Poll: Which tech company is the most evil?

Microsoft is generally assumed to be evil, Google likes to say that it’s not, and Apple is too cool to care one way or another. Of those three, which do you think is the most evil? That’s the subject of this week’s poll; feel free to cast your vote below or in the middle column on the front page.

Last week, we asked whether you’re going to buy an iPad 2. Most said no, with 35% claiming no interest in tablets at all. Another 22% prefer their laptop because it has a proper keyboard. I suppose that’s fair, although I do wonder why so many folks seem completely disinterested in tablets. Not wanting to buy one is understandable. However, the contempt some seem to feel toward slates is a little puzzling.

Plenty of our readers are interested in tablets, though. 17% intend to skip the second-gen iPad in favor of another slate. 11% are considering the iPad 2, and 10% have committed to buying one. 5% of those who voted aren’t buying an iPad 2 only because they’ve already got a tablet. Sorry, we don’t know how many voted with one.

Comments closed
    • End User
    • 9 years ago

    I’m not surprised with the results. A site that caters to the do-it-yourself PC crowd is not going to be Apple friendly.

    • zqw
    • 9 years ago

    HP!!! But they’re about to save their soul, or something.

    • murtle
    • 9 years ago

    Its so frustrated when I cannot say all of them are evil because there is no way being Company without doing evil things. Else your company not going to long last. You have take or steal from someone to survive.

    “Championing the mediocrity.”

    • CppThis
    • 9 years ago

    Oh man, of all the times you need an “all of the above” choice.

    Let’s see here…Apple is the ultimate example of corporate communism; everything is closed off, innovation is ruthlessly stifled if it doesn’t fit in the Jobs personality cult, and they literally send goons to harass anybody who dares step to them. Bloatware aside, Microsoft is one of the most arrogant and dictatorial organizations in existence as they have adopted a strategy in which their technologists decide how things are going to be (becuase the sad little users do not know what they truly want, of course) and force it on everybody while bludgeoning thier competition to death with endless lawyers and money. Is anybody really buying that cloud computing is anything more than a gimmick to ultimately make every PC user pay $20 a month for an OS? And then of course there’s Google, which believes privacy has a price tag that only they should be able to negotiate. Naturally they’re on the cloudwagon too since if everyone’s data is stored on their server they can mine it for fun and profit.

    As obviously evil as M$ and Comrade Steve are, I think I’ve got to go with Google simply because they’re sneaky about it.

    • Richie_G
    • 9 years ago

    So of all the options to choose who is the most evil: we have three American corporations. Not exactly showing yourselves in a good light.

    • trackerben
    • 9 years ago

    On your source, disputations from the wiki on FAIR

    In 1990, Walter Goodman wrote an article in The New York Times comparing FAIR and Accuracy in Media and stated that the two groups’ “criticism of television and the press is often provocative. But it is always tendentious”, and that FAIR’s “target invariably is bias on the right.”

    In 2006, FAIR criticized U.S. media coverage of Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez, taking issue with the assertion that “… Hugo Chávez is an autocrat who has consolidated one-party rule”.

    If true, and I’ve read some of the criticisms before, then FAIR is invariably biased against what it will selectively present as examples of right wing issue-mongering. Personal ethics considerations aside, this institutional history of unmitigated bias diminishes its appeal as a source of fair and thus trustworthy commentary. Note that I did not say “balanced and trustworthy” as FAIR is supposed to be an analytical and not editorial shop – a distinction drummed into me by my old prof in broadcast journalism.

    • etymxris
    • 9 years ago

    Of those three, Apple is the worst, Microsoft is next, and then Google. Apple has always been about closed platforms, Microsoft has always been more open than Apple, and Google has been more open than both of them.

    As far as tech companies go, those three are pretty tame. There are many better examples in this thread: Monsanto, Rambus, and Sony are just a few.

    • marvelous
    • 9 years ago

    Overpriced junk that target the ignorant and cool wanna be. yep APPLE is the most evil.

    • irvinenomore
    • 9 years ago

    So where the hell is Intel in this poll?

    Strong arming your customers with discounts to push your only competitor out the market isn’t evil?

      • NeelyCam
      • 9 years ago

      [quote<]Strong arming your customers with discounts[/quote<] Hilarious. Giving customer discounts... how evil!!

    • Skrying
    • 9 years ago

    If I had to choose a technology company I actually fear it would be Facebook. I personally still have a Facebook page but I have removed all but the minimum of information. A company whose founder and CEO is basically preaching people throw away their privacy in order for his company to make a profit really does scare me.

    • Meadows
    • 9 years ago

    I’ve just come to a realisation regarding the news text:

    [quote<]However, the contempt some seem to feel toward slates is a little puzzling.[/quote<] I can't believe you're [i<]genuinely puzzled[/i<] why "slates" don't interest lots of people. I mean, give me a coherent argument why they [i<]should be[/i<] interested. I dare you, Geoff.

      • khands
      • 9 years ago

      Interest != Contempt

      A literal hatred of slates is what he’s saying, and I’ve seen it and I don’t understand it either. That being said, I understand people not wanting one, I personally only want to get my wife one because that would be all she needs and then I’d have the laptop all to myself.

      • trackerben
      • 9 years ago

      I’m more interested in arguments which explain why many do not see value in this proposition worth buying. Here are some of the more obvious:

      Some people still haven’t been able to discover the newfangledness – market unavailability

      It takes much time and opportunity to explore and appreciate the uses – paradigm ignorance

      There’s a lag before the strengths of the new paradigm are learned and publicized – adaptive inertia

      Early adopters can take their sweet time figuring best uses and spreading the word – intellectual laziness

      Slates are not cheap, and there are equally desirable and costly things out there – price elasticity

      Slates just can’t function in the way workhorse PCs can – functional predisposition

      Slates just aren’t comfortably useful in the way known, standard devices are – traditional predisposition

      Some people just won’t go with new consumer trends until they are emotionally vested – contrarian sentiment

      There are those who have something better, more advanced, more fit to stated purposes – skunkworks mentality

      *Same as above, but from design by a cooler, higher, greater source – aliensamongus syndrome

    • demani
    • 9 years ago

    EA- defintely EA…

    • Wirko
    • 9 years ago

    There must be some mistake here. This poll should have checkboxes, not radio buttons, next to each option.

    • pogsnet
    • 9 years ago
      • trackerben
      • 9 years ago

      There’s nothing in the Abrahamic texts which state that making obscene profits is in itself an outcome God supposedly forbids or doesn’t like. If you are going to invoke theology you had better be so literate.

        • pot
        • 9 years ago

        He never said obscene profits were ungodly.

          • trackerben
          • 9 years ago

          Yes, he didn’t use those particular words. But please understand my post was a clarification, not a reiteration, i.e:

          “…Producing a product for $10 but selling them for $200 or more, that makes it evil. All of them commits immoral practices to humanity, ungodly to be precise…”,

          can be restated as: “…producing and selling stuff with a 1900% profit margin is evil. All immoral corporate practices, ungodly precisely…”

          and further boiled down to: “…Making a 1900% profit is evil. Corporately immoral, ungodly…”

          Valuing such a humongous profit as “obscene”, and “evil-immoral” as events/properties forbidden by or displeasing to a deity were calls with which many could reasonably agree. You can infer the rest.

    • mcnabney
    • 9 years ago

    Microsoft is the only convicted monopolist on the list, so I voted for them. Apple is just too controlling and Google is really, really nosey. I wouldn’t call either of them evil.

    • flip-mode
    • 9 years ago

    Monster Cables?

    Oh, and [i<]one more thing[/i<]... Steve Jobs hates porn! How can Apple be evil if Steve Jobs hates porn?

      • sweatshopking
      • 9 years ago

      I also share his hatred of porn. That’s a good point…

    • TaBoVilla
    • 9 years ago

    Rambus is the mother of all evil tech companies, there.

    Apple sure is greedy, but they are not evil at all. Their platform is used for content creation more than anything, great apps for graphics and music, their customer support is meh, but certainly not evil

    • bfar
    • 9 years ago

    Slates are awesome, but not $600 awesome. I’ll be interested when they come down to sub $300. Even that’s a lot for something that’s effectively going to get used as an electronic newspaper on the train or the couch.

      • flip-mode
      • 9 years ago

      A huge number of full fledged PC do nothing more than that though.

      • trackerben
      • 9 years ago

      A-ha, that’s what I thought at first. It was two weeks before it became obvious what it was good for, other than showing off to friends and complete strangers.

    • Meadows
    • 9 years ago

    I’m saddened by the lack of an Intel option, but relieved nonetheless that Apple was there on top.

      • sweatshopking
      • 9 years ago

      lol, you would be : )

    • Balfa
    • 9 years ago

    Between the three company listed, Microsoft has a long history of bad business practice. Is there anybody here who really believes that the lockdown they have in corporate environments is because they offer the best product?

    As an IT software developer for 20 years, any place that I’ve works who runs on MS back-ends suffer for poor performance and interminable bug fix on almost anything. ASP .Net is an atrocious framework, overly bloated and complicated for nothing and all our softwares where I work ATM are running only on IE so for most part it is closed technology even if is use XML (Ajax) it just doesn’t works on any browser except MS ones.

    OTOH I own at home a few Mac product since 1 year and the more I use it the more I like. Mac server comes with Apache, Tomcat, Dovecot, WebKit, QuickTime streaming server so all open sources tech here. So why everybody just keep repeating that OS X is a closed system? OS X is 100 times more open that anything that wears an MS badge. The dev docs at their web site is the best I ever seen. Simple and clear, no bloatware here trust me.

    Lastly Google is different, they don’t sell technologies as a business model, they are selling advertising so they have vested interest to distribute freely all their softwares do not forget that. But I really like their Chrome browser I must say so my vote is for the greedy MS all the way.

    • jackbomb
    • 9 years ago

    Easiest question ever.

    Apple.

    • Gerbil Jedidiah
    • 9 years ago

    I don’t feel like reading all of y’alls babbling. Did anyone point out Apple is evil cuz they be driving their factory workers to suicide? To me that takes the cake in a nutshell with a cherry and whip cream on top. and sprinkles. I like me some sprinkles. But not the chocloate ones. They’s fake chocolate. I likez the real chocola. yee indeed…

    HOOOO, the ambien has kicke into high gear it would seem. Yahooooo!

      • Dashak
      • 9 years ago

      what is this i dont even

    • entropy13
    • 9 years ago

    The #1 most evil tech company is obviously the tech company nobody else have ever heard of, so the poll is invalid.

    • quarantined
    • 9 years ago

    More annoying than evil, but I’m sick of seeing Ads by Google. Reminds me of the film [i<]Requiem for a Dream[/i<]: Ads by Google, Ads by Google, Juice by Google, Juice by Sarah... SOMEBODY MAKE IT STOP! Sony gets my vote, but since it's not on the list, then it's clearly Apple because arrogant snobbery is evil's ugly cousin.

    • JustAnEngineer
    • 9 years ago

    The People’s Liberation Army is probably the most evil tech company.

    • The Dark One
    • 9 years ago

    Zynga is clearly pure evil.

    So evil that they seem to have inspired Iain M Banks to make a company just like it and its owner the main antagonist in his latest novel.

    • My Johnson
    • 9 years ago

    I’ll abstain. A company is for the shareholders. If you ask which company best represents for it’s shareholders then I’d go for Apple. Growth like that is just awesomeness.

    • PRIME1
    • 9 years ago

    Skynet

    • thecoldanddarkone
    • 9 years ago

    I vote for, well it’s actually a group not a single entity, the US telecommunication industry.

      • A_Pickle
      • 9 years ago

      [quote<]I vote for, well it's actually a group not a single entity, the US telecommunication industry.[/quote<] Quoted for truth. Though, to be fair, I voted for "Apple" in part [i<]because[/i<] of their collusion and enabling of the worst practices of the U.S. telecommunications industry...

    • dropshadow
    • 9 years ago

    fb

    • jdaven
    • 9 years ago

    This is by far the most stupid thing that TR has ever done. What is going on with you guys?

      • geekl33tgamer
      • 9 years ago

      This site’s tagline is “PC Hardware Explored” – You think were all gonna start magically start voting Apple???? This poll will confirm that TR is definalty in the PC camp.

      There’s more anti-Apple users on here than what there are working at Redmond 🙂

        • A_Pickle
        • 9 years ago

        [quote<]There's more anti-Apple users on here than what there are working at Redmond :)[/quote<] [url<]http://www.microsoft.com/mac/[/url<] They've been infiltrated. ಠ_ಠ

      • A_Pickle
      • 9 years ago

      I dunno, man. I really feel like testing graphics cards with ONLY the highest-end, $1,000+ desktop CPU’s is much worse than fielding an online poll that you’re predisposed to dislike the outcome of.

      • rxc6
      • 9 years ago

      This is only another of your stupid comments and I won’t even attempt to ask what’s wrong with you 😉

    • flip-mode
    • 9 years ago

    Microsoft. By far. People think Apple sucks for implementing closed systems on consumer products. Big frickin deal. The real evil lurks in the server room. Take running a simple joke of a little program like Autodesk Network License Manager. This crummy little program could literally run on an iPhone. All it does is check out license numbers to the desktops running Autocad or whatever. But you need Windows Server to run it. And you need the CALs for Windows Server.

    Most of the stuff that happens on small business servers is cake. Some print serving. Some file serving. Some license serving. Linux is superb at doing all of that, but Microsoft has so many software companies locked in. There’s simply no excuse for Autodesk not making the NLM available for Linux. None.

    Now, you can claim it’s Autodesk that sucks, but there are so many companies out there operating the same way: it’s Windows or nothing. So at the end of the day, it’s really Windows and Microsoft that are the true root of the problem.

    I don’t own a single Apple product and the lovely part is that I actually have that choice. But most businesses out there have absolutely no choice about whether or not they own Microsoft products.

      • provoko
      • 9 years ago

      Linux servers run the majority of the internet. Autodesk most likely chose Microsoft servers to do licensing because MS is in love with DRM/validation and so is Apple, but apple servers are a real joke. On the other hand, Linux is basically anti-drm/anti-validation, so I don’t think Autodesk will ever go with Linux.

      Your example however is one a small time evil. Very small compared to the jacked up prices Apple imposes on it’s consumers, closed platforms, and marketing/brainwashing that it’s been doing for decades.

        • flip-mode
        • 9 years ago

        Well I want to restate the salient points because your post didn’t address those:

        1. Microsoft is forced down your throat. People can choose Apple. People can choose whether or not the price is too high. But Try to find a small business that can choose to go without Microsoft. I’m sure you’ll find a few, but it’s going to be a fraction of 1%. Again, people can CHOOSE Apple, but when it comes to Microsoft, people are generally FORCED. Teachers, like my wife, are FORCED to use Microsoft office – but there’s no one forcing her to use an iDevice of any kind, nor does she. Students are FORCED to use Microsoft Office to submit digital files. Architectural spec writers: FORCED to use MSO. Small businesses that do something other than www: usually FORCED to use MS Windows Server to run their applications.

        2. Um, yeah, that was it.

        So sure, Linux might rule the realm of serving http and FTP and some database, and that’s a huge deal that Linux is a choice there, but real, meaningful choice of operating system in office networks is nonexistent. Your choice is Windows Server 2008, Windows Server 2008 SBE, Windows Server 2008 Enterprise.

        Apple is small time evil that just gets big time press because they’re consumer oriented. Of course a consumer oriented organization is going to get more press than infrastructure, just like more people hate Ford or Chevy than the number that hate Baker Concrete.

          • sweatshopking
          • 9 years ago

          what software should people use instead of MS office? what alternatives are there? Open office? I’ve been trying to force myself to use that awful software for years, and up until about 2 months ago, it was the only office software I used for probably 3 years. After checking out MS 2010, i couldn’t go back to OO. it is horrible. MS office is used because IT’S THE BEST. far and away, no other office software comes close.

          As for autocad, again, i don’t see how that’s MS’s problem. that sounds like an autocad problem.

            • flip-mode
            • 9 years ago

            See my reply to indeego about Autodesk. As for Office – different strokes for different folks… oh, wait, no I often [u<]have no choice[/u<] so no different strokes for me. Get it?

            • sweatshopking
            • 9 years ago

            I understand your frustration, i’m just saying that it’s because nobody else makes anything like it. I’m sure microsoft didn’t get to the position it’s in by playing nicely. There used to be many alternatives, but they’re all gone now. I’m just saying that currently, there’s nothing else to use.

            • flip-mode
            • 9 years ago

            I don’t know how this discussion turned this way; I’m not criticizing MS Office (even though I don’t use it – I use OpenOffice and it it perfectly suitable for my needs).

          • cheddarlump
          • 9 years ago

          Have you considered these 2 facts?

          1) Google docs can open, edit, and save MS office files. It’s free. Quit whining.

          2) Schools get MS products for free, so not only do they get decent software (which they’re ‘forced’ to use), but they don’t have to pay for it.

          Where’s the evil?

          I believe you can use Windows 2008 R2 Web server without CAL’s for that licensing purpose, since it’s cheap and exempts CAL’s for web-based stuff or any services pretty much not hosted by MS.

          I’d wager it’s even cheaper than a 1 year support agreement for ANY distro of linux. If $300 is going to kill you, quit now.

          Licensing info: [url<]http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2008/en/us/licensing-web-server.aspx[/url<]

            • flip-mode
            • 9 years ago

            Your patient and gentle words not withstanding, I still chose Microsoft of the three.

          • migtum
          • 9 years ago

          But Apple IS forced down your throat in particular areas as well. If you’re an audio engineer – you have to use Apple. When Apple bought Emagic, the creator of the popular digital audio workstation software Logic Pro, in 2002, they immediately discontinued further development of the Windows versions of Logic. Microsoft, on the other hand, offers it’s Office software for the Mac as well. Virtually all audio engineering schools and studios use Macs. Using alternate OSs and software in such an environment is as much of a hassle, if not more, than using OOo in a MS Office-only workplace.

          Some Teacher’s Colleges, by the way, require their students to use Macs and Mac-only software. I don’t know if this is widespread, but I know it to be the case at my old school.

          The difference between Apple and MS, as I see it, is that MS just tries to control they products, whereas Apple tries to control how the end-user uses their products. This make Apple more evil. MS couldn’t care less if you run Windows on Macs via bootcamp, but remember all the fuss Apple made with Psystar and the Hackintosh community.

      • indeego
      • 9 years ago

      [quote<]"All it does is check out license numbers to the desktops running Autocad or whatever. But you need Windows Server to run it. And you need the CALs for Windows Server."[/quote<] That is a complaint about AutoDesk, not Microsoft. [quote<]"Most of the stuff that happens on small business servers is cake. Some print serving. Some file serving. Some license serving. Linux is superb at doing all of that, but Microsoft has so many software companies locked in. There's simply no excuse for Autodesk not making the NLM available for Linux. None."[/quote<] That is a complaint about AutoDesk, not Microsoft. [quote<]"Now, you can claim it's Autodesk that sucks, but there are so many companies out there operating the same way: it's Windows or nothing. So at the end of the day, it's really Windows and Microsoft that are the true root of the problem."[/quote<] Tell Autodesk that you want a Linux version, or you'll move on. Ah, that's right, you are making hand-over fist by the product you create with autodesk's product. In fact, I would guess that Autodesk's expense is less than 1% of your company's expenses. Would you be willing to pay for said Autodesk product at % markup, because of the additional costs in supporting the install on another platform? [quote<]"I don't own a single Apple product and the lovely part is that I actually have that choice. But most businesses out there have absolutely no choice about whether or not they own Microsoft products."[/quote<] I still don't see where this is Microsoft's fault. Tell Autodesk? As for choice, the millions that have migrated to Google apps or Red Hat would beg to differ. Hell, I use a food cart that uses a Square CC device and neither Microsoft, Apple have any say in how my lunch was charged. The vendor didn't even think of considering using Apple or Microsoft.

        • flip-mode
        • 9 years ago

        Hey, the poll asked for opinions and I gave mine. The Autodesk issue is an example and you can swap Autodesk’s name out for hundreds of others. In the end, it’s kind of saying Microsoft is “evil” for being successful – for being the standard platform and being proprietary at the same time – and that’s pretty much what the poll can be reworded as: “which company’s success do you like the least”? “Evil” seems to mean is that large, successful, influential companies will do whatever they can to keep competitors from becoming large and successful and influential and to keep their customers from having any other choice.

        My pick from the poll options: Microsoft. Autodesk wasn’t on the poll. Neither was Adobe. Neither was Oracle. It’s all a wash in the end.

          • indeego
          • 9 years ago

          OK but by that measure, Microsoft of all three platforms allows you the most freedom:

          – Their OS isn’t a walled garden. Many different license terms can coexist on Windows. You want porn, have at it, the more the marrier and Windows Indexing will gladly take a look!
          – Their OS has far more applications than IOS/OSX/Chrome/Android. Far more developer support. No developer tax (beyond the toolset)
          – You can install any app you want without a report back to a central market (like IOS/Droid Market)
          – The OS is installed fully on all supported platforms for longer than 3 years (good luck with IOS/Android getting that support.)
          – They offer a cloud platform and a local environment. Google only offers the cloud, and it’s very barebones and nowhere ready for most people’s business needs. Apple would rather you stick with their hardware/software and update more often.

          If Google made a desktop/laptop OS and supported it with decent drivers and support, I could see autodesk showing interest. Autodesk just ported AutoCAD to OSX, right?

            • flip-mode
            • 9 years ago

            Well, I don’t buy into the Chrome OS platform at all – and wonderfully, I don’t have to. Maybe it’s too far ahead of it’s time, but I don’t yet trust the cloud and there’s lots of heavy lifting that needs to be done in my office that the cloud is not suitable for. I would have been much, much, much more excited about Chrome OS if had been some sort of Superlinux.

            As for Apple, I simply choose not to own any of their products and there’s absolutely no downside to that for me. That makes it hard for me to feel the evil there.

            There sure is lots to like about Microsoft, which is why this poll is, to me, more about whose success to you more resent. Apple and Google just don’t affect me in any way because I don’t use their stuff. With Microsoft, I just don’t have the choice not to use their stuff. That’s why I resent Microsoft – I don’t have a choice [u<]not[/u<] to use them. But Windows 7 is still pretty boss; it's certainly the nicest desktop OS ever.

    • NeronetFi
    • 9 years ago

    I vote Black Mesa

      • provoko
      • 9 years ago

      Winner!

    • aftermath
    • 9 years ago

    This conversation is mentally ill, and the views expressed here are amazing and amazingly sad. I’m no better than any of you, but I sure would like to draw the general interest here to the contemplation of a few principles:

    * Is a company more evil because of how it affects other companies, or is a company more evil because of how it treats consumers? If you think that companies bullying other companies, even “evil” companies bullying “good” ones, is worse than companies abusing human beings, even “good” companies abusing “bad” human beings, then you’ve lost touch with reality.

    * Marginalization is one of the most evil forms of human rights violations on the planet. Even when something isn’t explicitly evil, if it has the effect of marginalizing people who don’t play the game then it is still evil. Money is a good example. There’s nothing wrong with money, until you can’t eat food because you don’t have it. Last time I checked, the dirt of the earth is quite adept at squirting out food. Last time I checked, human are quite adept at paving over that dirt, building grocery stores, and denying access to food to people without money. That’s pretty sick.

    * Aggregation is an amazing tool of efficiency and arguably the ONLY business model. However, centralization creates a fulcrum that works against the aggregated and concentrates absolute power into the hands of a few. The rationalize the abuse by reassuring us with the “benefit”. Human beings that willingly give up their rights and willingly centralize control into the hands of the few on whom they become absolutely dependent will get what they deserve. Unfortunately, the innocent will suffer right along with them thanks to the previous principle.

    * Not all change is growth. Sorry, but your smart phone isn’t an improvement in your life if when I take it away from you you become a WORSE communicator then you were before. The automobile doesn’t “advance” your lifestyle if in taking it away you become less capable of living your life then before you ever had one. Growth is what happens from the inside and pushes out. It’s an adding without subtraction. Trees that grow 50 feet in the air still have their roots in the ground. Men who grow to 6 feet tall don’t hollow out inside to reach that size. People who make it through difficult times in life don’t lose the experiences once they’re over. If life as you know it would come to an end without your cell phone, without your computer, without your car, or without electricity then having those resources hasn’t helped you to grow at all. Rather, they have marginalized you and aggregated control over your life into the hands of people who control those resources. Moreover, when you look to your fellow human to help you out after the companies you’ve been dutifully serving have decided to foresake you, you better hope that , unlike you, their lives are an expression of actual growth, which means that they still know how to survive and thrive as a fully functioning human.

    Unless you’re a small child, you know that principles are neither there for us to embrace nor reject. Rather, they provide areas of direction in which we express our human competence as we maximize our lives in those directions or express our human worthlessness as we don’t.

    10 years ago Microsoft was absolute evil. These days, it’s like a reformed convict. It’s not the most trustworthy company around, but ultimately it plays more fair than ever before and just wants to make money by helping other people make money.

    Apple has always been a joke. Today it is pure evil because it preys on the general stupidity of the technically stupid. Anybody who uses an Apple product is a tech fraud because they either don’t know or care about the differences between business and technology, and they are willingly paying the bills as Apple tries to undermine human privacy, security, and rights in the name of shareholders.

    Google is the most evil company on the planet. It preys on the general stupidity of the technically savvy. People who use Google products tend to be smart enough to know why those products are good and yet too dumb to see why they’re bad. This isn’t so surprising. People who have the kind of intelligence that tech enthusiasts have tend to be completely bankrupt in the other areas of multiple intelligences available to fully functioning humans.

    Imagine if in buying a meal, you bought a meal for everybody. Imagine if in growing food, you grew food for everybody. Imagine if in creating shelter, you created it for everybody. Imagine if in providing energy, you provided it for anybody. In the real world, this type of cloned distribution is infeasible, but in the digital world copying files is the easiest thing in the world. Any idiot who volunteers to support, in even the slightest or most marginal way, a system that wants to “manage their digital rights” is an idiot, and anybody who doesn’t support Free Open Source Software, which can provide the digital equivalent to the preceding material conjectures above, must truly loves how their technology helps them to “grow” (by cutting their knees out from under them.) Fools.

      • provoko
      • 9 years ago

      Wow. So I’m guessing you voted Google?

    • UberLaff
    • 9 years ago

    Can we have a poll for which is the most frustrating company?

    MSFT ++

      • NeronetFi
      • 9 years ago

      Samsung Mobile, AT&T ???? those 2 fall in my frustrating company. That and the cable company

    • donkeycrock
    • 9 years ago

    it would be fun to do this poll again, but have the ability to rank from highest to lowest or to put a weight to each company, and then see the results.

    • HisDivineShadow
    • 9 years ago

    Wow, Google’s ahead of Microsoft. Wouldn’t have seen that one coming. Microsoft’s done some pretty heinous things in its past. Google’s got the potential to do more harm, but their history suggests they undo their mistakes pretty quickly. Certainly faster than Facebook.

    I think the most evil corporation is easily Facebook.

      • indeego
      • 9 years ago

      I like Facebook’s evil, they are much more up front about it. People pretty much know if they use Facebook they can kiss privacy good bye. right?

      Basically, tell us everything, and you can play in our land.

        • cphite
        • 9 years ago

        You don’t have to tell them anything, actually. Basically the only actual information you’re required to provide is your name, and that doesn’t even have to be your actual name – not really – though using a fake name would negate a lot of the point of having an account in the first place.

        Seriously – what other information are you required to provide? You have the OPTION of providing your educational experience, your work experience, stuff that you like, and other various personal information – but you don’t have to provide any of that.

          • indeego
          • 9 years ago

          To use the service as intended you network with friends/family/strangers, and those relationships, links, networks are all controlled and logged by a single company that has not shown any interest in long-term preservation of said privacy. It is the modern equivalent of using AOL for your “internet.”

          I’m sure you could use it with fake information, but it’s a privately controlled network, why would anyone bother? We have a public network that doesn’t demand we store private information just to use and access it.

    • derFunkenstein
    • 9 years ago

    You guys asking for your favorite company to be added must have failed reading comprehension courses in school. Welcome to America.

    [quote<]Of those three[/quote<] It's pretty clear (to me) that it's not "most evil corporation ever", it's "most evil corporation out of these three". Not much of a crown, I suppose.

    • Deanjo
    • 9 years ago

    I can’t vote, the #1 evil tech company intel is not listed.

      • NeelyCam
      • 9 years ago

      Did you not see my link? Intel takes corporate ethics seriously:

      [url<]http://www.intel.com/about/corporateresponsibility/governance/[/url<]

        • Goty
        • 9 years ago

        Yeah, because they’re going to come right out and say, “We’re going to deliberately break the law in order to limit our only serious competitor’s access to the market.”

          • NeelyCam
          • 9 years ago

          [NeelyCam – how do you respond? Press 1-3:
          1. Ancient history. They are perfectly ethical now. Look at all the Brazos wins!
          2. Intel’s wrongdoing was never proven – so it didn’t happen. EU is corrupt and greedy.
          3. The only limitation to AMD’s access was their lack of capacity. They sold every CPU they made!
          ]

          > 2… no wait.. 3? Maybe I should choose 1.. nobody here is smart enough to understand 2 or 3

            • Goty
            • 9 years ago

            I’m pretty sure the only choice there should have been “NeelyCam is a moronic fanboy who can’t see past his irrational love of Intel”.

            • OneArmedScissor
            • 9 years ago

            I don’t know that anyone really cares too much about the EU thing. You’re singling that out, and it’s the only incident, of many, spanning many years, that wasn’t targeting a particular issue.

            They’ve pretty much had the world after them since the moment the Athlon 64 showed up:

            [url<]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel#Lawsuits[/url<]

            • anotherengineer
            • 9 years ago

            2. Intel’s wrongdoing was never proven – so it didn’t happen. EU is corrupt and greedy.

            Maybe so, but the same thing could be said about Intel (corrupt and greedy) especially several years ago, and probably any big company (Enron, etc.), but that doesn’t explain all the other countries (Korea, etc) that found Intel in question/guilty and fined, any innocent company would have defended it’s name, but when you have Intel’s monies I guess it doesn’t matter. Didn’t Dell also pay the FTC or some body a big fine for being Intel exclusive w/o reason and they just paid up rather than going to court, kinda smells like a plea bargin to me lol.

            But I digress, what will I have for supper tonight?

        • indeego
        • 9 years ago

        There isn’t a Fortune 500 company without pretty much the same governance policy. And yet they all obviously violate it, given the number of times they sue each other and breach ethics.

        A company is going to choose shareholder value over ethics every time if they believe they can get away with it.

    • Thanato
    • 9 years ago

    I voted Apple as the most evil, because of its closed market approach to selling products. Which to me does more to hurt innovation than help it in my mind. But what really got me not liking apple was the dumb-ass Mac vs PC commercials. But I’ve made a living with PC’s so I might be biased, but then I couldn’t have made a living without PC’s so maybe I’m not.

    – I’d like to add if Apple had the guts to allow its OS on any computer then I would put it’s “evil” quotation on the same level with the rest.

    • blitzy
    • 9 years ago

    evilness in descending order;

    Apple – It’s like a fascist cult, our way or no way. Annoyingly patronizing advertising which talks to you like you’re an idiot. We will tell you what you want. And also Foxconn suicides FTL.

    Microsoft – Anti-competitive history, not afraid to nickel and dime you. Buys its way into markets, e.g. paying game devs to make Xbox360 exclusive titles.

    Google – Provides so many free services and embraces open technology, gathers lots of information about people but I don’t actually think they’re using it nefariously. In fact they show time and again the contrary.

    • can-a-tuna
    • 9 years ago

    No Nvidia so I had to vote for Apple. xD.

    • PRIME1
    • 9 years ago

    Clearly NVIDIA is the most evil:

    -Pushing new technologies like CUDA,PHYSX,APEX,3D,ETC….instead of relying on old crap.
    -Releasing reliable drivers that don’t require constant hotfixes
    -Consistently having the fastest chip
    -Supporting PC game development ahead of consoles
    -Actually making a profit, instead of relying on middle eastern oil money
    -Just plain making AMD look bad, they don’t need the help
    -Supporting basic features like AA in games instead of crying about it
    -Releasing products instead of press releases and cheesy cards with chocolate
    -Successfully entering the mobile market instead of ignoring it and then firing your CEO as if it’s all his fault

    For shame!

      • Krogoth
      • 9 years ago

      Keeping it real

      -Pushing proprietary standards -[gimmicks]- that nobody utilizes unless they get paid to do so
      -Keeps trading the crown for fastest GPU with AMD
      -Abandoning the PC platform for mobile/HPC markets. (PC gaming is already dead and AMD is abandoning it as well)
      -AMD’s GPU division is also making a handsome profit. Their resources are being utillized to make AMD’s next-generation mainstream platforms. (not for gamers)
      -Needs help from ARM for its mobile/tablet exit strategy
      -Cries about the own lack of support for its own proprietary standards.
      -Master of paper launchs and bombastic PR releases that fail to live up to expectations.
      -Still trying get into mobile market with the assistance of aforementioned ARM. Tegra was a failure, and Tegra 2 is getting mixed results.

        • Meadows
        • 9 years ago

        [quote<]Keeping it real -Pushing propertary standards -[gimmicks]- that nobody utillizes unless they got paid to do so -Keeps trades the crown for fastest GPU with AMD -Abandoning PC platform for moblie/HPC markets. (PC gaming is already dead and AMD is abandoning as well) -AMD's GPU division is making a handsome profit as well and utillzing its resources to make next-generation mainstream platforms. (not gamers) -Needs help from ARM for its moblie/tablet exit strategy -Cries about the own lack of support for its own propertary standards. -Master of paper launchs and bombastic PR releases that fail to live up to exceptations -Still trying to get into moblie market with assistance of ARM. Telga was a failure, and Tegla 2 is having mixed results.[/quote<] Good god, this is rich. In order of appearance: "propertary", "utillizes [edit]", "keeps trades", "moblie" "utillzing", "moblie", "the own lack", "propertary", "launchs", "exceptations", "moblie", "Telga" - and right after, "Tegla" (!). Amazing. Out of three tries, you haven't managed to spell "mobile" correctly [i<]even once[/i<], and you screwed up "Tegra" in [i<]two different ways in one sentence[/i<]. That's... something else, Krogoth. I don't know if Prime1 gives you hot flushes or you just can't type with all the caffeine jitter you succumb to in order to suppress your yawning, but this is simply extraordinary. [b<]F-[/b<]

          • lilbuddhaman
          • 9 years ago

          hahahha literally crying laughing.

          You have to remember that some people are still on IE 6.0 and don’t have those stupidity-fixing squiggly red lines under all their spelling mistakes ! (i spelled hahahaha wrong ! TWICE !)

          words i mispell constantly even with them:
          convenient, acknowledge, tomorrow, misspell, conceived, really any word involving the letters “i” and “e”,

          i after e except after c ?

            • Meadows
            • 9 years ago

            All you need is proper education. I don’t use your fabled “squiggly red lines” either, and I’m on a new browser. I disable spellchecking in all my browsers, because it’s wasted energy on the software’s part plus I sometimes use multiple languages.

            • Krogoth
            • 9 years ago

            Nah, it requires being a anal-retentive perfectionist, althought having an English major does help.

            BTW, thanks for being my editor. 😉

            • mutarasector
            • 9 years ago

            … except when pronounced “a” as in “neighbor”.

          • Krogoth
          • 9 years ago

          The grammar nazis are always hard at work. Trying to flaunt their aura of unwarranted self-importance.

          Congratulations for displaying your vast intellect on a hopelessly complex language! We are all in complete awe! You deserve the Nobel Prize for Linguistics!

            • Meadows
            • 9 years ago

            You didn’t even ninja-edit it correctly. Five errors remain, and you didn’t even [i<]look at[/i<] your egregious spelling of Tegra. English is "hopelessly complex"? No, it's not. It's one of the simpler languages in global terms, actually. Even more, you keep mentioning you're "from the US". How do you explain this alien difficulty with the Queen's language, then?

            • Krogoth
            • 9 years ago

            It seems like your sarcasm detector needs retuning and
            [url<]http://images1.memegenerator.net/ImageMacro/4942538/Yeah-He-mad.jpg?imageSize=Medium[/url<]

            • Meadows
            • 9 years ago

            Second ninja-edit, the situation’s improved, but you still haven’t fixed some.

      • Meadows
      • 9 years ago

      Scoring system, I welcome you.

        • willyolio
        • 9 years ago

        clearly TR is dominated by the people who love team RED and the thumbs down button…

          • NeelyCam
          • 9 years ago

          It’s a popularity contest. AMD fanbois are irrational idiots that vote down anyone who dares challenge their “team”. Logic doesn’t matter; neither do actual results (be it benchmarking or financial)

          It’s a la-la land of the ungifted. I’m just here for entertainment.

            • Meadows
            • 9 years ago

            I’m actually an nVidia *and* AMD fan, having disrespect for Radeons and contempt for intel. But that doesn’t mean I like prime1’s garbage any one bit more than the rest of you.

            • Krogoth
            • 9 years ago

            Fanboys come in every shape and size.

            They are tragic victims of Reality Distortion Field(TM).

            • NeelyCam
            • 9 years ago

            I wonder if AMD pays Apple licensing fees for using that technology.

            • clone
            • 9 years ago

            they rent it, they can’t afford a full term license.

    • ImSpartacus
    • 9 years ago

    Where is Sony? Adobe? Intel?

    When I think stereotypically evil, I usually do look towards Microsoft and Apple, but when I think actually [i<]evil[/i<], I see only Sony, Adobe and Intel. Sony tries to be Apple. They have all the negative aspects of Apple, but few of the positive aspects. At least Apple can engineer the fuck out of a product and make people shit themselves looking at it. And never forget the Blu-Ray debacle. Sony wouldn't directly try to replace HD-DVD before the products went to the market because then they would have to share the licensing revenue. No, they put the market in a tailspin for months because they want all that money for themselves. And they won, they succeeded. Adobe is just asleep at the wheel. They are almost responsible for all the security breaches stemming from Reader and Flash. It's appalling. It's like they [i<]want[/i<] their customers to suffer. It took Apple to rise up and slam the door in their face to Intel is simply anticompetitive. When you mention "Intel" and "monopoly" in the same sentence, everyone thinks of CPUs and AMD, but I think of USB 3.0 and Lightpeak. Remember back when Intel was taking 16.5 years to release the final USB 3.0 spec? Other companies almost came up with their own specs. That would've splintered USB 3.0, killing the whole "universal" part of it. And never forget about Intel's absurd reluctance to adopt USB 3.0 on new chipsets. So why would Intel slow down USB 3.0 adoption? Hmmm, maybe because they a promising, but immature technology that would compete with USB 3.0? Intel makes no money on USB 3.0, it's free by definition. However, they can charge for Lightpeak licensing... So who is really evil? The innovation-craving company that constantly strives to brings quality consumer products to the layman? The business-minded company that keeps their bread-and-butter software rock solid through two decades of hardware change? The information-obsessed company that opens absurd amounts of knowledge to the layman for nothing in return? No, none of these companies. The truly evil companies stay out of the lime light. EDIT- Omg, I just wrote a 350 word essay. I'm going to take a walk now.

      • indeego
      • 9 years ago

      I can see evil in Intel, but lightpeak and USB 3 isn’t where I’d list the top ten.

      Intel and Apple probably had inklings of Lightpeak many years before USB 3 was approved, and they found limitations in USB 3 that didn’t push their platform enough.

      Not to mention by not adopting USB 3, Intel may have certainly harmed itself. The company I work for delayed purchase of CPU’s basically because there’s very little difference in a PC from 3 years ago and todday in terms of getting work product out. Having USB 3 might have pushed us to adopt x months sooner.

      My point is Intel not adopting something would leave a competitor the chance to adopt a technology where a hole exists and steal marketshare. It happened most recently with AMD64. Companies were actively ramping up AMD in the early 00’s as Intel faltered with the Hertz race.

    • geekl33tgamer
    • 9 years ago

    Apple’s way out in front (Not supprising given the audience of this site), and yeah they got my vote. Not because they are evil (other companies like Sony win that hands down), but because Apple are just so arrogant compared to the others.

    The staff in an Apple store talk to you like you have no brain cells for a start, and then theres the price. How long can they keep pushing that crappy Mac Mini with a 2 gen old C2D at over £600 without a monitor, keyboard or mouse???

    • indeego
    • 9 years ago

    [i<]The Tech Report[/i<], for taking away green.

      • kvndoom
      • 9 years ago

      Heh, too funny….

      Personally I’d vote for sony

    • XaiaX
    • 9 years ago

    This poll is 12 pounds of crap in a 5 pound bag.

    • Da_Boss
    • 9 years ago

    None of them.

    This poll reminds me of the scene in Austin Powers where Number 2 defects from Dr. Evil. I’m attempting to explain why he didn’t want to just rule the world, he exclaims:

    “I spent the last 30 years of my life turning this two-bit evil empire into a world class multi-national. I was going to have a cover story with Forbes. But you, like an idiot, want to take over the world. And you don’t even realize that there is no world anymore! It’s only corporations!”

    Anyways, I think some need a dose of reality, courtesy of Number 2. No companies are inherently malicious, or ‘evil’. They’re simply doing what their shareholders, and the general public in a capitalist society expect: Make money. In 2011, in a Western civilization, I’d hoped we would’ve all realized this by now.

    I think a better topic would’ve been: Why is it so socially acceptable for tech companies to circumvent corporate tax laws, openly outsource jobs, and, in Google’s case, lobby for the dismantling of the open internet?

      • OneArmedScissor
      • 9 years ago

      In some cases, the “evil” things they do end up costing them tons of money, though. If corporations were really so hell bent on just making money, they’d emphasize efficiency more than many tend to.

      Often, they just end up at the top of their game one day, their competitors fade away, and they become careless because, hey, the money magically just keeps coming!

      …until it doesn’t. See: Sony and MS’ video game division. Now compare that to Nintendo.

    • Coulda
    • 9 years ago

    None of those 3 really falls into category of evil in my book. why only 3 choices? My vote goes to Monsanto.

      • Imperor
      • 9 years ago

      Monsanto: Because ruling the world is for little children, real evil goes straight for the jugular and takes away all life not created in their labs!

        • UberGerbil
        • 9 years ago

        Back in college I went with a buddy to an engineering job fair. Dow and Dupont had booths right next to each other, and he went up them waving his resume and loudly asked “Which one of you is the ‘Death Gel’ company? Because I’m a senior in Chemical Engineering with a 4.0 GPA and I want to work for whoever does the ‘Death Gel’!”

        I don’t remember what they said, but I’ll always remember the looks on their faces.

    • ybf
    • 9 years ago

    Left out some obvious contenders:

    Adobe
    Sony
    Oracle
    the RIAA and MPAA

    …oh, you don’t think that last choice is a tech company? Well, then, who invented DRM?

    • bhtooefr
    • 9 years ago

    [b<]Of the three[/b<], I'll say Apple. Microsoft usually promotes hacking (the good kind) their platforms, and lately they've been too incompetent to pull off the full-scale evil that they used to be capable of. Google does quite a lot of good, although they've also done some evil, and they're in the position to be the most evil by far. Apple is either openly evil, or openly arrogant. The problem is, their business model is contagious, and infects the rest of the industry. So, I'll go with evil. (Of course, Sony was who I was looking for.)

    • srg86
    • 9 years ago

    [quote<]although I do wonder why so many folks seem completely disinterested in tablets. Not wanting to buy one is understandable. However, the contempt some seem to feel toward slates is a little puzzling.[/quote<] I'm more puzzled why you like them so much, to me they are totally useless, give me a Netbook over a tablet any day. At least with that I can do something with the machine (in my case some sort of programming) rather than just read books and look at the web. Anyway as for is poll I voted Microsoft Though I'm not a fan of them seeming to want to know everything about people, Google are definitely the least "evil" of the three. I loath apple with most of my being, as I want to use a computer how and what I want, not what God Jobs sais I can (the ipad and tablets are perfect for this). This is tempered by the fact that a lot of good open source projects are developed at apple (including CUPS for example). As far as i'm concerned, MS products are a lot better than they used to be, but still don't feel solid and as far as the company, they'll shaft you anyway they can as soon as they get the opportunity. This all said, had the option been there, I would have voted Sony.

    • bthylafh
    • 9 years ago

    Microsoft based on their sheer backlog of past evil, but count me amongst those who would have voted Sony if they’d been included.

    • morphine
    • 9 years ago

    Any of the three mentioned are worthy of an evil sticker. A few points, however:

    – About the hate on Apple: just because a company makes good/cool products, doesn’t mean that they can’t act in an evil fashion anyway. And there’s been plenty of that in the past couple of years from their camp.

    – What was especially irritating about Microsoft back in the day was that they were evil *and* had shoddy products, many only sustained by the sheer force of their monopoly. Nowadays they seem to be wising up to some degree, but they’re still pretty rotten in some areas (and I’m certainly not forgiving their past deeds just yet)

    – And regarding Google, they’ve already pulled some nice stunts and are potentially in the [i<]position[/i<] to do the most damage.

    • Johnny5
    • 9 years ago

    A corporation will do whatever it can to get profit, it’s just the way corporate structures work. If you asked most of them about business ethics they’d probably laugh at you, which is why it is up to the law and the people to push them in the right direction. Mostly a company making things a bit worse for the consumer, the environment, or whatever else in the name of profit can be annoying, but it’s very understandable. It’s when they do things that are very bad for the rest of us, yet are hardly beneficial at all to them that starts to rub me the wrong way. It just feels like a slap in the face. So who do you think is the worst offender in that regard, in recent memory, and over the years?

      • NeelyCam
      • 9 years ago

      [quote<]A corporation will do whatever it can to get profit, it's just the way corporate structures work. If you asked most of them about business ethics they'd probably laugh at you, [/quote<] Yeah, there are certainly those companies out there, but some truly honorable companies take ethics seriously: [url<]http://www.intel.com/about/corporateresponsibility/governance/[/url<]

    • NeelyCam
    • 9 years ago

    Honestly, trying to pick one of the three is too difficult. I can’t consider any of those companies particularly evil.

    We need “other” as an option

    • grug
    • 9 years ago

    Sooo….

    Intel pay AMD $1.25 billion for being evil, and pay NVIDIA $1.5 billion for being evil, but they’re not even on the list???

    I was kinda hoping Microsoft would win, considering they paid the EU over $1 billion for being evil, after an already much publicised antitrust settlement with the DOJ.

    But no, let’s vote for Apple because they’re “snotty and arrogant” and won’t let me run whatever apps I want!

    Intel, Microsoft, SCO, Rambus, there are plenty of ‘more evil’ companies.

    How about smaller companies that just outright commit fraud like ECS/PC Chips, who used to ship motherboards with fake cache RAM chips?

      • Goty
      • 9 years ago

      They didn’t pay the EU for being evil, they paid the EU because Average Joe PC user don’t even know what a browser is and is therefore incapable of making the decision to switch. Basically, Microsoft paid the EU because people are dumb.

        • NeelyCam
        • 9 years ago

        Intel paid NVIDIA 1.5bil to renew license agreements. It wasn’t about “being evil.”

          • Goty
          • 9 years ago

          You’ve got to let it go, bud. You replied to the wrong person. 😉

            • NeelyCam
            • 9 years ago

            Ah crap. Just too many fishies in the sea… I lose track sometimes

            • indeego
            • 9 years ago

            It’s OK. You can reply to this post by saying Intel likes the Biege/short theme of TR.

            • NeelyCam
            • 9 years ago

            Intel likes the Biege/short theme of TR.

        • no51
        • 9 years ago

        I thought they just needed a bailout but their federal banks were tapped dry?

      • sschaem
      • 9 years ago

      Apple is way more then “snotty and arrogant”, as this poll shows.

      They represent a dictatorial regime, the type people despise…

    • blastdoor
    • 9 years ago

    Hierarchy of evil:

    1. banks/brokerage firms (at least in the US)
    2. oil and mining companies (particularly in China)
    3. cable and telecoms (at least in the US)
    4. music and movie/TV studios

    Compared to that assortment of a-holes, Apple, Google and Microsoft are all a bunch of boy scouts.

    • moog
    • 9 years ago

    Interesting results, if you’re the leader, your image is fscked basically. Explains why I hate the yanks and lakers.

    • blastdoor
    • 9 years ago

    The Apple hate isn’t at all surprising given the audience for this site. I’m consistently amazed that there’s anyone here who *doesn’t* hate Apple.

    For me, it was a tough call between Microsoft and Google. I had to choose between “desire to be evil” and “capacity to act on evil.” Clearly Microsoft has the greatest desire to be evil. But MS has become so totally inept in efforts to implement evil plans that it’s hard for me to take them seriously anymore.

    Google, on the other hand, is more evil than they claim, though perhaps not as truly evil as MS. But because Google is much more effective in everything they do, both evil and non-evil, I ended up voting for them.

    Regarding Apple — I don’t think Apple operates on the same good/evil continuum as other companies. Apple has its own values and I think its actions are consistent with its values. Apple just wants to make products that they think are great and charge as much as they can for them so that they can continue to make great products. With Apple, the customer comes first, the employee comes second, and the shareholder third. Competitors, business partners, and suppliers are to be ruthlessly exploited to the fullest extent possible. As a customer and shareholder, I’m cool with that.

      • HisDivineShadow
      • 9 years ago

      It’s interesting that you say that because… my perception is not that, “the customer comes first, the employee comes second, and the shareholder third.” My perception is that the pecking order is, “Steve Jobs comes first, the wallet of Steve Jobs comes second, the shareholders come third, the customer comes fourth, and the employees come… never.”

      I say this because of the fact that Apple makes a lot of decisions with regards to iOS devices and Macs that do NOT benefit the consumer at all. For example, the complete inability to use flash on iOS devices, removing even the choice of using it. Or telling developers that they CAN NOT use conversion tools to bring over apps from other ecosystems, attempting to lock them into only iOS. Or the sheer lack of customization on iOS devices that would make sense (ie., how long it took to get apps, how long it took to get backgrounds and login screen changing, the fact that they took away the orientation lock on iPads, no SD support on iOS devices, no HDMI port on any iOS device).

      So many examples of times when Steve Jobs overrode something seemingly because he decided YOU don’t need it even if… you do for me to agree with you. Plenty of opportunities to see Apple do something seemingly ONLY to make more money and not serve the consumer, though, which would technically be putting Apple interests ahead of the consumer’s. Remember when they used to charge users for the iOS updates?

      • nunifigasebefamilia
      • 9 years ago

      [quote<]Regarding Apple -- I don't think Apple operates on the same good/evil continuum as other companies.[/quote<] Wow. Just wow. Now I think I know what "reality distortion field" means 😀

    • TEAMSWITCHER
    • 9 years ago

    How (for the love of all that’s good and holy) is Apple evil?

    Apple is the only manufacturer from which I would buy a laptop computer – THE ONLY ONE. Where is the PC in a 1″ thick all metal enclosure with a high quality screen like the MacBook Pro? Want a high end PC? No problem – but were gonna put it in the same plastic ugly case as the $299.00 black Friday special – GREEDY EVIL.

    Microsoft asked almost $400.00 for a retail copy of Vista Ultimate edition and I had to pay another $200.00 for the Windows 7 (service pack) that made it worth using, that’s $600.00 just for one decent OS upgrade – GREEDY EVIL.

    Google is letting manufactures ship a half baked Honeycomb 3.0 OS with the first round of Android tablets. Have you read the reviews? This thing is a piece of crap – crashes and compatibility issues abound. Motorola, Acer, Samsung, LG, all plastic tablet pawns sent ahead to be completely wiped out by the venerable iPad 2. Google hoping only blemish Apple’s aluminum armor. – CARELESS EVIL.

      • NeelyCam
      • 9 years ago

      My troll detector ran out of batteries, but even without my trusty companion I sense some trollishness here

        • kravo
        • 9 years ago

        oh, thank you, I had a good laugh 🙂

        • TEAMSWITCHER
        • 9 years ago

        Dude this website has nothing but trolls of one variety or another – Apple, Microsoft, Google, Intel, AMD, nvidia, take your pick. I completely understand the anti-apple sentiment though. Apple has been kicking every other tech company in the privates lately. And by privates, I’m talking wallet.

        Did you know that in the cell phone industry (not just smart phones) Apple is taking 51% of the profits. One company reaping over half the industry profits – ouch! It might be evil…

        In the personal computer space, Apple dominates with over 90% market share of computers costing more that $1000.00. Those are the high-margin machines that reap gobs of profit for Apple. The Macintosh business unit of Apple alone would be 114 on the fortune 500 – it’s hugely profitable – but not evil…

        Now the iPad 2 is coming out Friday already and from the looks of it, it’s gonna be another big winner.

        So there you have the Apple II, the Macintosh, the iPod, the iPhone, and now the iPad. That’s five huge runaway hits for Apple. Everyone knows that “Success Breeds Contempt”.

          • MrBojangles
          • 9 years ago

          “n the personal computer space, Apple dominates with over 90% market share of computers costing more that $1000.00. Those are the high-margin machines that reap gobs of profit for Apple..”

          “So there you have the Apple II, the MACINTOSH, the iPod, the iPhone, and now the iPad. That’s five huge runaway hits for Apple. Everyone knows that “Success Breeds Contempt””

          I literally spit my pop out with laughter after reading that. You do realize apple controls less than 10% of the pc market as a whole, and the only reason they “dominate” the $1000+ territory is because all there models outside of the mini are a $1000 or more??You have to buy in to that price range if you want a reasonably powerful mac.While on the other hand no one buys the $1000+ dollar pc’s because, quit frankly they don’t need to.You can buy a pc system fast enough to do anything under the sun, a non industry professional could possibly want to do for well under 1k.You can’t do the same with a mac however.

          If you think controlling less than 10% of the totals sells in the pc market but 90% of the sells in the smallest segment of the pc market somehow counts as a “huge runaway hit for Apple” well than more power to you.Ohh and if you get a chance, pass some of that kool aid my way, it seems to be a pretty strong mix.

            • NeelyCam
            • 9 years ago

            Yeah, I wonder how much of the $900+ market they have…

            • mcnabney
            • 9 years ago

            There are plenty of $1000+ PCs out there, but because people who spend that much on a PC generally BUILD THEIR OWN, they don’t show up in the statistic.

      • OneArmedScissor
      • 9 years ago

      “Apple is the only manufacturer from which I would buy a laptop computer – THE ONLY ONE. Where is the PC in a 1” thick all metal enclosure with a high quality screen like the MacBook Pro? Want a high end PC? No problem – but were gonna put it in the same plastic ugly case as the $299.00 black Friday special – [b<]ME LIKE TEH SHINEH[/b<] Microsoft asked almost $400.00 for a retail copy of Vista Ultimate edition and I had to pay another $200.00 for the Windows 7 (service pack) that made it worth using, that's $600.00 just for one decent OS upgrade - [b<]ME NO UNDERSTAND WALLET[/b<] Google is letting manufactures ship a half baked Honeycomb 3.0 OS with the first round of Android tablets. Have you read the reviews? This thing is a piece of crap - crashes and compatibility issues abound. Motorola, Acer, Samsung, LG, all plastic tablet pawns sent ahead to be completely wiped out by the venerable iPad 2. Google hoping only blemish Apple's aluminum armor. - [b<]ME NEED IPAD FOR MAN-PERIOD[/b<]" There, I fixed it for you.

        • dashbarron
        • 9 years ago

        ROFL,

        Thanks OneArmed 🙂

      • morphine
      • 9 years ago

      In other words, you like the MacBook Pro, and as such Apple’s not supposed to be held to the same standard as others?

      • bhassel
      • 9 years ago

      Apple makes some awesome (perhaps the most awesome) products, I don’t disagree with that. But that doesn’t make them [i<]good[/i<] in an ethical sense. Personally, I chose Apple because of their policy of tightly controlling their ecosystem and discouraging their users from creating / customizing (new ideas must come from Apple!) Long-term, I think that attitude will cause more harm than anything else.

        • TEAMSWITCHER
        • 9 years ago

        Actually, I don’t think any of these companies are ethically “EVIL”. What we perceive as “EVIL” is a nothing more than a strategy that each company is executing to maximize revenue. “EVIL” is the emotional response that we experience when we disagree with that strategy.

          • NeelyCam
          • 9 years ago

          Great post – probably the best so far.

            • sweatshopking
            • 9 years ago

            WHAT? I made a post describing a much better explanation a LONG time ago. You need to read ALL of my posts neely. ALL OF THEM.

            • NeelyCam
            • 9 years ago

            No.

            • sweatshopking
            • 9 years ago

            Yes. TIMES 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

            • NeelyCam
            • 9 years ago

            I looked for it but couldn’t find it.

      • bcronce
      • 9 years ago

      Mac Books are awesome, but they price gouge everything else.

        • cynan
        • 9 years ago

        They price gouge on Mac Books too. It’s just that most of the competition is so far behind in terms of aesthetics and build quality, it just doesn’t seem like they are gouging as much.

        For example, you can buy a $700 13 Acer notebook with better specs (processor, amount of standard memory, GPU) than a $1400-$1500 Mac Book Pro. However, the Acer has a cheaper panel, plastic chassis, somewhat inferior input devices (though this is improving). Sure these components are worth paying extra for, but are they worth an extra $750? I say no. Probably worth only about an extra $300 or so, but there are no $1000 PCs that compete in terms of the quality of these components (though there is the Sony Viao Z which are just as overpriced as the Macs).

        The closest main stream competitor in this area, would probably have to be something like Asus bamboo notebooks or some such, and even these don’t really compare. It’s exasperating that companies with the buying power of HP, Asus, Acer, just don’t get it that people would pay for a PC notebook that was both high on specs and build quality if they were priced a couple of hundred bellow the Macs… I guess they are just too intimidated with Apple’s Marketing powerhouse (or whatever you want to attribute the current trend of veneration of any and every Apple product) And perhaps they just don’t know how to be competitive aesthetically…

        Though, again, given the current unflappable public interest in Apple products, who could blame them?

          • OneArmedScissor
          • 9 years ago

          Apple’s “price gouging” on base models usually results from their use of extremely weird parts, like their own specially badged Core 2s instead of the typical cheapo CULVs, only server parts in even the single socket Mac Pros, and only high speed mobile parts in the other desktops.

          Where they’re really just cranking the prices out of proportion is their upgrade options. I about die laughing any time I look at one of their customization pages.

      • flip-mode
      • 9 years ago

      You make good points and get a -20 for your trouble! Gotta love it!

        • MrBojangles
        • 9 years ago

        Made good points really?? I took it more as him making one statement of opinion and acting as if it was hard fact and proof of the pc industries “greedy evil”.Even though he failed to mention that those high end laptops in the blackfriday specials case. Are usually portable workstations/gaming pc’s and have vastly superior hardware and performance to the flawless and untouchable mac pro.Hence there price.He also forgot to mention that there are premium laptops that do the same thing as the mac pro.IE stick spartan mid-high range hardware into a high end fancy enclosure and charge a huge mark up for battery life and the privilege of looking cool.

        Followed by a sob story of how he “had”(even though i’m fairly sure that is a choice) to buy the vista ultimate edition, knowing full well 7 was right around the corner.Then turned around and “had” to buy a win7 upgrade package for half the price of retail(since he already had vista).This is Microsoft’s fault how??Did they make him buy it at gun point??Not to mention the practice of constantly releasing “updated” items every few months to a year, to replace there old purposely crippled ones. Is essentially what apple’s built it’s entire business model on.Well that and charging out the A$$ for the cool factor.Only there not so kind as to let you get the new “Upgraded” one for half price. Even though it’s technically what the one, you already bought should have been in the first place.

        His only valid point was about the crippled android os, and that is why he’s unsurprisingly at 20+ thumbs down.

    • BoBzeBuilder
    • 9 years ago

    I think Rambus and Sony take the Crown.

    Nvidia sucks as well, they literally worsen the gaming experience for ATI users.

      • tejas84
      • 9 years ago

      Yeah because Nvidia should improve the experience for AMD customers. Maybe Intel should improve the experience for AMD CPU users???

      Kindly tell me wth you are smoking?

        • BoBzeBuilder
        • 9 years ago

        No, but the fact that AA happens to conveniently not work with AMD on some Nvidia sponsored games, or certain features are deliberately disabled, it frustrates the hell out of a lot of AMD users.

          • tejas84
          • 9 years ago

          Yeah that is a fair point. I have had doubts that my 5870 is working properly with Bulletstorm’s in game AA. It is an Nvidia game so maybe it works fine on NV.

        • bcronce
        • 9 years ago

        nVidia goes out of their way to make the AMD experience worse.

        Just looks at PhysX, it was multi-threaded before nVidia bought them out because multi-threading is natural for physics calculations; just look at how well PhysX scales on GPUs. Anyway, nVidia purposefully gimped the CPU version because current CPU hardware can almost keep up with with GPU PhysX. GPUs scale decently with physics calculations, but the inherent branching and dependencies makes it not scale “great” on GPUs. CPUs can handle physics extremely well.

        CPU PhysX aside, from what I read, porting PhysX to DC would be extremely easy for a knowledgeable programmer because the syntax and capabilities are nearly identical; which meant it could run on ANY GPU, so long as it was D3D11 compatible. nVidia would never do this because ATI cards could run it. Unfortunately, you will not see a DirectCompute version from OpenSource or anything because nVidia owns PhysX.

        At least BF3 will support a hybrid CPU/GPU physics system which is highly threaded to take advantage of multi-cores and uses DirectCompute so it will run on any brand GPU.

        • Goty
        • 9 years ago

        Not helping and deliberately going out of your way to make things NOT work for your competitors products are two different things.

        Seriously, do people still not get this point? I though the logic was abundantly clear during the whole “NO ATI + PHYSX!!!11!!!one!” scandal.

      • bittermann
      • 9 years ago

      Agreed..Nvidia should be on top of that list…they are almost as bad as Apple with their reality distortion field…spout lies about issues then deny, deny, deny…….repeat next year.

        • NeelyCam
        • 9 years ago

        What lies? Some might consider rebadging cards as lies, but if you fall for it, it’s your own stupidity.

        Although, all the smoke and mirrors concerning bumpgate was pretty bad

      • indeego
      • 9 years ago

      What evil did Rambus commit again?

        • Starfalcon
        • 9 years ago

        Well, lets see, they were having a closed door discussion about where the memory technology was going to go in the future and made plans for what technology was going to be the new standard. Rambus then went behind all their backs and patented those standards while the other memory makers did not know they had done that. Then Rambus waited for all the memory makers to start using that memory technology, and once they had all used it and were unable to easily change it to another technology, Rambus sued all the companies for using their technology and demanding piles of royalties. If that does not count as evil, I do not know what does.

          • indeego
          • 9 years ago

          And yet RAMBUS has won appeals, and the FTC ruling was overturned, and memory manufacturers like Samsung pay Rambus under settlement agreements. Many of the memory manufacturers like Samsung, Micron, Infineon, were found guilty of Price fixing throughout all this, some numerous times in multiple countries.

          In general, the entire memory industry is fairly evil, but at least RAMBUS invented an actual memory technology that was innovative and useful. I think we should be supporting the invention of hardware designs over software at all costs.

            • NeelyCam
            • 9 years ago

            [quote<]RAMBUS invented an actual memory technology that was innovative and useful.[/quote<] ^ This. Rambus is an actual company that develops stuff.

      • provoko
      • 9 years ago

      Yea, Sony should have been on the list.

    • Illissius
    • 9 years ago

    1. Oracle
    2. Sony

    Out of the choices presented, in older days Microsoft would’ve been the obvious one. These days, as Apple has been getting eviller and Microsoft less so, I think they’ve about drawn to a tie. I voted for Apple on the assumption (not necessarily correct) that present trends will continue into the future.

    Looking at the results so far, I’m surprised that even Google has gotten more votes than Microsoft. Google doesn’t have a squeaky-clean record either, but they’re still the clear choice for ‘least evil’ out of these three.

    • setbit
    • 9 years ago

    Any list of evil companies that doesn’t include Sony is not a very good list

      • OneArmedScissor
      • 9 years ago

      Good call. Even if TR is *cough* making every attempt to side-step calling out companies that hand them expensive hardware, *cough* there’s not much of an excuse for leaving Sony off.

      Nobody else will try to hunt you down for just looking at a website that mentions them or put a rootkit on your computer because you bought one of their CDs.

      Other companies do anti-competitive things to try and screw each other over, but Sony goes far, far, far out of their way to screw over [i<]their own customers.[/i<]

        • NeelyCam
        • 9 years ago

        That CD thingy seemed pretty evil… but I think it was more plain stupidity.

        I’d say RIAA is more evil than anybody else.

          • OneArmedScissor
          • 9 years ago

          Well, they’re a huge chunk of it all by their lonesome. And the MPAA. And the ESA…

        • yuriylsh
        • 9 years ago

        Hmm, turned out I do not use any Sony product, so I didn’t have to deal with them at all so I don’t know what’s wrong with them (except recent news that I read about suing a hacker and requesting crazy subpoena) . Don’t you mind sharing some stories?

          • indeego
          • 9 years ago

          [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Sony_subsidiaries<]Sure about that[/url<]?

            • yuriylsh
            • 9 years ago

            I definitely watched some movies from Sony’s studios, but still looks like don’t own anything from them or their subsidiaries.

          • OneArmedScissor
          • 9 years ago

          They aren’t just after people who cracked the PS3. They’re after anyone who read about it:

          [url<]http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2011/03/judge-allows-sony-to-see-ips-of-those-visiting-ps3-jailbreak-site.ars[/url<] As for the CD thing, a few years ago, they created yet another one of their retarded copy protection schemes that was doomed to fail, and did, just about immediately. However, the software on the CDs installed a rootkit onto computers they were put into. They were sued to hell and back and pulled the copy protection completely, and issued an uninstaller to fix it. And then the uninstaller left all sorts of system permissions open. It was just one thing after another, accomplishing nothing but punishing the customers that actually bothered to pay for their stupid music. lol there's an entire Wikipedia article dedicated to it: [url<]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_BMG_CD_copy_protection_scandal[/url<]

            • yuriylsh
            • 9 years ago

            Interesting, thanks for sharing.
            I was referring to the Ars’ article when told about hacker and subpoenas. Somehow missed the CD thing though. What about Blu-Ray debacle I saw somewhere in this thread? What did they do there? I’ve heard a lot about staying away from Sony, but never bothered to ask why should avoid their products, so I’m just trying to fulfill my knowledge gap 🙂

            • indeego
            • 9 years ago

            If you can read the CD thing and still not see a reason to avoid Sony, then nothing else will convince you. They actively infected LEGIT customers’ computers with malware that left their computers open to further attack, and denied it initially. Hundreds of confirmed products of their did this.

            • yuriylsh
            • 9 years ago

            I didn’t say I don’t see a reason. And I’m not asking to convince me. All I asked is to share more stories because somehow Sony was completely out of my focus and at the same time I often hear that Sony is really bad. It’s all out of curiosity, nothing more.

          • NeelyCam
          • 9 years ago

          Really? You never got hit with the CD virus? Do you yarrr all your music?

            • yuriylsh
            • 9 years ago

            Really. I didn’t buy Sony music CDs in 2005. Can you believe that such people exist?

      • grantmeaname
      • 9 years ago

      [url<]https://techreport.com/articles.x/2389[/url<] The last Sony product TR reviewed. 2008.

    • tejas84
    • 9 years ago

    I’m waiting to see who says Nvid….

    Oh wait Gameboy had already trolled about Nv. Obvious troll is very obvious.

    • kamikaziechameleon
    • 9 years ago

    to all you users who hate on apple instead of microsoft just remember who makes the xbox. Case and point.

      • WalkCMD
      • 9 years ago

      But I like my Xbox. Does that mean I’m evil? Oh no!

    • christopher3393
    • 9 years ago

    Foxconn

    [url<]http://www.wired.com/magazine/2011/02/ff_joelinchina/all/1[/url<]

    • OneArmedScissor
    • 9 years ago

    Oh, come on. I have a feeling Intel would win this by a land slide…and they wouldn’t be too happy about that. Gee, I wonder why they’re missing?

    Apple have pretty poor ethics, but they are a business that has struggled in the past and suddenly been thrust into a position of power, which they very well may not retain for long. It’s not terribly surprising they use it while they can.

    Google will always be as underhanded as they can manage, riding a fine line until they cross it, are caught, and take a few steps back again. It’s not nice, but there aren’t ever any wild surprises because someone is always breathing down their neck.

    Microsoft is a ginormous company. More people = more stupidity. They have done some very stupid things, but it usually ends up coming back to bite them, not someone else.

    Intel…lol.

    • jcw122
    • 9 years ago

    You gotta be effing me…..Intel isn’t on here?

    I hate Apple, but they have made themselves into what Microsoft used to be. Popular, overpriced, and exploitative.

      • potatochobit
      • 9 years ago

      or nvidia
      Geof’s perspective is from an ‘apple man’ though
      Google is the #1 threat to Steve and his minions won’t stand for it

    • GuruBill
    • 9 years ago

    I can’t believe people didn’t vote for Microsoft! Too many young’uns here or older folk with short memories.

    Check this out … [url<]http://www.kmfms.com/whatsbad.html[/url<] I will summarize what makes Microsoft bad ... 1. Bloat 2. Backward Incompatibility 3. Perpetual Upgrading 4. Vaporware 5. Hostile treatment of customers 6. Predatory Practices 7. Bundling of inferior products 8. Bugs, bugs, and more bugs 9. Insecurity 10. Closed "standards" 11. Mutilation of existing standards 12. Lack of innovation 13. Outright Deception Now you fellas can bash Apple and say they are no better, and looking at Apple's history I would agree that there was a long stretch 1980's - 90's where Apple overpriced their products based on the value they delivered. But that's been history since Job's started making changes. 1. iPod's have been well worth it for at least 5 years now if you include iTunes and the convenience it offers. (One example, I tag my songs with ratings, and when I sync my iPhone, it filters out songs based on my sync rules in iTunes! Very nifty!) 2. Apple's laptops are premium, and if you try and put together a comparable PC laptop (like I have many times), you pay more to the PC vendors (Dell and HP) while usually sacrificing something important (like, display quality, battery life, whatever). 3. Finally the iPad is the best value out there. It's the perfect "computer" for the computer illiterate and they outnumber us tech savvy users by huge numbers. Look, I used to hate Apple. For a VERY LONG TIME! I owned an Amiga as my first computer and I certainly didn't like the way that turned out. I moved to PC, and continued hating Apple. I bought three mp3 players from Rio in the late 90's early 2000's before I finally broke down and bought an iPod nano 2nd gen in 2006. (Not before long hemming and hawing) I am not saying Apple is good all the time, I am just saying I would rather have Steve Jobs and Apple guiding us to future computer devices rather than be stuck with the "lame-o" stuff from Microsoft! Bill

      • defacer
      • 9 years ago

      Well, I ‘d rather stagnate than progress into a dystopian tech nightmare where I have no control over the devices that orchestrate my daily life and the software they run.

      I do admire Apple’s consumer products. But people can have different criteria when passing judgement, don’t you think?

      For me, it’s an issue of what I ‘d like my freedoms to be. So I voted Google.

      • Squeazle
      • 9 years ago

      I mean, if you’re saying people here have short memories… maybe.
      That also means that right now, they aren’t doing half bad.

      No one loves a monopoly, but there are worse things out there.

      • EsotericLord
      • 9 years ago

      10 years ago, most people probably would have agreed with you. But MS has come a long way in those 10 years. Bill Gates runs the largest charity in the world, Windows 7 is pretty freaking slick (and the higher versions come with a VM of Windows XP, so you have 10 years backward compatibility at the very least, and really, how much can you ask for in this field?), Windows Phone 7 is nice, and far more open/more choices than the iPhone, and on terms of value, the Zune Marketplace with its Zune Pass demolishes anything iTunes offers. Bing is a great search engine, so much so Google has basically done nothing but copy and paste features from them for the past year.

      The question is about the present, not the past, and a lot has happened since the times you talking about. To put it into perspective, 9 years ago, George W. Bush had the highest approval ratings of any president in history.

      I also have to disregard comments 2 and 3 as trolling. In fact, the words “Apple” and “value” in the same sentence without the words “not a” in between, is either trollling or ignorance. I’m not saying that they arent GOOD, but they arent a value.

      • indeego
      • 9 years ago

      1. Bloat
      Somewhat agree with ya, but really the OS alone is less than 5% of the files I put on it, and getting smaller, I’m not going to whine. Office 2003, my favorite MS Office version, is sitting at 200 MB and I barely use 20% of the entire suite.

      2. Backwards Incompatibility
      Microsoft has some of the best backwards compatibility on the planet. Their modern products support hundreds of their legacy products, and their competitors’ legacy products!

      3. Perpetual Upgrading
      uh, so don’t? We run XP just fine here right next to 7, and feel no desire to rush. We ran NT4 well into W2K’s push, and W2K well into XP’s. Name a tech company where upgrading isn’t an eventual requirement to experience new tech.

      4. Vaporware
      Yep. But how is this “evil?”

      5. Hostile treatment of customers
      I find Microsoft has amongst the best customer service on the planet. I challenge you to find better tier 1/2 tech support in server land. They support their products on the business side at least 10 years. They offer free support for most of their products. They have an extensive community and KB system. Patent Indemnity. Optional Paid Support. etc etc.

      6. Predatory Practices
      Yep. A lot more in the past, and they were busted for it pretty badly.

      7. Bundling of inferior products
      As a customer you can always say “I refuse to accept this!” The onus is on the customer here.

      8. Bugs, bugs, and more bugs
      Like everyone else. Windows 7 Gold is rock freaking solid. Even without patching, it still works fine for vast majority of users.

      9. Insecurity
      They improved dramatically. I’ll take Windows 7 64-bit over OSX or IOS any day of the week. What company was rooted by the Chinese in late 2009?

      10. Closed “standards”
      But still support “open” standards. I agree though I really don’t like .docx.

      11. Mutilation of existing standards
      See above. This can end up hurting them in long run, so they do this at their own risk.

      12. Lack of innovation
      Knect or whatever seems to be very popular. I like their mice. Maybe you are right here, boo hoo they should be hated with a passion!

      13. Outright Deception
      If you are a public company, I argue this goes with the territory of your innate nature. As mentioned previously, your values are tied to shareholders, not the ethics of social progress.

        • Bauxite
        • 9 years ago

        I was lurking along clicking down some trolls (PS, voting systems are terrible, yay) but couldn’t pass this one up:

        “What company was rooted by the Chinese in late 2009”

        Lol, what company WASN’T rooted by the chinese and a sea of other advanced hackers? Please name them, I won’t reply but I will laugh to myself with any you might come up with.

        You just aren’t hearing about it, a little bit due to your ignorance, a little bit more because most that find out keep it quiet for many reasons…in fact, the “incident” (which never actually stopped) you cite is widely reported to be 50+ large companies but notice how only google really came forward.

        But most of all because the majority are not are competent enough in detection to know they already are pwned to hell.

          • indeego
          • 9 years ago

          Great point. I don’t disagree with you AT ALL.

      • provoko
      • 9 years ago

      iPad isn’t a computer, your argument is invalid. This is why Apple is evil, they convinced you that the iPad is a computer AND that it’s a good value ( “impressive price” ).

      I find it so funny that Apple used the whole “impressive price” angle. A “price” is never impressive unless its $0. Apple could sell white stool and give it a price and say it’s an impressive price, but, you have to see what is being sold… stool! Haha. The iPad should be priced slightly higher than what iPod touches are priced at, why, because that’s what the iPad is: A bigger iPod touch. The iPad 2 is much better, but still, overpriced useless product claiming to have value when it doesn’t.

      As for your list:
      1. Bloat – This is really the third parties fault.
      2. Backward Incompatibility – You don’t know what you’re talking about.
      3. Perpetual Upgrading – Apple has a new upgrade to their OSX around every 12 months which they charge you.
      4. Vaporware – WTF are you talking about???

      Basically WTF are you talking about is my answer to the rest of the list except for:
      7. Bundling of inferior products – When you have third parties suing you like Symantec and Governments like the European nation, it’s hard to bundle superior products.

        • GuruBill
        • 9 years ago

        Provoko,

        It sounds like you are a punk kid with a Dell ‘puter with Intel graphics.

        Meanwhile I just upgraded to a MacBook Pro 17″ with ATI 1GB.

        Plus, you have an Acer Android phone still running 1.6 and you can’t upgrade your phone ’cause Acer doesn’t “upgrade” the firmware to accept newer builds of Android. (Like other Droid phone manufacturers? Geez, how do you know who will support newer builds of Android, and who will leave you with your jaw dropped and privates flapping in the breeze when upgrade time comes?)

        Meanwhile, today, I am sitting pretty with my iPhone 3GS (almost two year old phone) that was just upgraded to support “Personal Hotspots” and the latest iOS 4.3 for FREE!

        Plus you got a netbook running a single core Atom processor with Intel graphics. Sure you got it for $299 on sale at the drug store when you were buying your meds, but the system is soooo slow, it barely boots Windows embedded, or whatever, before you can make a coffee in the morning! Thank God you got that Valium to help the time pass.

        Meanwhile I have an iPad on order that makes your netbook look like it could be put to better use cracking walnuts.

        I will take Steve Job’s “curated” App Store over the bag’o’hurt that is Android’s Market Place or the disappoint that is Windows Phone 7 during upgrade time.

        When Microsoft, on there first attempt to upgrade Windows 7 phones can’t even upgrade, “the upgrade software” on their phone, without bricking their customers on Samsung, I would run not walk from them!

        Bill

          • sweatshopking
          • 9 years ago

          dude. you’re seriously high.

          “”Personal Hotspots” and the latest iOS 4.3 for FREE!”

          that was an ability that your phone had since day 1. why do you let them make you wait to use tech YOU paid for. I have an ipod touch. it has bluetooth. can i use it? only in the ways apple deems. I can’t sync a bluetooth headset with it, because apple doesn’t want me to. I OWN that device, and they’re pricks for locking it down.

          Super, you paid a fortune for a MBP with an ati 1gb, which you could have got as a pc for 50% of the price. Yes, you have a better trackpad, and long battery life, even if it’s only good for a year, but is it worth 2x the price of a pc? i don’t think so. you might, super. One born every day.

          I’m happy you like your devices. taht’s super. I would argue however, that apple has done very little good for the world. Whilst Microsoft’s profits are fighting HIV, malaria, and a variety of other ills. I’d take bill anyday.

            • GuruBill
            • 9 years ago

            Sweatshopking,

            OK, RE: Personal Hotspots. Yes, you are right. I thought that with a iPhone 3GS I would be able to connect an iPad or another iPhone to share my 3GS’s internet connection via WiFi. I just tested it and Personal Hotspot doesn’t work via WiFi. 🙁

            So, yes, Personal Hotspots appears to just be “Internet tethering” renamed. Yes, it was working when I bought my iPhone 3GS, and yes since I am in Canada, I have had it working since day 1.

            Getting back to the point of more evil, what’s with a company charging for Server software (Windows Server), then charging for client software (Windows 7), then charging for accessing the server (Windows CAL – client Access licensing).

            That sounds like at least double charging to me!!

            Just because Bill is trying to “rebrand himself”, that doesn’t make Microsoft “Good”. Even Andrew Carnegie (union buster extraordinaire) rebranded himself in later life. It doesn’t change the fact that he busted unions and people died fighting for their jobs.

            Bill

            • sweatshopking
            • 9 years ago

            I understand that microsoft can be frustrating to deal with. Ideally, we’d all be usin linux! it’s free!

            This poll is silly, as no corporation is “evil” anymore than any other. they do exactly what they were designed to do. maximize profits, externalize as much cost as possible, and do WHATEVER they can to screw their competitors. It’s like asking “which tiger is the most evil”, when they’re all just being tigers. the problem is, do we really want a bunch of tigers running around, uncontrolled?

            They need to be kept in line, and controlled. smaller localized economies, focused on sustainable economics, is the answer. ALL major corporations are evil. it’s a fact.

            As for bill gates, I have a fair bit of respect for the man. I don’t think it’s a matter of “rebranding” i think he genuinely wants to help people, and I take him at his word. It’s my opinion, you might feel otherwise, but I like the man.

            As for microsoft (not bill) vs apple in regards to donations and poverty assistance, they’re no even close. apple does essentially nothing, and microsoft does a fair bit. I know a number of NGO’s personally that work with microsoft, and say they’re great to work with.

          • provoko
          • 9 years ago

          No, I built my own computer, 4 core 8gb of ram with mainstream graphics that I spent about 1000 on.

          I have 3 computers total, 2 have windows (because I can install the OS anywhere unlike OS/x), and all three run LINUX distros (BECAUSE I CAN INSTALL THE OS ANYWHERE).

          Bill, while you struggle to pay off your credit card bills giving a company like Apple 4 times the price of hardware for something they’re going to make obsolete in 12 months, I want you to think about this: You’re a tool and a sheep.

      • willyolio
      • 9 years ago

      sounds like this young’un got all his tech knowledge from the Mac vs PC commercials.

      • ludi
      • 9 years ago

      In fact I *do* remember Microsoft’s past quite vividly, but all companies have their ups and downs, and as others state, Microsoft is presently on the right track. Meanwhile, Apple makes great (if pricey) hardware but their software policies are presently filling in the other half of that 1984 commercial. That wins my Evil Award.

      • RagingDragon
      • 9 years ago

      Well if you want to look back in history, IBM and DEC should be on that poll too.

        • trackerben
        • 9 years ago

        RCA most of all (“radio trust” – not a security initiative). But then this was so last century, kids.

      • PetMiceRnice
      • 9 years ago

      I had an iPod Nano, and while it was nice in certain respects, I came to the conclusion that it was not worth the time or money. Being forced to use software to transfer music to the device is a definite no-no in my books. Also I experienced issues with the device locking up solid for hours when turning it on after adding new material. And honestly, for the features it had, it wasn’t worth the price premium. I really MUCH preferred using my RCA MC2602A, or Creative Labs MuVo TX FM 512MB MP3 player (which I still have to this day).

      • mutarasector
      • 9 years ago

      “I owned an Amiga as my first computer and I certainly didn’t like the way that turned out. I moved to PC, and continued hating Apple.”

      Sums it up perfectly for my own experience as well. At some point however, I realized it wasn’t so much Apple I disliked, but the “zealotry”. Remembering my own zealot days with the Amiga, I kind of tended to reject Apple stuff *because* I didn’t want to make the same zealot mistakes again, and the devotion to proprietary hardware. Between this a realization that it is a Windows world, I consequently went to a PC/Windows myself.

      I suspect we Amiga folks might have a bit of a different perspective, and would probably consider Commodore as worthy of of at least a “dubious” mention, if not and outright ‘evil’ label for Irving Gould and Medi Ali for its ‘revolving’ door on the CEO office, ego driven absentee-landlord management, basically shorting C= stock towards the end of the company’s existence, and driving it into the ground.

    • basket687
    • 9 years ago

    The most evil is definitely Intel, but from the ones you provided I have voted for Apple.

      • NeelyCam
      • 9 years ago

      I still don’t understand this Intel hate. They are no more “evil” than any other company.

      It’s AMD that will hike the prices skyhigh as soon as they can (i.e., at the arrival of Bulldozer). Meanwhile, Intel’s prices will keep coming down. Certainly an example of an evil company.

      Oh, not to mention AMD’s rigged demos that essentially constitute lying to the press and their customers.

        • OneArmedScissor
        • 9 years ago

        Are you seriously going to make me get out the logical fallacy chart? :p

          • NeelyCam
          • 9 years ago

          No that’s fine, we don’t need it yet. For now, just try to disprove my two examples there.

            • Goty
            • 9 years ago

            That’s pretty easy, actually. Intel’s stated practice is to not change price points, they just change features instead.

            • NeelyCam
            • 9 years ago

            FAIL! They improve performance and performance/watt, increase clocks, add features in any given price point.

            The chip that replaces an equally performing previous chip always comes in at a lower price.

            => They reduce price.

            People who think Bulldozer will both 1) perform magically well and 2) be sold at magically low prices are idiots. AMD is desperately after big profits.

            • Goty
            • 9 years ago

            Whoops, wrong thread.

            • Goty
            • 9 years ago

            I’m pretty sure the only fail here is your abuse of logic.

            • NeelyCam
            • 9 years ago

            Wait, what? I was listing facts that clearly prove you wrong. How is this abuse of logic in any way?

            I think your hatred of Intel is clouding your judgment

            • Goty
            • 9 years ago

            I don’t hate Intel. If I did, I certainly wouldn’t be typing this on a machine running an i7 920.

            I really can’t believe I’m having to explain this to you, but the statement you provided exactly correlates with my point. You may get the same performance at a lower price point, but the price points themselves don’t change. The uber-high-end is always ~$1000, the high end is ~$500 or so, the uppermidrange comes in around $200, etc. That spacing NEVER changes, you just get new products at those price points. There’s no reaction to market conditions, they just adjust the release schedule.

            • swaaye
            • 9 years ago

            That’s just segmentation and every company does it. AMD looks like they don’t do it but that’s only because they can’t go toe to toe with Intel. If they could you’d have the return of the $1000 FX series.

            • NeelyCam
            • 9 years ago

            FWIW, Bulldozer is already expected to carry the FX moniker…

            • NeelyCam
            • 9 years ago

            [s<]I guess I should have emphasized that I meant price/performance is coming down... but I thought that was implied.[/s<] Scratch that. I just noticed the trap you set up for me.. Well played, I lost this one.

            • bittermann
            • 9 years ago

            You FAIL big time! They didn’t pay AMD billions because they played fair….common and now, even the US is looking into them now as well…although the Politicians will not let that happen. Stop being such an Intel/Nvidia fanboy! Your posts act like they are the only companies innovating and everyone else just copies…fanboys=waste of time.

            • NeelyCam
            • 9 years ago

            Huh? How am I an NVidia fanboy? Lumping me (a [i<]supposed[/i<] Intel fanboy) with NVidia fanboys makes it sound like it's you who's the fanboy, as you lash out at anyone who dares to criticize your favorite company - be it in graphics or CPUs.

        • bcronce
        • 9 years ago

        I love Intel’s tech, but I will not back up their marketing. Their marketing is pure evil. Intel has already been fined for doing stuff like “If you sell AMD servers, we will stop providing you with hardware.” type stuff.

          • NeelyCam
          • 9 years ago

          You’re talking about Intel’s sales organization – not marketing. Intel marketing isn’t evil – it’s just incompetent (and yes – the ‘multiply’ probably wasn’t meant to be racist… somebody just had the SATA3 port on their sensitivity chip malfunctioning)

          AMD marketing: let’s put this AMD rig next to an Intel rig, cripple the Intel one with old drivers/bad software, pick the two applications that show Intel in a particularly bad light, and videotape the whole thing and blast it off to Youtube so blind unsuspecting fanboys would get an idea that AMD’s rig is orders of magnitude better.

          And any wrongdoing by Intel sales org was never proven.

            • bcronce
            • 9 years ago

            good point.. “sales”

            I thought it was proven, but I’m not sure myself. At this point, I don’t care much.

            Intel does charge a lot, but they seem to reinvest a lot back in R&D, so I won’t knock on them for that.

            • NeelyCam
            • 9 years ago

            They will still be the ones that will bring you the next generation of price cuts… that’s their model.

            AMD will always be pricing their stuff to compete with Intel’s price/performance, AMD wants to make a profit just as much as Intel does, but because of their low market share, they don’t control the pricing.

            • NeelyCam
            • 9 years ago

            To be honest, you should ask others here if the sales thingy was proven or not… I had trolling turned on.

        • raddude9
        • 9 years ago

        nope, Intel is more evil: e.g.

        * numerous abuses of their monopoly
        * strong-arming computer makers into exclusive deals
        * for what they did to the OLPC
        * forcing unwanted technology on consumers (Rambus, itanium) in an effort to cement their monopoly
        * general consumer abuse like forcing Netbooks to be memory and screen limited.
        * using their ill-gotten gains to cheaply buy their way out of major lawsuits

          • Voldenuit
          • 9 years ago

          Yea, and they continued the trend by intentionally dragging their heels on the USB3.0 spec to try and force their Lightpeak and Thunderbolt standards onto the industry.

          Mind you, the EU and FCC have spiked their wheel, so intel will have to be careful about future underhanded practices lest they get caught and chastised again. Right now, it’s Google and Apple that are in danger of running rampant, as there has been little oversight into their business practices so far.

        • Sahrin
        • 9 years ago

        I can’t decide if you are totally uninformed or just a fanboy.

        Intel has been:
        Convicted of monopoly abuse by the EU and fined almost a billion and a half dollars
        Tried to sue AMD out of existence for making a strategic move that probably saved the company
        Settled a lawsuit for bribing people *Not* to do business with AMD for $1.25 Billion
        Bribed AMD to call off regulators from the US (the aforementioned lawsuit settlement)
        Instead of using an open standard bus (like HyperTransport), because they can’t compete with nVidia and AMD in IGP, Intel used a proprietary bus to eliminate competition
        –> and then got sued for antitrust behaviour
        ——> and lost the case, paying out another big settlement
        Intel uses rigged compilers and demos (in ways that have been documented not alleged or are just misleading) to deceive buyers about performance

        Yeah, they’re no more evil than anyone. *rollseyes*

          • NeelyCam
          • 9 years ago

          Settlement != “losing the case”.
          Settlement != bribe.
          EU “conviction” was not handed out not by a court; Intel could not defend itself fairly.
          EU “conviction” was questioned by EU’s own ombudsman for ignoring evidence.
          EU “conviction” has been appealed by Intel.
          It’s AMD that uses rigged demos. Did you not see the Brazos demo? Did you not see the Llano demo?

          Finally, why do you think it’s “evil” to use your own superior bus instead of a slower “open” bus? This applies to both USB3/TB and HT/QPI comparisons.

          Crazy fanboys blinded by their hatred of other companies *rollseyes*

            • Sahrin
            • 9 years ago

            QPI > HT? hahahaha. Hahahahhahahaha. haahahhahahahaahahahahaha. OK.

            USB3 works with everything I own. TB doesn’t work with anything I own, unless I buy a new motherboard/laptop *and* a new dongle for every peripherial I have connected. On top of that, TB provides no speedup to peripherials I own today.

            This is ‘better’?

            • NeelyCam
            • 9 years ago

            Intel i7-990x QPI: 6.4GT/s. Name one AMD CPU that does HyperTransport at that rate or faster. No? None?

            Case closed.

            • cheddarlump
            • 9 years ago

            I’ll assume you’re ignorant for the moment:

            All Opteron magny-cours and lisbon procs released after March 2010 have 6.4GT/s HT 3.1 links.

            6xxx series have four, 4xxx series have two.

            Furthermore, QPI links are unidirectional, and require two links to have full duplex, whereas HT links are bidirectional all by themselves. Current spec HT 3.1 links can do 51.2GB/s per link at 6.4GT/s, which is double the QPI bandwidth.

            • NeelyCam
            • 9 years ago

            I just got pwnd.

            • cheddarlump
            • 9 years ago

            Hey, don’t feel bad, AMD gets beat up on the desktop front a lot, but the server chips have amazing bandwidth. They’re great for virtualization, and the 4 channel mem controllers are pretty amazing for SQL or HPC applications. That said, they still do lose on the IPC front, but any form of competition is good for consumers.

      • burntham77
      • 9 years ago

      I agree. I have read too many articles detailing their shitty business practices to make me think otherwise. I think the last time I owned Intel hardware was about ten years ago.

        • ermo
        • 9 years ago

        I own a 65nm Core 2 ThinkPad because, frankly, at the time of purchase, AMD wasn’t even *remotely* competitive in that particular segment. Except for Zactario, that still holds true in the majority of the laptop computing landscape.

        But I haven’t bought an Intel CPU designed for desktop use for the last 10 years, though I have recommended Intel builds for others. I simply find their approach to product segmentation onerous; I mean, even my lowly Athlon X2 supports ECC RAM and virtualization. *tut* *tut*

    • nagashi
    • 9 years ago

    I don’t own a single apple product, but I completely fail to understand the hate. They make great stuff, solidly built and lots of innovation. Their OS is smooth/well thought out, and basically a nerd’s dream (real unix underneath, gpu-accelerated smooth gui). Their pricing is more than reasonable (compare: dell precision, hp elitebook to macbook pro and apple comes out looking great).

    It’s gotta come down to this: people hate apple because they’re envious of people who can afford nice things, so they hate on apple to make themselves feel better about buying 2nd/3rd rate gear.

    (I’m kind of trolling, but yeah. I actually do think this is a real reason).

      • OneArmedScissor
      • 9 years ago

      Prices and toy selection don’t have anything to do with how awful a company’s business ethics may be.

      They want to control everything and go out of their way, even threatening lawsuits against their own customers, to try and tell everyone from 10 year olds to your grandma how they can use what they paid money for.

      It is the absolute antithesis of what a true “nerd” is after.

        • NeelyCam
        • 9 years ago

        [quote<]even threatening lawsuits against their own customers[/quote<] Link? Also, which one of your comments points to Apple's business ethics in any way?

          • OneArmedScissor
          • 9 years ago

          Were you living under a rock while the jailbreaking and exploding iPod/iPhone fiascos were going on? I’m not here to read several years worth of news to you lol.

        • mikehodges2
        • 9 years ago

        Surely all companies want to control everything, plenty of other companies throw lawsuits out of the pram, and your third point is…i dunno. Explain?

    • Corrado
    • 9 years ago

    Sony is eviler than all 3 put together.

    • ew
    • 9 years ago

    Sony wins for suing people over their own faulty security system.

      • FuturePastNow
      • 9 years ago

      Rootkits on audio CDs, crazy DRM schemes, inventing proprietary formats and “standards” to push on consumers… Sony belongs at the top of this list by a fair margin.

      • Sargent Duck
      • 9 years ago

      and rootkit and trying to shove thier properitary formats down our throats

    • Krogoth
    • 9 years ago

    They are all bastards in some shape or form.

    The worse offenders have to be RAMBUS and SCO. I hate patent trolls with a passion……

    A honorable mentions has to go to the memory cartel during DDR1 days. They make Nvidia and Intel look like saints by comparison.

      • FuturePastNow
      • 9 years ago

      SCO and Rambus don’t even pretend to not be evil.

        • blastdoor
        • 9 years ago

        Which is the nicest thing I can say about them — open evil is less evil than hidden evil, don’t you think?

      • NeelyCam
      • 9 years ago

      RAMBUS isn’t a patent troll – they have a solid R&D department and IP development.
      I mean, do you not follow ISSCC?

        • NeelyCam
        • 9 years ago

        Any minus without a written response is an invalid minus.

          • ermo
          • 9 years ago

          Is “I disagree” good enough? *wink*

            • NeelyCam
            • 9 years ago

            It’s better

        • bcronce
        • 9 years ago

        RAMBUS’ patent that they attempted to sue everyone with the first time was actually openly discussed technology behind closed doors of the memory standards group. RAMBUS went and patented the tech behind all of their backs and they tried to sue them for using it.

          • NeelyCam
          • 9 years ago

          And did they succeed?

        • Krogoth
        • 9 years ago

        Weren’t you living under a rock under the 2000-2003 era?

        RAMBUS exhibted all of the characteristics of a patent troll. Granted, they were playing in a field full of rat bastards (memory cartel). They tried to pull a fast one, but it failed. The current winnings are just damage control. The memory cartel doesn’t care bacause they were successfuly at archiving their primary goal. That goal was securing their current positions in the market.

          • NeelyCam
          • 9 years ago

          clone kindly provided a link to a court decision that showed Rambus didn’t violate JEDEC policies or committed fraud.

          They were the developer of IP that was used by other companies without paying licensing fees. They were right to sue. IP development is a valid business model (ARM is one of the most notable companies relying on that model) – sometimes they need legal means to protect their rights.

          Please read clone’s link, repeated here for your convenience:

          [url<]http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/01opinions/01-1449.html[/url<]

        • clone
        • 9 years ago

        Rambus patents they don’t produce, Rambus waits for someone else to build then once the market is established Rambus sues for patent violation, this stifles innovation and is predatory which while not illegal is wrong and the loophole itself is supposed to be eliminated reasonably soon.

        Rambus has attacked every open standard created repeatedly and lost so far.

        Rambus has sued every consumer electronics maker in the world… officially, they’ve also attempted to get an injunction on all consumer electronics devices being sold in North America, their claim being that their latest acquisition entitles them to royalties to be given to them on every electronic device or device using electronics being sold in North America.

        [url<]http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/other/display/20101201205418_Rambus_Attacks_Open_Interfaces_Again_DisplayPort_PCI_Express_SATA.html[/url<] if this isn't an example of a company that lives to be a patent troll by your measure then the problem is your measure. Rambus hopefully will serve as the case for why the U.S. patent system is broken and needs to be fixed, it'd also be nice to see a few changes in patent law involving patent use IE if you have a patent but sit on it instead of using it and someone else discovers the tech and does use it then they get it and you lose it... I'd also like to see changes that reduce patent duration, patent ownership cannot be transferred outside of the original patent creators family and upon expiry the patents cannot be renewed but instead become open standards.

          • NeelyCam
          • 9 years ago

          ARM doesn’t produce either. What’s your point?

            • clone
            • 9 years ago

            has ARM taken every consumer electronics company to court claiming patent violations and demanding compensation?…. nope.

            has ARM joined open standards organizations, discovered what the next standards will be then pulled out and patented the standards in order to eliminate the open standards entirely?…. nope.

            has ARM withheld court documents and been found in contempt of court for destroying evidence while suing companies for patent infringement because they used the mentioned open standards that Rambus has tried to patent?…. nope.

            FYI Rambus has been found guilty of contempt has been found guilty of destroying evidence and has lost many of it’s lawsuits and been warned by the judges to stop repeatedly taking companies to court for the same patent coming from a different angle.

            [url<]http://www.metrocorpcounsel.com/current.php?artType=view&artMonth=January&artYear=2011&EntryNo=1229[/url<] [url<]http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/01opinions/01-1449.html[/url<] if you feel Rambus is not the epitome of what constitutes a patent troll then the problem is your lack of knowledge and judgement.

            • NeelyCam
            • 9 years ago

            The Georgetown bit was a particularly interesting read. Did [i<]you[/i<] read it? The conclusion was that Infineon's claims that Rambus committed fraud could not be proven. The court sided with Rambus. Most of it seemed to stem from a poorly defined JEDEC policy, but [b<]Rambus was not found to be guilty of fraud[/b<]. " Because the district court erred in its claim construction, this court vacates the grant of JMOL of noninfringement and remands for consideration under the revised claim construction. Because substantial evidence does not support the jury’s verdict that Rambus committed fraud associated with the SDRAM standard, this court reverses the denial of JMOL on the SDRAM fraud verdict. This court affirms the grant of JMOL on the DDR-SDRAM fraud verdict because the district court properly determined that substantial evidence did not support the implicit jury finding that Rambus had a duty to disclose patents and applications before formal consideration of a standard. Finally, this court vacates and remands the attorney fees award under § 285 and reverses the fee award under Virginia common law. These holdings render the injunction and the new trial issues moot. Accordingly, this court vacates-in-part, reverses-in-part, affirms-in-part, and remands to the district court." Bottom line: Rambus was way ahead of competition on high-speed bus technology - they were true innovators. They disclosed a key patent to JEDEC before the SDRAM standard, and left JEDEC before DDR-SDRAM. From reading the link [u<]you provided[/u<], it seems clear that Rambus was well within its rights to sue companies using the standards and not paying fees for licensing Rambus' IP.

            • clone
            • 9 years ago

            1st off 2 links not one, but beyond that it’s funny that you ignore all of it for the sake of the conclusion.

            Rambus was guilty but their actions weren’t criminal, their is a huge difference between the 2 despite your claims that Rambus is fine and honorable.

            as an example Fox news is not balanced but it’s not criminal to be biased and anyone can call themselves a news service while not being balanced because as the courts found when ruling in Fox News’s favor News is entertainment and bound by no code or laws beyond what typical television is protected by.

            you want to argue Rambus is innocent and has never done anything to justify the hate society and industry feel towards them.

            Rambus is the epitome of the patent troll.

            [url<]http://news.techworld.com/storage/6572/rambus-found-guilty-of-anti-trust-charges/[/url<] [url<]http://money.cnn.com/2001/05/09/technology/rambus/[/url<] [url<]http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/worldbiz/archives/2006/08/04/2003321775[/url<] [url<]http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/10/business/10bizbriefs-CHIPMAKERRAM_BRF.html[/url<] what I'm really waiting for is that huge abundance of evidence from you that convinces anyone other than you that Rambus has never done anything wrong, that huge mountain of evidence that you have that proves why Rambus is worth more existing as opposed to disappearing, I've shown they have been evil offering several examples, I've proven they do it consistently and systematically.

            • trackerben
            • 9 years ago

            Your points may be good, but your example of Foxnews isn’t.

            There is a UCLA study which demonstrates that Fox, being the only major outfit giving mostly equal format weight to conservative views in a field of left-leaning media, is practically the only “balanced” outlet of any significance. You’d be more on point with the example of CBS or even better the international BBC, whose directors have admitted real bias, at least in the past.

            • clone
            • 9 years ago

            “a field of left leaning media”…. are you kidding, 1st off their is no fair and balanced national news just a large number of smokescreen’s nothing more.

            it’s offtopic so I’m not going to bother but if you really believe Fox news is the most balanced outfit then I’m notching your opinion as more evidence disproving Darwin.

            to get back on topic this is why / how ARM is better / different than Rambus.

            [url<]http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2010/07/23/why-arm-beats-rambus.aspx[/url<]

            • NeelyCam
            • 9 years ago

            [url<]http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1067[/url<] What else do you need?

            • trackerben
            • 9 years ago

            This was the study I was referring to.

            [url<]http://www.newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/Media-Bias-Is-Real-Finds-UCLA-6664.aspx?RelNum=6664[/url<] Media Bias Is Real, Finds UCLA Political Scientist By Meg Sullivan "While the editorial page of The Wall Street Journal is conservative, the newspaper's news pages are liberal, even more liberal than The New York Times. The Drudge Report may have a right-wing reputation, but it leans left. Coverage by public television and radio is conservative compared to the rest of the mainstream media. Meanwhile, almost all major media outlets tilt to the left..." Be aware that as in all "social-studies-as-science" research, the paper has its issues in that its premises may be selecting its methodology. Yet to my knowledge no further, better data has appeared to shed light on this topic, and for now it remains the only data sufficient to ground a proposition on. Given that the entire big-MSM space is mostly left-leaning in its editorial presentation, just the positioning of Foxnews as the sole "balanced" exception (to the extent that claim is true) defaults it to the right of a spectrum which was imbalanced to begin with. Which is a pity. Media practicioners have always been expected to present the "median" of discourse in popular terms as a matter of public trust. The old-guard practicioners' collective failure to meet the audiences' search for a less-biased presentation prior to the rise of Foxnews can explain its dominant "viewshare".

            • NeelyCam
            • 9 years ago

            Here’s the actual study:

            [url<]http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/polisci/faculty/groseclose/Media.Bias.8.htm[/url<] The only Fox News program measured was "Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume", and it wasn't the sole balanced exception. In fact, "CNN NewsNight with Aaron Brown" and "ABC Good Morning America" were more balanced... one could even say almost two times more balanced. The problem with your conclusion is that you consider this single, semi-balanced program to represent the whole Fox News channel. If other programs in this channel were measured with the UCLA methodology, I would expect seeing a severe conservative bias for the channel as a whole.

            • sweatshopking
            • 9 years ago

            anyone who watches american “news” expecting news is an idiot. the only person dumber than them is the person who watches fox news, and thinks they’re hearing facts.

            • trackerben
            • 9 years ago

            The problem is the lack of data, of well-designed studies. You’ve outlined a part of the selectivity problem common to many non-experimental, “social sciences”. That said, the UCLA study so far appears to be the only serious one. It did establish that the general reporting bias in the mainstream media exhibits a left-leaning political tone when viewed collectively. The single exception – Foxnews – exceptionally explains its elephant-in-room status among both media people and ordinary folks. Survey after survey has shown that the private views of most MSM reporters on politicized issues rarely agree with that held by the roughly conservative half of the general audience. This is has been explained by the prevalence of a progressive mindset commonly found in the schooled circles of liberal-arts elites, from whose ranks most media pros come from.

            As the MSM space is left-leaning in its orientation relative to that of its “served” audience, the rise of a “balanced” outlet like Fox defaults it to the right of the spectrum. The usefullness of knowing that the field is tilted is in realizing that to gain a “balanced” view, it’s best to do your own mix. One good strategy for viewing national newsreporting would be to mostly ignore the radical outliers and stick to skimming Fox and two or three of the left-of-spectrum outlets, while mining Drudge and some NYT and WSJ on the raging issues of the day. Going for a monolithic, one-sided spectrum is not only sad and unwise, it is also a recipe for cognitive dissonance “in the wrong run”, or as the famously monocultural Japanese liked to atrociously say “in the long run”.

            The irony is that many Fox personalities do share sentiments with their openly liberal associates. It’s just that Murdoch’s strategists shrewdly moved to echo the political right to better mirror the full audience, on market-making as much as journalistic principles. Their editorial content is obviously as tea-trendy as the electorate is going these days. Due to this disciplined messaging approach, outside of its signature lead program Fox is as “balanced” as any of the its competitors. Which is to say, not very, just differently. It is that difference in presentation which allows me to “re-tilt” the view to a clearer angle, and we should all be glad it is made widely available.

            • NeelyCam
            • 9 years ago

            The study went through a lot of trouble trying to establish what was considered a true “balanced” view. They didn’t base it on the mean of the media – they based it on the mean of the Congress, with some adjustments to correct for some identified biases. As a result, you can’t claim that “Fox News’ Special Report with Brit Hume” is more balanced than others just because most media is left leaning. The numbers show that “Newshour with Jim Lehrer”, “CNN NewsNight with Aaron Brown” and “ABC Good Morning America” are quite a bit more balanced than “Fox News’ Special Report with Brit Hume”

            I agree with you that if you watch one of the left-leaning news reports, you should also watch some right-leaning reporting to get a balanced view. It’s dangerous to suggest, though, that Fox News on average is more balanced than, say, CNN. Other Fox News programs weren’t measured, and anecdotal evidence points to severe bias in many other Fox News programs.

            Funny thing, though: Wall Street Journal news reporting was found to be most [b]left[/lb] leaning of all news sources measured!

            • trackerben
            • 9 years ago

            Short of assessing the views of the entire US adult audience, which is the truest goal, the UCLA authors had little choice but to peg their analysis against a similar framework constructed to score a body of views derivative of the true target. The proxy in this case was Congress, which supposedly represents the US electorate, which previous studies premised to represent the target entire US adult audience. Yes, here comes the selectivity issue again! But so far it is the only serious study, this is the argument we are having, and what else is there to ground our flights of debate on?

            I agree that Fox news cannot be said to be the most balanced just because most newsmedia is left-leaning. The authors did conclude that its signature program is among the most balanced according to their analytical approach, placing Fox newsreporting closest to the political mean, or centrist position, in terms of presentation bias. When I said that the rest of Fox’s content is as “balanced” as any of its competitors, I didn’t mean formally balanced in terms of the study’s semiotics, thus the quote marks. The lesson is that in a field strongly tilted leftwards by the elite herd, Fox’s iconoclastic reporting is well worth having. Perhaps what I should have explained to you and clone is that having Fox as a counterweight that is slightly right-of-center in a strongly left-tilted spectrum is good for assembling a balanced picture of the news.

            Perhaps your big issue with Fox is Glenn Beck? I’m going out on a limb by saying that the editorializing there goes well into the range of yellow advocacy. Most other Fox programs are a bit more conventional and do not appear to invent stuff any more than other centrists like CNN and ABC. Unlike CBS and its Rather bent stories. Funny that many in the Journal’s capitalist crew wear left-fitting suits.

            • NeelyCam
            • 9 years ago

            [quote<]1st off 2 links not one, but beyond that it's funny that you ignore all of it for the sake of the conclusion.[/quote<] The first link was just an editorial piece on records retention policy. Doesn't really apply here. The second link was an actual legal document, and included a ruling that showed Rambus was found not guilty. Thanks for the other links. At least one of them pointed to an earlier ruling that was reversed (as shown in the Georgetown link). But the FTC rulings seem to indicate the opposite. This really shows how shaky the legal landscape is... if Rambus is found guilty, then not guilty, and later guilty again, how can one say without a doubt that Rambus was indeed guilty (or not guilty, for that matter)? My initial disagreement with you was the idea that Rambus is a "patent troll". My definition of a patent troll is a company that buys other dying companies with IP and then starts suing everybody. Rambus developed their own IP, and defended it in court. I wouldn't say Rambus qualifies as a patent troll. But you have your own opinion, and you're too pissed off to consider other viewpoints.

            • clone
            • 9 years ago

            I’m not pissed at all, I’ve not only been winning I’ve won this discussion in and outside the courts.

            you believe Rambus developed their own IP, as proven in the courts Rambus sat back and watched which way tech was headed, they didn’t create tech and patent it on their own they joined an open standards IP and after finding out where the tech was headed patented it in secret then waited 10 years for other companies to develop the tech then they sued everyone … that is the epitome of a patent troll.

            p.s. it’s not my own opinion btw, it’s most everybody’s…. your opinion is your own.

            as mentioned add nauseum the only legal problem with Rambus is trying to figure out how to make it illegal to do what they did without stifling innovation, in reality Rambus hasn’t developed or created anything other than Rambus Dram which longsince failed in the market.

            • NeelyCam
            • 9 years ago

            [quote<]Rambus hasn't developed or created anything other than Rambus Dram which longsince failed in the market.[/quote<] Again, do you not follow ISSCC? RDRAM was their own standard, but they were very much involved in developing/creating I/O methodologies in general. [b<]Their[/b<] inventions ended up SDRAM, DDR etc. This can't be disputed - these were THEIR ideas. They are still very much implementing actual circuits based on either standards or their own proprietary techniques. Maybe you should check this link before you continue spewing your ignorant crap: [url<]http://www.rambus.com/us/technology/innovations/index.html[/url<] Although, I have a feeling you won't understand what those innovations mean, so maybe it's not worth your time.

            • clone
            • 9 years ago

            aww see now your just getting mad, I won this discussion so long ago and you are correct it’s no longer worth my time.

            a link from Rambus….. lol.

            • NeelyCam
            • 9 years ago

            Sorry, but you lost the discussion by failing to counter most of my arguments. But don’t feel bad.

            • clone
            • 9 years ago

            you offered no arguments, you did what everyone does when they want to disagree for the sake of such.

            you demand everything while offering nothing…. it was funny that you linked the Rambus mainpage though.

    • kamikaziechameleon
    • 9 years ago

    I’m sorry but microsoft is way worse on the xbox than apple is on any of their platforms.

    Google is gods gift to the consumer. 😛

    • crazybus
    • 9 years ago

    Where’s the Cheese option?

    • Voldenuit
    • 9 years ago

    Microsoft gave $113 million to charities in 2009 (and $122 mil the year before that). Google didn’t release its figures, but it does have a philanthropic arm and runs various charity events like the chrome tab donation.

    Apple? For decades, there’s only been the sound of crickets chirping when quizzed about their charitable donations.

      • Kharnellius
      • 9 years ago

      I’d have to say there is a disproportionately large number of schools using Macs (compared to the actual market share) and I KNOW school districts cannot afford them so there must be some sort of donating going on there.

        • Dirge
        • 9 years ago

        That is a business decision, to get as many kids exposed to Apple’s tech as possible. Nothing to do with charity.

          • ludi
          • 9 years ago

          You could make that argument for effectively all corporate charity. Some do it to build goodwill with employees or potential customers, others do it to get their foot in the door with the technology. Either way, the ultimate goal is to improve the performance of the business.

            • mcnabney
            • 9 years ago

            No. If a company donates money that money can be used on anything. If they donate product, they are creating a customer which they will benefit from long term.

            Or do you think those free phones that wireless providers give away with a contract are charitable donations to you?

            • ludi
            • 9 years ago

            What are you talking about? It doesn’t matter what the company donates as long as it is useful to the recipient and has no cost to the recipient. If the recipient has a need for computing technology, then a donation of “n” modern PC stations is useful. The recipient always has the option of refusing a donation if it would not suit their use and create a disposal headache.

            Second, no wireless provider gives away phones for free: As you just noted, a contract is signed agreeing to pay “$x” for a minimum of “y” months, and the phone is provided under the terms of the contract. What does that have to do with a charitable donation of computer hardware to a school?

            • lilbuddhaman
            • 9 years ago

            “Mother’s of the students at Wilhelm High, you can thank Apple for your brand new computer lab and all of its equipment ! What a great and charitable company they are ! Lets hope the kids don’t spend too much time updating their itunes ! hahahah ”

            ::insert cheering from sheeple::

            ::insert smiling Apple Rep::

            ::insert credit card::

          • A_Pickle
          • 9 years ago

          …and PC companies could donate more for less. Our local high school upgraded four or five labs (each possessing 15-25 computers) within the span of a year – to reasonably good machines (back then). 2.8 GHz Pentium 4’s, 512 MB RAM, Geforce MX 440’s… snappy little buggers. Much faster than the dual G4 PowerMacs we had in the video production room.

    • Chun¢
    • 9 years ago

    [url<]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YNSHA3FBW2U[/url<] Apple v Microsoft, Star wars addition.

    • Game_boy
    • 9 years ago

    No Nvidia on the list?

    Regarding bumpgate, rebranding, Arkham Asylum, the SLI levy, lack of an open Linux driver, witholding the GTS 250 from Anandtech, and reviewers’ guide “talking points” about CUDA that end up verbatim in the conclusion on certain less trustworthy sites.

    (Yes, same could be said about AMD/Intel for different things)

      • Chun¢
      • 9 years ago

      Or Intel?

        • Game_boy
        • 9 years ago

        Worst offenders in history have to be SCO and Rambus though.

          • UberGerbil
          • 9 years ago

          Actually, if you really look into the history (or were paying attention when it happened), Rambus was no worse than the other memory manufacturers (at least in the eyes of several federal courts). Which does not make it a non-evil company, but if it’s one of the worst then it has a [i<]lot[/i<] of company.

    • albundy
    • 9 years ago

    Apple, Because you’re not quite evil enough. Well it’s true! It’s true! You’re semi-evil. You’re quasi-evil. You’re the margarine of evil. You’re the Diet Coke of evil. Just one calorie, not evil enough. Bring on the sharks with laser beams attached to their heads!

    • khands
    • 9 years ago

    As much as I wanted to vote Apple, they’re at least not trying to hide the fact that they are. This made me vote Google.

    • anotherengineer
    • 9 years ago

    Intel didn’t make the list?? :O

    I guess they must be good now that they paid all the fines around the world for being so “nice”

    Google should be last, I mean most of their products no one has to use because there are alternatives, same with apple, however Microsoft, depending on application you don’t have a choice, the only upside is that Bill Gates donates a good chunk to charity, maybe his donations will save Jobs in the end who knows!!

    Now that would be ironic!

    • ChangWang
    • 9 years ago

    Although I voted Apple, I wouldn’t say there *evil*. More like snotty and arrogant. And their hardcore fans act the same way

    • dpaus
    • 9 years ago

    Oh, come on! Microsoft is increasingly impotent, and Google at least [i<]tries[/i<] to be good (albeit within their own definition of 'good') - Apple is just pure, unmitigated [b<]evil!![/b<]

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This