Why the Vista Capable Lawsuit Has No Class
|
News Analysis. The Windows Vista Capable lawsuit is over, but it shouldn't be. |
Last week's declassification—meaning removable of class-action status—effectively ends the lawsuit. There's bark, but not much bite left. But the bark could still be plenty bothersome to Microsoft, should the plaintiffs succeed in getting more of the company's internal e-mails released.
From a public relations perspective, the lawsuit has been nightmarish for Microsoft. The scads of released e-mails either show incompetence, conspiracy or, gasp, both about Windows Vista product management from 2004-2006. Seriously, there's slapstick comedy behind the amount of Windows Vista bungling.
I'm purposely late blogging about the lawsuit's declassification, as I wanted to take some time for thoughtful analysis. I've got some. Quickly, in summation:
- Plaintiff lawyers didn't tell the story clearly coming from disclosed e-mails. Somebody was wronged here.
- The real story, apparent collusion between Intel and Microsoft over the standard of art for graphics chip sets, probably explains why Windows Vista missed holiday 2006.
- The European Union is investigating Intel for antitrust violations. The classless Microsoft case here still could be problematic for Intel on the Continent.
I'll start with a simple assertion: The case should never have been lost, and it is lost now. No one should be fooled, particularly the lawyers and six remaining plaintiffs, about the outcome.
The Unchallenged Conspiracy
Not that the case ever had much chance, and I'm surprised by how far it got. That statement has nothing to do with merits but process. During the early stages of the trial, the judge threw out most of the substantive claims. The remaining portion was always going to be tough proving, particularly given plaintiff attorneys' theory about what happened.
I spoke with plaintiff attorneys many moons ago. I could see where there could be a winnable case, but they chose to tell a different story. They perceived a ridiculous conspiracy theory that missed the real conspiracy—the one disclosed e-mails strongly suggested occurred between Intel and Microsoft.
The leaked documents strongly suggest that Microsoft lowered the standard of art for graphics chip sets, all so that Intel could make its quarterly earnings in early 2006. Microsoft employee John Kalkman wrote in an e-mail about Vista certification for an Intel chip set: "We lowered the requirement to help Intel make their quarterly earnings so they could continue to sell motherboards with the 915 graphics embedded." Later, after explaining some of the negative market results, he admitted: "It was a mistake on our part to change the original graphics requirements."
I'll say. The change effectively meant that computers shipping with Intel's 915 chip set and bearing the Windows Capable sticker weren't so capable after all. They could effectively run only one of the five major Vista versions: Basic. The disclosed Microsoft e-mails revealed dissatisfied OEM partners, like HP, which had invested millions ensuring their computers would support the original graphics standards.
The lowered graphics standards allowed Intel to ship the 915 chip set for a lot longer time than a truly competitive market would have allowed. This was a deal between two separate but conjoined monopolies.
Plaintiff lawyers had some weird conspiracy theory about there always being two logo programs and Microsoft using them to protect Windows sales to the detriment of customers. That's just total lunacy. The Vista management team wasn't that incompetent. Instead, as I see it, one logo program became two because of the lowered graphics standards. The Vista Capable logo took on a diminished role, while the newer Vista Ready logo program met the originally envisioned hardware requirements, for WDDM (Windows Display Driver Model).
Surely, there was a winnable lawsuit in this whole Vista Capable mess. But not how the case progressed. Microsoft is lucky; of course, it helped that pretty much nobody involved in the Windows Vista Capable decision-making process still works for the company. One remaining decision maker matters: Microsoft's CEO, who gave a deposition late last year. What little good Steve did for the plaintiffs' case. The judge removed class status a couple months following the deposition.
Vista Coal in Holiday 2006 Stockings
The question everyone should have asked about the case: Why did Microsoft delay Windows Vista's launch, doing the unthinkable by missing the holiday 2006 rush? The company announced in March 2006 that Vista wouldn't make the holidays. Why was Microsoft so sure then the development couldn't be safely rushed? After all, partners clamored for something to replace Windows XP. Microsoft had more reasons to ship Vista than not.
According to plaintiff attorneys' story: Microsoft used Windows Vista Capable as a means of keeping up XP sales because consumers would be assured their PCs could later run the new operating system—even though many computers couldn't handle much more than Basic. But I see a much different story that better fits circumstances for Windows Vista's holiday 2006 miss.
Could it be that the lowering of graphics requirements was a reason, perhaps the major one, for Windows Vista's delay? From the point Microsoft changed the graphics requirements, Intel was sure to ship the 915 chip set for a much longer time. Microsoft executives must have known this in December 2005 and January 2006, when the change was debated and later made. Microsoft lost its corporate will, so to speak, to push for an earlier Vista ship date.
A February 2007 Microsoft e-mail from Rasesh Srinivasan gives a state of the graphics market for fourth-quarter 2006: Only 60 percent graphics accelerators shipping on desktops or notebooks supported WDDM; 30 percent were Intel 915 chip sets. Seventy-four percent of notebooks and 58 percent of desktops shipped with integrated graphics. Eighty-six percent of notebooks were eligible for a Vista logo, but only 46 percent could run the Aero user interface.
Less than half the notebooks shipping for holiday 2006, when Microsoft offered Vista upgrade coupons, were fully capable of running the operating system. Surely, Microsoft realized what was likely going to happen back in January 2006. The WDDM requirement changes put Microsoft in a tough spot. If Vista shipped during holiday 2006, many computers wouldn't fully support the operating system. That would create a bad experience using the operating system, which goes against Microsoft's customer priorities and could create bad blogs, press and reviews for Vista. Microsoft risked less, from a customer experience perspective, if troubles came from XP upgraders and the market had more time to move to WDDM-capable chip sets.
So I see a different conspiracy, if it can rightly be called that, going back to the change in graphics requirements. That decision led to or contributed to others:
- The creation of two logo programs
- Inadequate standards applied to Windows Vista Capable
- Windows Vista's shipment delay
The Vista delay is pivotal because the "Why?" question has never been answered. Former Microsoft Platform and Services President Jim Allchin never really explained why Microsoft chose to delay Windows Vista's launch past holiday 2006. I say that if the will was there, Microsoft could have made the date, particularly with so many partners clamoring for a holiday release. But from January 2006, when graphics requirements changed, Microsoft lost its will to ship—and there were reasons to delay because of continued 915 chip set shipments.
The real crime here wasn't against consumers but Microsoft partners.
One Microsoft partner may yet come to accounting. The European Union is actively investigating Intel for antitrust violations. Surely I'm not alone coming up with this different theory of events. The European Competition Commission employs some smart lawyers. Not being a lawyer, I can't say that there is a violation of European antitrust laws. But if I were Intel, given what's happened to Microsoft on the Continent, I would worry over everything, including events now three years past.
[Please send your tips or rumors to watchtips at live.com].
Related Posts:
- Vista Capable Lawsuit Is Too Capable, Microsoft Watch, Nov. 22, 2008
- Intel-Microsoft Vistagate, Part 3, Microsoft Watch, Nov. 14, 2008
- Intel-Microsoft Vistagate, Part 2, Microsoft Watch, Feb. 29, 2008
- Intel-Microsoft Vistagate, Part 1, Microsoft Watch, Feb. 29, 2008
- Intel-Microsoft 'Capable' Confusion, Microsoft Watch, Feb. 28, 2008
- Were Vista Capable Stickers Incapable?, Microsoft Watch, Aug. 8, 2007
- The Trouble with Windows Vista Capable, Microsoft Watch, April 4, 2007
- Recent Lawsuits Target Vista, VOIP, Microsoft Watch, April 3, 2007
- When Vista Shifts into Low Gear, Microsoft Watch, Dec. 7, 2006
Comments (13)
Although its been fun watching MS squirm, it seems like this case is just the US legal system doing badly (I won't say at its worse, since there are many more stupider cases, like the XP downgrade lawsuit).
The computers did run Vista, just really really slowly, which as far as I can see is just normal operations for Vista. There is a certain amount of buyer beware here. If you buy a cheaper computer, it will probably run not as well as a more expensive computer. MS never set a performance metric on the operating system booting or programs starting. It never guaranteed all features would work (ie don't expect internet access without an network card, don't expect fancy graphics without a graphics card).
Anyway Vista sucks, people are disappointed, but that doesn't justify a lawsuit.
Posted by smist08 | February 23, 2009 2:22 PM
Id probably agree, however for people that post here I dont think would ever buy into any pre RC Microsoft or any other firm PR so easily. I remember being sceptical at the time, as some of the Vista claims I read were simply outragous. The average user would not think like that, and I think many people bought Vista because they read Microsoft said it was great.
-
This probably accounts for so much bad feeling over most forums, the average user didnt understand why their machine couldnt run Vista as great as Microsoft claimed it would run. Using Vista nearly everyday at work I can say the SP has made a great difference, and IMO this is what should have been released as the RC in the first place. Ignoring the security issues for a second and the many annoying nuances, I think that if Vista as it is today had been released as the RC then whilst its not a great replacement for XP (IMO), I think Microsoft would have gotten away with more migrations from XP.
-
As Vista stands now, whilst far superior to previous versions, IMO its still behind with features that Linux users have been enjoying for a while, small footprints, stable environments, and hell even compiz (which Im not a fan) which has been offering fx that Microsoft seem to be touting on Vista/7 as being revolutionary.
-
So whats the future for Windows? I think until theres some form of legislation on OS's prebundled with new machines, I think very little will change. I think many people will consider they have a legitimate case against Microsoft with the Vista issue and I think Microsoft will continue to try to be jack of all trades. I believe migration away will be slow and steady, and I think Microsoft can certainly expect a more downsized firm when we leave the current economic slump.
-
I think Windows 7 in all honesty will be a pretty competent release, although we've seen with Firefox and Iproducts that people are ready to consider the posibility of change.
-
I think the issues with Microsoft have been brought about by themselves believing they were an unstopable force in the IT world, this has enabled smaller firms to offer viable alternatives and caught MS off-guard on many battle fronts.
-
The one thing Im confident of is that we will leave the recession with a far wiser Microsoft, and hopefully this will transfer to its products keeping innovation fresh and an exciting time for the end user, who will find a plethora of alternative choices to tackle their computing tasks.
Posted by Goblin | February 23, 2009 3:10 PM
Badly handled != conspiracy or collusion.
Posted by Paul | February 23, 2009 4:52 PM
This 'capable' sticker but not really capable issue combined with the compatibility issues that Vista had at roll-out was the death knell for any enterprise deployment.
.
Great job MS!
Posted by JM | February 23, 2009 5:22 PM
This whole case strikes me as silly. Logo'd machines are compatible with all of the variants of Vista, it's just that in order to run the Aero desktop, you need a higher end video card. There are lots of features of Vista that require special hardware but that don't block installation. Other examples include:
1)Media Center requires a TV tuner
2)Bitlocker requires a TPM
3)TAPI requires a modem
4)Networking requires a NIC
and the list goes on...
Much ado about nothing.
Posted by Bryce M. | February 23, 2009 8:08 PM
@Bryce M:
Sorry Bryce but that's pure BS.
It was more than just "not Aero capable."
The whole damned OS didn't work on new fresh out the box PC's and Laptops.
Slow buggy... until SP1. Unacceptable. Microsoft needed this bitchslap and I'm hoping it shocked them to their senses. They needed an OS better than XP SP2. At release Vista was not it. It had issues even on hardware overpowered for it. I know this because my gaming rig gave me holy hell untill SP1 and some decent nvidia drivers hit the scene. Whoever said vista was ready for release should have been drug out into the street and beaten to death with old 7 inch floppy drive cables.
Posted by CC.Torment | February 24, 2009 2:56 AM
Yeah... Microsoft lost holiday season sales (millions $$$), just to help Intel....How much does Microsoft owe to Intel anyway....Sorry, but you will have to find out what was the return (major stuff) that Microsoft got back for this. That would make the story more beleivable. Otherwise this is pure speculation, to use a mild term...
Posted by Evan | February 24, 2009 2:14 PM
@CC - Sounds like we've had very different Vista experiences... For me, I found myself wiping and reloading XP about twice a year on most of my machines due to myriad glitches, whereas the Vista installs I did right after release have had no such issues. The only problems I've ever had with Vista were driver-related. I'm really excited about Win7, but not because I was in any way dissatisfied with Vista. XP ran like a slug on hardware that only barely met its' minimum requirements as well if you'll recall.
Posted by Bryce M. | February 24, 2009 2:55 PM
Bryce M. Maybe you are new here to know, that many commenters are profesional Microsoft bashers and btw most have not even tried Vista, but they complain anyway.
As for the lawsuit, I have said before that it is the most rediculous lawsuit ever. If people cannot read and cannot make simple comparison, or even ask the salesman to explain the difference in the logo (hardly required)then they got what they deserved and BTW similar logs existed and proabably exist even today for HDTV (HD Ready etc).No lawsuits there.
Posted by evan | February 24, 2009 3:43 PM
I find it amusing that a global conglomerate like MS has to rely on a "holiday season sales" for their new flagship OS.
I know it's a busy time for retail but the cornerstone product of the globally dominate company shouldn't be dependent on a specific time of year.
Goes to the quality (perceived or otherwise)
of the product, I'd say.
BTW, the iPhone launched in July '08.
Posted by TaylorC | February 24, 2009 4:41 PM
Quote "Bryce M. Maybe you are new here to know, that many commenters are profesional Microsoft bashers"
-
Name one. All the regular Linux users here are quite happy to debate with Windows users of honest held belief. How can we be pro MS bashers when we dont seek to promote any product? We refer to Linux as a whole and dont advertise any particular product with buzzwords like our MS PR posters do.
-
Difference with the Linux users here is that we all still use Windows (XP/Vista) yet we prefer to use alternatives.
-
Dont patronize a possible new user by drawing reference to how long they may or may not have been here for. For all we know they could have been reading these comments for longer than us.
-
You see Evan, alternative opinion in not limited to MS Watch, infact Id say that out of all the mainstream IT forums, MSwatch is the most measured in terms of what is posted and I think you will find displeasure with Microsoft products on any IT forum you visit.
-
Evan do I need to remind you that it was pro-MS posters who had to be deleted from this site by Joe Wilcox because they were acting in a vulgar and abusive way (not forgetting the fact they were impersonating people aswell) I dont believe any of the Linux posters have acted like this.
-
I know you wont excuse the behaviour of some of the more odious MS supporters because you cant, but could you please explain what you mean by a professional MS basher. Since there is no financial incentive (ie laptop) for us to post in this way, why would anyone in their right mind want to spend time championing an alternative to Windows, if it wasnt infact (in their opinion) better?
Posted by Goblin | February 24, 2009 6:51 PM
I've followed Microsoft Watch sporadically for quite some time, but am new to the forum - It's a pleasure to meet you all to be sure :-) I'm not given to fan-boy tirades or religious crusades aginst this platform or that platform, but I do enjoy reading some of that from time to time.
What motivated me to post however was a line in the above story, that right or wrong, struck me as a cynical manipulation of facts to enable the author to sensationalize an otherwise boring news item: "They could *effectively* run only one of the five major Vista versions: Basic." By inserting *effectively* the author was able to create a much more compelling but much less even-handed narrative, which distorted the reality of the fact that all of those logo'd machines were compatible with any of the Vista variants save for some features like the glitzy Aero desktop.
Joe does some great journalistic work, but this wasn't one of his finer moments in my opinion.
Posted by Bryce M. | February 24, 2009 7:14 PM
Hi!
I personally find Joe's articles excellent. Whilst I may not agree with some of them, I think his sites very good at getting some rather "passionate" (and in many cases interesting) views on a variety of platforms.
-
I hope you continue to post. Whatever your platform of preference, Id hope we can debate it in the future!
Posted by Goblin | February 24, 2009 7:22 PM