1st) The school system has failed us when people dont know what influential means. 2nd) This is a list compiled not of who you like , but the biggest pop culture figures. Pop culture figures influence people , because people look up to pop culture figures. 3rd) Time magazine is a magazine not a dictionary. They dont have to write facts , its just thier opinion. You people act as if the world revolves around them. 4th) Backtothis and Hodapp are %100 right 5th) Obviously TIME magazine gets payed to write thier opinion. That means people pay money to read it. Which further means alot of people agree what with they say. So if you think that they are morons , you might be right , but they are rich morons. In closing yet another EPIC Yemi post , people wake up. Some people act as if the world revolves around you. Learn to read before reacting , learn to think before doing. Be responsible and act adult. When you post here your representing yourself , dont make yourself to look like a fool. You will never ,ever get ahead in life.
A Developer helps, as you say, move the portable gaming industry forward. How does this influence the world. Let's see, it opens up tons of areas of employment. Indie developers can exploit a market which was not there. Apple Stocks go up. Market sentiment improves. Serious gaming takes a hit. Developers who write games like you do find their industry being looked over in favor of casual games. So does it impact you? I think it does. There is a different flow of influence for other pop figures, but it does impact. Indian Cricket team captain is somewhere on that list to. Imagine that. ANd does that influence you? Perhaps not directly. But he's won a Cricket World cup which is a pretty big thing in India. That is about a billion people. So what if it's some obscure game to about 80% of the world. A Justin Beiber or a Sporting Icon will not influence what you eat for breakfast... But the influence is there at a macro-economic level.
These are great points, and ones I cannot argue with. And my beef was never "this guy is not influential". That would obviously be false. My complaint was always (though I didn't express it well at all) that this list is a flat list of the 100 most influential people, all ordered from the most influential to the 100th most influential. When the list is put out in this manner it's like saying "This guy who created a video game is better than the guy who is an extreme advocate for the stopping of world hunger". I don't agree with that notion and I don't think it's proper journalism to sell it off like that. If TIME had kept with their traditional format and listed these people in their respective categories then I'd have no problems. When you rank people in a flat list like this you are inherently comparing A to B. I cannot in my mind put a guy who created a video game ahead of a guy who helps stop world hunger every day. Even if the guy who created the video has reached more people, the importance of the world hunger is far greater than the video game, IMO. So to reiterate, since I know I wasn't very clear last time: My problem is not that he's on the list but how TIME has constructed the list and represented the list in their magazine.
The list said most influential people , not most important people. I cannot understand why people dont know the meaning of influential. No body in their right mind would put a developer ahead of a guy fighting for world hunger. But this list is not about whats important , its about pop culture. Most people never heard of people fighting for world hunger , but they heard of Rivio and Justin corny. Here just look at the dictionary already http://www.thefreedictionary.com/_/dict.aspx?word=influential+person
Once again, by the strictest definition you are 100% correct. However, TIME does not view it this way nor do they sell it this way. It's most def. marketed and viewed as a "Most important people and good-doers" list. The proof in that is TIME's most influential people of the century (released back in 1999). You will notice that Hitler is left off that list. Why? Because he's Hitler and he did terrible terrible things. But he also helped to shape much of the world military as we know it today. His influence is also still felt to this day (in 2011, nearly 70 years since he died). He was def. one of the top 100 influential people of the century yet he is no where to be found on that list. Again, let me reiterate. I'm not arguing the list is inaccurate based on the assumption that it's a list strictly defining the most influential people of the past year. I'm arguing the list is inaccurate based on the way TIME portrays it (using history as proof of this).
Ok no matter how TIME magazine portrays anything the word still has its definition. Another problem I see is who really cares about Time magazines opinion anyway. The only people who read it are people who still believe republican and democrats are different parties , when in all honestly they both f@3k people. Time magazine is in the buisness of selling magazines , not important views.
Solid change of argument jlach when you got hung out to dry by spidey. If only all debates worked like that.
I probably shouldn't be responding to this, but I will bite anyways. I didn't change my argument. In my second reply I posted, and I quote: I just made my response more clear because I know I didn't express it very well. Me going off on how Angry Birds didn't affect me personally was just me trying to drive home my point. It probably wasn't clear but that's how it was supposed to read. Once again, if we view this list in a vacuum then yes, there is no argument to be made. We should, however, strive to view everything (regardless of how important we think it is or not) in the context which it was meant to be viewed in. TIME has made what they feel the context should be pretty clear, and I provided evidence of that. I agree with you that what TIME says isn't all that important to you and I. However, it is important to other people. Also, just because you or I don't think something is important doesn't mean we can't have an opinion on it.
1st, This is sig worthy. 2nd, As others have stated, you can argue all you want about you think that he should have NOT made the cut, but it's your opinion, and that won't change the minds of the people who choose this list. 3rd, In some way or another this is what, when people think of iPod's and iPhone's, this is the first thing that comes to their mind. 4th, Like spidey said, this has provided a lot, A LOT of smaller devs the confidence so they can get their app on the store so they can feed and cloth their familes. So this HAS changed people's lives in one way or another.
Conclusion: Time magazine editors/writers are too busy playing iDevice games to find out more about the world. Oh sure we know what Angry Birds is, but Mubarak? Who the hell is that? Nope doesn't ring a bell since he isn't a video game nor an immobile pig protected by walls waiting to be destroyed by flying legless birds. Yes it can't change that the idiot made it to some list, like anyone with a brain will care about that list anyways.
I've always wonder why anyone would like angry birds, imo it's a piece of crap. Can anyone enlighten me?
Firstly, to you bunch of contrarian idiots who despise Angry Birds for the success it has been, grow up. Secondly, I had heard of him because of his arrogance in regards to other consoles, and how he thinks he is better than Nintendo, which is a reason for my dislike of Rovio. But finally, I can see why many people would look up to him. From nothing, he has managed, mainly by luck, to make a runaway success and earn millions of dollars in the touch economical climate of the present. He is one of the main pioneers and successes in this new, ever growing market and will have undoubtedly have inspired many developers to try the same (even though they won't admit it due to their own comparative failures or bigotry many indie developers, such as Vesterbacka, have recently developed [excuse the pun] ). EDIT: reading previous posts - just because you don't like Angry Birds because eitehr you want to be different to the million who do, you are envious of their success or you plain just don't like it has no bearing on why this person is on said list. How many people know what 'Angry Birds' is? How many of them have bought it? The company that has created such a phase has encouraged millions of developers to take a crack at this market and is a blinding example of what can be achieved with effort, desire and a bit of luck. In fact, he can be a role modal to a lot of people as a genuine success, along the lines as many famous businessmen and women.
We are envious of the success? It's like saying someone dislikes Windows because he is jealous of Bill Gates. Why don't you grow up, because criticizing anti-mainstream people does not make you cool. What's not to dislike about that piece of crap? Repeatedly shooting birds into stone blocks in order to kill pigs, then do that a thousand times more. But you're right about the role model part, he is a very influential person, no doubt.
I'm not criticising anti-mainstream people, for example I love metal as a genre of music, and especially in the UK get laughed out of town for that. I'm criticising people for hating the game because it is mainstream. If you dislike the game (as I do) then that is fine. I agree it is very repetitive, but millions of people do like that sort of thing, and we shouldn't hate the game just because people like it. It's not 'cool' to be anti-mainstream just to be anti-mainstream.
...i'm so sorry for you... I agree with you. And it's really beyond the game, it's the movement that this has become. Granted, perhaps it's more influential in the Western world than the world, but still. This game has introduced a kajillion people who don't play games, into playing games. Hell, most people who play AG would say they aren't gamers. What other issue this past year has moved such a huge audience? (sadly, it is a small little video game, but that's life).
I thought you were generalizing all who dislike angry birds as people who are envious of it's success. I feel like such a prick today. And people in UK does not like metal? I'm going to move there in a couple of years, and now it just seemed to become a bad place.
You nailed it. More than the Wii or DS ever has done, Angry Birds is the game that virtually every person - gamer or non gamer - has played, and has introduced many of these non gamers into playing more, whether they consciously choose to or not. I don't know what is special about the game to have this outcome, but whatever they have done it has worked. Luck is a massive part of all business and these guys hit the jackpot. @Superzarop no worries, debate is good I did word it a bit awkwardly so could see where you're coming from. And the UK is a nice place to live, but two things you have to watch out for - the massive football (soccer?) obsession, and the tendency for the general public to be fed songs off the radio that are normally complete trash, and as a result slag off every other genre they can find. It is sad as people disregard metal as 'screaming' and rubbish (when they haven't actually listened to a single song of it), ironically from people who play the guitar as an instrument (the very demographic who should appreciate it), when it is really a lot more technical and emotional than that.
