|
|
Microsoft knowingly deceived customers with Vista?
Author: Tim SmalleyPublished: 13th February 2008
Plaintiffs in the "Windows Vista Capable" case have accused Microsoft of knowingly lying to customers in order to boost sales for the OS.
Microsoft decided that, in order to boost sales of Windows XP computers after it announced that Windows Vista would be delayed, it would sell machines sporting "Windows Vista Capable" logos, with the selling point being that these computers were able to be updated to Windows Vista once it was released.
The problem was that machines that displayed this logo were only able to use the entry level version, Windows Vista Home Basic, meaning that many of the most widely-advertised features—such as Aero Glass, Flip3D and Media Center—were unavailable to consumers buying PCs showing the logo.
The suit—that plaintiffs are trying to promote to class-action status—claims that many of the machines bearing the logo were not fully "Vista Capable" as they were not powerful enough to support Vista's advanced features. Indeed, while the contents of the emails remain sealed, a Seattle Post-Intelligencer reporter was at the hearing and recorded some of them.
"Even a piece of junk will qualify" for the "Windows Vista Capable" designation, wrote one employee in an email read out by the Plaintiffs. Mike Nash, a vice president in the Windows Product Management group, wrote in an email, "I PERSONALLY got burnt. ... Are we seeing this from a lot of customers? ... I now have a $2,100 e-mail machine."
Jim Allchin, then the co-president of Microsoft's Platforms and Services Division, said, "We really botched this. ... You guys have to do a better job with our customers," in another email.
David Bowermaster, a spokesman for Microsoft, naturally played down the significance of the emails, stating, "The e-mails cited in today's hearing are isolated, and in many instances, outdated and really just snippets of a broad and thorough review that took place during the development of the Windows Vista Capable program."
He claimed that, "Throughout this review, Microsoft employees raised concerns and addressed issues with the aim of making this program better for our partners and more valuable for consumers. In the end, we believe we achieved both objectives."
Microsoft's legal team also pointed out that the company had a separate "Premium Ready" sticker programme, which indicated that a computer was able to run fully-featured versions of the OS. Steven Rummage, a lawyer with Davis Wright Tremaine representing Microsoft, argued that the lawsuit didn't merit class-action status because each customer who bought a "Windows Vista Capable" machine had different information at the time of purchase. "We know that there was a wealth of information available to the public," he said. "They have not presented the court with a single document showing what people were told."
Jeffrey Thomas, the plaintiffs' lawyer, countered Rummage's argument stating that the class was united in that all individuals buying "Windows Vista Capable" PCs "did not get what they paid for."
The judge for the case, Marsha Pechman, concluded proceedings by saying she would issue a ruling that will determine whether or not the case has class-action status within ten days.
Do you think Microsoft is in hot water here? Let us know your thoughts on the case in the forums.
Related articles on bit-tech.net
Comments (29)
Stats: 0.091 seconds
MS is a big fish to go after, with lots of cash. A class-action against MS is a lawyer's wet dream, and the only party that benefits out of it is the legal firm spearheading the lawsuit.
I don't see the issue personally. Vista capable is just that, capable of running Vista. Surely it matters not what version of Vista they're specifying.
Personally I dont see the issue, if you the user wants to skimp cash on a good system then they cant expect to have it running all extra features.
Kinda like how Crysis claims it would run on a low spec machine, sure, it will run on a low spec machine, but dont expect to see all the extra pritty bits.
Both true, some customers are morons, my 133mhz computer can "run" xp, but the question is how well?
Christ do people even think?
Personally i think that if u can't read the fine print, you should not use a computer.
There is a difference between minimum and recommended.
did ms lie with the vista capable logo? dont think so and i also dont think they can be sued for it.
anyway, i'd put the blame on the retail shops, imagine someone who doesnt know **** about computers walking into a store, buying a computer, then asking if it will run vista and the sales person will remember the ever rising cost of living and his sell or starve pay scheme and tell the customer everything he wants to hear just to get the sales bonus at the end of the month.
problem is that i like it like that as it takes up less resources than hp or ultimate
johnny average off the street will obviously expect a machine sporting a vista logo to anihilate vista
its just the same as seeing PC world selling "this amazing desktop with 2 GB of Ram"
and the consumer will see that and think "oh, that will kill vista vith everything turned up high!!!"
and then they realise they have 4 lanes of 512 cheapo ram that isnt actually as good as they thought
its a little misleading
but the computer industry always been about marketing
the point of it is to make something look desirable so that everybody gets it
Runs vista!
Really runs vista!
Really Really runs vista!
Ellipsis.
Phil
Yes Microsft is evil and does do that kinda ****.
But so are people. And america is filled to the brim with sue-trigger happy nuts.
But hell, I have a Dell Inspiron 6000. With 512 mb. And I installed Vista ultimate on it, and it took it.
Not a champ, more like a serverly retareded bush.
But if you know how, you can do it.
You missed a pretty critical part of my quote:
for example: MS kill puppies for fun too - ie, indicating sarcasm
MS is no more "evil" than any other company. I have a feeling all of the quotes are taken grossly out of context as well.
my bad there with missing the smilie in the quote, but i think the what i said still applies (i.e. ms is no worse than others).
But hell, most people buying an XP machine don't have a use for Vista in any form. They want internet, email, and IM. Why spend another couple hundred dollars to upgrade your OS, when it won't gain you a damn thing?
At least when XP came out it had plug and play, which made it somewhat worth it from a consumer stand point. Other than DX10 Vista doesn't have anything that people need.
The problem is, that people (apart from those who just don't understand a thing about computers) are cheap. They see a 500$ computer with Vista and they expect to get the same experience as a 2500$ pc. That is the real problem, and it is so retarded to my eyes. Personally, when I bought my Peugeot 206, I wasn't expecting the performance of a Mercedes SLK 320. Oh, why's that? Because the price is less than a third. Customers out there: be realistic with what you buy and stop whining.
ps: I REALLY doubt that a M$ employee bought a 2100$ pc which doesn't run Vista fully. First because I can't imagine a pc priced like that and not having a good amount of ram, nice gfx card, etc. For god's sake, my pc is a 1400$ Dell laptop and can run Vista perfectly fine and smooth. And second, because, well, he's working at M$. He surely should know how to buy a computer for the program his company is designing... if not, what is he really doing there?
MS DOES kill puppies ... :)
This is true. However, you need to consider how Vista was marketed towards consumers. It was selling the shine, the polish, and the pointless 3d effects. Microsoft may have tried to write themselves a loophole with "well, it's technically running Vista, even if it's just a slightly more irritating version of XP since you aren't getting any of the features we were bragging about", but it's still arguably false advertising. The court case will determine if this is really the case.
i think the interface was badly optimized in Vista.
this is the problem. buyers expect something from a cheap machine. "Windows Vista Capable" logo says exactly what it says on the tin: capable with Vista. doesn't mean it will run Vista well. it's like people meet the minimum specs on games, and say yes, that's playable on my computer, but infact, they will experience the entry level experience.
heeeeey, I never intended to sound big/clever. M$ isn't a joke for me, just means they've got lots of cash. good for them!! now use it to pay employees to improve performance in vista and bring a great win7!!
But in all seriousness, this is typical. I hate to sound elitist at all about this crap, but as we all know, if ya don't know how to use a computer....don't use a computer! I get the biggest kick out of watching people hunt n' peck on keyboards.
If you think back two years, what was it everyone knew about Vista- because what did MS crow about endlessly- was it the annoying UAC nags, the inefficient memory usage, the horrible file transfer problems?
Nope, it was the GUI, specifically, Aero and the amazing sidedock and flip feature.
For all intents and purposes, Aero was Vista and if you ponied up the cash, the glamour was what you expected to see.
The entire slant of PC advertising has always been how "simple" and "easy" they are to use...you needn't be a technogod to understand how to do things.
Naturally, this is a complete falsehood but nonetheless, that's how they're marketed and it seems unfair to bombard the mass market with one message and then turn around and tell them they should have researched the issue better.
The entire marketing plan for Vista seems to be a giant clusterf*ck anyway...can anyone explain why there are so many versions?..so it seems to me that holding Microsoft accountable today may in fact be doing them a favor- maybe they won't screw up the next OS release so badly.
As far as I can see, vista uses memory more effective than XP. And Vista is more than XP with a new GUI.
To give customers what they need for a cheaper price, rather than selling the full package that most people don't need.
However, let's look at the requirements published at the time for this program, as reported by MacWorld
look at the min requirements for Vista Capable, a low clocked Netburst Celeron, 512 MB Ram and a 7100GS Graphicscard pass the vista capable requirements......