Microsoft Sued Over Vista Marketing 556
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.'"
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.
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?
Looks like a worthless suite to me (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, they needed something to market it on... (Score:5, Insightful)
I have to go with Microsoft on this one (Score:3, Insightful)
Basically, what it seems to be is a consumer thought that "Windows Vista Capable" meant that the computer would be able to do all the pretty things that Microsoft portrayed in ads.
To me, this is a little bit like suing because even after buying a bag of chocolate chips, you couldn't make cookies that look as nice as the ones on the package. Or even, for that matter, that even after buying an SUV, you are not suddenly scaling mountains in the wilderness.
I don't think that Microsoft was concealing anything. They were advertising a product with its niftiest features, but I think that about 15 minutes of research would have let someone know that they couldn't use the Aero interface. Microsoft used marketing and advertising to make their product look the best, that isn't the same as cheating someone.
Re:Looks like a worthless suite to me (Score:3, 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.
Enough! (Score:3, Insightful)
I am so sick of lawyers.
Re:Looks like a worthless suite to me (Score:5, Insightful)
So what? (Score:4, Insightful)
I run Linux exclusively and in general throw punches at Microsoft when they're valid.....
Re:Saw this coming (Score:3, Insightful)
You see the bolded text up there? That would be why it's not exactly Microsoft's fault.
Vista vs XP (Score:3, Insightful)
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:Looks like a worthless suite to me (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
It's not just about fluff (Score:3, Insightful)
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]
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.
Isn't this like.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Advertising is all about making the most out of the least. If a version of Vista will run on a system, no matter how stripped down, then you get to call it Vista capable.
By the same point I am , to the best of my knowledge, marathon capable.
My car is baja rally capable.
My weenie dog is "burglar killing" capable. (Although the burglar in question would probably have to lay down very still, and rub meat juice on his neck or something)
Mildly deceptive? probably. Lawsuit worthy? no.
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.
Silver lining (Score:3, 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: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.
Yep... (Score:3, Insightful)
So... if the plaintiffs claim that the computers were advertised as being able to run Vista with all features, then I'm 99.99% sure the computer can run Vista with all features enabled and they're full of it. If, on the other hand, they claim that by "Vista capable" the ad meant that the computer will come with the highest, fully featured version of Vista, then they fail at comprehension and should STFU.
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:2, Insightful)
Though I am not surprised I have been saying for months now that its total market spin and double talk the way Microsoft has been routinely pushing the features only available in the Enterprise and Ultimate versions of Vista (such as the bitlocker and Aero, etc) yet constantly focus on the price and specs of the Basic version. This causes market confusion and misleads their customers. Microsoft even engaged in this same deceptive marketting spin at their New Day Vista launch events.
Vista also has a nice little utility built in that lets you purchase Incremental Upgrades to your version. Oh, you bought basic but wanted the Aero? here pay us x and you get a new key to turn that on. Oh you want Media Center now, oh, pay us more... Also the piece meal upgrade system ends up costing much more than simply buying the version you wanted outright. This "feature" of Vista actually supports suspicion Microsoft intentionally entered into a bait and switch marketting scheme to defraud users.
Re:Sigh (Score:5, Insightful)
The glass GUI is the least crucial part of Vista, just as it's irrelevant to the ability to operate the system and get things done if I remove Beryl and swap Metacity back in as my window mangler on Ubuntu.
If the little stickers had said "Vista 100% Eye Candy Ready" then you would have a point, but you don't, because they said "vista ready", and that's just one feature of Vista, and frankly it's the least important one. Not that there are ANY features of Vista which would compel me to upgrade.
Re:"Minimum Requirements" (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:ridiculous (Score:3, Insightful)
vista's new caching technologies are significant and vista is the first release of NT to integrate ipv6 and ipv4 into the same stack, which enables them to provide ipv6 management through the same interface used by ipv4. There are also numerous security improvements over XP, even if the UAC feature is complete bullshit the others are still useful (like the stack protection etc.)
Are the new features in vista, not counting the 3d interface, worth upgrading for? I'd say no. But to claim that the eye candy is the only new and valuable feature in vista is a specious argument at best.
Re:Isn't this like.... (Score:2, Insightful)
For instance, if you were selling your car and advertised it as "baja rally capable" that would be blatantly illegal.
Similarly if were selling dogs to a security company, and calling them "burglar-attacking capable" and they turned out to be weenie dogs, then you would be sued and probably lose.
So is it worthy of a lawsuit? I generally dislike lawsuits, but frankly I hate false advertising.
Just something I've heard over and over: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:1 GB RAM is the minimum for windows (Score:5, Insightful)
A new version is supposed to have at least the same functionalities as the previous versions.
When using exactly the same functionalities as the previous version, one could expect the new version to take less resource or at least, to not take more.
In my company that's what our clients require.
Re:1 GB RAM is the minimum for windows (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes with all the bells, and a lot of the whistles turned on, its a memory hog, but then so is XP once you load up your AV of choice, firefox faststart, google desktop and throw window blinds onto it.
RTFAS (Read The Fucking Article Summary)
The point is that MS advertises those bells and whistles, and then goes and brands computers as Vista compatible that cannot do those things.
If MS says 'Vista has X', and then says 'This computer supports Vista', that computer damn well better be able to do X, or, like the lawsuit asserts, there's false advertising somewhere going on.
Re:Well, they needed something to market it on... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:1 GB RAM is the minimum for windows (Score:3, Insightful)
Simple: If Vista has a feature (yes, I'm being hypothetical here...) that XP doesn't have and it makes the computer more useful, it's better. If application performance is your sole measurement of the 'better-ness' of an OS, then you aren't doing much more than making a bunch of noise.
Re:Saw this coming (Score:2, Insightful)
People buy the trucks anticipating the purchase of a Regal trailer as soon as they're released. Release day comes. There's the 35 and 40' models but they're much heavier than the trucks can handle. "What's going on? You said these trucks could tow a Royal trailer!" "Oh, they can. But only the 20' model over there. No slide-outs on that one. No jacuzzi tub. No sun deck. No satellite TV, no internet. But it's got a cooler and a 13 inch TV/VCR combo unit!" "But that's not the trailer that everyone's been talking about." "Didn't you read the fine print?"
Re:1 GB RAM is the minimum for windows (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Looks like a worthless suite to me (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure, most companies don't showcase their low-end products. OTOH, when the high-end product is showcased as representing the brand-name it shares with the low-end product, and people are sold some third product on the basis of capacity to use a product identified with that shared brand name, when it cannot use the features that the seller has worked hard to identify with the shared brand name, the marketing is in fact deceptive. Whether it is also so in law may vary by other considerations, but, note that adds for particular brands of cars where there highlighted version has different options than the base that advertise selling points (such as price) applicable to the base model tend also to include reference to the higher price of the version "as shown". There is a reason for that.
Re:Looks like a worthless suite to me (Score:3, Insightful)
The website is not the part of the marketing campaign that is the subject of the lawsuit. So, whether the website which mentions the features provides such a link is not particularly relevant to the question, unless one is arguing that any person purchasing a "Windows Vista Capable" PC based on Microsoft's other marketing of Vista can reasonably be expected to have been exposed to the Windows Vista website (and, even if so, of course, only if those current distinctions were present in the prerelease version of the website when those computers were purchased.)
Re:Well, they needed something to market it on... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:1 GB RAM is the minimum for windows (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:1 GB RAM is the minimum for windows (Score:2, Insightful)
I wouldn't say it was a no-brainer. From memory, when it was released people said it was bloated, needed more resources, had compatibility issues, was just a pretty interface, and why should they bother upgrading when their old system was running fine.
Re:I have to go with Microsoft on this one (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:1 GB RAM is the minimum for windows (Score:3, Insightful)
Sorry, but XP was a lot more than "just a pretty interface" compared to Windows 98. Maybe you're thinking of Windows 2000 vs. XP? I hardly ever saw a Windows 98 machine (or worse, Windows ME!) that was "running fine." I know I hated using it.
*Cue all the
Whatever. Reality is that the whole Windows 9x/ME series was an abomination that should never have been inflicted on the masses. Maybe XP was bloated, but it was a major step up for consumers as far as reliability, if nothing else.
-matthew
Re:Sigh (Score:4, Insightful)
Give it a rest. M$ is playing semantic word games with the words "Vista" and "Aero", not to mention crippling their software in various ways, in a deliberate attempt to deceive the consumer. Showing one thing and giving another. False advertising in other words.
They have along history of doing similar things. One reason they're disliked. This time they've been called on it. We'll see what the court says but at a bare minimum they should get their wrist slapped.
---
Astroturfing "marketers" [wikipedia.org] are liars, fraudulently misrepresenting company propaganda as objective third party opinion.
Re:VIsta actually makes use of non-used RAM (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:1 GB RAM is the minimum for windows (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, what I said was that in a monopoly situation, the vendor decides what consumers get. That's what's wrong with the OS market at the moment.
As to the rest of your question, "the market" is a collective name for consumers and vendors, and the balance they negotiate between themselves. Advertising is a tool used by vendors to persuade consumers to want their product, so demand is always what the consumer really wants.