Talk:Sony

Updating the Sony page

I would like to supply Wikipedia with documents to update the Sony listing, including photos and earning documentation. How can I go about doing this? How can I ensure the documents will be used to update the page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.33.98.121 (talk) 13:40, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

If your documents are published, they can be used here. If not, not. Binksternet (talk) 14:43, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

But some items included in the Sony profile are not published and do not have citations? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.33.98.122 (talk) 15:42, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Seeing that you're logging in from a Sony IP address, suggest reading this guide and/or the COI guideline, especially as it relates to disclosure (even on Talk pages). Without mounting a huge project to learn how to contribute to Wikipedia effectively, you could contribute your citations or any factual corrections here, though there is no guarantee they will be used promptly.

My user page identifies myself as a COI editor, but I do not have a COI in this case. Just trying to be helpful. If you have questions, feel free to visit my Talk page. King4057 (talk) 05:36, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

---

I read that Betacam is still prominent in the movie and television industry. I just wanted to double check - is this still true? I heard that digital technology has taken over (or is in the process of) where they no longer use Betacam, but straight to digital. - Feel free to comment or update if anyone knows more about this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.1.31.99 (talk) 22:16, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Why is there nothing about the ps3 lawsuit with LG here? Not important enough for good ol' wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.252.50.201 (talk) 09:47, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Should I add content concerning the PS3 controversies in the 'controversies' section given its disputed state? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.191.253.227 (talk) 14:37, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Yo! What's it with the logins? Why do I have to be logged in to see certain pictures? That uncool! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.8.197.129 (talk) 13:36, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm a little concerned that the description in the Products section actually says relatively little about what Sony actually produces and is essentially a collection of criticisms of Sony, which would be better collected elsewhere on the page. Sony isn't beyond criticism, but this isn't the section for it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.158.172.151 (talk) 10:29, 10 April 2011 (UTC) There is no mention of the current television products- the 3D, Smart, and 4k resolution- televisions, competing 3D content display technologies. 117.195.135.126 (talk) 06:20, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Merger of Sony Group into this article

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was to merge. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 12:45, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

---

I suggest merging Sony Group into this article. Please vote below so that consensus can be reached over wheather to proceed with the merger. Use the following format for your vote. Thanks. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 08:13, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

*'''Support''' - insert reason for supporting merger here ~~~~

*'''Oppose''' - insert reason for opposing merger here ~~~~

Support this merger

1. Support - As the editor proposing this merger, I obviously support it. Sony Group doesn't seem to be especially notable apart from Sony Corporation and has no significant coverage in by third party sources. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 08:13, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

1. Support - I agree with the merger. Lewismaster (talk) 10:10, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

1. Support - I agree with the merger also. It's basically just a group within the company itself; probably playing Duck, Duck Goose! Hehe AnimatedZebra (talk) 14:01, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

1. Support. Worthy of a section in the main article, not a separate article. Binksternet (talk) 14:33, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

1. Support - This is the main article on the parent company, Sony Corp. Also, the subsidiaries within the group are listed here as well.--Tærkast (Communicate) 15:59, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Oppose this merger

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Products section

The products section is really strange. Instead of neutrally describing what products Sony offers, it places undue weight on controversies and problems. Anyone else agree? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:45, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I support the removal of undue weight on controversies and problems in the products section. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:56, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I completely agree. In fact, this is true for many parts of the article in general... @_@ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.154.241 (talk) 23:35, 24 April 2011 (UTC) The section is honestly way more like a list of controversies with their products than a section about the products themselves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.154.241 (talk) 01:23, 27 April 2011 (UTC) The product section only covers controversies. I suggest flag the page for cleanup — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.122.65.69 (talk) 15:37, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree. A complete rewrite of that section is required. We could spin off the entire controversies into a new section.--MelSk (talk) 16:00, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. This entire article reads like an anti-Sony blog rant. Virtually the entire Products section should be moved under Controversies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.207.185.100 (talk) 18:30, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Another hacking

As per the changes here: Sony Pictures Entertainment, another website hacked. Sources:

• http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-13636704
• http://news.cnet.com/8301-31021_3-20068414-260/hackers-steal-more-customer-info-from-sony-servers/?tag=topStories1

Since you guys dont want IPs editing, one of you lot will have to do it. Have fun. You can just copy/rephrase what I added to the other article as linked.

Thank you, but  Not done. What exactly do you want changed or added, and to what part of the article? Please leave your request in the form of "please change X to Y" or "please add X to Y part of the article". Also, we greatly appreciate IP contributions, but some articles are semi-protected because of vandalism. Thanks again, Samwb123^T-C-E 02:55, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Alright, I will rephrase my request into your template. "Please change the article so that the section about hackings includes the information on the most recent hackings of Sony Pictures Entertainment. I have provided two reliable sources above. I have also linked you to another article where I already made the changes because it wasn't locked, so you could even go as far as using the information there." Apologies. I had assumed that what I wanted to be changed was clear since reading the two sources I linked, then reading the relevant section in this article reveals that Wikipedia is out of date.

 Not done Perhaps if you could write a paragraph of text and then I or someone else will happily move that into the article. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 11:50am • 01:50, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Not enough about the legacy the company has and its historical importance, very bad article in general

Look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Inc. , for example. The article talks a lot about the rich history of the company. Sony may not be as dominant in the market now, but it has a rich history and was a very very important tech company in the 1980's to 1990's. None of that is conveyed in the article at all. It seems to focus only on the current stuff, especially way too much on the controversies. The product section jarringly lacks any mention of the historically important products. Trinitron and Walkman are not even mentioned in the products section. (Actually, the products section doesn't even discuss the current line-up well at all either. It really should be renamed Controversy part 2.)

Also, it's weird how there's a formats and technologies section and a products section. Shouldn't they together be one big section that separates into many subsections? For example, Walkman or MiniDisc would belong in both sections. It does not make sense to talk about a product separately in two sections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.6.66.105 (talk) 01:37, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Controversy.

Might as well add their anti-lawsuit pin from their new EULA, then add the same thing to Electronic Arts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.17.134.7 (talk) 00:29, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Sony 1955-1957 Logo.png Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Sony 1955-1957 Logo.png, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 4 October 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 19:55, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

This article contradicts the article "media conglomerate".

In this article, it says Sony Corperation is the fifth largest media conglomerate in the world. However, the "media conglomerate" article says that the Walt Disney Company is the world's largest media conglomerate, with News Corporation, Time Warner, CBS Corporation and Viacom completing the top 5. Sony Corperation is nowhere in that. --Wernjump (talk) 23:02, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Standard Oil New York

There's an Internet rumor I've encountered on several occasions the Sony is an undisclosed acronym for "Standard Oil New York". Perhaps we could substantiate this enough to have this mentioned in the article? __meco (talk) 16:33, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

The Standard Oil Company of New York actually went by Socony. So almost, but not quite :). Prodego ^talk 20:32, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Products text

The products text needs a lot of changing. It looks more like an attack on Sony's brand, since it looked like a criticism and controversy. Ryanquek95 (talk) 14:07, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

POV problems

This article has clear and serious problems with POV. See WP:NPOV. It delivers a biased, heavily negative view of the company's products and actions. I see the problems start to emerge with this sentence: "Sony announced that on 1 April 2010 it was electronically removing Linux functionality from the first generation PS3." There are several problems with this sentence. First, the date is unnecessarily specific and doesn't aid the reader with comprehension. Second, access to Linux is a specialized concern of little relevance to the vast majority of readers. It would be appropriate on the PlayStation 3 page, if anywhere, but certainly not a page that seeks to broadly overview Sony's products and services (which are many and varied - games are a relatively small portion of the company's lineup).

From there, the information on the PlayStation spins out of control. If you think I'm being too sensitive to criticism of Sony, you need only look at the actual ratio of information: there are 2.5 major paragraphs of objective information, followed by 2.5 major paragraphs of solid criticism. In my view, overwhelming the reader with negative facts is simply the wrong way to present valid criticisms of a company. If you feel strongly that the graffiti and "All I Want for Xmas" incidents warrant a paragraph each, I would love to see an article on Sony marketing with those criticisms explained in a more appropriate context. I already created one for Nintendo marketing, which provides opportunities for the detailed kind of research that doesn't fit on an overview page such as Sony.

VAIO: I removed several sentences about virtualization, for the same reason the Linux sentence is problematic: it's a narrowly technical issue of importance to a small fraction of Sony users, and thus an even smaller portion of the general public. As I said before, please feel free to cover the virtualization issues in-depth on the VAIO article itself. The VAIO section's main problem is, again, an imbalanced presentation of information. There is literally one sentence that overviews the laptops, basically saying that Sony makes them. What follows is a length subsection exploring the laptop fire controversy. In the grand scheme of Sony's history of making laptops (millions of them), the fires do not warrant 95% of the coverage. If the amount of objective information on the VAIO laptops were around 2 paragraphs larger than it is now, the fire paragraph might be warranted.

Sony Pictures: This is one of the more insidious problems with the Sony article: the section title has very little to do with the content of that section. When you see a section title on Sony Pictures, you expect to read an overview of the company's film business. But in this instance, you don't read a single word of objective or general information about Sony Pictures. Instead, there are two paragraphs, each detailing a separate incident. There are issues from 2005 and 2006 that might have been notable at the time, but are now relative footnotes in Sony's history. Let's put the issues in context. For the first one, the reviews in question happened 12 years ago, in 2012. The settlement was for $1.5m. Sony brought in $80,000 million this past year. We're all smart enough to do the comparison. These incidents deserve, at most, one sentence each in this article. The current attention given to these incidents deceives the reader as to their long-term significance.

BMG: Two articles composed entirely of criticism. No objective information.

Digital photography: One sentence of objective information. An entire paragraph of criticism.

Finance and revenue: Almost exclusively negative. Rather than take a long-term look at this company, as old as it is, the section focuses on the past several years when Sony has encountered particular financial challenges. The calls of doom and gloom are also overstated. This is a company with over US$100 billion cash on hand, as clearly indicated in the infobox. A loss of $3 to 4 billion does little to jeopardize Sony's long-term viability.

Environmental record: This is actually the one section where Sony receives any significant praise. Yet the praise is somewhat unnecessary, because environmental concerns don't generally occupy such an important place in discussions of corporations. Whether you personally care about environmental causes is irrelevant; most notable sources will consider environmental issues secondary to more business-centric issues such as marketing, product mix, sales, personnel, distribution, operations, customer service, etc. The criticism and controversy subsection included within the environmental record section is misplaced, because the Wikipedia community generally discourages dedicated criticism sections. If the goal is simply to lambast Sony's environmental record, there are any number of blogs and social media sites available to make that case. This is not one of them.

As a final piece of evidence, let me cite the reader reviews. "Trustworthy: 3.6 / 160 ratings ... Objective: 3.3 / 155 ratings ... Complete: 3.6 / 156 ratings ... Well-written: 3.8 / 171 ratings." These numbers are considerably lower than those for comparable articles. Note the particularly low score for objectivity.

I propose a thorough and near-complete rewriting of this article. Beyond its over-reliance on criticism, the article also lacks critical information on Sony Pictures, the VAIO line, BMG, and photography, among other topics. In fact, it doesn't describe any of those four business lines in valuable depth. If you feel strongly that some or even most of these criticisms should remain in their current form, please provide citations from reliable sources explaining why these particular incidents have a long-term significance. I can personally attest to a sometimes hyper-reliance and hyper-focus on daily news articles, but what really count in an encyclopedia are the textbook explanations of 10- or 20-year trends.

The sheer quantity of these criticisms actually lessens their effectiveness, because it's difficult to sort out objective truths from POV-loaded opinions. Please let me know what you think, agree or disagree. I appreciate any help in delivering a more balanced view of the company. Thank you. CaseyPenk (talk) 16:49, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh OK. It looks like you're right. I'll help in any way I can. Looks like a lot of work is needed though. --Jtalledo (talk) 21:41, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

For anyone reading this now, the POV problems are by and large gone. CaseyPenk (talk) 07:04, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

By removing criticism you've created POV issue of your own. Pleasetry (talk) 00:18, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

The article lacks info about the current (2012) crisis of Sony

• http://uk.ign.com/articles/2012/04/20/new-york-times-sony-is-in-the-fight-of-its-life
• http://uk.ign.com/articles/2012/06/04/sonys-stock-falls-to-lowest-level-since-1984

--Niemti (talk) 18:05, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

lawsuits

LawsuitsOn August 18, 2008, Red filed a lawsuit against the electronics company LG over its use of the name Scarlet.[35] Jannard accused LG "...of taking the "Scarlet" brand name from the camera company, despite RED's denial of their request."[36]

On September 23, 2011 Jim Jannard announced that his personal email account was compromised by former Arri executive Michael Bravin.[37] A lawsuit against Arri was filed at the end of 2011.[38] James H. Neale, attorney for defendants filed a declaration in support of Arri's opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Oct 29, 2012 saying Red has not yet identified the allegedly misappropriated trade secrets. Arri has produced nearly 3,000 pages of documents. Red wants all documents relating to ARRI's development and marketing of the Alexa camera and to its efforts to compete with RED. He also claims that Gregory Weeks (attorney for Red) mischaracterizes the parites' meet and confer discussions and their respective proposed resolutions. The evidence strongly suggests that RED's purpoted trade secret claimes are a pretext for obtaining untrammeled access to the sensitive information of its competitor, ARRI. The plaintiff RED has provided nothing in discovery.

On June 27, 2012 Red sued Wooden Camera, a manufacturer of third party accessories, for copyright infringement.[39]

Red.com sued Netcast et all Sept 16, 2008 8:2008-cv-01030 Breach of Contract (alter ego)[40]

Red.com sued Silicon for Breach of Contract June 9, 2010, case number 30-2010-00379482 Santa Ana Superior Court. Case dismissed.[citation needed] Notice to Share Holders, On June 9, 2010 the company was named in a lawsuit...Red.com alleges breach of contract, fraud and negligent misrepresentation. Last update to share holders; On or about February 2, 2011, the company received a proposed draft settlement agreement from Red.com. Subsequently, on March 3,2011, the parties entered into a settlement agreement, which was substantially different from the terms of Red.com's proposed settlement agreement. The settlement did not result in any payment by the Company and accourdingly, did not have any adverse impact on the Company's financial position, results of operations or cash flow.

Red.com sued Wind River System for Breach of Contract,Fraud, and Negligent representation (service agreement) Nov 14,2008 Superior Court Snata Clara County, State of California. dismissed.[citation needed] Notice to share holders. On Nov 14, 2008 Red.Com filed a complaint against the company in the Superior Court of the State of California, Santa Clara County. The complaint assers causes of action against the company for fraud in the inducement, brach of contract and negligent representation in connection with services agreeement entered into between the company and Red in Jan 2006.....The company beleives that Red's complaint is without merit and intends to defent this matter vigorously. On Jan 2, 2009 the company filed a cross-complaint against Red for breach of contract in connection with Red's failure to pay outsatnding invoices and for breach of contract and conversion/trespass to chattels in connection with Red's unauthorized distribution of Wind River VxWorks operating system to end users.

Red.com sued Pixellexis August 2, 2011 over RedBrix Case Number 8:2011cv01155 On August 14, 2011 Pixellexis announced that it had ceased its operation and would no longer sell any products. Pixellexis went out of business. [41]

Red.com sued Usability.pro et all.(alter ego) April 7, 2010 30-2010-00360802They countered sued 2010 Orange County Superior Court System.[citation needed] However, unbeknownst to Usability.Pro at the time of entering into these arrangements with Red.com, Red.com's modus operandi is to hire outside vendors to perform valuable services, import the work product in-house, and then refuse to make all payments owned under the contracts and sue to recover whatever Red.com paid, asserting trumped up allegations of fraud and breach of contract. Red.com has failed to make good on promises it made to its customers to bring the Epic and Scarlet camera systems to the market in 2010. To cover up for its own inability to develop marketable products, Red.com launched a campaign to blame its own failfure on outside partners, designers and manufacturers with whom it contracted to assist in developing Red.com's camera products. Rather than acknowledge and address its own shortcomings, Red.com's approach to blame others rather than taking responsibility runs directly counter to the image it seeks to promote in the market as a self-reliant, visionary company that engages in "straight talk" with its customors.

Red.com sued Uniqoptics,et all in 2010, 2:11-cv-03611-VFB-JEM Trademark (Lanham Act)case dismissed. [42]

Red.com sued Uniqoptics et all in Orange County Superior Court 30-2010-00373507 May 2010, Breach of Contract, Fraud. Ongoing litigation

Red.com and Landmine Media sued Andrew Reid and EOSHD (a blogger), on Oct 6, 2010 for Slander, Publication of facts placing in false light, trademark infringement, and unfair competition. Mr Andrew Reid changed in Terms and Conditions and case was dismissed. [43]

Red.com sued Nightsky Hosting, Inc dba R3DDATA, Case No8:12-cv-00034-DOC-MLG Jan. 9, 2012.[citation needed]

Red.com sued Epic Games May 5, 2008 8:08-cv-00494-DOC-An

Red.com sued 24P LLC Sept 13, 2007 sacv 07-1013-jvs mlgx (counter claimant)

Red.com sued Sony Feb 2013

WIPO CASES Brian Schoemholz et all Trio Films/Cine Red Compalint Denied Zimrat Goldstein from Ontario Canada Redcamfilms slu (complaint denied