Microsoft Tops Corporate-Reputation Survey

Carl Bialik from WSJ writes "Microsoft beat out Johnson & Johnson for the top spot in the annual Wall Street Journal survey of the reputations of U.S. companies. Bill Gates's personal philanthropy boosted the public's opinion of Microsoft, helping to end J&J's seven-year run at No. 1. From the article: 'Mr. Gates demonstrates how much the reputation of a corporate leader can rub off on his company. Formerly chief executive officer and now chairman of Microsoft, he contributed to a marked improvement in the company's emotional appeal. Jeanie Cummins, a survey respondent and homemaker in Olive Hill, Ky., says Mr. Gates's philanthropy made her a much bigger fan of Microsoft. "He showed he cared more for people than all the money he made building Microsoft from the ground up," she says. "I wish all the other big shots could do something like this." To be sure, some respondents still complain that Microsoft bullies its competitors and unfairly monopolizes the software business. But such criticism is less biting and less pervasive than it was just a few years ago.'"

Comments

Microsoftie

[orbitalia]

We all find it easy to bash Microsoft, their products, and their practices, and quite rightly so, but you can't really argue with Gates's way of using his riches. Even the most cynical would have to admit his heart is in the right place.

Re:Microsoftie

[kevin_conaway]

We all find it easy to bash Microsoft, their products, and their practices, and quite rightly so....

So why are they ranked the top company in a reputation survey? Seems a little silly since although Gates made his money from Microsoft, his spending is not related to the company.

Re:Microsoftie

[jimstapleton]

Legal, Sales and Marketing... That's the source of evil in any company.

Re:Microsoftie

[jimstapleton]

Oh, and accounting.

Why? Each of these groups is about getting money and minimising financial cost at all cost, so to speak. Typically everyone else is usually interested simply in making a good product, and trying not to be hindered by these 3 or 4.

Re:Microsoftie

[LuYu]

I suppose you do not remember India and those Gates Foundation brib... *cough* ... donations that were given to ensure MS software was used instead of FOSS. They also paid the NYTimes to play the whole thing up in a series of sycophantic articles, if I recall correctly.

I really do not understand how MS can be viewed in a good light. They have bribed public officials (how else could their monopoly trial have evaporated), bribed governments (India cannot be an isolated case), misrepresented advertising expenditures as donations (this is technically stealing tax money), supported bad laws (software patents anybody?), robbed schools (audits in Washington state and Licensing 6), and many other objectionable things which are much better documented elsewhere.

That is more or less the proverbial tip of the iceberg. The fact that these people voted MS as the corporation having the best reputation demonstrates one of two things: a) The corporations are right. People are a bunch or stupid sheep and the corporations can lie, cheat, and steal, and then use advertising to repair their image in the mind of the public. b) The survey is carried out on people who have no idea what is going on.

Re:Microsoftie

[xtracto]

I'm always confused by the way people claim Microsoft is an evil company. The leadership of Microsoft has never been evil. To the contrary, they do tremendous good for all sorts of charitable causes.

Well, I always thought the same about MS... I do not dislike its products although I dislike its MONOPOLY PRACTICES. Aside of that, as everyone else said we could argue that Microsoft and Bill Gate's foundation are completely separate thing... ... at least I thought so, unfortunately it happens that Mr. Gates wisely used his "unevil" foundation to /push/ my country into using Microsoft's solutions instead of Open Source ones... now *THAT* is bad...

You can read about it on this article . You might recognize the name of Miguel de Icaza who was one of the principals on the e-Mexico initative.

an interesting snippet:
"I thought I was going to be the only person for Linux," de Icaza said. "But HP surprised me, IBM surprised me and Sun surprised me."

Despite general agreement that open-source technologies would be more flexible and cost efficient, Mexico's Linux revolution was quashed after Fox met with Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates, according to de Icaza.

"Bill Gates flew down to Mexico, and they announced a donation of $30 million dollars ... and Linux was dropped," de Icaza said.

And here is where he used his nice foundation:
The software maker has also allotted $10 million to train workers in small and mid-size businesses, along with an additional grant from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation to the country's Vamos México program to be used to move the country's libraries online. .

Note that this "Vamos Mexico" foundation is being investigaed for fraud and corruption in Mexico.

So yeah, I used to defend Bill Gate's foundation with the premise that, even though the Corporation "Microsoft" was bad, that did not mean the foundation was bad... but the e-Mexico issue made me change my views.

As for your question:
Where exactly does the evil come from? How do a group of people who are not evil get together and do something evil?

My thought has always been that a Corporation is evil by definition, because the objective of any corporation is to profit, no matter what they do. You should see The Corporation film. They explain it very well. Basically, a corporation has all the properties and rights a human been has... except that it does NOT have a "soul" or "conscience" or whatever you want to call it. That is why it has no "minimal ethics" and you see corporations going to the end of the third world where slaving is allowed in order to maximize their profits which is what they do (Nike, Starbucks, Apple, etc, etc etc...).

Re:Microsoftie

[MightyMartian]

Rich men who have gained their wealth by trodding on others often appease their consciences by acts of generousity. I see no reason to forgive Gates or Microsoft for their anti-competitive activities just because Gates has caught some sort of a donation bug.

Re:Microsoftie

[jimstapleton]

actually, I use "evil" in respect to apple all the time. The problem is, they had been so evil for so long, it /did/ hurt them, so nobody cares about them anymore. They are finally breaking out of irrelevance. You should see more "apple is evil" soon.

The other thing is, some companies can keep better control of these sources of evil, so the companies themselves are considered less evil, though the larger a company is, typically the harder this task is.

Re:Microsoftie

[MightyMartian]

Let's consider that every group that designs a word processor is forced to reverse engineer Microsoft's document standard, and that Microsoft is going out of its way to sabotage an open document standard in favor of one which can only be 100% reliably opened under its software.

In a very real sense, the monopolistic practices of Microsoft over the last two decades has lead to a stranglehold on the marketplace. Each time it releases a free-bee, like a browser or a media player, where a competitor exists, it is attempting to wipe out the competition.

And yet, apparently, because Gates gives to poor Africans, the fact that a large portion of his fortune, and the vast fortunes of his company have been made in precisely the fashion outlined becomes okay. Good for Gates saving Africans. Maybe he can use some of his money to save the competition he and the company which is a convicted monopolist so gleefully destroyed.

Re:Microsoftie

[Anonymous Coward]

It reminds me of Klansmen; when a Klansman claims to hate "niggers", but then grudgingly admits he doesn't hate actual black people - claiming instead that they aren't *really* "niggers"

I didn't realize Chris Rock was a klansman.

Re:Microsoftie

[nasch]

And why don't those companies just give a big fuck you to microsoft's format? The lock in with ANYTHING from Microsoft is SUPPORTED by the very consumers that BUY from microsoft.

You just answered your question. Saying FU to MS compatibility means saying FU to their customers. Companies that do that tend to go out of business.

Re:Microsoftie

[ErroneousBee]

So a corporation (Real) acted evil. Kind of proves the point.

Although I've no doubt the if Real had played it straight on this, they would soon have been embraced, extended, and extinguished. After all, why would a user install realplayer if the Windows bundled Media Player played real just fine.

Looks like Real got out alive on this one. Ironic that it was their dodgy underhanded tactics that saved them.

Re:Microsoftie

[CDarklock]

> Kind of proves the point.

It's *insightful* to say that when someone else is evil, that proves Microsoft's evil nature, because surely Microsoft was going to be evil anyway?

You people are on crack.

Re:Microsoftie

[tomstdenis]

No. Visual Studio is tied to windows to prop window sales, just like Office and the rest of the apps. If Windows followed ANY open standards w.r.t. operating system calls, gui libraries, etc, porting from Windows to Linux or BSD wouldn't be an impossible task.

As for doing things at the EXPENSE of the customers. How about things like ... using proprietary undocumented file formats, exploiting internal API functions, purposefully messing existing apps (back in the day w.r.t lotus), not supporting industry standards, etc.

For example, getting users hooked on Office back in the day, and then vigorously seeking to modify the file format to make it harder to work with.

Similarly, with IE. Why doesn't IE follow the W3C standards? Why must people design for IE and then "the rest of the world". IE came bundled with Windows, got people hooked and then msft used it to depart from the standards, further locking in users.

etc..

As for internal specs being easier ... yeah for MSFT, not others. MSFT can develop applications for .doc [for instance] because the format is known internally, it was also designed internally. I'm holding my breath until Office can open StarOffice documents...

Tom

It's sad that people can be such sheep

[meosborne]

I guess this just proves that if you have enough money you can always buy yourself some respectability. People won't concern themselves with how you got your money.

WTF?

[M-G]

I'm sorry, but WTF does Gates spending his personal fortune on charitable causes have to do with the company? I would think that the typical WSJ reader wouldn't use that as part of their opinion of MS overall. I'd be more inclined to believe that the typical WSJ reader would have voted for them because of their ruthless nature and ability to make money hand over fist.

Bully?

[darjen]

To be sure, some respondents still complain that Microsoft bullies its competitors and unfairly monopolizes the software business. But such criticism is less biting and less pervasive than it was just a few years ago.'"

People can complain all they want, but it doesn't make it so. It just happens to be an easy target for anti competition, anti capitalist folks. As much as I can't stand certain aspects of using Windows, there is no doubt what MS has done for the tech industry, and the charity world. Windows domination of the marketplace won't last forever. Complacency at the top of the market is what will kill you. As will releasing ho-hum products like Vista. As people begin to move towards better and lower cost alternatives, their market share will definitely decline. Instead of focusing on such criticism as stated above, and trying to tear them down, we should continue working to unseat them with better (free) products.

Re:WTF?

[mikelieman]

Typical WSJ reader is a MSFT fanboy, because they don't have a clue what REAL TECHNOLOGY is capable of.

QFT.

[FatSean]

It's easy for the average clod to understand that the CEO gives millions to poor and hungry people. It's hard for that clod to understand the sneaky business practices, and upgrade cycle that brings little but costs lots.

Re:how does that work?

[dcskier]

bill gates and microsoft to the common person are one in the same. anything he does will reflect on the company and likewise, no matter if it's the case or not. even the slashdot microsoft icon is a picture of bill, err i mean borg bill. so yes him giving away his money will reflect on microsoft.

Education

[pubjames]

The one thing that I'm afraid I really can't forgive Gates for is the way they have targeted schools IT budgets in the UK (and I'm sure in the rest of the world). They basically have used every trick in the book to make sure they always get the lions share of schools IT budgets, and the schools haven't actually got very much in return. And Microsoft has never actually shown much concern about actually helping educate the children - it's all just about turning the kids into Microsoft zombies.

So Gates' generosity with his money doesn't impress me, take money that should be going to children's education and you're forever a scumbag in my view.

Re:Education

[MyNameIsEarl]

So Microsoft is like the tobacco companies, going after children in order to gain a customer for life. An interesting strategy to be sure, but certainly not one of a "good" company in the terms of morally good and not in the good for making money sense.

Wrong.

[twitter]

you can't really argue with Gates's way of using his riches. Even the most cynical would have to admit his heart is in the right place.

I can argue with the way he uses his riches. If you do more to know about it than listen to advertisements, you find Mr. Gate's heart is the same as it ever was. He has used foundation money to purchase newspapers critical of his company, the San Jose Mercury News and The Contra Costa Times, arguably to silence them. His spending on schools, as most of his deals are, is just another lever for control. At the local Gates high school, the state is spending nine dollars for every one he gives but he ends up with complete control of the results. His moves into medicine are backed by his "IP" propaganda, which has been a disaster for medicine itself. A truly cynical person would say that his foundation is just another tax shelter for his continued diversification and attempts to control even more of the US and world economy. Philanthropy is about helping people, not telling them what to do for your own good.

as the saying goes

[hany]

How do a group of people who are not evil get together and do something evil?

Maybe it has something to do with the saying:

Road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Or take a look a look at story covered in following post: UK Greens Declare Vista Bad For Environment - maybe the attempt to give customers "better experience" and also "satisfying *IAA" is supported by good intentions but here you are: at least greens consider it evil.

Re:as the saying goes

[hany]

How exactly does this saying apply to Microsoft?

In the same way as your description of your perception of people in Microsoft apply to Microsoft - you wrote it confuses you that some people claim Microsoft is evil claiming there arre good (not evil) people there. In response I speculated based on your post, advancing it along this path:

• people at MS are good
• so they they have good intentions
• based on those intentions they are doing things
• their actions have some effects
• one of those effects is them (MS people) being percieved as evil (by some other people)

Of course I'm not going to insist there is mathematical pecission nor exact logic in this. I even do not insist this is some kind of reasoning nor correct explanation of your dilema.

I'm just suggesting possibilities.

And WRT Vista being bad for the environment, aren't the people saying it just a little bit... crazy?

Maybe. But for example also people who make peace by starting war looks to me as having same deficiency.

:)

at least he's trying

[romit_icarus]

I know this is /. and MS bashing is de rigeur, but let that not detract from the fact that what Bill Gates is doing is admirable to say the least.

Why is it admirable? It's not that he is rich and has a lot of money etc. It's the fact that he's getting into global developmental issues and spending a majority time working on that than on IT. I live in India and I've seen the positive work that his foundation is doing in HIV prevention. Also on a personal front, he's moving away from IT where he has leadership position to an area where he is new. Yes we know that money can buy you leverage but then you could argue that way with anything he does..

He could have just retired to the carribean, bought out an island and enjoyed his wealth. But he didn't and so let's give him a cheer just for that.

Reminds me of the mob bosses.

[zerofoo]

Those guys used to give big-time money to their church.....and then go "whack" some guys as a matter of business.

The leaders of an organization do not necessarily reflect the true nature of their organization.

Bill and Melinda are probably very nice people, and they do very nice things with their money, but their company is a ruthless and brutal company. Microsoft has demonstrated, time and time again, that they will do anything to maintain their monopoly and stranglehold on their market. They have put the screws to their "partners" and customers, and have caused much ill will between those parties.

No amount of gift-giving, by a few at the top, will change that.

-ted

Funny thing

[WindBourne]

This foundation is about his wife's work; She is a PR person. Basically, they are looking to buy ppl and it is working quite nicely. But even in the early days of the foundation, you could see how intertwined it was with MS. In Colorado, a few of the small town libraries obtained computers from MS. I went into one and asked them about it. At that time, it was the lowest end computer that would run MS. More importantly, when I suggested that they run Linux on it, they said that they were prohibited from doing so. In fact, they were prohibited from running anything except what they bought from a MS site. It was deeply discounted software, IIRC, the OS was something like 50 and top office package was 150. Now, I do not know if that is still the case, but, it was obvious back then that the foundation was tied directly to MS.

Factors that have changed my own mind about M$

[El Cabri]

As a former red-blooded MS basher, I really cannot say that I've become a Microsoft fanboy either. I mostly don't care, and consider that PC OS technology has become a very boring field anyway. Here's a take at a list of things that have cooled me off :

• Windows XP is a fairly stable operating system, with no serious architectural flaw for office use, software development, workstation or hobbyist use.
• William H Gates III has stepped away from the company's spotlight and is leveraging his wealth in a remarkably, socially responsible way, making this accumulation truly beneficial to the world that has created it.
• Desktop Operating System peculiarities are growing more irrelevant every year in most domains. The general indifference around the release of Vista is the best proof of this.
• No true credible alternative OS has emerged after fifteen years of trying in each and every way : free software, commercial OS companies (Be), alternative OSs pushed by proprietary hardware vendors (Apple, Sun), etc.
• In the domain of software development, MS's contributions with .NET and C# are objectively superior to most of their predecessors (I'm talking mainstream environments, not niche or academic ones like Scheme, Haskell or SmallTalk). These are probably the best contribution to mainstream application and system development environment, since Kernighan tried system programming in a high level language and made C. They also have some of the best advanced research in that domain.
• By experience, I have found out that it is easier to tweak XP to behave as a Hobbyist's or developper's UNIX box, than it os to tweak Linux into doing properly all that XP does. Install Cygwin, a proper text editor, MS's free command line compiler suite, and learn how to configure the Terminal, and you're done.

This is known as...

[Anonymous Coward]

Robbing from the poor, and the rich, and then giving them a little bit of their own money back to make them think you're doing them a favour.

lying with numbers

[oohshiny]

respondents gave Microsoft very high marks for leadership and financial results. But Mr. Gates's personal philanthropy also boosted the public's opinion of Microsoft.

So do the mafia and the Cali drug cartel. The reputation of a company shouldn't be measured by how ruthless or financially successful it is, or how much money their founders give away, it should be measured by whether they comply with the law, innovate, are socially responsible in their business activities, and produce high-quality products.