JD88 :
I don't want to get into a debate about which company has moral high ground because that is subjective.
What I will argue is that Public Relations is very much about doing the right thing by the consumer. It is not simply who can cover up how bad they are screwing you the most or how big of a corporation they are. In that spirit, it is important to look at actions and track record.
Consider for a moment that the problems MS has are actually it's own fault for the reasons I listed in my last post.
Also consider that perhaps people like Google simply because it is actually offering quality products and services with reasonable cost. If they are making money, it is not directly coming out of the pocketbook of the consumer which is what people care about most. People feel like they are actually getting a good deal that makes sense. The same deal that has been around for decades. Watch or listen to some ads in exchange for something "free." What they don't like is paying for products that are obviously overpriced simply because a monopoly is in place.
Yes, it's possible to brainwash the masses into believing you offer something good when you don't. Apple (today) is probably the best example of this, but that is largely because it is still riding on the reputation it developed over the past few years when it innovated the market. In general, long term opinions are formed about corporations on the basis of experience with their products and services, not their marketing arm.
Some of the highest consumer rated companies got that way because of this model. Some of the best include:
UPS
Amazon
Whole Foods Market
Lowes
Disney
Worst:
Comcast
Exxon Mobile
EA Games
Verizon
Seeing the trend here?
Yes, the NSA thing is bad but that effects every technology company. Idiots get scared easily.
Well, if we're not getting into debates on subjective grounds, then these statements should probably have never ended up in your post...
"
People feel like they are actually getting a good deal that makes sense. The same deal that has been around for decades. Watch or listen to some ads in exchange for something "free." What they don't like is paying for products that are obviously overpriced simply because a monopoly is in place."
Go out and ask your average user - I think you called them "idiots" at the end of your post - and ask them if they think Windows is overpriced. For most people Windows represents a fee they pay once every few years and in exchange for that they get an all but ubiquitous operating system that is well supported and is a mixture of controlled where it is needed for official functionality and open enough to allow for significant playing around. A lot of peoples' subjective judgements about Windows is that, in spite of past transgressions of the company, Windows isn't such a bad deal for a PC operating system. Heck, most people just accept the fee and like Windows just fine. Not here on Tom's or among the technophiles obviously, but if we're actually talking your average user, they don't tend to think Windows is the devil like everyone around here. You say "
Also consider that perhaps people like Google simply because it is actually offering quality products and services with reasonable cost."... XBOX 360, Windows Phone, and Windows itself are all products which the average consumer tends to not look at as particularly overpriced or underperforming. And heck, even Windows 8 has average customer satisfaction numbers in the 70 percentile range. Most Android phones struggle for those kinds of numbers and very few succeed at reaching them.
http://www.ntcompatible.com/news/story/windows_8_customer_satisfaction_drops_to_vista_era_lows.html
http://www.geekwire.com/2013/customer-satisfaction-microsoft-software-declines-slightly-windows-8-launch/
So yeah, quality services at a reasonable cost... MS customer satisfaction surveys suggests people think they offer exactly that. And besides - didn't you want to keep away from the subjective which is precisely what you're delving into here, with peoples' judgements of quality and affordability?
Also, "very much about doing the right thing by the consumer"... Well, this is a bit of a grey area, simply because in theory you're right - but I dare you to find a company that conducts its PR solely as a "doing right by the customer" rather than a "covering up how we're screwing them" affair. They are few and far between, and this is especially true in the tech world. There are so many hot button issues out there in tech that almost all, if not every, major tech company is doing something that the consumer base is screaming about somewhere or another. Sweatshop labour, privacy issues, made in America/Western world, nickel and diming through micro transactions, etc etc. The thing about the PR of these companies - and Google is on the front line for this - is that many of these companies do things that in other cases the public is in uproar about, but these select companies get away with it because their PR is aces at covering things up. People harp on Apple for sweatshop labour - while using multiple other products which were made with that same type of labour. People complain about privacy from MS services and Facebook - while happily using Google services that actually offer less privacy in many cases. People whine and complain about games "nickel and diming" you with micro transactions - while happily plugging away on their iOS device getting nickel and dimed by Apple store micro transactions. Yeah, in theory, PR is about "doing right by the company" - in practice, that's at best only part of it. The reality is, PR departments attempt to create an atmosphere where people don't think of company X as being associated with practice Y when they really are - or, at least, that it's OK for that company to be associated with that practice. Google does *plenty* of things that other companies get crucified for, but their PR is aces at this point - they can do no wrong, even when they're doing wrong. You accuse Apple of brainwashing - which is quite true - but you honestly think that Google isn't pretty good at that voodoo themselves? MS is the only company that seems to be an abject failure at it - barring the XBOX 360, where they had people lining up to pay for their online service well after it had a serious competitive edge over its main rival.
I guess what it comes down to is this. You say "it's important to look at actions and track record" but that's only partially the case. Looking at the XBOX One in light of MS's track record suggests that your privacy is probably still safe since they are on the more benign side of the whole privacy issue as a whole - they do not rely on data mining you to turn a profit. Then again, here we have an "always listening" Google phone. Look at their actions and track record - Google monetizes you and is quite open about data mining your "private" data in order to make money. Whose track record suggests more respect for your privacy? The painfully obvious answer is MS. Which company is taking heat for this? Go figure, it ain't the one whose track record suggests your privacy is their plaything.
Lastly, yes, the NSA thing is bad and it affects every technology company - but what it shows is that people do NOT like being data mined by governments. The flip-outs over the XBOX One show that they do NOT like being monitored by companies. The thing is, there is a company that openly admits "we make our money off of you by data mining your personal data" and they are now wildly popular and garner very little criticism for privacy transgressions. Why? A big part of it is that they have this friendly, cool kid image - people trust them. MS is crucified for things in the ballpark of what Google has been openly doing for years but hardly gets any flak for.
The "idiots" as you call them believe Google is safe and friendly and wouldn't do a thing to undermine their privacy, unlike big bad MS. You mentioned "brainwashing" earlier... Are you sure that Apple is the only one that is really, really good at that brainwashing?
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram