backtop


Print 92 comment(s) - last by Ryanman.. on Apr 10 at 3:37 PM


The little sticker that is causing a world of trouble for Microsoft and Intel.  (Source: DailyTech)
Microsoft executive -- "We set ourselves up"

One of the most iconic images of Microsoft's Windows Vista launch in January 2007 was the small "Windows Vista Capable" stickers on computers months before, reassuring customers that when the new operating system came out, their computers could be updated to the latest and greatest.  Unfortunately for the consumer it appears that the capabilities that these stickers promised were intentionally exaggerated to benefit Microsoft and chipmaker Intel.

A class action suit filed against Microsoft in April 2007 accused Microsoft of intentionally misleading consumers with the stickers, claiming the "Vista Capable" logos on computers that were anything but.  The suit centered around several key points, among which was that the computers sold could not run Windows Vista's more impressive features such as the Aero user interface, and were left with only a bare-bones skeleton of Vista.  The suit forced Microsoft to redefine its definition of what exactly "Vista Capable" meant, which included Microsoft's addition of a disclaimer that some of the PCs bearing the sticker could not run significant Vista features such as Aero.

Meanwhile, the legal case proceeded forward.  Armed with internal emails obtained from Microsoft, the plaintiffs, represented by high-power attorney Jeffrey Tilden of Gordon Tilden Thomas & Cordell, took their case before a U.S. District Judge in order to gain class action status.  In a significant victory for the plaintiffs U.S. District Judge Marsha Pechman granted the case class action status, with the primary focus being to determine whether Microsoft intentionally deceived consumers to sell PCs.  The judge also opened the door for the suit to also encompass gripes about the lack of Aero if the plaintiffs found another named plaintiff who bough Vista but was unable to run Aero.

Now in the aftermath of the ruling, the Judge Pechman unsealed 158 pages of Microsoft corporate emails (PDF) that paint a picture Microsoft would rather not have the public see.

Some of these emails featured Microsoft employees candidly describing the program with, "
Even a piece of junk will qualify" for "Vista Capable" designation.  The now famous email from Mike Nash, currently a corporate vice president for Windows product management, states, "I PERSONALLY got burnt ... Are we seeing this from a lot of customers? ... I now have a $2,100 e-mail machine." 

Less dramatic, but equally damaging was the email from
Jim Allchin, then the co-president of Microsoft's Platforms and Services Division, stating grimly, "We really botched this ... You guys have to do a better job with our customers."

The most interesting emails though, turn out to be the new ones.  While a number of key portions of several emails were redacted, the parts that remain paint a picture of intentional deception that Microsoft virtually admitted to in the internal emails.

In the emails Microsoft executives discuss how the Intel 915 Chipset was to initially be deemed incompatible Windows Vista.   The policy was abruptly reversed.  Says one of the executives in charge of the decision, "
In the end, we lowered the requirements to help Intel make their quarterly earnings so they could continue to sell motherboards with the 915 graphics embedded.  We are caving to Intel. We worked the last 18 months to drive the [user interface] experience and we are giving this up."

This admission is extremely significant as it precisely describes what was alleged by the class action suit.  Microsoft will have to fight an uphill battle to prove that its employees' email correspondence was inaccurate and misleading.

Other emails make it clear that retailers had voiced frustrations with Microsoft, and were met with stubborn resistance from Microsoft executives due to the policy, which aimed to underhandedly pump up Intel's chipset sales.  Says one Microsoft executive, guiltily, "
I was in Best Buy listening to people and can tell you this did not come clear to customers. We set ourselves up."


Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

This lawsuit is quite reasonable
By EffKay on 3/3/2008 9:15:51 AM , Rating: 2
I'm reading a lot of comments from DT users, who are by and large very computer literate, that it's the consumer at fault and that they must research more before buying. That's an argument that's alike to: It's the rabbit's fault that it gets eaten by the fox, the rabbit knows it must run so it must just run faster better.

More to the point: How will a person that is only moderately familiar with the OUTSIDE of a PC (never mind the inner workings) be able to learn enough about the latest nuances in the time it takes to make a decision to purchase a PC for an operating system that is not yet released? Do not downplay the fact that complex sciences take YEARs of work and gathering of information to achieve what could be referred to as a informed opinion.

I can just now almost feel some of you edging towards replying with the "Just Google it!" clause?
How will someone that knows very little about computers be able to use a computer to research fringe information about computers that is in a technical computer only jargon and slang written by other computer people that are at times hostile towards those with lesser knowledge?

Simple: They pay their money to someone else to do that work. They ask people in the industry. They ask experts they can find. They ask the sales people at the store. They ask these people that they trust. And if enough of these people say it will work then they go for it BUT they will not spend a lot of money in the likely event that it doesn't work. This is logical isn't it? Why spend $1000+ on a computer for an OS that is not released yet and risk spending a LOT of money on something that may not work and you're stuck with it. The price for having access to cheaper equipment (building a much faster PC up from components) is the hard earned knowledge of what it is and how it works.

An analogy from another industry. Imagine that you buy a new car from a reputable big-name dealership which runs very well on the fuel available to you right now. Right next to it is a sports car that runs FANTASTIC on the same fuel with a likewise large price increase attached. Also you are aware there is a new fuel type coming in that will REPLACE the existing type and that either car should run on it but there will be a performance hit (think Methanol / diesel / Biofuel VS Gasoline / Petroleom).
So you purchase the not too expensive one and hope it will be OK on the new fuel when it arrives but when it does you find out that your "new" car (which you are still paying off) requires significant upgrades to run efficiently since it's engine is built up of components that are several generations of technology old. (Think of finding a carb fed engine in a "new" 2008 car)

Imagine now finding that this was done in order to allow the makers of the engines to gain profit from dumping their old stock instead of investing in proper and appropriate technology platforms. Instead this engine maker used their influence in the industry to change the definition of "acceptable" instead of just doing their job and making a properly acceptable engine available.

If delays are there then so be it and most people will accept it IF it works as advertised when it is available.

Just as Blizzard does (Starcraft 2 anyone), others should release a product when it is ready and working and stable. The bigger you are, the more ready it has to be since you have more trust placed upon you.

People trust that the big guys like Intel and Microsoft will make it work WHEN they say it will.

Trust is the crux of this suit which Microsoft has injured IN COLLUSION with Intel in order to let Intel profit by dumping it's old stock.




"Paying an extra $500 for a computer in this environment -- same piece of hardware -- paying $500 more to get a logo on it? I think that's a more challenging proposition for the average person than it used to be." -- Steve Ballmer














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki