Sony is not a Software Company? News to me!

You've all heard it said: "Sony is a hardware company and Microsoft is a software company." But that isn't really true for either company. They each may be more focused on one side or the other but each has strengths in both sides of the equation.

Microsoft: Keyboards, Mice, Controllers, phone systems, zune,  game systems all have been made by them and with the exception of one game systems reliability they have been rated very high to excellent quality. Who here doesn't own at least on Microsoft hardware product.

Microsoft develops the Hardware and farms out the manufacture to other companies which may be the reason for spotty quality control. If using other companies in the manufacturing process is what makes Microsoft not a HW company the same can be said about Sony.   (IBM, Taiwan Semiconductor, NEC) all manufacture for Microsoft

Sony: Embedded devices all have software (Sony mp3 players, Internet capable fridges, data storage and transfer equipment), SCEI is the world largest developer for games (leaving aside SOE which is not part of SCEI but huge in and of itself), Sony has created many standards for Computing and Data Storage. Sony also has created their own extensions for their computers and their own data services. Sony employs well over 4000 people in the software development side....

Sony does the same as Microsoft does for hardware manufacturing: NEC, Sharp, Toshiba, LG all make product for Sony (in fact LG used to be a 2nd party Sony manufacturer) Sony has Sharp make 40% of their TVs, Toshiba and IBM supply embedded chips etc...

[Shaka2K6]

Everytime i go the store to buy software i have to make sure its Sony so i know its going to be of the best quality possible you know what they say.

if it aint Sony then i wont buy it.

[JoelR]

Thanks... Sony does make great software but to say it is the best in the world is maybe stretching it (though please stretch on). There are definitely good developers outside of Sony and they deserve as much credit and respect for quality and quantity of work. My feeling is you need both quality and quantity to be truly great - I can take 10 years on a project for quality but it commits to much resources to one project (when I worked gov projects 10 years was ok but commercial.... )economic failure.

There are so many software paths that no one group can or should try to master them all. Games, Control Systems(embedded or otherwise), Operating systems, CAD/CAM, Analysis, DB etc, etc, etc... no one company is best in all fields - we only wish we are!

Focus is the key to Sony so that is why SCEI has a many different groups each assigned a different task that is specific to them such as firmware, game development, hardware development. And there can be more then 1 of each group which allows multiple developmental lines for different products.

[Ben1054]

like about Microsoft software is that if they try to put a feature in they put it in too much. like vista they wanted it too have good security then they put too much security in you get warnings for everything you do

[khellendros1]

Sony is a hardware company first, always has been. It's evident in their forward thinking technology. It explains why the PS3 software features are a little behind the 360 features because MS is a software company first. That doesn't mean they can't do the other very well though.

[JoelR]

Yes they are Hardware first but they definitely are also a software company.... less then 20 companies in the world have more programmers then Sony employs.

[tojfs7931]

Is farmed out to development studios and are just published by Sony.

[JoelR]

are wholly owned subsidiaries ^_-
that is .. they are part of Sony
Thus they are ... SONY

[ProblemSolver]

"Who here doesn't own at least on Microsoft hardware product."

Guess who?

I never touched any M$ product since the age of 19 again! Before that
time I've develop over 4 years under Windows using M$ tools and
products like VC++, MSJournal, MFC, Win95, and WinNT 4.0. However,
there was a day were I've thrown it all out of the window due major M$
bugs, flaws, instability issues, and whatsoever. But I have to admit that
I've learned a lot, and yes, VC++ was (is?) a really nice tool. The
situation, on developing under windows, might have been changed
somewhat, but I don't even care. Serious developing is only done under
[linux], at first instance. Of course, there is a lot of developing going on
under windows, but I'm luckily far off from this rather dependend
community. Many "windows" developers would change over to linux if
they would have the ability to do so, but most of them are "forced" to
stick with it due to either a given business model, the type of application
or simply by money contrains.

I've gone another way.

[JoelR]

It's more of a generalization ^_^ but yes I do understand your position.

I don't see that much demand to switch to linux but I do see a desire to return to the more open free range days of the early PC world. Microsoft with each update constrains the development path more and more.
I for one don't use linux all that much (I use BSD and Solaris with a toss of OS X (bsd lite) and Windows but I respect and understand those who think linux is great. I can't abide the GNU license as it removes to much control from myself of my product and I know many (namely almost all that I have ever worked for) companies who feel the same way... linux licenses throw out the baby with the bath water.

[ProblemSolver]

"It's more of a generalization ^_^ but yes I do understand your position."

of course

"I don't see that much demand to switch to linux but I do see a desire to
return to the more open free range days of the early PC world. Microsoft
with each update constrains the development path more and more.
I for one don't use linux all that much (I use BSD and Solaris with a toss
of OS X (bsd lite) and Windows but I respect and understand those who
think linux is great."

I used linux more or less as placeholder ([ ]).

"I can't abide the GNU license as it removes to much control from myself
of my product and I know many (namely almost all that I have ever
worked for) companies who feel the same way... linux licenses throw out
the baby with the bath water."

There is a point for each licensing scheme whether its GNU GPL,
BDS-style, or whatever. Its rather difficult to have a brain-dead
commercially successful license that does not blow the whole system
out of the water.