By this logic, no company is ever nice; all companies are out to get our money, and all decisions are made to further this goal. They're all bad. Nintendo is no different, as they want to make profits too.

Instead, I hope we can agree that some companies understand that good will towards their customers is a worthwhile goal, and that it can both increase customer loyalty and satisfaction. Many, many companies do not value this: look at the RIAA, for goodness sakes. Microsoft did not go this route, and I believe they deserve to be commended for it. I am please by any company that understands that pleasing their user base is worthwhile. 

For everyone saying "they need to fix the problem," read the above.

For everyone bashing MS because of this move, yes, they should have made it reliable from the beginning.  But isn't this exactly what a company should do when they've got a reliability problem in one of their products?  Take responsibility for the problem, make it right for existing customers, and fix it for future customers.

I agree. Microsoft still lets people who have illegal copies of their software download security updates. Not many other companies can say the same about people using their software illegally. Also Microsoft goes after spammers, virus writers, phishers, and other types of low lifes who make life hell for many good people. Instead of the constant attacks on them maybe people should cut them a little slack.

I laugh at how some people think they're somehow evil for having a monopoly, many other companies have acted in the same way and never got the same flack that Microsoft has. Apple tried to monopolize online music with the success of it's ipod brand and I never heard the same hate towards them that some people direct at Microsoft. Even Nintendo used to make third parties sign agreements not to make games for other systems yet you never hear of any of the same kind of hate directed at them.

Add to that the billions that the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has given around the world to the very less fortunate. I'm curious besides Bill and Warren Buffet name other heads of businesses that have given billions like that.

Anyways if you want to hate, well go ahead but maybe you should stop and think about what you're hating and why.

 Absolutely right. Pointing out that they did this to make money, while technically true, misses the point. As I already noted, everything that every company does is intended to make more money (With the exception of non-profit organizations, of course), so by this logic every company is evil.

Instead, let's recognize that some companies are good at listening to the needs of their consumers, while otehrs seem to simply ignore issues their customers may have. That latter phenomenon is particularly frustrating; Microsoft didn't do that here, and they deserve to be commended for it.

This needs to be restated: Bill Gates has donated more money to official charities (who knows who donated what to general good causes) than any other human in history.

To me, I think lots of people view Microsoft the way they view Wal-Mart. Other than a few union/pay issues (which aren't as big a deal as many make them out to be), Wal-Mart really doesn't do anything wrong. They don't evade taxes or gouge consumers; they simply are really, really, really, ruthlessley efficient at expanding and shutting out competitors. That's precisely what a company is supposed to do, of course -- compete, and win. It's just that Wal-Mart is so good at, it's suffocating, and that bothers people. For good reasons, perhaps, as there are good indications that Wal-Mart is bad for the country as a whole -- but that doesn't make Wal-Mart immoral.

Microsoft is the same way: they don't engage in any shady business deals, they don't behave in unseemly ways, and Bill Gates does seem, by and large, to be a pretty good guy. MS doesn't engage in unfair business practices. They are just incredibly, ruthlessly efficient at dominating markets.

It's the same reason people love to hate the Yankees (I'm a Cardinals fan, soi I don't like them either). Yes, the Yankees are a symbol of the monetary inequities in baseball. But they aren't doing anything wrong; they are playing by the rules -- both financial rules and the technical rules of the game itself -- and doing an incredibly good job at it. If you want to blame anything, blame those rules, not the team. 

Bingo, companies rarely do things to be nice.  I'm not saying Nintendo is nice, they are overcharging for the Wii after all.  There is a difference though between overcharging for profits sake (what companies are supposed to do) and selling an unreliable product and lying about it for a year and a half.  If Xbox fans (@Stof, point well taken about Xbot, I'll go back to Xbox fan) feel that makes everything right then MS has achieved half that goal by making current users happy.  Whether it encourages or discourages new buyers remains to be seen.  I still think the need to increase sales (again it may not but "qui audet adipiscitur") and move repair costs from next year so it could be profitable were the main driving points.  Making the current user base happy (again I'm not sure why this does) is to the extent it happens merely a bonus.

Sure it's what they should do, around a year ago.  Instead they lied and tried to sweep it under the rug.  Now they can't do that anymore so they finally fess up.  That's not how a company should operate, although many do anyways.  I will say that at least this isn't like an auto company hiding a major quality issue or the body armor company that sold poor quality body armor to the military where those flaws are life threatening.

We aren't talking about the fact that Microsoft was "selling an unreliable product and lying aobut it for a year and a half," we're talking about what they just did now, which was admit to a problem and offer a solution for the customer. Yes, what they did then was bad (although you drastically overstate the case, as they haven't lied and this hasn't been a problem since launch). That's not in question. No one is arguing this point, Alb. We're saying that their reaction to it has been good.

Okay. If we can both agree that companies make almost all their choices in order to increase profits, and agree that there are degrees of "badness,"  then can we agree that admitting to problems and spending 1 billion dollars to satisfy your customers is less bad than most?  

Of course they could still hide it. Why couldn't they hide it? Here's the crux of your argument, and I think it's incorrect.

I'm asking this question seriously, Alb: why couldn't Microsoft continue to hide it?

Good to se Microsoft loosing more money on the X360. ;)