Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Microsoft Sued Over Vista Marketing

Posted by Zonk on 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.'"

26 of 556 comments (clear)

  1. 1 GB RAM is the minimum for windows by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    1 GB ram is the minimum for a responsive experience with windows .. especially with the required anti-virus running.

    The should start off at 1GB. PC makers lose credibility selling systems with less than that because the experience is going to suck.

    1. Re:1 GB RAM is the minimum for windows by Yvanhoe · · Score: 4, Insightful

      A new version is supposed to have new features, eventually at a performance cost.
      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.

      --
      The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
    2. Re:1 GB RAM is the minimum for windows by DavidTC · · 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.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    3. Re:1 GB RAM is the minimum for windows by Weh · · Score: 5, Insightful

      look at modern cars; Are engines becoming more efficient? yes they are. Are the constructive aspects of the cars more efficient? yes they are. Are the materials being used becoming lighter? yes they are. But do cars today consume less fuel than 10 or 20 years ago? No they don't... Why? because the average car is much heavier and thus needs a larger engine; people want the car padded with airbags, power everything (including ashtray covers) steel beams for side impact protection, etc. etc. and they still want the car to accelerate like a sports car. Moral of the story, when technology advances it is used for more comfort, not for more efficiency.

  2. There you go, people ... by operagost · · 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?

    --

    Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
  3. Looks like a worthless suite to me by namityadav · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Among other things, Microsoft created the additional designation of Windows Vista "Premium Ready" to indicate that a machine was capable of running the operating system's advanced features, meeting premium hardware requirements including a full gigabyte of system memory. That "premium" designation was made available for PC makers and retailers to use in places such as computer boxes and in-store marketing materials, said Mike Burk, a Windows product manager. Microsoft also detailed the hardware requirements for the various Windows Vista versions in places including its own Web site. However, the distinction wasn't made in the general "Windows Vista Capable" stickers. The suit alleges that it was deceptive to include that logo on machines not capable of running all the features Microsoft was touting as capabilities of Windows Vista in general. If the PC can run Vista (Aero is not Vista), then it can say it's Vista capable. What's wrong with that? I am also a Linux user and MS basher (Like much of Slashdot), but this is just stupid.
    1. Re:Looks like a worthless suite to me by RobertM1968 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Unfortunately, you are correct. There was nothing in their promotions that indicated "Capable" at a certain productivity or usability level. If the machine says "Vista Capable" and it runs any version of Vista - then it's Vista Capable. MS is just taking advantage of consumers' inability to interpret what is stated... just like someone complaining about a store sale that says up to 50% off - "Why is this only 10% off?" - "Because it says UP TO 50%".

      --
      StarTrekPhase2 - The Five Year Mission Continues!
    2. Re:Looks like a worthless suite to me by Anivair · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Agreed. Aero is not vista, but MS never really mentioned that in their advertising, did they? As far as the public knew Aero did not exist. it was all just "vista". I actually concur with the article. I think this case has merit. Not just because I want to see MS go down, but also because I'm sick of bait and switch advertising in technology. I also want to see someone sue a video game company for advertising a game showing all cut scenes with no real gameplay. I hate that.

    3. Re:Looks like a worthless suite to me by a.d.trick · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If the PC can run Vista (Aero is not Vista), then it can say it's Vista capable. What's wrong with that? I am also a Linux user and MS basher (Like much of Slashdot), but this is just stupid.

      Because whenever Microsoft advertises Vista, they always showcase Aero. Therefore, consumers have been lead to believe that they are the same.

    4. Re:Looks like a worthless suite to me by Coryoth · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Me too - just because I am running Gnome on my Linux box doesn't mean that because I am lacking XGL and Beryl/Compiz functionality I'm not running Gnome on Linux. Aero != Vista I believe the difference here is that Gnome doesn't have all its advertising show off the cool 3D effects available from Beryl/Compiz. The issue is that Microsoft is playing both sides here: they advertise Vista based on its fancy new UI, and then advertise "Vista Capable machines" that offer none of the features for which they are advertising Vista with. If I advertise my hamburgers as having 1/2 a pound of beef, and also have advertisements saying that my salads come with a free hamburger (not mentioning that the free hamburger is a McDonalds hamburger) then the advertising is being deceptive. Sure, both ads are technically true, but in conjucction they are designed to mislead.

      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.
      --
      Craft Beer Programming T-shirts
    5. Re:Looks like a worthless suite to me by Jim_Maryland · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Aero != Vista but the Microsoft "Wow" marketing campaign certainly highlights it.

      Go through the interactive demo for MS Vista "Wow starts now" 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".

    6. Re:Looks like a worthless suite to me by DragonWriter · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That would make perfect sense for them to show Aero. What company doesn't showcase their high-end products instead of their low-end ones?


      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.
  4. Well, they needed something to market it on... by muntumbomoklik · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The fact is that the vast majority of users don't need a hog like Vista for anything they don't already use XP for, making an incentive to upgrade almost nonexistent aside from having the latest Shiny New Thing(tm). Making Vista seem more attractive would be the only way to get grandma to pay $500 just to be able to send the same emails at the same speed.

  5. I have to go with Microsoft on this one by Glowing+Fish · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I think that Microsoft is being wrongly sued in this, and I bet the suit will be thrown out quickly enough.

    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.

    --
    Hopefully I didn't put any [] around my words.
    1. Re:I have to go with Microsoft on this one by Volante3192 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      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.

    2. Re:I have to go with Microsoft on this one by div_2n · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      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.

    3. Re:I have to go with Microsoft on this one by Todd+Knarr · · Score: 4, 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.

  6. Saw this coming by geek · · Score: 4, Insightful

    That's what happens when you market stripped down versions and feature full versions at the same time. It's like being promised a BMW and getting a Honda instead. Most average users don't understand all these differences and the sales person happily told them "Vista will run on it" to make a sale.

    Microsoft may or may not win this one but regardless, the damage is done as far as end users are concerned.

  7. Enough! by bigtallmofo · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Can everyone please just stop suing everyone?

    I am so sick of lawyers.

    --
    I'm a big tall mofo.
  8. So what? by LordPhantom · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Look, I hate Windows.

    I run Linux exclusively and in general throw punches at Microsoft when they're valid.....
    ...but the core of an OS is NOT the graphical fluff. They didn't mislead the customers with the "Vista Capable" stickers, the machine IS. If you applied this standard to -any- software it would be in trouble. Take games, for example. "Runs best on ATI"? "System Requirements"? If I ran most FPS games with the bare minimum, my gaming experience with them would be, say, about the same as the users buying stripped down PCs to run Vista. You don't buy a cheap 4-banger and expect a race car, and although the cheaper car can go 70mph, it's not going to feel as nice as a Ferrari doing the same thing.

    1. Re:So what? by PhxBlue · · Score: 5, Insightful

      ...but the core of an OS is NOT the graphical fluff.

      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.

      --
      !#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
  9. Vista vs XP by jshriverWVU · · Score: 3, Insightful

    A recently helped my girlfriends uncle buy a new laptop since he's on the road a lot. We went the normal consumer route and went around town looking for the best deal. As a big Toshiba fan I kept my eye on those. To my surprise everywhere we went offered ONLY vista installed. Problem being when we took the machine home and booted, the machine is dead slow. It's a 2ghz machine with 1gig memory. (Not bad I run my own desktop with less, though I run linux) Just to boot this thing takes 5-10 minutes, and the user experience just blows. I dont blame Toshiba as I've seen and used many of their laptops and never had a problem. Just wish they would let you have XP instead of Vista if you wanted.

  10. It's not just about fluff by insanemime · · Score: 3, Insightful

    There is another aspect that the lawsuit is most likely going to cover and that is the crippling DRM built into the system. You have people buying supposed HD-ready machines with HD-DVD players and a nice big screen HD Screen and they plug it all up, put in a HD-DVD and...lookie..nothing. If I were to buy a big "Vista Ready" system that one of its main features is to play HD content, and then I find that Vista won't allow it, I would sue too.

  11. Perhaps Overblown by AeroIllini · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'm all for making Microsoft follow the rules, but at what point does this cross the line from "buyer beware" to "deceptive advertising"?

    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.

    --
    For security, the MD5 hash of this message and sig is 09f911029d74e35bd84156c5635688c0.
  12. Re:Sigh by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The most crucial aspect of running Vista's "glass gui" is the graphics card.

    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.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  13. Re:Sigh by bit01 · · Score: 3, 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" are liars, fraudulently misrepresenting company propaganda as objective third party opinion.