Slashdot Log In
Microsoft 'Vista Capable' Settlement Cost Could Be Over $8 Billion
Posted by
Soulskill
on Sat Jan 24, 2009 01:19 PM
from the making-seinfeld-look-like-chump-change dept.
from the making-seinfeld-look-like-chump-change dept.
bk- writes with news that documents from the "Vista Capable" class-action lawsuit against Microsoft indicate the software giant could be on the hook for as much as $8.52 billion in upgrade costs.
"[University of Washington economist Keith] Leffler came up with his total upgrade costs by calculating how much it would cost to upgrade each of the 19.4 million PCs with 1 GB of memory and graphics cards or onboard chipsets able to run Aero, according to Keizer. Leffler put the maximum cost of upgrading the desktops at $155, while positing that the notebooks' integrated graphics would be more tricky to replace and would cost between $245 and $590 per unit. The total price tag for Microsoft would thus range from $3.92 billion to $8.52 billion and in some cases would include complete replacements of notebooks that could not be feasibly upgraded, Leffler testified. Microsoft in its response argued that giving litigants 'a free upgrade to Premium-ready PCs would provide a windfall to millions.'"
Related Stories
Submission: Microsoft Bill For 'Vista Capable' Put At $8.52bil by Anonymous Coward
[+]
Technology: "Windows 7 Compatible" PCs Must Be 64-bit 440 comments
Barence writes "Microsoft has started certifying PCs as 'compatible with Windows 7' — and is looking to avoid the mistakes that dogged the Vista-Capable scheme. Whereas Microsoft certified PCs that could only run Vista Home Basic last time around, this time PCs will have to work with all versions of Windows 7 to qualify for the sticker, including 64-bit versions of the OS. Microsoft also claims, 'products that receive the logo are checked for common issues to minimize the number of crashes, hangs, and reboots experienced by the user.'"
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Microsoft Stock? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Microsoft Stock? (Score:5, Funny)
Ill take 100,000 shares. Im out of toilet paper.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
B-b-b-b-but what about geico?
Re:Haha yeah. (Score:4, Insightful)
I'll give you 50 cents for every dollars worth of MS stock.
As for the trial:
What will happen is the same thing happens in most of these cases. Microsoft will settle and provide a "consumer redress" arrangement, and then start handing-out $20 checks to whoever applies before Dec 31, 2009. The end.
Parent
Re:Right now, America needs a strong Operating Sys (Score:5, Insightful)
For starters, Bill Gates isn't running the company anymore.
And that's pretty bad business. See, the minions and peons of a country are the only ones who are shamed and goaded into being "patriotic". Corporations cannot be bothered by such sentiments or they will wither and die, or so the common sense of today would suggest.
Parent
Re:Right now, America needs a strong Operating Sys (Score:5, Insightful)
It's true. But only because of the modern misconception of patriotism. From the Wiki [wikipedia.org]
I don't believe that welfare is patriotic, nor is buying American made products simply because they are American. I believe patriotism is the love of the ideals and customs that make your country great. So I think Socrates had the best idea about what Patriotism really is about. All that other stuff is simply mistaking one individual's version of Patriotism for another's. And in the USA, where the opinion of the individual is allowed free reign, there are going to be many versions of patriotism. But the key to remember is that your patriotism is not my patriotism in a free society.
Parent
Re:Right now, America needs a strong Operating Sys (Score:4, Interesting)
The Wikipedia article is total nonsense. Patriotism has always meant to 'love my country', and that includes criticism of my country if I see that my country is wrong.
It's only in the last few years with the wicked Bush administration that patriotism reversed to 'hush, don't say anything, support our troops'.
Parent
Re:Right now, America needs a strong Operating Sys (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
why just Microsoft? (Score:5, Insightful)
Hardware makers should be on the hook as well.
Re:why just Microsoft? (Score:5, Insightful)
Hardware makers should be on the hook as well.
Microsoft is the one that had the final word on labeling standards for "Vista capable".
Hardware makers lobbied hard to get the sticker applied to hardware that couldn't support Aero & Microsoft caved.
Parent
Re:why just Microsoft? (Score:5, Interesting)
Hardware makers lobbied hard to get the sticker applied to hardware that couldn't support Aero & Microsoft caved.
The Hardware makers should be at least as responsible, because they are the ones putting the stickers on the system.
I dislike Microsoft as much as the next guy (well, most places) but fighting unfairness with unfairness is a little bitch move.
Microsoft didn't put the stickers on the computers. Hold the integrators responsible. At least as responsible as Microsoft, maybe more.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I dislike Microsoft as much as the next guy (well, most places) but fighting unfairness with unfairness is a little bitch move.
As a company they should be penalised for misleading their customers. The public bought PCs that MS said could run Vista. If those PCs cant, its ultimately Microsoft's fault and they should be made to pay the difference. I'm guessing it'll end up as a settlement of x billion worth of MS products & vouchers.
Microsoft didn't put the stickers on the computers. Hold the integrator
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:why just Microsoft? (Score:5, Insightful)
But they don't. That's the problem. From MSFT's own press releases and ads all they talked about was Aero. Everywhere you saw Aero this and Aero that. Hell if you read the emails you would know that there were higher ups in management complaining that they were burned as well. Why? Because they bought "Vista Capable" and didn't know that they wouldn't get Aero. So if guys within the company itself got burned, what chance did the non tech consumer have?
And let us be honest here: Vista Basic is the "Cleetus the slack jawed yokel" of the Vista line. It is just too crippled. Pretty much all Vista Basic gives you is the annoyance of UAC without any of the pretty. No wonder the customers aren't happy campers. I'm personally shocked that they aren't selling Vista Basic for less than $50 just to move some product. Maybe they didn't make enough copies to make it worth selling, who knows. I do know that talking to the guys at places like BB and Staples that Vista Basic just sits there and rots on the shelf. While none of the Vista line is moving in large numbers according to them Vista Basic doesn't move any at all. Nobody wants it.
Parent
Re:why just Microsoft? (Score:5, Funny)
I dislike Microsoft as much as the next guy
Poster: Can I be moderated as "interesting" please?
Slashdot: No. Sod off.
Poster: Look, I hate Microsoft as much as anyone!
Slashdot: If you want to be interesting, you'll have to really hate Microsoft.
Poster: I do!
Slashdot: Oh yeah? How much?
Poster: A lot!
Slashdot: OK, you're +5 interesting.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Actually Intel lobbied to get this changed as it was their crap onboard notebook graphics that were the issue. A lot of hardware makers were pissed off as it meant they sold far less of their premium notebooks than they were predicting so had a surplus they had to sell cheap.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Microsoft is the one that had the final word on labeling standards for "Vista capable".
Does this mean that they're "Vista culpable"?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:why just Microsoft? (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure hardware people asked for it. But it's the same as if your friend tells you that you should con people out of money. You choose to do it so it's your fault.
Parent
Re:why just Microsoft? (Score:5, Interesting)
Sure hardware people asked for it. But it's the same as if your friend tells you that you should con people out of money. You choose to do it so it's your fault.
I disagree with your analogy. To me its:
My friends that want to con people out of money by selling them junk endorsed by a celebrity harware reviewer, (i.e. me). But I won't endorse their junk... so they piss and moan for a while, and I cave.
They then stick my endorsement on their junk, and the customer gets ripped off by my friends.
They then sue my ass for endorsing their junk, because I lied when I said it was good. Should I be on the hook? Yeah, I lied. But my friends are at the very least equal partners in this con; not only was it their idea, but they are the ones who actually sold the junk, and they did so deliberately and intentionally knowing it was junk.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They then stick my endorsement on their junk, and the customer gets ripped off by my friends.
There is a big difference between endorsing something and making a guarantee of fitness towards a certain task. Saying your friend's snake oil is great and I like it is perfectly fine but telling people it'll cure cancer will get you in a world of trouble.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Endorsements usually don't carry much, if any, liability. You can endorse sham-wow all you want but shouldn't be sued because it doesn't work. Its all opinion.
If any of you have ever used a 'Vista capable' computer that this article describes you'll realize that they're Vista capable just like a Honda Civic is capable of towing a flatbed full of logs.
Re:why just Microsoft? (Score:5, Insightful)
This is redundant as it appears in a bunch of other comments, but given the amount of redundancy of the error i'll give this one another go.
Note that the problem with the Vista Capable program was that it was labeling systems BEFORE VISTA WAS AVAILABLE.
The hardware vendors did NOT have the means to test anything and although they may have 'bullied' microsoft into lowering the spec requirement, the onus was on microsoft to tell them "uh no, that just wont work.".
Parent
Well. (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft in its response argued that giving litigants 'a free upgrade to Premium-ready PCs would provide a windfall to millions.'
I guess you shouldn't have lied, then. Let this be a lesson to you.
Re:Well. (Score:5, Insightful)
Should they be held responsible? Yes. For the cost of the operating system that's not compatible. The computer itself is just fine - they got exactly the hardware they paid for - no more, no less.
Make MS give them a free upgrade/sidegrade/downgrade to a working operating system compatible with their hardware. The idea that MS should pay for hardware upgrades is plain old silly.
Parent
Re:Well. (Score:5, Insightful)
Erm - so they lie to you, saying the machine will be perfectly capable of running Feature X, and when it doesn't you think they should only have to give you the money Feature X cost?
Wow. Whats silly again?
They lied to shift hardware. To avoid pissing off Intel. They therefore need to give you WHAT YOU PAID FOR - you paid for a machine that was stated it could run Aero capably, so you should get that. No more No less.
Maybe then corporations won't lie in order to shift old hardware?
Parent
Re:Well. (Score:5, Interesting)
They lied to shift hardware. To avoid pissing off Intel. They therefore need to give you WHAT YOU PAID FOR - you paid for a machine that was stated it could run Aero capably, so you should get that. No more No less.
Here in the UK, that'd be the retailer's problem. After all, it was they who sold you the product (complete with Vista capable sticker), it's their problem if it later transpires it isn't Vista capable. (In the real world, you'd almost certainly have no end of trouble getting a refund or a free upgrade in a case like this, but that's not really the point)
I'm surprised that this isn't the case in the US, frankly. What's the point in retailers if they're not responsible for the products they retail?
Parent
Re:Well. (Score:4, Informative)
They are. In an ideal world, everyone would sue the person they bought it from, and they would sue up the line until it got to the person that stamped "Vista Capable" on it, which would be Microsoft. So yes, from a consumer's point of view, the person that screwed them was the person that sold it to them, but then, the retailer either applied the sticker because Microsoft said to, or they bought it with the sticker already on it, so from the retailer's point of view, they were screwed as well, ultimately by Microsoft.
So suing Microsoft cuts out the middle man.
Parent
Re:Well. (Score:5, Insightful)
The computer itself is just fine - they got exactly the hardware they paid for - no more, no less.
But that hardware was advertised as something else. The customer can't be expected to know if they're being lied to by looking at the specs.
They wanted Vista, it said it can run Vista on the computer's box, and it didn't work. Just giving them some other OS is silly, suggesting it is arrogant.
Parent
advertised by the retailer (Score:5, Insightful)
It was Dell inducing me to purchase a computer using "Vista ready" in their advertising, not Microsoft. Now Microsoft might have duped them by having poor specs in their sticker program, but that's a matter between Dell and Microsoft---the matter for me is that Dell sold me a computer with a false advertising claim on it.
Parent
Re:Well. (Score:5, Insightful)
No, you're wrong.
The original meaning of the "Vista Capable" sticker was that the hardware could be UPGRADED to handle every feature of Vista. "Vista Ready" meant that it could handle it (Aero & WDDM) as is, without upgrades.
Much of the hardware labeled "Vista Capable" could NOT be upgraded to handle WDDM and Aero. Specifically, Intel 915 and 915GM chipsets were not WDDM capable and WOULD NEVER BE. Intel wanted Microsoft to delay the program until they got their next chipset out, about 5 months. That one would be WDDM capable. Microsoft, instead, just lowered the specs for the program and told Intel it was basically "just a sticker on the box". HP was absolutely furious with this tactic, since their stuff was all ready.
In short, the marketing department flat out lied to people. Microsoft SHOULD be on the hook for providing those people with "Vista Capable" hardware with the proper upgrades that they promised would happen. In the case of Intel 915GM laptops, that means a new laptop since you can't upgrade the chipset.
A slap on the wrist won't give MS or anyone else pause before pulling this sort of stunt again. They need a good kick in the groin and enough pain to make them understand that profiting from outright fraud will not be tolerated.
Parent
Re:Well. (Score:4, Insightful)
When Microsoft allows those authorised stickers they are certifying that the hardware with those logos will in fact meet the requirements. With all of the hoopla about the new desktop with the 3D features (which are a crock. I run Compiz-Fusion and THAT environment has 3D effects. A single scrolling 3D task switcher != 3D desktop, IMHO) Joe Sixpack is led to believe that they will be able to reap those benefits with the Microsoft endorsement.
Have you ANY experience with the Windows Logo and other similar programs? You have to meet a set of requirements in order to be allowed to display those logos. There is a certification process and everything.
Should Joe Sixpack have to read the specs, or should Joe Sixpack be able to rely on the what Microsoft's PR is announcing?
It's the latter. It's similar to auto PR. I won't buy a new GM, ever (I might consider used), because they publicly announced they would support a certain car with parts availability, tech support, etc. for a minimum of 20 years after production ends, and they were discontinuing parts left and right before the warranties ran out - including critical safety and emissions parts, AND they never, ever copped to the manufacturing defects which resulted in delaminating windshields. If I ever need and ignition module or catalytic converter, I'm screwed - they are not available new from GM at any price. :( So, I am voting with my wallet and buying either Ford or foreign (most likely toyota for normal cars, Porsche or Lotus if I ever buy another sportscar) from now on.
People should do the same to Microsoft - if they will not live up to what they obligated themselves to through their PR and advertising channels, then they should vote with their wallets and choose Apple or Linux or another non-Microsoft solution. Hit Microsoft where it hurts, and that is what this suit is about. It's not about getting "free" hardware - it is all about holding Microsoft up to their obligations.
Parent
what would be the cost to refund (Score:5, Interesting)
considering the value of a new laptop with 1GB ram and an aero-capable intel chipset these days, i wonder how many people would bother to get it changed once you factor in the hassle of sending off your laptop, waiting on the new one, setting it up, transfering the data etc...
its reasonable to hold microsoft accountable for what is clearly misleading, but retailers/manufacturers are equally responsible for putting the sticker on if they knew their hardware couldnt run it acceptabley, even if MS said it would.
Re:what would be the cost to refund (Score:5, Interesting)
OEM do piles of testing and development to install their "tools" / malware onto the machines. They must have known that the OS was not capable.
Parent
Re:what would be the cost to refund (Score:5, Interesting)
Nope. This lawsuit refers to machines which were sold with XP installed but with a sticker saying "Vista Capable" on them (and often a voucher for the Vista upgrade).
Vista because it wasn't available at the time so they couldn't test machines with it.
Parent
Re:what would be the cost to refund (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
No irony there, then. (Score:5, Insightful)
Whereas, of course, others would argue that the litigants provided a windfall of billions to Microsoft by purchasing Vista on a Vista Capable machine.
Another concern (Score:3, Interesting)
You know, I love a good Microsoft pummeling as much as the next guy, but my concern is that MS is just now starting to come around to a slightly more rational way of thinking about its customers. I'm cautiously optimistic about Windows 7 in this regard.
But if you cut an $8 billion hole in Microsoft, you run the risk of making them frantic to patch that hole. And as we know, they have some pretty well-developed skills for being really aggressive at the expense of the end user.
I'm not saying they shouldn't be penalized (and consumers shouldn't be compensated), but this was also the fault of the hardware manufacturers who pushed so hard on Microsoft to get the sticker on their products. Spread the blame more equitably across ALL guilty parties, and you may avoid any one entity getting that caged-animal mentality that only ends up hurting the consumer.
This is trivial for Microsoft (Score:3, Interesting)
In case Microsoft really has to pay up, it would be trivial, and here's why. Microsoft will ask for leniency in light of "current economic times," then go ahead and hike license costs for those who will buy Windows 7/Vista.
Given that Microsoft's revenues are in the tens of billions of dollars, this will not be that hard to recoup. So brace yourselves for a higher Microsoft tax in years to come.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The most likely outcome is... (Score:4, Insightful)
Having followed class action suits before, the outcome most likely is that the lawyers will get paid exorbitant fees, and the plaintiffs will get discount coupons for their next Windows upgrade.
Discount coupons and vouchers are the way almost all class action suits are resolved. Very seldom do the plaintiffs actually recover monetary damages.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I agree. This is all about legal fees.
Kind of agree with MS here... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The summary says $155. How is that "unreasonable" for a DIMM and an el-cheapo graphics card?
Laptops would need the motherboard replacing. Good luck with that...
This whole lawsuit is retarded anyway... (Score:5, Insightful)
There is no deception here. The computers labeled as "Vista Capable" were, in fact, able of running Vista Basic. They were not labeled "Aero Capable" or anything like that.
I used to own a "Designed for Microsoft Windows 2000" workstation. Should I sue Microsoft for not being able to run Windows 2000 Advanced Server at full clustering capabilities? Anyone buying any piece of hardware is responsible of knowing that they might not be able to run the most advanced version any product family. What's next? Suing EA or Valve for not being able to run Crysis at full settings using the minimum system specs? I mean, 1900x1200 with 4xAA and advanced shading is what I consider "the Crysis defining features".
Even if the computers were labeled as "Aero compatible" and Microsoft called the new Windowing theme as "Aero" (with or without the transparency), there would be no reason for a lawsuit. But they didn't. They called these computers "Vista Capable" and they were, in fact, capable of running a version of Windows Vista.
I'm sorry but even though sometimes Microsoft gives me the creeps, lawyers can be even worse. And class action suit lawyers are the worst ones of all, they're just looking for a jackpot suit so they can retire and buy a boat.
does anyone actually believe this crap? (Score:4, Interesting)
if this happens, it will be the year of the linux desktop with duke nukem forever being released simultanously by steve jobs while monkeys fly out his ass.
Re:Does these 8 billion take into account... (Score:5, Funny)
MS can probably make Aero run on 513 MB RAM
So you'd just need to find/add a 1MB DIMM?
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
That's a good plan. But I'm still confused by the $250 figure.
Vista is STILL VISTA without the pretty Aero effects. Just because your window isn't translucent doesn't make it any less Vista.
I can buy a "Crysis Capable" computer that meets the low end system requirements but not be able to play with full AA at 1080p with all effects turned on.
Furthermore I've run Vista on a system with 1GB of RAM and an integrated graphics chip. It was slow. But it ran. And I've run vista on a computer with 2GB of RAM,