@ RocketPig

Let's just say I greatly prefer companies which invest their money in constructive efforts. Making just a few billionaires is not that, nor is IMO investing in anti-competive measures. Maybe if someday you are unemployed and live life in poverty you'll change your mind. I give a good percentage of my money to charities, maybe you think that's stupid as I would make good money from this money if I didn't. But I don't care.

And BTW Sony has amongst the highest consumer satisfaction ratings according to various studies, they are market leader with regard to this in various market segments.

GO SONY!!!

MikeB said: @ RocketPig It's not a company's responsibility to hire people just because they have the money. That is bloody insane. Sony isn't doing the world any favors, they (were) a poorly run company that allowed its divisions too much autonomy, making redundant products and products that were subpar by market standards. Seriously, Mike, you need to take a step back and think about some of these things you say. Let's just say I greatly prefer companies which invest their money in constructive efforts. Making just a few billionaires is not that. Maybe if someday you are unemployed and live life in poverty you'll change your mind. I give a good percentage of my money to charities, maybe you think that's stupid as I would make good money from this money if I didn't. But I don't care. And BTW Sony has amongst the highest consumer satisfaction ratings according to various studies, they are market leader with regard to this in various market segments.

I like how you just completely ignored the part where I said MS has tried expanding into new markets consistently over the past decade and Nintendo will likely do the same if their boom time continues. They've only been riding high for a few years now; that's hardly enough time to start creating new business plans to expand their scope of influence.

Oh, and it's bad form to talk about charities when you're simultaneously blasting the company that was formed by the most philanthropic man on the planet, Bill Gates.

I don't know why I even bother responding to you. That's about the tenth time you've blatantly cherry-picked one of my posts.

 

@ RocketPig

IMO they wasted a lot of cash, for example filling for ridiculous patents, forcing others to do the same.

The XBox 360 effort could have been great, if not they rushed it and spout out so much propaganda, which IMO significantly hurts the reputation of the gaming industry.

The core of their business remains their desktop OS monopoly and they try to use (and abuse) this to gain marketshare elsewhere. I have watched various Bill Gates presentations and followed his future outlook predictions, IMO it's astonishing over 90% of such predictions were completely off. (Not to say other companies like IBM or Commodore made big misjudgements as well regarding tehcnology developments)

The 360's biggest advantage is probably that it uses similar tools as Windows. but games based on their technologies have always been hard to port to non Microsoft platforms.



IMO Nintendo should probably stick to what they do best, with so few employees options are probably limited.



It's good PR as your comment demonstrates. But it's not exactly true, it provides tax benefits, PR benefits, etc. We are talking about a foundation which caries his own name (thus PR).

It's not like he has any less beef on his plate. I am more impressed by people who donate without any personal gains and aren't rich.

Having worked on projects for Greenpeace... They really should stop spending so much money on themself (tv ads, print ads, marketing people, merchandise) and use the money for something usefull... like save the earth or something...

@ RocketPig

Regarding Bill's foundation:

"The foundation has also received criticism because it invests the assets that it has not yet distributed, with the exclusive goal of maximizing the return on investment. As a result, its investments include companies that have been criticized for worsening poverty in the same developing countries where the Foundation is attempting to relieve poverty. These include companies that pollute heavily and pharmaceutical companies that do not sell into the developing world. In response to press criticism, the foundation announced in 2007 a review of its investments to assess social responsibility. It subsequently cancelled the review and stood by its policy of investing for maximum return, while using voting rights to influence company practices"

I prefer organisations like Novib and WWF. IMO it's not about how much money you have available, but how you use this to make a better world.

MikeB said: It's good PR as your comment demonstrates. But it's not exactly true, it provides tax benefits, PR benefits, etc. We are talking about a foundation which caries his own name (thus PR). It's not like he has any less beef on his plate. I am more impressed by people who donate without any personal gains and aren't rich.

 

I'm sure the charities being helped aren't going to discrimate between who gave them a donation.  So IMO it doesn't matter at all. 

And you could turn that around and say Sony gave all the information they wanted to Greenpeace purely for PR means, while Microsoft and Nintendo aren't that shallow.

@ SeriousWB

I am sure GreenPeace can figure out things themselves and perform proper investigations.

In any case:

"To maintain its independence, Greenpeace does not accept donations from governments or corporations but relies on contributions from individual supporters and foundation grants."

That's a very un-US like stance. (even a big share of US politics is funded by companies like Microsoft, for example as campaign money)

Does anybody really know what happens with all those millions of broken 360s? Considering all the problems with refurbs I can imagine many people throwing them away with the trash eventually.

I also heard of Microsoft efforts to do good. Ahem, what they did was when Linux made significant inroads into universities they donated them Windows...... LOL

Nintendo only gets a bad rating since they don't disclose the information to Greenpeace on request. The methods they do use would probably get them a middling ranking.

And tech companies are hardly the worst offenders. If all that effort was put against oil, chemical, mining and logging companies it would be far more justified (but less publicised?).