Originally posted by: ViRGE
The short list:
1) They (ab)used legal manoeuvres based on false claims to drive Aureal(A3D) out of business at the turn of the century, knowing that Aureal didn't have the cash reserves to fight a protracted legal battle and continue to design sound technology. They then turned around and bought out Aureal's superior tech.
This is absolute bullsh*t perpetuated by all anti-Creative twits who completely ignore the facts of Aureal's demise.
1b) They also bought out Sensaura's tech(which the nForce APU was based on). Both of these actions are anti-competitive.
Sensaura put itself up for sale. The price was dirtcheap (only 6+ million). Nobody else picked it (including nVidia), so Creative went a head and plunked down the bucks. So what? It's called BUSINESS, ever hear of that? It was a smart move that anyone here with a lick of sense would have done as well.
2) They patented the Carmack's Reverse technique for real-time lighting(created by id's John Carmack for the D3 engine), then used that patent to force id to integrate EAX technology in to the D3 engine(D3 had a custom sound engine), or else face a lawsuit over the patent.
First of all, Carmack cannot claim ownership or credit for creating the technique. He may have come up with the most perfect implementation of it, but he certainly didn't create it.
Second of all, IdSoftware went to Creative first and initiated the negotiation. Creative didn't even know about it let a lone "force" them to integrate EAX. It was a deal cut to save IdSoftware of any licensing fees and at the same give Creative a little extra marketing strength. Both sides made out as well as the end user. Don't like EAX? Guess what, you DON'T have to use it.
And third, the only idiots who ever even mentioned a lawsuit was same fore mention anti-Creative twits. Creative never threatened IdSoftware. IdSoftware stated that if it ever even got that far, they would have simply implemented an alternate option that would have worked just as well, albeit with a performance hit.
3) They have stayed stagnant in the sound card market for years now, dragging on the same architecture since 1997(where the Live was released, even the current Audigy 4 is derived from the Live). Only now, 8 years later are they releasing a new sound card(the X-fi), and frankly we don't have enough info to make sure if it's not another rehash of some sort.
The WHOLE PC audio industry has stagnated. True, innovation has not been great, but to compare a SBLive to a Audidy 4 is just idiotic.
3b) They artificially end support of older sound cards in spite of the fact that they are the same in order to apparently drive the sale of new cards. Creative has stopped releasing drivers for the A1 even though it's exactly like the A2/A2ZS/A4, down to the point where the A2 drivers install and work just fine on the A1(Creative couldn't even be bothered to change the device ID).
This is perhaps the only area where I agree. There's no obligation for any manufacturer to continue support for legacy product, but in this case, I don't think it would be too difficult for at least compatibility updates if the software architect is not too difficult to adapt.