Talk:Sony/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

CPU crippling

Looks like the Sony cripples CPU section is rather biased against Sony.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jampiter (talk • contribs) 22:09, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Which, I suppose, balances out the part in the article that claims Sony invented a whole bunch of things that they only played second or third fiddle on, or licensed the hardware from some other company? Especially giggleworthy is the sentence indicating Sony introduced the MICROSOFT MSX machine. There's a lot of insanity in this article, you've just spotted some of it that is, by raw coincidence, set against Sony 72.160.3.46 (talk) 20:53, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

ATRAC and MP3

The article refers to ATRAC as a compression system. This is not actually true. It is a data reduction technique. The resultant ATRAC data is still a recogniseable PCM coded data stream and can be decoded as such. It is however missing some of the detail that is considered inaudible. For transfer to Network Walkman type players it is further placed inside a Digital Rights Management 'wrapper' so that the data stream cannot be recovered.

Similarly, MP3 data streams are not converted to ATRAC as the article claims. They too are placed inside a DRM wrapper so that the MP3 cannot be extracted, but they remain as MP3 encoded audio as the Walkman display data format display will confirm.

20.133.0.14 06:45, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

SONY Digital cameras

I didn't see in the artical anything about sony cameras althought it is the first corperation wich made CCD lens in cameras

That should be CCD sensors, not lens(es). And while there is brief mention of analog and digital video formats introduced by Sony, there is nothing about the video cameras Sony made that fed those formats. Nor is there anything about Sony's acquisition of Minolta-Konica's camera division, which now places Sony in a top tier of quality camera and lens makers. RioRico (talk) 18:01, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Redirect?

The URL [1] gives me the following page:

Sony
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from SONY)
Jump to: navigation, search

SONY IS A VERY GD COMPANY !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!'

I don't know how to fix this, so can somebody take a look. Niek Kouwenberg 80.126.207.158 15:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Financial data such as operating cost, net income is wrong. MSN Money dropped two zeros, check the first external reference for proof, it should be 82.957 billion dollars (8.3 trillion yen)Orthuberra 08:24, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

i've deleted the POV from the controversies section as i don't see any problem

POV

i've deleted the POV as i don't see a problem

After the above post, the following was posted:

The entry for Halo 3, a game created by Sony's competitor Microsoft, was modified by someone within Sony. The addition was "(Halo 3) wont look any better than Halo 2."

It's also too bad that Killzone 2 won't amount to anything Halo produces. This cowardly act just further affirms that Sony is afraid of Halo since their oh so epic FPS Killzone is a pile of fake garbage

I don't know how to figure out whether sony edited halo 3, but this is just stupid counterattacking. Removed, hopefully a less POV explanation will be added.

I initially removed all of it, but after I take a second to read it, I realize that the bottom part is the only big problem. However, I would speculate that a single employee within sony does not represent an insult from the corporation as a whole, and it's probably insignificant. I'll leave it to people better versed at wiki to decide that.--Mr Bucket 04:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, there was a citation using a reliable source, and at a single sentence I saw nothing wrong with it. What was POV about it? Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 12:42, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

You do not know it was Sony yet you assume it was. It could have been edited a Sony fanboy or anyone who hates Halo, but there was a citation from external source. So what was POV about it? What IS POV is your jibe at Killzone 2 for saying it "won't amount to anything Halo produces" and calling it a "pile of fake garbage". That's clearly your bias, and it doesn't really help your neutrality shine through. Dew87 02:25, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Lik Sang

While most of the controversies may be legitimate, the Lik Sang controversy is not as the party at fault was Lik Sang, not Sony/Sony Computer Entertaintment. Request removal of that particular one...

Yeah, I've removed it. (84.13.240.216 18:44, 11 August 2007 (UTC))

I just searched the edit button... Wanted to add the Lik Sang case. Sony won the case that's right. But non the less they were part of this interesting and important story. They can be "proud of that". Don't let people forget this! --77.4.50.109 (talk) 01:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia edits

This section has been deleted multiple times, and each time without stating a reason. Here is the deleted text:

=== Wikipedia edits ===
The entry for ''[[Halo 3]]'', a game created by Sony's competitor Microsoft, was modified by somebody within Sony. The addition was "(Halo 3) wont look any better than Halo 2." <ref>[http://www.n4g.com/News-65101.aspx Sony Insults Halo 3 on Wikipedia].</ref>

I am not the original author of that statement, but I've verified that it's backed up by its source. For those who are against it, could you provide reasons why? Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:08, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Removed again and re-instated (again). Please don't remove this again without comment. --Wootonius 21:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Or a better reason than 84.13.251.147 could provide. John.n-irl 08:28, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Is the new part about the ps2 ok, im not familiar with any policy about using wikipedia as a source, i know it occured on here but still, seems bit odd. Especially since to prove it you need to do you own whois, seems odd for an encyclopedia John.n-irl 19:52, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm a little lukewarm on it myself. Perhaps we should check consensus. New edits, should we keep/delete paragraph 2 of this section and should we keep/delete paragraph 3?

• Weak delete paragraph 2 — self-referencing and Strong delete paragraph 3 — opinion POV (might be right, but it's still POV) Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:15, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. I don't think if you are referring to an IP outside of wikipedia making possibly biased edits falls that it should fall under self referencing. The IP address information is stored by Wikipedia itself and cannot be edited by others, and as such is not subject to the same possibility of bias that editable forms are. That would call into question the method that Wikipedia uses to collect and document IP's. The IP information is reliable and verifiable, regardless of whether a diff page on Wikipedia is used to show proof of documentation. I believe that paragraph two should stand seeing as how you can use the whois function simply by clicking on the IP in the diff page and then selecting the WHOIS option on the page regarding that IP's edits. I've checked the IP on the diff page listed and the IP is in fact listed as a Sony North America IP. It seems to be legitimate, verifiable, and most certainly a post from inside Sony netspace. Perhaps the first line of Paragraph two could be revised to simply say "IP Addresses attributed to Sony have also edited wiki in attempts to improve the company's image" or something to that air. The third paragraph could be revised to seem less opinionated. If based on a large volume of comments by experts in multiple video gaming medias, this statement could be considered to be true. Most certainly in need of rephrasing however. It also seems to serve to give reasoning as to why Sony would make the Wiki edits noted in paragraph 2. Perhaps revising to remove possibly opinionated statements and adding references to gaming media sources? Until we can form a consensus of more than just one individual I feel that rather to resorting to complete deletion of the section before discussing possible edits, the information should stand. I vote to reinstate the info pending further discussion of possible revisions and further consensus. Alphus Omegus 02:41, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd tend to agree with Alphus Omegus --Wootonius 20:22, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

While I agree that the information may be important, it's not the right article for the topic. That information belongs at the WikiScanner article, unless there is a larger independently-covered scandal (a la the Congressional one) specifically involving Sony. As a summary of a large global company that's been around for decades, I don't think that it has any relevance to the overall topic of an encyclopedic article on the Sony Corporation. Girolamo Savonarola 21:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Girolamo Savonarola. Surely there are far more important topics to be improved and expanded upon? ···巌流^{? · talk to ganryuu} 16:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I disagree again, only because the WikiScanner article cannot be a drop-zone for every commercial edit discovered on Wikipedia. You would also be attributing something to WikiScanner that by all accounts had nothing to do with WikiScanner until you mentioned it. The Paragraph makes no reference to WikiScanner and links only to a diff page here on Wikipedia. WikiScanner in this case amounts to pure speculation at this point, as we have no reason to suspect that it was discovered via WikiScanner other than your speculation. For all we know a disgruntled Sony employee could have added the paragraphs, or some 15 year old who was looking through the diff pages. The odds would suggest WikiScanner, that's not really enough to go on.

Companies that are found to have possibly edited Wikipedia in their own interests should have those edits placed on Their Pages so that readers can be notified of a potential bias. That way readers can decide for themselves whether they believe the current edit is biased or not and begin discussion on the talk page regarding potential bias. If the companies in question wish to comment or issue a statement to address the section, then I would support including that as well. Otherwise the WikiScanner article will just get bogged down by every commercial edit that has ever been made here at Wikipedia, whether or not WikiScanner had anything to do with the discovery of the commercial edit. As I said, I think it belongs in the controversies sections of the companies that are accused, however I am in favor of rewriting the section to remove any POV or neutrality concerns.

By posting corporate wiki edits on the pages of the companies that are accused of possibly biased wiki edits, it may in fact be a deterrent to these companies to continue with irresponsible wiki editing. If they know that readers can see them (and believe me they know, They have whole teams of PR folk for this stuff. ^.~), and people are watching out for this irresponsible use of the wiki, it may be a round-about way of holding these companies accountable and simultaneously guarding the integrity of Wikipedia by discouraging such abuses of the wiki system. As I stated earlier, it would also serve to leave the ultimate choice in the hands of the reader. People shouldn't just believe something because they are told to simply accept it as fact, ever. Not even from an encyclopedia. We should all encourage the questioning of information, because when we do, we encourage the pursuit of The Truth.

To address Ganryuu, the argument that "there are far more important topics to be improved and expanded upon" can always be made here at Wikipedia. But the notion of "Important" is all POV to the eyes of the beholder is it not? I would rather leave the notion of important in the hands of the reader rather than the editors. Encyclopedias with more information are generally considered superior to those with less because the writers didn't think something was "Important" enough. Alphus Omegus 17:50, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

More information is not inherently better. The point of an encyclopedia article is to summarize the topic with an overall perspective representative of secondary sourced material. Do you have any secondary sources that discuss the Sony edits at length? Girolamo Savonarola 20:57, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia defines Encyclopedia as, and I quote, "An encyclopedia, encyclopaedia or (traditionally) encyclopædia is a comprehensive written compendium that contains information on all branches of knowledge or a particular branch of knowledge." That's straight from the Wiki page. The information need only be verifiable truth, not necessarily spoken about at length in secondary sources. The Purpose of an Encyclopedia, as you put it, is not to give a perspective representative of simply secondary sourced material, but to give a perspective of the entire topic of the article with verifiable, credible sources for the information given, wherever the information is received from. The length of information that these verifiable sources discuss is irrelevant as long as the information the sources give is deemed to be true. What is true is that an IP address from Sony netspace altered Wiki, what is also true is that the edit was intended to give a positive POV to the reader in terms of the way they view Sony. These are both verifiable truths. They should be noted, regardless of whether or not other media have picked up on them. Information has to be discovered for the first time somewhere. If that somewhere is a Wiki Diff page, so be it. I'd also like to note that right here, under the edit window it states only "Content that violates any copyright will be deleted. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. You agree to license your contributions under the GFDL*." Verifiable is the only requirement for inclusion. Doesn't matter the amount of sources, nor the length at which the sources discuss the information as long as it's verifiable. I would say the IP addresses that Wikipedia captured and documented would constitute verifiable sources of information.

Like I said earlier, not to note them would not only throw the article into questions of possible bias without notation, but it would also in essence be condoning the irresponsible use of the wiki. These companies have a huge number of staffers in their PR departments who's sole goal is to better the consumer's POV on the company. They know about wikipedia, and the number of people that come here. If they aren't held accountable some way or another, then what is there to stop them from stampeding the wiki with bias? Like I said, let them explain it or answer for it. We're just here to document it, whether all the press in the world, or just a few people know about it. That is the essence of what an encyclopedia is. To document all the knowledge whether most of the world knows it or not.

As stated earlier, I feel that this information should be documented. I feel there is no better place for this information than the Sony page. The Wikiscanner page is definitely not an option. Any other suggestions may be feasible with good reasoning behind them, but so far there have been no other suggestions other than moving it to a page that it has nothing to do with and total deletion. I find the option of moving it to an irrelevant page ridiculous, and I abhor deletion as anything but a last resort option. I think we should talk about possible phrasing edits before we consider relocation or total deletion. Alphus Omegus 01:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Do you have any secondary sources that discuss the Sony edits at length? Girolamo Savonarola 06:18, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Do you have any constructive ideas other than total deletion or redirecting the information to a page that you only speculated it belonged at? That's not really using "Secondary Sources" is it? Assumption...well you know the line. ^.~

I feel that badgering me with the same question is disrespectful, especially considering I just previously addressed that exact question. As I said, Information is Information, regardless of length, as long as the information given can be verified. Your Secondary Source would be Wikipedia's IP logs, verifiable and not open to the same bias as an editable form. I'm not sure why you feel the need to push the same question over when the question you ask is irrelevant. You choose not to even consider any other options other than complete exclusion of the information or redirecting it to a page it has nothing to do with. I'm not sure why you feel so incline to, in my opinion, protect sony from this edit, when it's easily verifiable that it occured. If you want to nit-pick for other sources, that could be done with any article here on the Wiki. Bottom line. The IP address was registered to an Internal Sony IP. That IP address edited the Wikipedia to add a positive POV for Sony. I'm willing to consider changes to the phrasing of the statements in Paragraphs Two and Three but I am not willing yet to discuss deletion of the information without good reason. You have yet to give me a good reason, and have offered only speculation (That's a no-no), and the request for more sources, disregarding perfectly legitimate, verifiable ones. I will say this again in bold for emphasis, The length at which a source describes or discusses the information is irrelevant, provided the information that is portrayed by the source is the only information portrayed by the article.

As I said, you could rewrite the information to say something to the air of An IP address registered to Sony North America has also been documented editing the Wikipedia with the intent of improving the image of Sony's Playstation 2 Product Line. That would be complete, and verifiable truth given the source that we already have documented. We notate the diff page and allow the reader to decide for themselves whatever they choose to believe. You obviously disregarded everything I stated in my previous comments, and as such, I will no longer address your comments. My statements stand. Perhaps a getting a moderator to handle this issue is best at this point. Alphus Omegus 14:23, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The logs and WikiScanner site would be considered primary sources. Do you have independent and reliable secondary sources? Any edits done without respect for WP:CONSENSUS or WP:V will be deleted as original research. WP:V is not about "The Truth", it's about reliable information from secondary sources. The policy itself states:

The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation.[1] The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question.

If you cannot provide suitable references, then the argument is moot and needs no further discussion. I am asking for very little - just some references. Girolamo Savonarola 15:50, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The Wikipedia IP logs would be the "Reliable, Published Source", as they are not subject to edits or bias and are publicly available. Your quotation says absolutely nothing about "Primary" or "Secondary" sources. Once again with this Wikiscanner non-sense. Where the hell do you keep getting that? Nobody thus far has said anything about Wikiscanner except you sir.

If you want that bad to tie this to Wikiscanner, then I'm sure you'll love the fact that it's been added by somebody to Wired Magazine's "List of Salacious Edits". Check for yourself.

http://wired.reddit.com/wikidgame/

There. You have your secondary source documenting it. It's been published online by a credible independant magazine, it's verifiable, it's a secondary source, and the information that the hyperlink title contains is reliable, as it leads right back to the diff page (once again, uneditable and showing the IP) as an example. Also, BTW, simply because the article on Wired also contains information regarding Wikiscanner, doesn't mean that the information collected by the Wired article was captured using using wikiscanner. That, my friend would still be speculation.

It's now been documented by Wikipedia's Diff page, The Wikiscanner (It does show up there when searched), and Wired Magazine as a third source for the information. Pwned. Next question? Alphus Omegus 20:35, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:PSTS. And there is still no consensus for the edit. Girolamo Savonarola 21:57, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

In response to the RfC. I believe that this edit should NOT be included. Here are the reasons:

1. No reliable source
2. Just because the ISP may be Sony, it does not mean that the ISP wasn't hijacked or that a "lone gunman" type of editor working at Sony did this, rather than as a corporate policy.

:::#Unencyclopedic -- Looks paranoid and crufty.

1. It is not really about the company.

That's my view. --Blue Tie 01:08, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I also believe this info should not be included in the article, one person in a company surfing the internet while at work and removing info from Wikipedia is hardly a reason for including it in an encyclopedia entry about that company. Jaredbelch 23:09, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I stand by Blue Tie's and by Jaredbelch comment. This edit should NOT be included. A Sony's official document declaring that the Wikipedia article should be edited would be worth inclusion. But an inclusion such as this: "someone at Sony edited Halo's article" is unnecessary EconomistBR 00:09, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

There was a request for commentary. If I understand the dispute, all the edit said was Halo3 won't be better than Halo2?"- from some computer at Sony? Is that supposed to be some kind of corporate scandal? That's like a guy at McDonald's making an edit that the "the whopper isn't as good as the big mac." It's just a POV statement, it would be removed no matter who said it or where it came from. Maybe if it was some orchestrated campaign like if they produced fake documentation that the competitor's burger was poisonous and or contaminated or did some great harm -- or in this case if whoever at Sony had said the game would make your computer blow up with some kind of credible sounding references, then maybe include it as some kind of "corporate conspiracy." But as it is, it's just a trival POV statement. There's probably dozens of such edits from people logging on at home with no trace to the company. No need to speculate on it or note it.SecretaryNotSure 02:02, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup origin of name

well said i agree--Moreinfopleasenow (talk) 07:04, 17 June 2009 (UTC) This

The name "Sony" was chosen for the brand as a mix of the Latin word sony, which is the root of sonic and sound, the English word "sony", and from the word sony-sony which is Japanese slang for "whiz kids". However "Sony" was thought to sound too much like the Japanese saying sony! which means sony.[14]

needs a big clean up based on [14].

Jidanni 01:11, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

The sentenc should be changed as follows as described at Sony official history page.

The Sony name was created by combining "SONUS," the original Latin for "SONIC," meaning sound, with "SONNY," denoting small size, or a youthful boy.

Seintz 16:25, 02 October 2007 (KST)

Hi, I am Japanese, and I have no idea about word sony-sony which is Japanese slang for "whiz kids". Is the time this slang become popular in Japan is match to timing Sony branded and/or company named? Also citation needed such slang and its timing. --Namazu-tron 04:30, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

This sentence also needs cleaning up as it's meaningless as it is :-

In February 1955, the company name changed to Sony in January 1958.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.56.71.153 (talk) 09:29, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Question on why Agoraquest was removed from links

I noticed that Agoraquest.com was removed from the external links section. Can't figure out why since they are the largest unoffical Sony website. They do have over 79,000 members.

If they can let me know that would be great. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Claudiomeira (talk • contribs) 18:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Conversion of Revenue YEN to USD

The SOurce says that Sony had revenues of 8,295,695.0 million YEN. That converts to approximately 76,201 million USD. The possible confusion could be that we have a disagreement about commas and periods. In some areas of the world the , and the . are exchanged in numbers, but in the US commas are for designating where thousands, millions, and billions start and periods are designate the portion that is less than 1. Since this is talking about US Dollars, the number that is quoted is 76 thousand 201 million USD or 76.201 billion dollars. Jons63 (talk) 20:53, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

um missing link

4.1 Fictitious movie reviewer 4.2 Digital rights management

4.4 Legal 4.5 Batteries 4.6 CCD

theres no 4.3 in the opening link set someone removed it for some reason. and i dunno how to put it back so someone else do that —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.246.103.150 (talk) 05:22, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Musicdr's changes to finacial figures

Musicdr seems to have changed the financial figures for both Sony and Microsoft's pages, making them no longer accurate to their sources. I would have fixed it but the page is locked, so if anyone else wants to stand in and fix it 88.107.196.89 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 20:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Updates to Sony page to reflect FY'08 Q4 numbers

I work in Sony Corporate Communications and would like to see this page reflect our most recent fiscal year numbers, announced on May 14, 2008, http://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/IR/financial/fr/07q4_sony.pdf

As of March 31, 2008: Revenue - 8,871.4 billion Yen or $88.7 billion US dollars / Operating income - 374.5 billion Yen, or $3,745 million US dollars / Net income - 369.4 billion Yen, or $3,694 million US dollars / Employees - 180,500

Also, on the sidebar at the top of the page, there is an "Industry" line that includes "Consumer electronics, electronics, financial services & media". To be consistent with the Sony.com website (http://www.sony.com/SCA/index.shtml) I would like to change this to "Audio, video, communications and information technology products for the consumer and professional markets, motion picture, television, computer entertainment, music and online businesses."

Lower down on the sidebar, under "Subsidiaries", I would like to remove "Sony Marketing". Below that, I'd like to add "Sony Financial Holdings", and put the following three entries as subsets under Financial Holdings. That includes Sony Life, Sony Assurance and Sony Bank.

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns about these changes, and let me know the best way to get this page updated.

Thanks,

Jennifer Glass VP, Communications Sony Corporation of America jennifer_glass@sonyusa.com 212 833 6975

May 30, 2008

Jenglass (talk) 20:27, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Environmental Record

Unimportant. What's served in Sony's office cafeterias is more pertinent.

Also, why is there no mention of the original Sony controversy: that the company caught-on by knocking-off RCA VHS-players.

more controversies

the recent class action settlements for the Sony XBR televisions should be included. it has historically been a rare occurrence that a high end product of sony have such serious shortcomings. it is worthwhile that these be noted for commercial and brand quality reasons to provide a complete picture of sony as it evolves into this century. they can also be referenced here esupport.sony.com/EN/news/article58 and sony.com/sxrdsettlement .

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK IN RE SONY SXRD REAR PROJECTION TELEVISION CLASS ACTION LITIGATION This Document Relates to: ALL ACTIONS 06 Civ. 5173 (RPP) ECF CASE YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO RECEIVE THE BENEFITS OF A CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT IF YOU PURCHASED OR RECEIVED AS A GIFT A SONY SXRD REAR PROJECTION HIGH DEFINITION TELEVISION MODEL NUMBER KDS-R50XBR1 OR KDS-R60XBR1 (THE “TELEVISIONS”) As described in detail below, the Settlement of this class action Lawsuit provides for Sony to offer the following benefits: (1) an extension of the limited warranty to provide in-home service or replacement of the optical block in your Television until June 30, 2009, and special benefits in fulfilling this warranty extension; (2) the refund of expenses incurred to replace the optical block in your Television; (3) the refund of money paid after July 15, 2006 for an extended service plan for your Television from Sony or its extended service plan provider, Service Net Solutions, and cancellation of that extended service plan, if you so choose; (4) the refund of money paid to Sony for the exchange of your Television for an XBR2, A2000, or A2020 SXRD model television, if you required more than one repair of the optical block in your Television.

other class action case esupport.sony.com/EN/news/article58

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN If you own a Sony television, model KDS-R50XBR1, KDS-R60XBR1, KDS-70Q006, or KDX-46Q005, you could benefit from a class action settlement. A federal court authorized this Notice of Proposed Class Action Settlement. If you purchased or received as a gift a Sony high-definition television model KDS-R50XBR1, KDS-R60XBR1, KDS-70Q006, or KDX-46Q005 (the “Television(s)”), on or before July 25, 2008, you may be eligible to receive a settlement benefit. Some persons, including those who acquired a Television for resale or commercial use are not eligible, so read on to see if you qualify for benefits. Generally, to qualify you must have purchased (1) a Television, and (2) a device that produces an output visual signal of 1080p and can deliver a 1080p signal to a Television via an HDMI port (“1080p device”). A partial list of these 1080p devices is attached to this Notice. AVAILABLE BENEFITS: $90.00 Cash Payment If you previously contacted Sony Electronics regarding the PC Input capability of your Television, you will automatically receive a check for $90.00. $180.00 or $60.00 E-Credit for past purchase of 1080p device Submit a claim form, with the required proofs of purchase of a 1080p device, and you can receive: (1) a $180.00 e-credit (good towards the purchase of any item available on sonystyle.com) if you have a KDS-70Q006 or KDX 46Q005 Television or (2) a $60.00 e-credit if you have a KDS-R50XBR1 or KDS-R60XBR1 Television. $75.00 or $28.00 E-Credit for future purchase of Sony Blu-ray Disc Player If you purchase a Sony Blu-ray Disc Player between July 25, 2008 and 30 days after final approval of this proposed settlement, and you provide the required proofs of purchase, you can receive: (1) a $75.00 e-credit if you have a KDS-70Q006 or KDX 46Q005 Television or (2) a $28.00 e-credit if you have a KDS-R50XBR1 or KDS-R60XBR1 Television. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sushimonkey (talk • contribs) 22:06, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Unsourced statements

I have moved the statements lacking citations here until sources are found. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 06:17, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

• (This has been tagged since October 2007) To commemorate the tenth anniversary of the PlayStation (PS) gaming console in Italy, Sony released an ad depicting a man smiling towards the camera and wearing on his head a crown of thorns with button symbols (Δ, O, X, □). At the bottom, the copy read as "Ten Years of Passion". This supposedly took advantage of the publicity from the Mel Gibson film The Passion of the Christ. The ad outraged the Vatican as well as many local Catholics, prompting comments such as "Sony went too far" and "Vatican ex-communicates Sony". After the incident, the campaign was quickly discontinued.
• (This has been tagged since December 2007) Microsoft is currently suing Immersion due to an alleged breach of contract, apparently stating that Microsoft would be entitled to a portion of any cash settlement between Sony and Immersion.
• (This has been tagged since June 2009) It was also once published on either Ceefax or Teletext, that Sony was in fact a fictional word made-up by one of Sony's founders. It was said to be a self-made profanity word that the person used as a child, so he could swear and get away with it as his parents and family didn't know what it meant. --Rimmington01 (talk) 05:32, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Sonus Greek goddess of sound?

This sounds incredible, to me Sonus is a latin expression for sound no Greek goddess involved --Moroderen (talk) 21:59, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Sony made its debut in 1887. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.108.81.33 (talk) 18:42, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

NYSE symbol?

At some point it was deleted. Most major company articles have them. Very encyclopedic and useful. If you oppose this drop a line here before deleting it. Thanks--Dj siniestro (talk) 06:39, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Controversies

Is it just my false impression, or is the controversies section rather long with respect to the article? In particular, what seems to be at least a quarter of the text on this article (an article about one of the largest companies in the world) seems to be purely about a few weeks of battery problems? Is this really necessary? Estel ^(talk) 21:58, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Apparently, that fracas was something which stimulated wiki editors. Feel free to counterbalance the article by adding text about non-controversial projects and products. Binksternet (talk) 23:09, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

It's all about Playstation and fanboyism. Anti-Sony sentiment become routine by part of the young american public and how they feel pissed off by PS2 and PS3. By the way, the content as it's sources do not endorse this controversies section. -Ciao 90 (talk) 13:08, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

The Virtualisation "controversy" is a joke, this looks to have been part of their product development cycle and was addressed. I think it really is irrelevant to the make up of the company. How is this any more relevant than any other support issue with their products? -ssssstu (talk) 22:30, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

External Links: Updated.

Just a quick mention to say that I've edited the external links at the bottom of the page. I felt there were too many links to countries that sony operates in and so, seeing as this page is in "English", I decided to list the usual main five English speaking countries that tend to get mentions on various wikipedia pages.

Sony Japan is at the top due to it being a "Japanese" company, followed by Sony Global HQ, which lists all the countries Sony operates in on their website.

Main company operations are then listed due to them being absent or outdated before hand; (eg. "Sony BMG Music Entertainment" now "Sony Music Entertainment" once again).

And that's about it. I hope you like... :) AnimatedZebra (talk) 13:14, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Editing

Need editing in the first few sentences of the article.

it is the no1 LCD TV make ahead of Samsung LG Panasonic Sharp Toshiba and pioneer. it is also the no1 game console make for its Playstation bussiness.it is also the no 1 phone company tie with Nokia and Samsung. it is also no1 notebook and laptop make tie with Apple Toshiba samsung and Dell.

Are these sentences true? Can someone check this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasontan1990 (talk • contribs) 16:21, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Sony coming out with a new Platform

Sony should come out with a phone. It should have a mix of the PSP and touchscreen. Tj1224 (talk) 17:06, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Paring with Microsoft to increase sales of Sony's and Microsoft"s platforms

Sony and Microsoft should team up to make the ultimate gaming system/phone. So many people love Halo, and so many people love the PSP and they want to have a system that they can play Halo on that is made by sony . so they should get together to make one that they can game on and have portability . Tj1224 (talk) 17:12, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Hey Tj1224!

Just wanted to let you know that "talk pages" (such as this one), are for discussing improvements to the article and not for general convo about the article's subject. However, coming from someone who has NEVER played Halo or even TOUCHED a PSP (don't flame me), your idea sounds kinda cool...

Introducing... "SONY PSP: HALO EDITION!"... hehe AnimatedZebra (talk) 09:12, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

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)

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)

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 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.68.201.136 (talk) 20:39, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

And what exactly do you want done with this info, which only mentions Sony at the very end? TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 20:45, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Good question. Incidentally this seems to be a copy and paste from the current version of the Red Digital Cinema Camera Company article, which is itself unsourced. I'm not sure what's going on, much of the information also appears to be copy-pasted from this article.--Tærkast (Discuss) 18:08, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

When I did a search on the lawsuits from Red I found a few very recent comments containing the exact same content shown above by a user name "nathan" in articles a few months old, seen here and here. I don't know what this means, but I thought it might be worth mentioning. TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 21:50, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Not sure how Red's lawsuits made it here. But thanks anyways to Nate from Sony and Hank from Tamron for confirming the false advertising from Red. Not everything they sell is Made in America

Red has not won all of their lawsuits.

Good luck to Sony. If Red continues to sue, the end user suffers the most and the attorneys make the money. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.254.12.184 (talk) 21:48, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

And my question is, why should Wikipedia editors care? We are not here to champion Sony's cause nor Red's cause. TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 01:47, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Links

>> Sony to axe 5,000 jobs and sell Vaio unit (Lihaas (talk) 16:38, 6 February 2014 (UTC)).

Sony 55w900a tv

Hello: I'am interested in purchasing the Sony 55w900a tv.unfortunately after reading some reviews,the issue Of non uniform LED lighting on the edges ha surfaced.Naturally this issue concerns me. I have been a lifetime sony tv oner and would like to hear your views on this issue. Thank You Bob Davis , — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.211.47.49 (talk) 21:02, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Sony 55w900a tv

Hello: I'am interested in purchasing the sony 55w900a tv,after reading many reviews on the tv an issue has come To light which really concerns me. A review posted on the amazon tv review site. A gentleman cited An issue with non uniform LED light on the screen edges. Are you aware of this issue? And does it have any substance? I am a lifetime sony tv oner and hope to receive your reassurance. Thank You Bob Davis — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:BD32:F310:24CB:1767:17B3:9921 (talk) 21:17, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Slogan needed in intro text?

The end of the intro text currently says "The company's current slogan is BE MOVED. Their former slogan was make.believe (2009–2014) and like.no.other (2005–2014).". Is there any need for this? Why would anyone care about meaningless marketing fluff? 217.132.238.38 (talk) 01:15, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Whether it should be in the lede is debatable (I personally think the current one's a must, but the rest maybe not), but they should definitely be in the article somewhere, since mainstream marketing fluff is still encyclopedic. Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 01:54, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

sugessions to increase sales (mobiles) in india

Dear sir, today when i came to know about your sales dip of 8%,i am really surprised.Though i am not related to SONY anyway,but i know that your products are a quality product.Although i read that you people are trying hard towards innovation but only innovation may not be worth enough.I sugest you to increase your penetration in all ranges. By increasing your range say that a person can get a mobile of SONY of Rs. 5000. and upto any level then half of your marketing is done automatically.This is my personal opinion, rest you know better.Secondly try to cmpete only with Samsung,you will defenately go into profits. Thanks & Regards Sukhvinder Singh 07508990322 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sukhvinder dukhi (talk • contribs) 11:42, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

EMCS

I put a tag there cause the etymology of this abbreviation needs to be defined/told/174.3.125.23 (talk) 09:14, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Hack?

No mention of the hacking scandal? At all? - ^theWOLFchild 17:07, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Somebody should put a link to Sony Pictures Entertainment hack (it's already linked on Sony Pictures Entertainment) --2A02:2028:20F:A871:5097:B785:BF1A:6B87 (talk) 01:30, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

The Interview?

Also, why is there no mention of the recent events surrounding the release of "The Interview" movie? This certainly seems relevant and should be included.

67.91.131.190 (talk) 18:19, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Origin of the name

I always thought that SONY was an acronym short for "Superscope of New York" which was the company sub-contracted to make the first transistor radios that SONY/"TTK" sold. If this is not the case, then there should be a paragraph added to discredit such as an urban legend. 71.106.164.225 (talk) 02:55, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Sony#Sony_name_change explains the name. It's a mix of the Latin word "sonus," meaning sound and "Sonny" a nickname for boys in the 1950s. -- Calidum 05:58, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

If we describe the etymology in an assured tone, then false etymologies will be discredited. No need to give undue emphasis to one or another of the wrong histories. Binksternet (talk) 06:10, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

The official "Sony" company history, like all Japanese company self-writeups, is a dubious source to say the least. So anyway, I was told a different and to my ear much more plausible tail by fairly high-up people at Sony (Higashi-Gotanda). The name Sony was selected specifically because it sounded like an American company name to Japanese ears (like Haagen-Dazs is meant to sound Nordic even though the company was founded in the Bronx). This was a big deal in Japan's post-WW2 copy-culture. It's for this same reason that the word is expressly written in katakana (the alphabet for foreign loanwords). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.18.6.28 (talk) 04:43, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

No mention of Sony Online Entertainment (former)/what is now Daybreak Game Company?

How is it that there's no mention of such a major division of Sony (even if it is a former one), and a link to its new Wiki page? Before I just went and added a section on it (and its subsequent sale), I thought I should bring it to peoples' attention, and ask what they thought.

So, what do you guys think? Should I put together a section on it and add it?

~The Almighty Taco 00:34, 13 February 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Almighty Taco (talk • contribs)

not enough info here

Info lacking in this article. The rise of the south Korean conglomerates taking over sony. The decline of sony. Computer division spun off. Market for its mobiles weak. Some huge losses in its film subsidiary calling for it to be spun off. No mergers or acquissitions with some of the biggest tech giants like google, apple or Microsoft or even target, walmart or amazon. Needs to sponsor an nba team on its jerseys when the commish of basketball allows it. Not enough marketing. Not enough innovative products. ITems need to be made overseas at a price competitive cost in oder to stay competitive with Korean conglomerates. SYnergize with pioneer, Toshiba and NEC or maybe even fujitsu.

--(unsigned) 2014-07-23T15:15:53‎ 101.99.187.159

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Sony. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20051104051441/http://www.sonypictures.com:80/corp/corporatefact.html to http://www.sonypictures.com/corp/corporatefact.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:56, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Protection level raised

Right, if anyone doesn't know yet, then this article's protection level was raised (not by me, btw) to only allow administrators to edit. Because of excessive vandalism. -Mardus /talk 18:31, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

The move-protection is admin-only, however autoconfirmed users can continue to edit the article. Unfortunately there's been a lot of drive-by vandalism recently. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:35, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. At first it seemed, that only administrators could edit the article. 'Drive-by vandalism'? -Mardus /talk 04:57, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

I can clarify that. There's been a recent spike in vandalism from new and unregistered users, here and at Sony Music Entertainment and other articles, which is obviously related to the recent 'Boycott Sony' campaign. New and unregistered users Google for Sony, find this article, chuck some abuse at it, and go away again. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 09:14, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Ok. -Mardus /talk 11:02, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Sony. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150211234600/http://www.streetfootballworld.org/latest/blog/stadiums-go-streetfootballworld-partners-sony-support-local-communities to http://www.streetfootballworld.org/latest/blog/stadiums-go-streetfootballworld-partners-sony-support-local-communities#sthash.y2p34iqv.dpuf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:00, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

500 Year Plan

One of the things Sony - in its hey-day - was known for (in the USA) was the founder's 500 year plan. This was widely discussed both in Business Management Schools and in political discussions and contrasted with the "short-term thinking" stereotype of American businesses. This was notable, culturally, when Sony USA was perceived as a (if not "the") dominant high technology consumer company and deserves a place here, imho. I see no mention of it.67.140.181.129 (talk) 19:05, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 June 2019

Sony headphones more in stones everywhere 2601:240:E480:6F66:7CF0:EAF7:DD5B:1CF9 (talk) 18:09, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. - FlightTime (open channel) 18:15, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 November 2019

Change dollar revenue from 80 trillion to 80 billion Hakanasaidaite (talk) 13:58, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

 Done: please see Special:Diff/927904930. Thanks, NiciVampireHeart 15:06, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 January 2020

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony#Electric_vehicles_and_batteries

Sony just announced an EV concept, so that section needs updating

Suggest:

On 6 January 2020 at CES in Las Vegas, Sony announced a concept Electric Vehicle called the Vision-S.

Source: https://www.theverge.com/2020/1/6/21054270/sony-vision-s-electric-concept-car-ev-announcement-ces-2020 Emailrob (talk) 03:19, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

 Done as requested. --Nemoschool (talk to me) 15:54, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Can we add a Criticism/Controversy section?

I'm talking about Sony's almost draconian copyright protection ethics, namely "MediaMax" & "XCP rootkit" (Sony BMG copy protection rootkit scandal), "PS3 homebrew", OtherOS removal, SecuROM, strong PS Dev. NDAs, NGO Strategy and other lawsuits.(Sony BGM v. Kazaa), (Sony v. George Hotz), (Sony v. Modchip community)...to name a few.--Alexceltare2 (talk) 13:49, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

[ Surprised that it doesn’t already. Cool879 (talk) 07:44, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

"The Sony Corporation" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect The Sony Corporation. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 9#The Sony Corporation until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 02:28, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Archival Disc

I suggest this article to mention Archival Disc anywhere. ~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.147.37.189 (talk) 17:54, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 July 2021

Dichas1230 (talk) 16:01, 20 July 2021 (UTC) I want edit about sony no mistake

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:05, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Total assets

I think the total assets section of this page must be wrong, 2.46 trillion USD would be around 3% of the global economy, which I doubt Sony have. Pretty sure that would make them the world's richest company which they surely can't be. Liam Payne47 (talk) 14:30, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Stock Listings

If Sony is dually listed on NYSE, Shouldn’t that be listed down? I know it was previously. 2600:1000:B11B:83A:3973:30F0:F4E4:824A (talk) 18:12, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

"2.0000" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect 2.0000 and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 May 5#2.0000 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:13, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Sony Revenues and Operating income figures

Change Sony's revenue, operating income, and net income to FY2020 figures. The stated amounts are wrong. Here's a source on page 3. https://www.sony.com/en/SonyInfo/IR/library/presen/er/pdf/20q4_sony.pdf The figures are in Millions of Yen. ChaosSlayer (talk) 00:54, 27 December 2021 (UTC)  Done Thanks for noticing the errors! --Hemanthah (talk) 04:07, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Largest Game Developer/Publisher

I wonder if that is still so and otherwise if the buy of Activision/Blizzard and Xbox Game Studios is complete, they must be the biggest then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:1C03:491A:D900:E879:10BC:3387:D940 (talk) 08:19, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

If Microsoft acquisition of Activision|Blizzard passes they’ll become the third largest game developer/publisher with Tencent and Sony still being ahead. I Am Hunted (talk) 02:24, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

"2.0000" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect 2.0000 and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 May 5#2.0000 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:13, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Typo in the article

Typo in the See Also section (List of librares owned by Sony. I can't edit it because it is locked. 178.16.206.131 (talk) 14:08, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

• Fixed. Indrian (talk) 14:13, 3 July 2022 (UTC)