Slashdot Log In
Microsoft Sued Over Vista Marketing
Posted by
Zonk
on Tue Apr 03, 2007 02:11 PM
from the my-toaster-is-vista-capable dept.
from the my-toaster-is-vista-capable dept.
daviddennis writes "According to the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, a lawsuit alleges that Microsoft engaged in deceptive practices by letting PC makers promote hardware as 'Windows Vista Capable' even though they knew it could not run most of Vista's widely-promoted features. Microsoft responds by saying that the differences have been promoted with one of the most extensive marketing pushes in company history. 'In sum, Microsoft engaged in bait and switch -- assuring consumers they were purchasing Vista Capable machines when, in fact, they could obtain only a stripped-down operating system lacking the functionality and features that Microsoft advertised as Vista ... As a result, the suit said, people were buying machines that couldn't run the real Vista.'"
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
1 GB RAM is the minimum for windows (Score:5, Insightful)
The should start off at 1GB. PC makers lose credibility selling systems with less than that because the experience is going to suck.
Re:1 GB RAM is the minimum for windows (Score:5, Interesting)
Exactly. The fact that Vista is ANY bigger than its predecessor tells me everything I need to know about it. Do you think Microsoft is serving customer demands when it makes each successive operating system bigger and requiring more resources? Do you think customers are demanding that a computer should slow down just because you upgraded your operating system?
I've got a brand new PC that's right in the sweet spot for Vista performance. Yet, Windows XP runs faster and better on it than Vista. So how can anyone possibly say that Vista is "better"?
The entire PC industry is so tied to Microsoft that they don't have to even pretend to make each operating system better than the one before. All they have to do is get the PC makers to sign contracts saying that they'll put Windows on all of their new computers. Then, they sell big organizations on the idea that they need the latest software, which requires the latest OS, which requires a faster computer.
Net benefit to consumers? Negative. We are the consumables.
Re:1 GB RAM is the minimum for windows (Score:5, Funny)
Damn. I guess 640k IS all the RAM anyone should ever need . . .
There you go, people ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Vista Home Basic includes the "core experience," which means Microsoft admits that the rest is useless window dressing.
Hey... which version comes without the DRM feature?
This one... (Score:5, Informative)
This one [reactos.org], but it's not done yet.
Well, they needed something to market it on... (Score:5, Insightful)
Saw this coming (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft may or may not win this one but regardless, the damage is done as far as end users are concerned.
Gates is on the hook too (Score:5, Interesting)
Can I join the lawsuit? (Score:5, Funny)
Perhaps Overblown (Score:5, Insightful)
Car analogy time!
Car companies use phrases like "starting at $22,900" all the time in their commercials, when we know damn well that if you want power windows, A/C, a CD player, and a decent sized engine, you will be paying significantly more than that price. The "starting at" price is always the most basic model. I don't see any difference between this and advertising "Windows Vista Capable" and only being able to run basic version of Windows Vista. The computer is, in fact, capable of running Windows Vista.
"But wait!" TFA exclaims. "It can't run ALL of Vista, at least not all the features that Microsoft advertised as being in Vista!"
So? That same car commercial has the car making hairpin mountain pass turns at 65 miles an hour, probably with custom tires, a beefy engine, and a specially trained driver. Do those things come with the $22,900 car? Certainly not. Why then are these same people not filing suits about the Ford Edge not being able to climb buildings and park on walls?
I can't see this suit going anywhere. There is a fine line between letting a company advertise their products and forcing them to tell everyone how shitty their stuff is, and this suit crosses it.
DX10 (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Looks like a worthless suite to me (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Looks like a worthless suite to me (Score:5, Funny)
The problem is that Vista is all about the WOW, so if you don't get the WOW, you don't get Vista. Can you imagine getting home with a brand new machine and turning it on and not seeing the WOW?.
I'd be mad and mislead!
Re:Looks like a worthless suite to me (Score:5, Insightful)
Because whenever Microsoft advertises Vista, they always showcase Aero. Therefore, consumers have been lead to believe that they are the same.
Re:Looks like a worthless suite to me (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Looks like a worthless suite to me (Score:5, Insightful)
It is true that the machines are technically Vista Capable in that they can run, and the features MS advertises for Vista are features that Vista has. However, the machines that are Vista Capable are not capable of running what MS is advertising Vista to be. Sure, both ads are technically true, but in conjunction they are designed to mislead.
Re:Looks like a worthless suite to me (Score:5, Insightful)
Go through the interactive demo for MS Vista "Wow starts now" [microsoft.com] and click on the "Easier" link (magnifying glass). Funny how the "3D flip" feature is displayed here without any sort of qualification on the product level or hardware level needed to use it. Even automobile advertisements include a note showing that some features are not "base model". While it may be obvious to advanced computer users that these features will require more system resources, the average PC user is not so educated to understand that the low end Dell they bought can't run the "Wow".
Re:Looks like a worthless suite to me (Score:5, Funny)
Re:So what? (Score:5, Insightful)
To most of the people who use computers, there's no difference between the core of an OS and the user interface. It's the software that makes the computer work, and it's not the same software that they thought they'd be able to run when they saw "Vista capable" on the machines.
That doesn't necessarily mean the suit itself has any merit, but I can definitely see where the customers are coming from.
Re:I have to go with Microsoft on this one (Score:5, Insightful)
Me thinks you put too much faith in the ability of US consumers to do 'research.'
This is the same country that sues fast food places because they didn't know fast food is fattening and unhealthy, despite needing only 15 minutes of research to tell them what large quantities of saturated fat and sodium would do to the human body.
Re:I have to go with Microsoft on this one (Score:5, Informative)
Well, people assumed that certification meant they could run Vista. It didn't say "Mostly Windows Vista Capable". It didn't say "Windows Vista Capable Without Aero". It simply said it was 'capable' of running Vista, which doesn't imply a subset.
There were so damned many versions of Vista, people were relying on that sticker to know if the machine was worth running Vista on. Finding out that you can run the crippled version on your new machine you just forked money over for is probably not what consumers were expecting. If professionals in the industry haven't been entirely clear on what macine resources you need, your average consumer doesn't stand a chance of sorting this crap out.
Well, except that in those SUV ads they have little wee fine print at the bottom of the screen which says the vehicle isn't actually being offered as something which scales wilderness mountains, and that you shouldn't try to replicate what you see.
In the case of Vista, people have been told to expect all of this shinyness, they've been told that their machines are capable of doing it, and then they're discovering that sticker means "well, you can sorta kinda mostly do the stuff we claimed, but all of the good reasons to buy Vista aren't actually implied by that sticker -- that was just a marketing campaign".
Some of us would argue those two things are one and the same.
Cheers
Re:I have to go with Microsoft on this one (Score:5, Insightful)
No, this is like buying "ready to bake" cookies only to find you have to add eggs in order to bake them. Well, you didn't buy eggs while you were at the store because you thought they are ready to bake as the bag advertises. Sure you could try to bake them without the eggs, but you aren't getting the full cookie experience you expected.
but I think that about 15 minutes of research would have let someone know that they couldn't use the Aero interface
It isn't the job of the consumer to research whether an advertisement means what it says. That's why there are consumer protection laws in the first place. Not everyone is capable of figuring out how to do such research. Now if you want to the computer that runs Aero the best, then sure that is the job of the consumer to do their homework.
If the stickers say "Vista Capable" then they should be Vista capable and not some smaller subset which provides minimal functionality. If you can't see why that's deceptive, then you don't fully understand what the word means. [reference.com]
Re:I have to go with Microsoft on this one (Score:5, Informative)
Re:I have to go with Microsoft on this one (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, what you say is why this suit's unlikely to be simply thrown out. As you said, MS advertised only the versions with the niftiest features. Not a peep in the ads about anything lower down on the scale. And one thing courts have done over the years, in response to games with the fine print is to say "The product is what the advertising says it is.". That's why, in car ads, when they quote the "starting from $X" price you always see, in type that's not too much smaller, an "as shown, $Y" after it. A couple of dealerships ran ads that showed the top-of-the-line luxury variant with all the extras, and then said "starting from $X" where the price they advertised was for the bottom-end stripped-down variant. And when a couple of consumers sued, the judge said "You showed that model. You said it started at $X. You didn't mention or show any other models, nor mention anything about that $X price not being for the model shown. So the consumers have every right to assume that that $X starting price applies to that car exactly as you advertised it.". So in this case it's quite possible that the courts will say that Vista with Aero and all the bells and whistles was what Microsoft advertised, none of the advertising made any mention of lower-end versions or lack of Aero and the bells and whistles, so the buyers are entitled to assume that "Vista Ready" means exactly that: ready to run exactly what Microsoft was advertising, not something that looks completely different and wasn't shown anywhere in the advertising.
Now that idea has merit (Score:5, Interesting)
You know, now that you mention it, going after the game makers has merits.
No, I'm not saying it should run with everything _maxxed_. But I can think of games which are anywhere from completely unplayable (as in, crash), to a slideshow, to having to be downgraded to a pityful joke, on machines which meet the minimum advertised specs. Sometimes even on machines which meet the _recommended_ specs. And that I don't really find ok.
I can think of games which were launched with some advertised spec, but then some mandatory patch turned them into a graphics orgy that outright crashes the game or machine of someone who did previously meet the specs. One example is COH. When the graphics upgrade happened that put COH graphics on par with COV. I know at least one person whose (admittedly crap) laptop started to just crash to desktop when that graphics update hit. In spite of having previously been perfectly good to play COH, and still being perfectly good to play WoW. (And, you know, because it's a MMO you can't refuse to install a patch.)
I can think of games which were hyped for their supposed great graphics, except _no_ machine at the time of release could actually display the advertised graphics as more than a frame per second. (E.g., EQ2. It was launched at a time when the 9800 passed for the top end graphics card, and sorry, it wasn't anywhere near enough to play other than at a massively reduced graphics quality. And by massively reduced, I mean that even at a point blank range all detail on a piece of armour was turned into a blurred smear.) I'm sorry, I know that not all machines are created equal, but if _no_ computer exists at the time which can actually display those graphics, then don't fucking advertise it with the max quality screenshots.
Briefly, some truth in avertising would be a welcome change with the game publishers too, you know? Those specs on the box are rarely more than a joke pulled out of the ass by marketting. It has nothing to do with what computers run the game adequately, it just has to do with how big a slice of the market does the marketting department want to market to.