This is just Time trying to get sales. I'm guessing that April is a slow month sales-wise so they nonsensically release an annual list a quarter of the way into the year. All you can do is laugh, both at the list and how seriously Time appears to take it. To call the people on the list those who most affect our world, and then see Justin Bieber, who apparently is included because he affects your little sister and is a walking joke, on the same list as the President of the U.S. Right...why not include Rebecca Black while they're at it. As for this Rovio, Billy Bob Thornton looking guy, nobody heard of him yesterday and nobody will remember his name tomorrow.
I really think you guys are missing the point. You should really check out what influential means. It doesn't mean fixing everything that's wrong in the world; I can tell you that much. You don't know what Angry Birds has done for portable gaming. It's not about how much you like the game or not; it's about what it's caused. You wouldn't believe it, but the reason why many, many people buy iPods is simply to play Angry Birds. The game has driven the iDevices to become the most sold portable device. Aside from the multi-million empire the developers have created, they've shown that games in the iOS, Android, etc. market can be successful. They've shown that games on portable devices can trend to. It's hard to think this way when you're always around TA, I know. Fact is though, people have much different mindsets than the members here about the iOS and what games on the iOS are all about. Yeah, people might not remember him, but people sure will remember what he's created.
So a game influenced the iPod market. Because of that he's considered one of the most influential people in the world (The 7th most, to be exact). THAT is what I disagree. Since when is gaming and electronics so important that you could be considered one of the world's most influential people? He made a lot of money, he helped Apple make a lot of money, big deal (IMO). He did absolutely NOTHING to influence me and the world around me. I don't play games like Angry Birds, I don't write games like Angry Birds. People who play Angry Birds probably aren't playing games like the one I'm writing. If TIME is going to put out a list of the 100 most influential people in the world I would expect a good 75% of them would have had at least some sort of direct influence over me or the world around me. (I use the word "me" here very loosely to mean the average person). I understand what influential means. And by a strict definition then yes, Rovio was extremely influential in the iOS gaming market. That, however, is not how TIME sells this off. If they wanted to play it off as strictly "Here are 100 people who helped advanced some industry that probably doesn't effect you all that much", then fine. That would be accurate and I wouldn't disagree. When used in this context, however, influential carries a much more heavy load than just "helped something move forward". EDIT: To the poster below me. Being Popular != Being Influential.
I agree with backtothis. People dont understand the list at all. I dont know why they are laughing at Justin on the list as he should be on the list. He is known right across the world and has such a huge fan base. He is affecting them in some way. And Angry Birds has been huge so yes they deserve on it too.
Once again, this is a very opinionated area. Heck, most people last year didn't even think Obama deserved to be on the list (don't argue otherwise please, not here at least). You have to understand what matters to people in the world, especially a multi-BILLION company like TIME. There in NY, I'm pretty certain that advancing the ENTIRE mobile/portable video game industry is a very, very big thing. It's not just the iOS. But like you said in your first paragraph, it's opinion. Just keep in mind that money drives the US, not ethics or humanitarianism.
All opinion, yes. I'm just saying that it's sad (IMO) when a society (that's who TIME speaks for, right?) considers Peter Vesterbacka > William E. Evans. What St. Jude's does for children and for cancer research pales in comparison to anything a game development studio could hope to achieve. Yet us, as Americans, put the game dev on a pedestal and forget the person who really matters. With that said, we probably shouldn't continue. It's never easy trying to change someone's opinion, nor is it right for us to try (plus it's time for me to head home. Half day of work? Yes please!). Agree to disagree =)
You guys are aware that Time is just a magazine right, it's not like this is some end-all-be-all of human accomplishments in 2011. Quite a few of you are assigning a hilarious amount of weight to what amounts to a yearly editorial fluff piece.
Sounds like some people in this topic don't know the meaning of the word influential. No one's saying Rovio's work on Angry Birds is more important or better than cancer research, but how many people do research scientists influence? Barely any, perhaps a few other people in the scientific community. The biggest influences will always be closely related to the popular culture of the times. If Peter Vesterbacka does something Angry Birds-related, thousands or even millions of people will react to that in some way or another. You don't have to like them to know they're in the bigtime. The same goes for Justin Bieber. If he does something, little girls and confused boys worldwide are going to know about it. Doesn't mean he's not a douche.
TIME used to categorize them to provide some context. I recall them having categories such as "Leadership," "Industry," "Pop Culture," "Humanitarian" and other stuff. Makes a lot more sense than lumping them all together on the same playing field.
I agree. And I agree that Rovio has definitely impacted the lives of many of people the world over. I also remember when the TIME list broke these people out in their own categories. "Cultural", "Leadership", etc. Lumping them together is sending the wrong signal, IMO. I also understand I'm being unrational and putting to much importance on a silly magazine article (as Hodapp said). It's Friday, a holiday, and I was supposed to take a half day but haven't been able to leave yet because our QA team can't figure out how to install an ad-hoc build on their iPads (*eye roll*). I needed something to get unrationally worked up over to make the past hour move along at a little faster pace.
It was sarcasm, hence the excessive use of curse words. Rovio has influenced portable gaming heavily, and backtothis pretty much hit the spot with what I was thinking. I figured I would try and brighten your day.
This one guy is probably responsible for more lost payroll dollars than anyone else on the planet. I'd say that is influential.
+1 And people are more likely to be rusults-oriented nowadays, regardless of your tears and sweat behind.
