Microsoft

Poll: Has Microsoft lost its evil corporation status to Google and Apple?

In the past, Microsoft has often been dubbed an evil corporation, but has Microsoft lost its evil corporation status to Google and Apple?

Over the past 30 or so years, the Microsoft Corporation has been depicted by many to be an evil, profit-seeking, idea-stealing, Borg-like identity hell-bent on world domination. And while all that hyperbole was lost on me, I will grant that Microsoft does play hardball when it comes to its business dealings. But now I wonder if the company is really a factor in the "who is the most evil technology company" contest?

Jason Hiner is running a poll over in the Tech Sanity Blog asking which company you trust more with your data -- Google or Apple. Noticeably missing from the conversation is Microsoft. Has Microsoft fallen so far behind in our collective psyche that it does not even register as an evil company these days?

Of course, these companies aren't really "evil" in the philosophical sense of the word; they are just the prominent players in the technology universe and have, just by the nature of their business, an unprecedented ability to impact our lives.

Technology has changed the definition of privacy, and corporations have more personal data about us than they have ever had before. The twist is that we have given them permission to collect this data, and in some cases we have even given them permission to share it with others.

The realization that much of our personal data is now in the hands of powerful corporations has raised the ante on what constitutes "evil" when it comes to business practices. Could it be that Microsoft's ruthless business practices are not really all that evil when one considers the potential for abuse and outright misconduct that could exist from the likes of Google and Apple having so much of our personal data? Has Microsoft become an also-ran when it comes to evil-corporation status?

About

Mark Kaelin is a CBS Interactive Senior Editor for TechRepublic. He is the host for the Microsoft Windows and Office blog, the Google in the Enterprise blog, the Five Apps blog and the Big Data Analytics blog.

70 comments
j814wong
j814wong

They are quite anti competitive. Sure, its business but that doesn't make it any less evil and immoral. In the US, competition in fields such as tech should be encouraged but big companies like to keep competitors down some way or the other. Now, some may call this a conspiracy theory but I know for a fact companies do this: For example, lets say a company is considering supporting Linux as a OS they will put on computers to sell. Microsoft will no doubt, not like this one bit. They will try to use money and influence to unfairly turn the tide to their own favor. This leaves small companies unable to do anything given their lack of resources opposed to big companies. If a company were good, they would welcome competition.

yupi666
yupi666

This poll is tremendously skewed, there is not a "microsoft is still evil, other companies are not even on the same league" option Anyone that is not aware of why microsoft is evil would have to be blind, on microsoft's payroll and living outside of Latin America, they are the kind of company that doesn't do at home as it does next door, and the kind of company that would rather pay a patent infringement fee than actually licensing the work of honest people. That and developing and selling shoddy products at premium prices and turning them into the standard by bribes and political manipulation.

sjprice9
sjprice9

If it was not for any of these companies, we would all not have a job.

altrong
altrong

Face book makes the other 3 look like amateurs. RonG

NeilsonB
NeilsonB

The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist - The Usual Suspects.

spdragoo
spdragoo

Microsoft was never an "evil corporation", at least no more so than Apple, IBM, Dell, Gateway, HP, or any of the other major players over the years.

jazzy5
jazzy5

Is Microsoft Evil? I don't think so, it's just a company doing what all companies do. To sell a product and make profit. But, Microsoft was call evil by someone that felt cheater. For example DOS was created by a programmer that needed money and sold his creation for $10,000 to Microsoft and MS sold the license to IBM. When the programmer found out how much money he could had made the only recourse for him is FUD. He sold his right not knowing what it mean, but then he did not had the contact to make it out anyway. The Department of Justice lawsuit is someone passing money to someone at the Dept of Justice. If will apply the same rules to Apple or Google they also will call monopply too. The addition of Internet Explorer, Windows Media, etc is a nature progression of technology. Just like GM added the electric starter, automatic tranmission, AC to their product, Micorosoft did the same. It was part of the OS software, free, but Netscape drop the ball. They could negotiate with Microsoft to be the provider and get license fee for each IE that came with Windows. No, they thought their product was better and people should pay the same price as an OS. Netscape was better then IE, but they rest on their laurels and Microsoft stater building a better browse and for free. Will you pay $79 for a browser that it let you connect to the Internet, when you can buy Windows 98 for almost the same amunt and have a free browser? What about AOL? Just buy their service for $9.95 and a free browser with "You got Mail". You still had to pay your service provider the $9.95 for the connection regardless which browser you had. So why pay Netscape for a browser? Their greet kill them not Microsoft. All other small companies that Microsoft bought, was and is a progress of technology. Do any person believe that any company can invent everything there is to invent? Microsoft knew that and if when they saw something that someone idea had merrit they bought it, make it part of their portfolio, part of the software. It makes sense, it's not evil. Some sold, some did not, some got buried, somes were sucesfull, but it's the nature of business. If you do not keep up with the technology advances you die. It's not evil, trying to survive, it just nature. Are the Lions, Tigers, Sharks, Dinosaur evil?

Rndmacts
Rndmacts

Microsoft was considered evil by other companies because Microsoft was giving away what these companies believed was their right to make profit on. The more users rhese companies had was more information they had to sell. Of all Microsoft's misdeeds, selling user information was never one of them, they stood by their privacy policies. The security issues of previous versions of Windows aside, Microsoft always acknowledged them and fixed them, Apple refuses to acknowledge any flaws in its OS or to fix them until the next version which you pay to have. Now Google, how many cases are there where Google's endeavours had a secret component which always involved stealing or lifting private individuals confidential information, Facebook buries it but advises the user that they are responsible for their actions (Fail in my book) but Google doesn't mind thievery and then claim it was accidental. Microsoft may have been evil but they always came back and made sure the user benefited, Apple and Google steal and gather information and try to use the most ridiculous excuses instead of actually admitting that they were doing something wrong.I can lived with Microsoft's evil as usually I was the beneficiary but with Apple and Google we never recieve an invitation to the party, but we get shafted anyway.

charleswdavis6670
charleswdavis6670

Humgut, Now that I'm awake. What are your recommendations? I use Microsoft Windows XP, Windows Vista, Windows 7. I use Microsoft Office. In no way does Microsoft own my computers. I have a arrangement whereby I agree to a license that enables me to use those programs.

oangola
oangola

I don't like Apple & Google being put in same bag

Stephen Young
Stephen Young

As I deal with young people and Internet safety issues I have to say that if you want to list the "EVIL" empires, and assuming "EVIL" here is shorthand for business practices that have displayed a lack of morals and integrity then I would like to nominate FaceBook. It's history has been a mixture of disregard for the security of personal information and at times changing of security settings so that information marked as private has been made public without the users consent . Working as I do in the UK under the terms of the Data Protection Act I have legal obligations to take all reason precautions to protect personal data, or risk a large fine, and yet at the same this global company has often fallen far short of that standard. And when faced with the fact that many young people where putting themselves at risk by using it's services inappropriately it's initially reaction came across as "so what, not our problem, ain't going to do a thing about it"

Humgut
Humgut

Microsoft was only ever interested in owning your computer. Google and Facebook own your communications and identity. Wake up sheep!

oldbaritone
oldbaritone

Assign in whatever order pleases you best. Add henchmen as needed. Mwu-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!

blarman
blarman

Microsoft's "evil" is in how they got to be where they are: deceptive and anti-competitive marketing practices, bad software quality in general, and how they leverage their monopoly to force major players like HP, Dell, Intel, etc. to play by their rules. Oh, and their MANY attempts to coop the IEEE standards-making process. Oracle's evil is one of size. Some perceive their value to be lower than other database products, and they certainly have an outspoken CEO. Some don't like their ability to purchase competitors, but is that any different than any other major company? The thing is, Oracle can't really force you to use their products. They may be a major player, but their evil can't be forced upon you like Microsoft's. Apple's evil is one of popularity. Apple's recent computing platforms such as the iPhone, iPad and iPod (with iTunes) make them a target, but let's give them some credit for forcing the RIAA/MPAA into accepting $1 downloads on all songs. While they don't allow you to transfer songs to any device you want, let's at least give them credit where credit is due. And until the iPad starts replacing Microsoft on the desktop, I think it's a moot point anyway. Apple takes a distinct 2nd (or even 3rd) fiddle to Microsoft in the "evil" rankings. Google's evil is in their potential. Not even Microsoft has the capability to ruin people like Google, as Google collects information. Thus its status. So far, however, they haven't really done a whole lot to act on their potential to be evil. Unlike Yahoo, Google bowed out of China rather than turn over Internet search results to the government. And Chrome is a true open-source platform. You're welcome to dislike Google and mistrust them, but for a company with as much potential for evil, they really haven't done much to exploit it.

dlauer
dlauer

Why can there be only 1 evil company? Come on they are all bad and evil. This is why everyone jokes about the lesser of 2 (or 3) evils :)

bwills80
bwills80

I find Oracle to be a bully in business. Look at what they're doing to Sun.

brockers
brockers

Can anyone here think of another company who spends more time trying to force the world to fit their idea of what is good/right/pretty/usable?

RealGem
RealGem

All large successful corporations are seen as evil by anarchists. If not anarchists, then maybe they're simply ignorant. It's probably more of the latter. I honestly don't know if it's jealously or just a desire to have something for nothing (that sense of entitlement that so many people have).

Craig_B
Craig_B

Even though we all use terms such as Good and Evil, in fact these don't really exist, it is all perspective. A company in itself is nothing, though it represents a group of people. The real issue is our business model in America. We have put earning money as the only thing of value a company can bring, then we expect companies to be moral and we rate them as good or evil. We expect them to put society first when we have created them to put money first. If you don't like the game anymore, change the rules.

faustolg
faustolg

At least in the US, most people know that Bill Gates is not Microsoft anymore, in my country, most people think(inclufing some ITs): -all that comes from MS is evil -Bill Gates is the head programmer on every MS program(even windows 7 and server 2008, and office 2010) -Bill Gates is still the chief on MS(he left the CEO chair if I remember very correctly[sarcasm]) -beside that all the MS programs are EVIL, everybody uses them(windows & office) -most of the "linux" users are ubuntu(windows like distro), and most of them(99.9%) are computer illiterates(like all the whole world) and hate MS I would say that pointing at MS as the evil empire is missing a worst one, ubuntu; with the plan of destroying all the distros under the mojo, ununtu is for humans, and the other ones are evil like MS. Apple spies on you allways via iTunes, Iphone, etc; and google probably knows the info of most of the US ctizens by just crawling the web with spiders... and verd@... is right, "this is getting old" that means that every discussion about "evil companies" IS BORING!!!

Ole88
Ole88

is at the top of the "evil" stack. What made Microsoft the "evil" company was their actions leading up to the anti-trust and other lawsuits that were filed against them. I see Oracle heading down that path with all of their mergers and acquisitions over the past several years. I also believe they charge too much for too little when it comes to products and especially support.

msallese11
msallese11

Remember when Apple ran a commercial during one of the 1980s or 1990s Super Bowls in which a woman smashed a television screen as a shot against Big Brother? Now it seems that Apple is Big Brother and gathering all the information about you that it can so as to sell it to anyone willing to pay enough. Steve Jobs at his hypocritical best! Microsoft was always too inept to be an evil company.

Gis Bun
Gis Bun

I can't see how Microsoft would be considered evil. Some say they have an OS monopoly. I'd say no. The others aren't strong enough. Apple could of easily had 25%+ of the OS market but they were greedy because they were making their money off their hardware - not the OS. Has Apple ever complained about Microsoft's socalled "monopoly"? Meanwhile look at all the screwups of late: this location mess, the iPhone 4 antenna [you can't force people to hold a phone Apple's way], lawsuits and counter lawsuits, etc.

GreenPirogue
GreenPirogue

MS has frustrated me over the years (the latest being an update that started an Outlook Express popup after installing XP SP3). Yeah, I know lots are going to say I should upgrade to Windows 7, but I use some proprietary software that may not be compatible with Win 7. This frustration does not make MS evil. I have heard some fairly damning rumors concerning some execs from the company, but who knows if they are true. I love what Google gives me - but they probably have a better opportunity to be evil now. And Apple (I use two Apple products) . . . I was very disappointed in their response to the recent iPhone issue. So two companies I do some business with are perhaps evil.

kevlar700
kevlar700

You want me to run javascript from 21 different domains. How long is it going to take me to work out which of those are evil, I know there's only one domain (not techrepublic.com.com) to allow me to use your survey that I would want to run javscript. That doesn't seem very nice to me.

gechurch
gechurch

I've been amazed for a long time at the great reputation Apple have, and am just as surprised to see no discussion of them in the comments yet. They are far worse than Microsoft has ever been. Their practices are far more anti-competitive than Microsoft's have ever been; they just haven't had the market share to be on people's radar. Now with the iPhone and iPad they have that market share, and I believe people are starting to notice. Having to install iTunes to do basics like copy files, or tether for Internet access is painful (especially since it's such a non-standard app on Windows). And the whole process of requiring apps to be verified by them, and only distributed by them is a disgrace. I don't download many apps, but have been unable to download two apps that I wanted because Apple decided they didn't like them (despite the apps being harmless). These were only small apps, and the author simply didn't have the time to fight them (they were free apps).

verd
verd

It is the old Microsoft bashing again....most of these people who hate Microsoft also hate any big company that makes money AND most of those people are just bleeding heart liberals and progressives who hate any company that makes money and is successful. Even President Obozo is in that boat....Give it up...

grax
grax

There's evidently nothing going on in the real world or you'd find something worthwhile to discuss. The level of iniquity of large American corporations has nothing to do with data storage or usage. All these organisations can be forced to divulge this data to the US government and its agents. Never heard of the Patriot Act? Never forget that all conspiracies are not necessarily just theory.

adrianvaneeden
adrianvaneeden

At least Microsoft is moving towards supporting open standards. Integrating Microsoft platforms with other enterprise environments is easily doable and often not nearly as expensive as people thing (compare SAP or Oracle). I believe the trick is to watch out for the guys who are powerful enough to impact a market, but that focus on proprietary technology and limiting interconnectivity, rather than playing in the standards space and opening up their systems. Something is rather fruity about strategies like this, which have been proven in the enterprise space to fail time and again... Draw parallel to companies like IBM in the '80s. First we had a proprietary PC market, but when the rest of the world got in on the game they lost the edge to the point that they no longer manufacture PC's any more. The proprietary PC-DOS vs MS-DOS rift - Microsoft engaged the now growing IBM-compatible market and grew rapidly, IBM seemed to lose out there again by closing up. Today, well OS/2 hardly even got off the ground and we all know which is the dominant PC operating system. Micro-channel architecture... we stayed proprietary and didn't open up the standards, NETT result being that the broader community did not adopt, eISA taking over if I recall. In the next generation Microsoft seemed to inherit the proprietary mantle and became perceived as the enemy. Although they dominate the PC market, I would hazard to state (with no stats to back me up) that they never got themselves deeply into the mainstream server and system market in the volumes they'd have liked - UNIX, LINUX, Java and other infrastructures retaining share here and possibly even growing. Open-source and other standards started eroding at the edges and guys like Google eventually tipped the scale. Microsoft seems to be starting to play the main-stream open-standards game, which makes the lives of enterprise IT staff much easier. Today the new entrant into "making problems for enterprise systems" is a real poser because they've created a technology that's really "cool" and people who were never interested in technology before (the exec in many cases) suddenly are adopting it and making IT departments go through hell because they want their iPads to do things on the very expensive existing platforms business systems that the devices were not designed for. So the dynamic is different - the fact that the marketing is brilliant has made it more of a challenge because it's creating an ignorant opinion pool that didn't exist before. And how are they making life difficult? Well, they have closed up their systems and software (how do I build quick enterprise solutions on an iPad? With my existing Java team who support the $$$ ERP?); and they choose which technology they'll support (so yes we know Flash is old, but lots of stuff is built on it - what must we do, rebuild everything from scratch?), . Sounds ominously like history repeating itself but this time the danger is that the people who learned the lessons in the past (the engineers) are under pressure from another bunch who have not been through the problems before and don't understand what is required for properly engineered systems.

seanferd
seanferd

Or any number of other organizations? They are all fairly "evil". MS still "wins the contest" due to the sheer volume of users they affect, and their long history. My opinions are not limited to privacy/security issues by any means.

stu.field
stu.field

Their attitude to the customer set the tone and continues to permiate all tech. And not only should you be afraid of how these companies behave but of all large companies. The multinationals have no loyalty to anyone but their executives and stockholders. The banks regularly abuse their position in our economic system and get bailed out by the government. None of them can be trusted to look out after you or the data you are forced to share with them.

AZ_IT
AZ_IT

The internet (the largest source of collected information in the world) is by nature anti-privacy. Let's face it we have little to no say in what information is collected about us, posted on the internet, shared, or sold. The laws necessary to protect our privacy on the internet are not in place and may never be. The means to protect our privacy on the internet may never exist. The way I see it privacy is the cost of doing business on the internet. Do I like it? No. Is it going to change in my lifetime? Probably not. Do I name corporations evil because they collect my personal information? Why would I? That's what businesses do. Just look at all the different data mining programs, I mean rewards programs that exist out there. Even grocery stores collect oodles of information on us. Why should digitally-based businesses be any different?

bboyd
bboyd

Head of the list for tech companies Sony. MS is just predatory and bureaucratic. One of the forms evil takes.

HAL 9000
HAL 9000

I was working with computers before any of the listed companies here and back then I couldn't get enough staff to do the work that we had building up in front of us then. Of course when M$ came about the number of people required increased dramatically as they had such sloppy code that fell over or did strange unexpected things so without M$ I'm sure that a lot of Script Kiddies who insist that they are a programmer because they can write a Macro that partially works would not be employed. Col

kevlar700
kevlar700

NO NO NO NO. Microsoft paid someone $10,000 to rip off (was it qnx) which IBM had their eye on, then call it dos and sell it to them. This dos creator was not the instigator. It is more akin to that true story (forget the name) about the guy who invented timed windscreen wipers and showed it to ford under agreement that he would not sell but license to all car manufacturers. They got him to agree to pheasibility tests and then stopped communication, it was the headline at fords next launch. He spent 8 years fighting in court had a break down and lost his wife. He did eventually become a millionaire off it though. The guy who's skills microsoft rode the back of (kildall) is rumoured to have died an alcoholic. The damage done by the inferior code which would likely have been avoided by gary kildall coding instead of the dos code is unsumountable. from then on history keep repeating itself just with a greater need for care as laws develop (bad coding too). The real problem is justice costs money and time. Microsoft and Apple have lots of money and time and so use it. Googles problem of late has been not having patents to tie the courts up with in order to defend themselves from the rediculous system simply with money. I bet it makes many barristers and judges rich though, which may well be where a big part of the problem lies.

Humgut
Humgut

anthemwebs: You missed my point. MS antitrust practices, baseless IP lawsuits, and strategic sabotage of standards are relatively minor evils compared to Facebook's play to 'become the Internet'. My implied recommendation is to stop surrendering personal information and communication to entities who will trade it off with zero concern for your privacy. I'm glad you're satisfied with the license agreements you have with MS. Myself, I got tired of constantly fiddlef***ing with virus scanners, registry cleaners, and reinstalls to keep systems behaving, and paying for the privilege! My desktops and servers are now all Linux and no more viruses, botnets, bluescreens, reboots, or slooooooowwwwww downs. Freedom.

j814wong
j814wong

Ubuntu? Evil? Ubuntu is part of open source. Open source gives anyone who wants freedom to change the OS to their favor. It gives people the free will to change their OS to however they want. And Free will is a human right. Open source gives people the free will to do anything they want with the code and create what they want out of it. Anyway, Mcirosoft has high rankign people who insulted open sourced saying it is evil. How is it evil? It's not forcing people to release everything as open source? Its not discouraging innovation. It helps to spread ideas and innovation to get it into the hand sof more people who have potential ideas. You said Ubuntu is evil because because it claims to be for humans. Well Microsoft's slogan is "Be what's next." so that means anything else isn't "what's next" and everything else not Microsoft is old stuff. That's not any better. "Apple spies". Know that lawsuit against Mcirosoft recently? That they were tracking people allegedly?

benpagani
benpagani

Besides they have some good products what they're doing with what remains from Sun sucks... openOffice, openSolaris. All the lawsuits regarding Java... Hope they don't touch VirtualBox or MySQL.

adimauro
adimauro

Thank you, exactly what I was thinking. Oracle is on top, they just have little exposure to the general public/media so most people outside of the tech world have little to no idea who they are.

tech
tech

Not a liberal here, by any stretch of the imagination. I have no problem with any company turning a profit. I have no problem with a companies goal being to make money. I have a HUGE problem when huge companies use deceit and their position to bully others into submission. There are many different evil companies all for different reasons. Microsoft has a long history of violating laws and ignoring court orders to do as it pleases, all on the backs of the people it sells to. If Microsoft were truly innovative it would be one thing, but Bill Gates et al built Microsoft on the backs of many other companies, large and small. Here is the SOP (Standard Operating Procedure), First steal the idea and code, if that fails or when they are sued, buy the company, if that fails, climb on top of the company and break its back, rinse and repeat, over and over and over. DOS, was not Microsoft, Windows was not the first (or best) GUI, Word Processing, networking, browser, java, the list goes on and on and time and again the same steps were followed to crush the innovator and steal what was left, stifle further innovation and ensure Micro$oft dominance. There are different evils in the world, Apple, Google, Sony, to name a few. All for different reasons. At least Google gives a little back and only takes what you are willing to give. Microsoft, Apple and Sony are all leaches on society, nothing more. Microsoft is like a leach and has probably done more to stifle innovation than any single company I know of. They use their position to actively crush competition. Apple, is little better, though at least they do occasionally actually innovate. Sony, is little more than a junk yard dog barking mine mine mine, and not taking even very basic security measures, this is an on-going problem for at least 15 years. Maybe, just maybe, there is a reason Microsoft, Apple, Sony and Google have a bad rep. You should look around, maybe even under a rock or two and see if there is a reason for the 'bashing' of Microsoft, Apple, and Sony it is all very well deserved, they have worked tirelessly to earn the reputations they hold. History is a wonderful teacher: As the old saying goes. "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men." - John Emerich Edward Dalberg Acton, first Baron Acton (1834???1902) or perhaps "Unlimited power is apt to corrupt the minds of those who possess it" - William Pitt, the Elder, The Earl of Chatham and British Prime Minister from 1766 to 1778

blarman
blarman

How long have you been studying quantum physics? Microsoft moving toward open standards? You have to be in a parallel universe to believe that. Every time Microsoft gets involved with the IEEE it is to push THEIR version of the standard that still includes royalties and licensing fees! Go look up Microsoft's supposedly "open" document format as the latest example. Microsoft only conforms to open specifications when it can't coop the IEEE working group and is forced into adopting the spec for compatibility.

blarman
blarman

How long have you been studying quantum physics? Microsoft moving toward open standards? You have to be in a parallel universe to believe that. Every time Microsoft gets involved with the IEEE it is to push THEIR version of the standard that still includes royalties and licensing fees! Go look up Microsoft's supposedly "open" document format as the latest example. Microsoft only conforms to open specifications when it can't coop the IEEE working group and is forced into adopting the spec for compatibility.

kevlar700
kevlar700

Microsoft only move towards any kind of open when competition gains ground like the open document format. They then give promises and quash the competition but they're "open" document formats are hardly openly and backwardly useable, now are they. With regards to IBM, No microsoft weren't more open, they just have nothing to do with hardware. IBM pushing their own expensive hardware like apple slowed their market share. In fact microsoft put errors into their OS to make software work around and cause problems to calderas superior dos. See microsoul vs caldera. I cant believe you talk about java and flash as "properly engineered systems". You could have killed me with laughter.

TG2
TG2

You think sony is evil? ... what because of the 70+ million of you people out there that play sony playstation systems and have online accounts linked to you and yours? First, you gave them that data, you thought it wasn't that much for them to have, and you thought the game's you played more important then your data security. Second, Sony's malfunction is just like everyone else's out there.. to think that personal data like names, addresses, and birth dates, aren't commodities that should be secured (read that as *encrypted*) So their tables encrypted CreditCards but not user info ... stupid stupid stupid mistake ... one that I hope they pay for dearly, because it will be something no other company should *EVER* forget again... BUT THIRD... lets look at what the hack was and did .... unless the credit card data was stored elsewhere ... its quite possible the theft included the encrypted credit card data ... the problem is ... that if the hackers were worth their wares ... they were tracking I/O and probably captured keys that would allow them to decrypt the data. I could be wrong in that ... but it seems a likely move.. and that you'd hide yourself VERY well until you had the ability to decrypt the data.. thus you make a mass exodus of all the data you have access to, and thus you get caught from volumes of traffic.. else.. they were caught in the act by luck.. Either way ... its a warning to every company that ALL data regardless of what your company intent is ... should be encrypted, should not be easily accessed by outsiders, and perhaps should require some manual intervention to process transactions (the problem being that this would slow down transactions ... and the real issue is that companies like Sony are hedging their bets ... that they make more money per transaction than it costs them to payout on thefts like this)

HAL 9000
HAL 9000

Ubuntu is Communist because it's not Free Enterprise so it must be bad. Companies like Microsoft are unable to conceive that there are other business Models than the one that they use so anything coming from that different Business Model is Evil it's quite simple really. :D Col

Litehouse
Litehouse

This most recent problem isn't why people consider them evil. It's just the most recent big visible Sony problem. Other things, like purposely distributing rootkits on their music CDs, and removing capabilities (Other OS) from their hardware are reasons many people consider them evil.

CharlieSpencer
CharlieSpencer

You assume it was because of the recent attack on them. Have you forgotten their root kit-laden CDs? That was an outright direct attack on their customers.

kevlar700
kevlar700

They were caught out with rootkits, because it was a rubbish rootkit using 2% cpu. The fact their response was to change their license to make their rootkit legal in california does demonstrate that any software with a long license and closed source is possibly very evil. The worrying thing is that even knowing why they changed their license their was absolutely know indication of any rootkit or evil as the reason from reading the license words. I think licenses and terms should be limited to something like 300 words. Would stop banks hiding things too. Atleast with the open source parts (not flash etc..) of google android i.e the bits provided by google you can gauge the level of data gathered.

JCitizen
JCitizen

I know that they don't mind corporate espionage to filch intellectual resources that should have been protected by our totally obsolete and incompetent copyright and patent office! I know this because I knew about some of the developers; some of which died in poorly investigated accidents. I can't prove a damn thing, but that is what I'll believe to my grave.

bboyd
bboyd

Thanks for flagging the correct event that "outed" Sony as evil.

Editor's Picks