Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Found Guilty of Misleading Advertising
gtoomey writes "The UK Advertising Standards Authority has upheld complaints that Microsoft misled consumers by running advertisements claiming Linux is 10 times more expensive than Windows. The print advertisements used "independent research" to compare the cost of Linux on an expensive mainframe to Windows on a PC."
Here's a link to the adjudication at the Advertising Standards Authority.
This is the same agency that has nailed Apple to the wall several times in the past.
If we had some of Microsoft's droids working for us, the open-source community in promoting open-source software, we may possibly have a big market share (as if we haven't got a growing one already).
Fine, Linux may be expensive in the short-term, i.e. upgrading and replacing some incompatible hardware, training staff, etc. but as ESR says, pay-per-seat Microsoft licensing fees are forever.Just my two pence.
no karma required .asp]
from http://www.asa.org.uk/ [ironically running on IIS with
-- - - - - -
Microsoft Ltd
Microsoft Campus
Thames Valley Park
Reading
Berkshire
RG6 1WG
Date: 25th August 2004
Media: Magazine
Sector: Computers and telecommunications
Agency: McCann Erickson
Public Complaints From: Liverpool, Surrey, Wiltshire
Complaint:
Objections to a specialist magazine advertisement, for a computer operating system, that was headed "WEIGHING THE COST OF LINUX VS. WINDOWS? LET'S REVIEW THE FACTS." A graph compared the cost (US$) per Megabit per second of "One Linux image running on two z900 mainframe CPUs" with "One Windows Server 2003 image running on two 900 MHz Intel Xeon CPUs". Underneath it stated "Linux was found to be over 10 times more expensive than Windows? Serverâ 2003 in a recent study ⦠audited by leading independent research analyst META Group, measured costs of Linux running on IBM's z900 mainframe for Windows-comparable functions of file serving and Web serving. The results showed that IBM z900 mainframe running Linux is much less capable and vastly more expensive than Windows Server 2003 as a platform for server consolidation.* To get the full study and other third-party findings, visit Microsoft.com/uk/getthefacts." The asterisk linked to a footnote that stated "Results may vary outside the United States â¦". The complainants challenged whether the comparison was misleading, because the operating systems were run on different hardware.
Codes Section: 3.1, 7.1, 18.1, 18.2, 18.3 (Ed 11)
Adjudication:
Complaints upheld
The advertisers said they intended the advertisement to compare competing file-serving set-ups that met the same needs and were intended for the same purposes. They said they had prepared the advertisement in response to an advertising campaign by IBM in which Linux running on an IBM mainframe was tested for file serving and web serving. They said their advertisement was based on results from a benchmark study and the advertisement informed the public of the results from that study about the relative performance and cost of one Linux image running on IBM's z900 mainframe CPUs and Windows Server 2003 image running on two 900MHz Xeon CPUs. The advertisers said the benchmark study was a network load performance test that was neither hardware specific nor operating system specific; they said the fact that the hardware and operating systems were different was irrelevant. They pointed out that the client PC did not determine the server used and that the server workloads were the same and were functionally equivalent. The advertisers explained that each server was tested to deal with increasing numbers of functions from client PCs. They said they took measurements from the client PCs to assess how fast the server would respond. They asserted that the study was audited by Meta, an independent consultancy firm, who reported that the study was a fair comparison.
The Authority noted the advertisers intended the advertisement to compare competing file serving set-ups that met the same needs and had the same function. It noted the study was audited and was a fair comparison of the operating systems on different hardware. The Authority considered, however, that because the advertisement stated " ⦠WEIGHING THE COST OF LINUX VS. WINDOWS ⦠Linux was found to be over 10 times more expensive than Windows ⦠" it implied the comparison was between Linux and Windows operating systems only, and not about the performance of operating systems on different hardware. It took expert advice. It understood that the study measured the cost of Linux, running on IBM's z900 mainframe, to a Windows Server 2003 image, running on 900 MHz Intel Xeon CPUs, and was therefore a comparison that demonstrated the price and performance between IBM zSeries hardware and Intel Xeon CPUs. It understood that the pri
But think how many CDR's you'd need in order to pirate all the equivalent apps for windows aswell..
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
For all you Americans, this serves as an introduction. This here is what we call "regulation". It stops businesses being dicks by not bending over backwards to them at every opportunity. Our economy has not yet collapsed. Amazing, that.
By summer it was all gone...now shesmovedon. --
Incidentally, the ASA is one of Britain's better agencies. It seems to have - some - real power, and doesn't seem to abuse it.
The ASA is the industries own self-regulating group, and its "real power" is basically a loud voice. Self-regulating groups are usually setup with the intent of keeping the government out by implying that the industry needs no external control.
http://www.asa.org.uk/index.asp
I didn't bother checking, but most advertising boards are self-regulating groups that actually have zero real authority.
The UK's ASA is a government sponsored body that has the power to levy fines and issue orders that specific advertisements not be used in future.