Were Vista Capable Stickers Incapable?
|
Microsoft may find it hard to show that PCs carrying a coveted Windows logo were really ready for Windows Vista. |
The core issue: Were computers carrying the Windows Vista Capable sticker truly Vista capable? Earlier today, a Seattle judge issued a ruling that indicates that an answer should be warranted. She denied a Microsoft request to dismiss a lawsuit alleging Microsoft's Windows Vista Capable marketing violated the Consumer Protection Act.
I'm no lawyer, but I'd still say Microsoft has got problems here, if not with this lawsuit than another. In a nutshell:
- Windows Vista Capable Only. Microsoft announced the Vista Capable program in late March 2006. For about two months that followed, it was the only Vista logo sticker. Consumers could easily presume that "Capable" meant all versions of Vista. But Microsoft's sticker was supposed to mean capable of running Windows Vista Home Basic, which wasn't clearly enough stated.
- Windows Vista Ready Delay. Microsoft didn't announce a second logo, which meant ready to run Windows Vista Premium, until two months after the Capable program started. Plaintiffs could easily argue that Microsoft started the second logo program because the first really was misleading, or at least confusing. That's not really the case, as I understand it. But bad planning doesn't make for the best excuse in court.
- Delayed System Requirements. Microsoft didn't formerly announce Vista system requirements until the start of the Vista Ready program. Plaintiffs can argue: If there are no stated requirements, how can Microsoft say that Vista Capable only applied to Windows Basic. Regardless, how would consumers know the difference without some measure, the most important being system requirements?
- Restated System Requirements. Microsoft slightly tweaked Vista system requirements in December. Plaintiffs could argue that if the requirements weren't final, either or both logo stickers were confusing—or misleading.
- Confusing Logos. Early Capable and Ready stickers weren't all that different in appearance; the Windows logo was the most prominent feature. Early "Premium" ready logos simply stated "Windows Vista." "Capable" stickers carried the word. Similarly, there was little difference between the "Certified for Windows XP" stickers and those that added "Windows Vista Capable" to a similar sticker.
- Established Trust. Microsoft's Windows XP logo sticker assured buyers that either operating system version, Home or Professional, would run on PCs. Plaintiffs could argue: Therefore, Microsoft had established customer expectation that the Windows Capable logo meant ready for any Vista version.
I wouldn't say that Microsoft set out to deceive consumers about Windows Vista system requirements. Much of the problem goes back to the unfortunate—and totally inexcusable—Vista shipment delay in March 2006. Microsoft and OEMs had already set programs in motion for holiday release. Vista's delay caused its own kind of confusion.
The "Capable" and "Ready" problems were really Microsoft's execution failure. The company wasn't capable of shipping Vista in time for holiday PCs and Vista PCs weren't ready for holiday season sales.
Related Posts:
- Consumer Inertia Holds Back Vista, Microsoft Watch, April 3, 2007
- The Trouble With Windows Vista Capable, Microsoft Watch, April 4, 2007
- Recent Lawsuits Target Vista and VOIP, Microsoft Watch, April 3, 2007
- How Much Oomph Does Vista Really Need?, Microsoft Watch, December 27, 2006
Comments (10)
From your link to the Seattle judge's ruling, I read the following quote from a Microsoft lawyer, Stephen Rummage of law firm Davis Wright Tremaine:
"It runs Vista," Rummage said. It just "doesn't run the version of Vista that they wish it did," he explained. That, he said, is the essence of the complaint.
I do have to admit that he admirably redefines the phrase "Rummage sale".
Posted by Brian | August 8, 2007 11:43 PM
"BOO HOO, I bought a $300 PoS 8 months ago and it doesn't run Aero."
o.O
Too bad! Get a real job and buy a decent computer.
You can wish that you get a Ferrari for the price of a Civic all you want, but AIN'T GUNNA HAPPEN in the real world!
Posted by Waethorn | August 9, 2007 12:43 AM
Slow news day since you covered this ad nauseum before? The PC she bought runs Vista Basic. Suggesting that because that doesn't include Aero she was hugely deceived is really stupid and comical.
From Bishop, who actually bothered to be balanced:
MSFT: "Ms. Kelley does not allege that Microsoft's conduct deceived her into buying a PC that she would not otherwise have purchased, or that she received anything other than what she expected to receive -- a low-end PC with the 'Windows Vista Capable' sticker, which was in fact 'capable' of running Windows Vista Home Basic. She does not allege that the sticker played any part in her decision to purchase that PC, or that she had any expectation that she would be able to run something more than Windows Vista Home Basic. ... "
Posted by Paul | August 10, 2007 12:34 PM
But...Microsoft has ALL the money!!! She's entitled to some. Don't you agree?
Posted by Bob | August 10, 2007 2:58 PM
Windows Vista Capable*
Capable of running only the low-end stripped down home version of Vista, or less if even that won't run, and without the Aero interface that's been implied in ads, though not explicitly stated on the sticker, to come with all versions of Vista and provide more wow, whee, and whoop-dee-doo than you can stand. Offer not valid on planet Earth. Systems as ancient as early 2007 are, of course, exempt from consideration.
Only a small percentage of us can be expected to decipher the many versions of Windows Vista, their varying capabilities, what will and won't run on what hardware, and exactly why late-2006 or early 2007 hardware is not considered to be "modern".
But this is only my view, and it certainly is not offered as fact, and is most certainly not offered as either support or rejection of the merits of the suit. The suit may actually be rather interesting. Perhaps if we follow it without emotion and with careful attention to the details, we might learn exactly what is disputed here, and how the law sees the dispute.
Posted by Brian | August 10, 2007 6:13 PM
All this article is "trying" to do is to create more FUD AGAINST microsoft.
The comment from Paul is all the evidence of it that anyone would need.
This is trying to make a story where none actually exists.
Microsoft-Watch FUD !!!
Posted by Neil | August 11, 2007 8:39 AM
http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/windows/vista-capable-now-means-vista-handi+capable-251239.php
Title of the above link is;
"Vista Capable" Now Means "Vista Handi-capable"
Cool Logo
Posted by Chips | August 12, 2007 7:07 PM
This suit is completely baseless.
Do I assume that because a computer I buy that says "Windows Vista Capable" will automatically include the multi-VM licensing as is included with Vista Enterprise, or perhaps the Ultimate Extra's because I saw it mentioned somewhere on Microsoft's website but was too ignorant to read and find out which version included it??!
(hint: I'm not that ignorant)
Posted by Waethorn | August 12, 2007 7:39 PM
Chips
Just your sort of "news" item.... heavily against microsoft. Is that why you like it here so much?
Posted by Neil | August 12, 2007 7:41 PM
My computer says "Windows Vista" with "Basic" underneath it... but it is actually home premium... WTF?
Posted by Will | March 4, 2009 2:32 PM