Yes, I am aware of this result and to be honest it scares me. That Sony can do so much shit and still be the most trusted brand in the world is frightening. I wonder what's to stop them continuing to screw over their customers, since people still trust them right now?

However, luckily it won't effect me too much, since I won't be buying any of their products. However, unfortunately, I will still be adversely effected and I can only hope that the general public realise what a bunch of scumsuckers they truly are.

@ omgwtfbbq

Sony is only producing products for highly competitive markets, they don't have any monopoly unlike Microsoft. Personally I don't like Windows that much, I use Windows because many software only get released for Windows and my girlfriend needs some Windows software for her university education.

People buy Sony products and use their services because of their high quality. To give a few example:

"Sony Ericsson ranks highest in mobile phone customer satisfaction

November 20, 2006 Sony Ericsson ranks highest in satisfying customers who have owned their current mobile phone for less than two years, according to a J.D. Power and Associates 2006 U.S. Wireless Mobile Phone Evaluation Study released this week. "

- "Ninety-one percent of all digital camera buyers report doing some type of research prior to purchasing a new camera.

The study measures six factors within each price-based camera segment to determine overall satisfaction: ease of use, connectivity, functionality, cost, picture quality and appearance.

Nikon ranks highest in the $199 or less price segment with high ratings from customers in picture quality, appearance and connectivity. Sony closely follows Nikon in the segment and receives top ratings from customers in functionality. "



- "Sony Assurance Ranks Highest in Customer Satisfaction with Response to Insurance Claims; Zurich Ranks Highest in Satisfying Auto Insurance Customers in Japan for a Third Consecutive Year.

However I do think the platform wars do hurt Sony, also due to fans of rival platforms and people not being able to afford a PS3 right now.

To give an example the unrelated battery incident is often dragged into XBox 360 vs PS3 discussions and news reporting. However research indicates that this had no to little effect on people's perception of consumers products overall:

"Our study results seem to suggest the concern over the defective Sony battery packs was felt primarily by the media. With our interviews extending through the end of October, we observed nothing in customer perceptions that could be definitively traced to the battery recall. In 4Q06, we will attempt through more specific questioning to determine the effects, if any, driven by battery recalls on customer satisfaction.
© 2006 Technology Business Research, Inc. 4 Third Calendar Quarter 2006 Corporate Notebook PC Customer Satisfaction"

yea I don't care about MS at all. I wish they would get out of the console industry. they are going to ruin it just like they ruined the OS industry.

now if Apple makes a console...=D

 You just made my day.

@MikeB

AlixPartners' methodology is pretty weak. This was only conducted in the US. I find BusinessWeek's methodology to be better:

http://bwnt.businessweek.com/brand/2006/

#2 Microsoft
#26 Sony
#51 Nintendo

I am very surprised to see Nintendo to be so high.

I like Microsoft far less than Nintendo, Sony, and Sega. I mean, I'm going to buy the Xbox 360 (I want every single console in existence), and I'll give it a shot. I still have Xbox, and all I play on it is Halo 1, and Halo 2. I'll give Microsoft credit for those games. I don't hate it, I just think it's extremely mediocre. Nothing that shines about it.

At the end, you can't judge a console by itself, but only the games that are available for that console. I like the Xbox 360's hardware, but I think it has a descent game selection. I mean, I like Sony more than Microsoft, but at this point, I'd rather have the Xbox 360 than the Playstation 3, even though I currently own a Playstation 3. And no, I don't like Gizmondo more than Playstation 3.

Anyways, as a platformer fan, I got burned last generation. Crappy Sonic games, Crappy Crash games, no Banjo Kazooie games, one remake of a Conker game, a descent Donkey Kong game (not the same without Rare's touch), Microsoft's failed mascot (Blinx), Namco's failed attempt at bringing Pac-Man back to fame, Jak's crappy sequals (Jak 2, and Jak 3), and crappy Spyro games. All I'm left with is Super Mario Sunshine, Sonic Adventure (don't like Sony Adventure 2), Jak and Daxter (awesome game), and I'll give a few Ratchet's a shot. But yeah, that's it.

Everything else either has reviews too low to consider a purchase (Less than 80%), or just sucks in my eyes (Jak 2, Jak 3, Sonic Adventure 2). So yeah... Three platformers... Microsoft doesn't even have one single good platformer, and that's the main reasons why I don't like it as much as Sony, Sega, or Nintendo. Even Nintendo burned me with Donkey Kong, and Sega burned me with Sonic, and Sony burned me with Spyro (it was too childish for me anyways), Crash, and Jak's later life), all last generation.

I mean, most of my favorite franchises just got worse, when they should have gotten better. Why aren't these franchises taking full advantage of the power of the consoles? It's like wrapping up a piece of crap in a nice looking, strong, durable, garbage bag. They make shitty games with beautiful graphics, and expect people to like them. Games shouldn't be getting worse, they should be getting better. As a platformer fan, last generation had too many failures, and too many absent mascots (Donkey Kong, Star Fox, Sonic, Kirby, Spyro, Crash, Pac-Man, Bust-A-Move, Banjo, Conker, Blinx, Jak (yes, Jak. I hated Jak 2, and Jak 3), Bomberman, and a bunch of others).

Too much attention was poured towards Halo, Metal Gear Solid, and a few other wonderful games. But the past just got a big slap in the face. Even Super Mario Sunshine got worse reviews than Super Mario 64, even though it still got wonderful reviews. Ratchet and Clank: Up Your Arsenal, was the only platformer that got better reviews than Super Mario Sunshine. Nintendo spent so much time, making one Mario game on the Gamecube, and here, a Ratchet game, made so fast that three other Ratchet games could also be made, at the same time of the making of one Mario game, still managed to get slightly better reviews than Nintendo's famous mascot.

Mario is supposed to be untouchable. Ratched touched Mario. I know his four other games did not exceed Super Mario Sunshine, based on reviews, but Up Your Arsenal beat Sunshine, but a score of under 1. Yeah, it's not much, but Arsenal should have been no where near Sunshine's score. Sure, Arsenal is a fantastic game, and it has reason to be better than Sunshine, but face it, Sunshine could have been better. I mean, Sunshine is my favorite platformer of last generation, next to Sonic Adventure, but it could have been better, seeing how Nintendo supposedly put so much time into Sunshine, that they were only able to make one Mario game, even though Sega was able to make 3-4 Sonic games, that rivaled Mario (on the Genesis), and Sony was able to make 3-4 Ratchet games, that also rivaled Mario (on the Playstation 2).

I mean, if Sega, and Sony, supposedly rushed these games, and if Nintendo supposedly took their time with Mario, which explains the lack of Mario platformers, when compared to Sonic, and Ratchet, then how come Mario is rivaled by these platformers? I just hope Galaxy sweeps all of those other platformers off their feet.

Where is Microsoft in any of this? How come there were no platformers I could compare to Mario, like Ratchet, and Sonic? Because there is none. NONE!!! Microsoft's mascot, "Blinx," is all the Xbox had, and it sucked as much as Sonic, and Crash, last generation. Can a failed mascot still be considered a mascot? Are the rules for a mascot supposed to be the greatest franchise the company has made? Well, some people consider Zelda to be better than Mario (I don't), and Zelda is not Nintendo's mascot. Does that mascot have to be a platformer? Well, Sony's Crash, Sega's Sonic, and Nintendo's Mario are all platformers. I guess this excludes Master Cheif, because he isn't a platformer. Well, I guess Blinx is Microsoft's true mascot, because apparently, the mascot is the company's best platforming franchise, and is supposed to look "cute," "likeable," and "first party." Since Blinx is that closest thing, I guess the little furball is Microsoft's mascot.

If I get burned one more time on platformers, I wont like platformers any more. I'll probably change my interests to shooting games, fighting games, and racing games. What a shame... Anyways, Microsoft made some awesome shooting games, but it appears that Microsoft is only good at making shooting games.

I own a Playstation 2, and Xbox, as well as almost every other console in existence, and my Playstation 2, and Xbox, has practically done nothing, but existed. I played my Playstation 2 more than my Xbox, but I still haven't touched it that much. I've even played my Dreamcast more than them, and even the Dreamcast was lacking. I played the Gamecube the most, for only three games; Super Smash Bros. Melee, Super Mario Sunshine, and Mario Kart: Double Dash!! (to me, the best fighting game, the best platformer, and the best racing game), and guess what? I found the Gamecube to be lacking. Why? Why??? Well, all of these are my personal opinions. I've been burned on so many games lately, I'm afraid to buy any more. I know that good games exist somewhere in the game libraries for Xbox, Gamecube, Sega, and Sony, but where? Which games? I liked Metal Gear Solid for Sony... What else? Crash Bandicoot (stop hating on Crash, haters!)... Ummm... What else? I haven't played God of War. Ratchet, Jak, and Spyro are cool. What else is good... Well, Final Fantasy is good (not much of an RPG fan), and I know that there are many other, good games out there (such as Grand Theft Auto). Yeah, I guess the Playstation 2 does have some good games, but when you're a platform fan, then you're kind of screwed with last generation.

What does this have to do with Microsoft? Nothing. That's right, nothing! Why? Because Microsoft has nothing when it comes to platformers. A big no-no when it comes to me. I big, fat, no-no. Now if you excuse me, I'm going back to work, to save up enough money, to buy that stupid Xbox 360, so that I can add it to my stupid collection of gaming consoles. I'll put it in with my other consoles I barely touch (Playstation 3, Atari 5200, Xbox, Sega Saturn, Gizmondo, Sega Gamegear). Hey, I'm not dissing the Xbox 360. All consoles have good games. I know that Xbox 360 is awesome, but when you're a platformer fan, Microsoft just doesn't have a lot to offer.

I like Sony because they've always made innovative products. It seems they (SONY) strive to go the extra mile with technology to make quality products (yes, like BETAMAX, VHS sucked but won). They could've chosen the easy way out with PS3, but to me it seem they're stretching a bit furhter.

I like the X360 because it's a good piece of ass, I mean hardware, but I really don't like that MS is trying to conquer the gaming world also. They have so many other products, like Windows XP, Vista, 2003/2008 Server, MSSQL, Sharepoint, SoftGrid, SMS, MS Office, etc. etc. etc. etc. and they're dominating (read: monopolized) all these areas. I'd hate if they'd dominate the console world also. Balance is needed.

20% Nintendo, 30% Microsoft, 50 %SONY, that'd be about right :)

And I don't understand all the critisism towards SONY. They make a lot of great products. Incredible LCD panels, digital cameras, HD Camcorders, HiFi products, best phones are Sony Ericsson, etc, etc, and it's not like they have a monopoly unlike other companies (MS), but they compete on equal terms.

@ mancandy

Judging a brand on the basis of this is IMO pretty weak. You are rather judging monopolies than the good name of a company. Monopolies pretty much quarantee income for the future.

MikeB said: @ omgwtfbbq Sony is only producing products for highly competitive markets, they don't have any monopoly unlike Microsoft. Personally I don't like Windows that much, I use Windows because many software only get released for Windows and my girlfriend needs some Windows software for her university education. People buy Sony products and use their services because of their high quality. To give a few example: "Sony Ericsson ranks highest in mobile phone customer satisfaction November 20, 2006 Sony Ericsson ranks highest in satisfying customers who have owned their current mobile phone for less than two years, according to a J.D. Power and Associates 2006 U.S. Wireless Mobile Phone Evaluation Study released this week. " - "Ninety-one percent of all digital camera buyers report doing some type of research prior to purchasing a new camera. The study measures six factors within each price-based camera segment to determine overall satisfaction: ease of use, connectivity, functionality, cost, picture quality and appearance. Nikon ranks highest in the $199 or less price segment with high ratings from customers in picture quality, appearance and connectivity. Sony closely follows Nikon in the segment and receives top ratings from customers in functionality. " - "Sony Assurance Ranks Highest in Customer Satisfaction with Response to Insurance Claims; Zurich Ranks Highest in Satisfying Auto Insurance Customers in Japan for a Third Consecutive Year.

Apart from the fact that I have a Sony Ericsson phone and I absolutely hate it why the hell does it keep trying to save the number "0" in contacts I don't press any button yet every time I pick it up it asks me to save the number "0" AARGH plus it runs slow as all hell!!!

Apart from that, from the one Sony product I know, Sony products used to be known for their quality. You would pay extra for a Sony product but know that it was good. Nowadays you pay extra and get the same crappy product you get from anyone else. Only now their batteries explode.

The main reason I think Sony cannot be trusted is not because of the quality of their products, but because of their illegal and immoral behaviours, such as installing rootkits on people's PC's, and then saying "Most people don't even know what a rootkit is, so why should they care?". A prime example of a company that should not be trusted. I know they don't have a monopoly like Microsoft, but hey, having a monopoly doesn't necessarily make you evil! Neither is it a requirement. Of course, absolute power corrupts absolutely and all that. Microsoft is indeed evil, as are many (but not all) monopoly powers such as Verizon, RIAA, etc.

That other survey, however, that places Microsoft at Number 2 and Nintendo at number 51, however, it just plain scary. I can only hope that is a printing error =(