Which tech giants will still be around after 100 years?

Horrible article. It makes an arbitrary distinction between products and ideas. I'm sure if you asked Michael Dell, even 10 years ago, what his company is about at its core -- he'd probably say something more like delivering technology to consumers and businesses, customized to fit their individual needs, and using the best processes and efficiencies to deliver at the lowest price possible.<p>Don't bother wasting your time reading it. You'll have wasted two minutes, learned nothing, and have even less respect for the Economist.

Facebook has huge promise, but I think it is still too young to tell if it has legs on the order of a century. On the other hand, Google has already shown its ability to hop platforms again and again (Search to E-mail, Web to Mobile, Software to Automotive), and their head-start in artificial intelligence will make them an important force for at least two decades. I would bet Google is the company of this generation that is still around in 2050.

List of oldest companies: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oldest_companies" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oldest_companies</a>

This article is terrible. It is essentially taking the hottest tech companies of today and making a conjecture that because they have maneuvered well to get where they are, that 100 years from now their methodologies will still apply.<p>I realized this author had no clue when he/she explained that Microsoft isn't a safe bet while Facebook is. Um, last I checked MS had a $200 billion market cap. I don't think you can compare that to a website that has been in existence for 7 years and hasn't even shown profitability. I'd bet a week's pay that he/she hasn't ever used an Oracle product or could even explain how its database technology is used.

I think Facebook is really in the most danger of the whole group. I can't help but think something else will show up.<p>Apple has a good shot, but I think Dell is not going to be around. It just seems like the integrated model is going to last and Microsoft is going to do it own thing (ala XBox).<p>Google might have serious problems if something other than the web shows up and advertising is harder. I am really not convinced (despite the efforts of many) that the web is the endpoint.

Nintendo has been around for over 130 years now, however they've only been a tech company since the 70's

Terrible Article, I am surprised to see the from The Economist. It seems like they just want to name drop the most popular tech companies of late.<p>Facebook has just as much chance of disappearing in 5 years as it does of being around in 100 year.<p>Google probably has a better chance than any of these companies of being around in 100 years, they are in the oldest industry of all time. Advertising. Plus they have shown they are willing to invest in new technologies to stay current, ala self driving cars.<p>Amazon has massive potential, but by no means are they guaranteed.<p>Apple, Google and Microsoft all have ridiculous piles of cash, provided they don't make any stupid big bets, all of these companies will easily be here for the next 100 years just on these cash piles alone.

Weird that Nokia wasn't mentioned. Depending on how you count it, Nokia is nearly 150 years old:<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nokia" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nokia</a>

I'm surprised AT&#38;T wasn't mentioned. Yes, it was broken up as a monopoly, but it's been slowly growing back into its former self.

Intel? I always think of them as the bread and butter of IT. Only 45 more years and they'll be a centennial company.

Yeah, I'd be very surprised if Microsoft ever managed to branch out from only making BASIC interpreters.

I bought Google shares simply to insure myself against the singularity. If AI emerges from Googles data centers, maybe it will have mercy on me because I helped fund it's creation.

Tell me more about these Japanese hotels from the 8th century.

A little surprised Cisco comes in for no love ... if your mission is to provide the best platform for routable network equipment, one would hope as long as there are routable networks they should do OK.<p>Of course, if you don't execute on your mission, dilute your franchise by buying tangentially related companies, gouge your customers, might turn out differently.<p>Are routers and network equipment going to be a commodity, or is a good platform going to keep providing a moat and competitive advantage?

We're still defining IT. The building blocks are the same from card-punching days but what we've built on top of that foundation is light years ahead and evolving faster. Information technology has the most potential to displace or swallow other industries and even redefine the human race. The survival of Google or Apple as a going concern seems pretty immaterial in that context.

There seems to be a lot of focus on a company disappearing by dying, but it's far more likely that any of these companies will disappear via merger or acquisition.<p>When you look at it from that perspective, any of them could go through a downturn in the next 80+ years that leads to some hot new company just buying them outright.

The free software movement giant will definitely be around in 100 years.

Anybody willing to make <i>any</i> predictions about the world 100 years from now is much braver than I am.

Great premise but disappointed with the article's incredibly superficial approach and examination.

I think we are not the target audience for this article...

COBOL Engineering.

Facebook lasting a hundred years? WHAT?! I hardly see Facebook as being in the same league as technology companies like Google, Apple, and Amazon. In fact, I don't really see Facebook as much of a technology company at all, at least in comparison to those I mentioned.<p>I wonder if the author would have said the same thing about Myspace 5 years ago. I bet he would have.