The reviewers highlighted flaws in Sony's current iteration but did not have any/much space for PS3's strength/potential.
From the 2 articles, I think there are 2 major points for Sony management to grapple with:
(A) Sony's budding PS3 OS capability
========================
Typical hardware approach is to be hands off when the product is out the door. In evangelizing a platform, Sony needs to stay on the same track for 10-15 years... and never stop until the experience is differentiated in the users' hands.
e.g., Establish and maintain a unique identity by integrating XMB UI with Sony's vision of Internet/Playstation Network/Home network. Also enforce UI guides, improve usability, better APIs, ... etc. While Sony has done a great job updating PSP, it has failed in integrating the user experience. Every PSP update is piece-meal and does not necessary have multiplier effect when added up. So as a step-up, some sort of holistic, end-to-end PS3 OS plan needs to be in-place (if not already). Even MS sucked in Windows 1.0 so it's not a shame. Just sustain the update cycle with a clear vision.
e.g., Now that the package is complete, prove to the world (and me!
) that Cell and Blu-ray platforms really matter, no matter how hard it takes.
(B) Sony's bad PR
============
There are more than 1 perspectives on anything, and more than 1 way to communicate good/bad news. From the look of things, Sony does not seem to have deep relationship with major press.
Kaz mentioned that Sony gets bad PR because Playstation is #1. Once he thinks that way, Sony may have distant themselves further from the press and user-base. They need to approach the press like a newcomer, explaining their strategies and approach more sincerely and in more details. The article might come out to be less harsh.
Here're some true stories:
* Getting the reviewers' involved early is usually a good thing. In this case, Xbox 360 and XBL has been out for more than a year with ample time for improvements and great reviews. So naturally as a "newcomer" Sony will need to do extra work. e.g., Some companies rope in these reviewers as early alpha testers or some sort of advisor panels (instead of just 30 hours of review time) to cultivate long term relationships. Once they hands are involved even in developing the product, the reviews will likely be more positive. In some cases, the reviewer will also argue in his/her article why things must/should be done in certain way... and product "X" does it correctly.
* When Creative Technologies sold PCs in US, they were consistently getting low scores in reviews even though in their honest assessment, their gigs were more powerful, bundle more software, and giving more values for the consumers in general. They tried to raise the bar further and still nothing changed on the PR and review front. By accident, they found out that major PC manufacturers in US were giving the reviewers a better experience while reviewing the gears, including sponsored market studies of the space, comprehensive and "objective" studies of competitors' products (ready to be used intelligently in the article), better and more materials for the reviewers' guide, ... etc. Once the reviewers have an "idea" of who the winner is likely to be (based on the objective data), the reviews will likely come out with a slant.
In the PS3 case, some honest insights plus more in-depth and personal analysis from the hand hanchos would have helped (These are not the usual and tiresome PR talks, but good hands-on explanation on why things are done in certain way like what Steve Jobs did). Ken probably can't execute the move alone, so he'll need help from Phil and/or Kaz. Charisma count.
Finally, be mindful of the Internet community. They are both friends and enemies. Get some help from your interactive and network marketing arm here, Sony
