Dell named "Most Admired Company"

[mac-er]

According to CNN/Money, Dell Corp. has been named the most admired company in the country, displacing Wal-Mart, which dropped to 2nd place on Fortune magazine's ranking list.

Rounding out the rest of the top 5: Southwest Airlines, Starbucks, and General Electric.

It should be noted that this list is complied by asking executives, directors, and analysts about their opinions of a company on various categories. This is not a list of the Most Admired Companies by the Public. (This would explain why Dell and Wal-Mart are even on the list).

http://money.cnn.com/2005/02/21/news/fortune500/most_admired/index.htm

 

[iGary]

According to CNN/Money, Dell Corp. has been named the most admired company in the country, displacing Wal-Mart, which dropped to 2nd place on Fortune magazine's ranking list.

Rounding out the rest of the top 5: Southwest Airlines, Starbucks, and General Electric.

It should be noted that this list is complied by asking executives, directors, and analysts about their opinions of a company on various categories. This is not a list of the Most Admired Companies by the Public. (This would explain why Dell and Wal-Mart are even on the list).

http://money.cnn.com/2005/02/21/news/fortune500/most_admired/index.htm

Is there a vomit emoticon?

 

[edesignuk]

From a business perspective I suppose you have to admire them. They have a massive market share and make huge profits. You can't argue with that.

 

[iGary]

Flown on Southwest?

I was actually on the reality show "Airline" when I lost my mind on a desk person after being bumped 4 times.

Starbucks Coffee? Um, yuck.

Dell - they build crap.

 

[edesignuk]

Dell - they build crap.

But they do it efficeintly, dominate the market, and make huge profits. That's what this list is about.

 

[Lord Blackadder]

The title should be "Most admired by other robber barons and rapacious business executives"

In that sense Dell is doing great.

 

[virividox]

bottom line is they make a profit and dominate

 

[daveL]

But they do it efficeintly, dominate the market, and make huge profits. That's what this list is about.

But they're a machine without a soul; they're efficient, but offer no innovation. Technology won't advance because of Dell.

 

[Studawg7]

But they're a machine without a soul; they're efficient, but offer no innovation. Technology won't advance because of Dell.

no, they do innovate. they do it everyday with how they cut costs and pursue markets, hence the number one ranking among execs and analysts.

 

[edesignuk]

But they're a machine without a soul; they're efficient, but offer no innovation. Technology won't advance because of Dell.

This list is not about innovation, it's about business, and Dell have a very big, very profitable one, amongst the best in fact.

 

[OutThere]

According to CNN/Money, Dell Corp. has been named the most admired company in the country, displacing Wal-Mart, which dropped to 2nd place on Fortune magazine's ranking list.

Rounding out the rest of the top 5: Southwest Airlines, Starbucks, and General Electric.

It should be noted that this list is complied by asking executives, directors, and analysts about their opinions of a company on various categories. This is not a list of the Most Admired Companies by the Public. (This would explain why Dell and Wal-Mart are even on the list).

http://money.cnn.com/2005/02/21/news/fortune500/most_admired/index.htm

Walmart second most admired company?

 

[wdlove]

I'm very pleased to see that Starbucks on in the top 5. After reading that the voting is by executives, now its not as meaningful. The voters live in a ivory tower and don't really live in the real world.

 

[puckhead193]

Rounding out the rest of the top 5: Southwest Airlines, Starbucks, and General Electric.

Southwest airlines No wounder why Pairs Hilton like it so much

 

[AnewMac]

Wal-Mart

I cant stand the site or going into Sprawl Mart. Usually you have to park a mile away from the entrance and fight the traffic to get in there. i only go on Sunday mornings at 5:00 a.m. and only then, when I have to

 

[daveL]

This list is not about innovation, it's about business, and Dell have a very big, very profitable one, amongst the best in fact.

I understand that and agree that they should be on this list. I just don't happen to think much of them from a technology point of view. They can't even get off the fence and start producing Opteron servers.

 

[Apple Hobo]

If Wal*Mart and Starpukes can make that list, then it's no wonder Dull made #1. Mediocre PCs and outsourced tech support...lame.

I like GE's light bulbs and jet engines.

 

[Timelessblur]

well at least they are not going law suit happy unlike some company and then suing people who really should not be going after like some company we all know....

 

[JesseJames]

Dudes, just let it go.
The average consumer is a moron. It's all about bang for the buck for them. Not superior product.
We few, we happy few of the ignorant masses.

 

[ObsidianIce]

I gotta say it seems like some people are missing the point. I'm not a fan of Dell...and i've worked there. Their manufacturing/ distribution process simply put is awesome. Their products technically don't suck...as far as PC's not macs go they're quite good. walmart...love it or hate it, but where else can someone go and get your groceries, all the stuff for your kids school, clothes, supplies while having you tires rotated and oil changed and car vacuumed while your wife picks up the card and custom decorated cake for her sister's birthday? No one has done the big box store the way they have. both companies created a spot for themselves and worked some serious magic. Like i said i'm not a fan of either one, but you can't deny that they are big business and both walmart and dell have innovated quite a lot, they just did it process, not product wise....

 

[daveL]

well at least they are not going law suit happy unlike some company and then suing people who really should not be going after like some company we all know....

Well, actually, Apple has little choice in the matter, which seems to escape most people. Apple has to exert its best effort to protect its trade secrets. If it does not, it won't have a leg to stand on when a trade secret *is* compromised. It's just like trademarks, copyrights and patents. Having a patent only grants you the legal right to protect the patent. If you choose not to actively protect the patent (litigate), a court will not rule in your favor when a real patent infringement occurs. It's a similar situation with trade secrets. In short, Apple *must* show a consistent track record of actively protecting its trade secrets or it will lose legal protection by the courts in the event a trade secret is compromised.

The only thing different in Apple's case is that they, unlike many others in the same industry, regard a lot of future product info as trade secrets. Most of Apple's competitors publish a product roadmap; Apple chooses to keep this information much closer to the vest.

This really isn't a case of "that big bad old corporation is picking on some poor college student". Apple tried to get the guy to ease up, and he didn't, so now they have to go the next step a establish the legal precedent. I doubt very seriously if Apple ever intended to harm the guy.

 

[ClarkeB]

Totally pointless: Most admired company voted by exectuives of companies. I mean, of course it wouldn't be by menial slave-workers (I mean, Wal-Mart wouldn't even shine in the top 1000) or by the public (c'mon...even people who buy that garbage Dell pushes know it is garbage). Voting probably takes place like "Well...I'm friends with this company's CEO...but I hate this one!"

 

[angelneo]

I think you have to see it from a business perspective. They do make a lot of money and has dominate the market for PC business.

 

[Timelessblur]

Well, actually, Apple has little choice in the matter, which seems to escape most people. Apple has to exert its best effort to protect its trade secrets. If it does not, it won't have a leg to stand on when a trade secret *is* compromised. It's just like trademarks, copyrights and patents. Having a patent only grants you the legal right to protect the patent. If you choose not to actively protect the patent (litigate), a court will not rule in your favor when a real patent infringement occurs. It's a similar situation with trade secrets. In short, Apple *must* show a consistent track record of actively protecting its trade secrets or it will lose legal protection by the courts in the event a trade secret is compromised.

The only thing different in Apple's case is that they, unlike many others in the same industry, regard a lot of future product info as trade secrets. Most of Apple's competitors publish a product roadmap; Apple chooses to keep this information much closer to the vest.

This really isn't a case of "that big bad old corporation is picking on some poor college student". Apple tried to get the guy to ease up, and he didn't, so now they have to go the next step a establish the legal precedent. I doubt very seriously if Apple ever intended to harm the guy.

I find it so funny how people complain about the RIAA and the MIAA about their law suits and then the 2nd apple does its WAY to go apple yet they are doing the same low leval scumming thing the RIAA and the MIAA is doing by going big.

 

[daveL]

I find it so funny how people complain about the RIAA and the MIAA about their law suits and then the 2nd apple does its WAY to go apple yet they are doing the same low leval scumming thing the RIAA and the MIAA is doing by going big.

Same deal, different day. Whether you like it or not, the MIAA and RIAA have to be aggressive in protecting their copyrights, otherwise the court won't uphold those rights. It's no different than Apple or just about any other intellectual property case. I guess the fact that you consider it to be a "low level (sic) scumming thing" means you partake in pirated copyright material. Or am I wrong?

 

[Timelessblur]

Same deal, different day. Whether you like it or not, the MIAA and RIAA have to be aggressive in protecting their copyrights, otherwise the court won't uphold those rights. It's no different than Apple or just about any other intellectual property case. I guess the fact that you consider it to be a "low level (sic) scumming thing" means you partake in pirated copyright material. Or am I wrong?

lightly yes but most of this offence are how do I put it should be a slap on the wrist. Most of the software on my computer is fully legit and a far chunk of the music. 0 movies just TV shows that I download because I not around but they are weekly TV shows.

Before you thow any stones a fair question is do you own or have anythign that is questionble in nature to even illegle. Some people go over board. I not a full fleg pirated I have some mnior things but having just one thing on the computer that is pirated or not legal makes it hipicrical of me to bash some who does things.


I just think they are going overboard and really to agressivly come on sueing some who has 0 access to the stuff. Sueing a 12 year old the list goes on about this really bad law suits and how overboard it goes on.