, otherwise serves no practical purpose. DreamGuy (talk) 13:54, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Where is the deletion discussion? The link on the template, etc. goes noplace.  I can find mention saying it is to be deleted, but no discussion on the mater.
 * (I think it should be split instead of deleting, unless there are already templates covering the subdivisions - software companies, hardware companies, etc.) Zodon (talk) 05:44, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The discussion has ended. See Templates for deletion/Log/2009 March 10 ~ Paul T +/C 03:29, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

CSD decline
I've declined and removed the CSD tag, as it was causing articles such as Amazon.com to show up in CSD. Read the TfD page, please, because it has instructions. The reason this template is still hanging around is because no one has yet removed or delinked it from articles. This needs to be done first, then the template can be deleted.  AK Radecki Speaketh  22:14, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It may never complete like this. Let us just delete the template, the removal from pages will be kind of "forced" then.--Kozuch (talk) 19:52, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Unable to find instructions, but have removed all mainspace links (including transclusions) to this template and re-applied for speedy. Bongo  matic  05:34, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Merge
Oppose merge of template:Computer giants into this template, if anything the computer sections of template:IT giants should be merged into Computer giants. (Partly because IT giants is too large and broad already, and because IT giants appears to be going to be deleted.) Zodon (talk) 05:47, 28 March 2009 (UTC)