Creative Backs Down on Vista Driver Debacle 228
In the wake of last week's driver debacle, Creative has finally decided to back down for PR purposes. Modder Daniel_K, author of the offending Vista drivers, has had his posts on the Creative forums reinstated. According to Creative the move was to avoid infringing on other company's IP. "Daniel_K is incensed by Creative. 'They publicly threatened me, just to show their arrogance,' he told El Reg by email. He told us that Creative contacted him on a chat session. 'They were sarcastic, ironic and asked me if I wanted something from them, as if I were expecting something,' he wrote. 'It was my protest against them and would like to see how far it would go.'"
Good for him (Score:5, Insightful)
Liars or idiots (or both) (Score:2, Insightful)
screw creative (Score:5, Insightful)
An apology and an announcement of a policy change from here forward would also work.
Otherwise, all I see is that they got caught and decided they'd just try other means to shut down unauthorized, uh, "unbreaking". There's also the whole deliberate breakage to begin with.
As things stand right now, my only outstanding question for resolving the Creative debacle is "Turtle Beach or m-Audio?"
Re:Backing down or CYA Manuver? (Score:5, Insightful)
Too little, too late (Score:4, Insightful)
It's not just me that won't buy your products it's every computer I build, it's every person I talk to, it's every decision my company makes that I can sway against you, it's every law I can turn against you.
Miserable excuses by Creative (Score:5, Insightful)
I've seen more than a few companies simply bypass vista's certification process and release their updates, with instructions on how to circumvent Vista security checks. Good for them, bad for vista.
Re:This doesn't happen with free software (Score:5, Insightful)
Care to explain how constitution, or a constitutional law of Daniel_k's states prohibits him from distributing patches to Creative's drivers, provided that he neither distributes patched drivers directly nor do the patches contain Creative's copyrighted code in excess of fair use amount needed for interoperability.
Now, it's possible that Daniel did not release his work properly, but he sure has "powers" to modify Creative's code.
Re:Backing down or CYA Manuver? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Good for him (Score:5, Insightful)
I kind of wish they would die, if only so we wouldn't have to let down so many disappointed people who bought Creative's X-Fi and Audigy hardware thinking it would be a good card for home recording only to find out that it utterly sucks at it. Between the high latency and all the post-processing it does to make the sound "better" (much of which is apparently hard to turn off), it's about the worst possible choice for that use, yet Creative seems to market it as though it would be good for that. Not to mention that the sound quality on the inputs just isn't up to snuff compared to even the cheapest M-Audio hardware.
At a minimum, the company deserves the corporate equivalent of life in prison without parole for the number of people the company has harmed with their product claims.
Re:Liars or idiots (or both) (Score:4, Insightful)
An Excuse Breathes Its Last and Croaks (Score:4, Insightful)
Lord knows I'm no fan of Vista, but it seems to me that Creative was trying to lay their own incompetence or dishonest marketing plans off on Microsoft. They must have been pretty embarrassed when this guy came along with a set of working drivers to blow their alibi out of the water. I sincerely hope the people who made the decision to harass him are shown the door in a very public way. Proper damage control requires on less.
Re:Liars or idiots (or both) (Score:3, Insightful)
BTW with the exception of creative reinstating the forum links, all of this information was in the first article... about how he got mad at creative and did stuff to really piss them off, and even how he decided to remove the offending software, and keep modding just the 'approved' mods.
But yeah, seriously, if he was able to make working vista drivers in a few months when their own guys couldn't manage it,(and without having access to the source code either) they really should have offered him a job.
Re:Good for him (Score:5, Insightful)
An important thing to note here is that a dedicated soundcard is no longer a necessary component of a computer due to onboard sound. A large part of Creative's market are going people who decide on their own to buy a soundcard for some reason, and which card they choose will depend quite heavily on some geek's opinion.
Re:This doesn't happen with free software (Score:5, Insightful)
That's not how copyrights work. By default, you have no right to do anything with someone else's copyrighted work. It's only through a license agreement that you have any right to even use Creative's code. If the EULA is entirely null-and-void, then there's nothing else that gives you right to use it. Note that certain portions of an EULA wouldn't necessarily hold up in court (technically, they could say that you must sacrifice your firstborn on the Temple of Sho'ka'rei, but that doesn't mean it'd hold up in court), however there has to be something that gives you the right to use it.
Mind you, that all means nothing in the court of public opinion. While Creative might have had the legal right, their actions made them look like senseless bullies. It would have been far more productive to give the guy a job and release his changes officially.
Re:Good for him (Score:1, Insightful)
Let's be clear here (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Good for him (Score:2, Insightful)
I didn't even though these drivers existed (Score:4, Insightful)
I partially agree with you. (Score:3, Insightful)
They ought to start by... (Score:5, Insightful)
Anyone who gets this heavy-handed in today's internet society is far out of touch with his/her customer base, and has no reason to be employed by a company that makes computer equipment.
In other words, incompetent to the point of being actively harmful to the well-being and even survival of the company itself.
Re:Good for him (Score:5, Insightful)
IOW, it is just an enthusiasts upgrade.
Re:Let's be clear here (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Good for him (Score:3, Insightful)
Thanks,
Since reading this incredible arrogance from Creative...
I don't want to buy another sound card from them again. I was just wondering what might be some good competitors to which it seems you've answered.
Re:This doesn't happen with free software (Score:3, Insightful)
That's not how copyrights work. By default, you have no right to do anything with someone else's copyrighted work. It's only through a license agreement that you have any right to even use Creative's code.
[/quote]
Minor changes are required:
"By default, you have no right to RESELL OR REPRESENT AS YOUR OWN someone else's copyrighted work." You can for instance, always make a parody work of something as well as make in-house fixes and edits and so on. And, as pointed out elsewhere, the EULA is null and void because you physically own the hardware and aren't renting it. You can always alter code or programming for any device that you own if you have the ability to do so. Be it a sound card or something as simple as an electrical box that needs an extra hole drilled in it.
Technically he can't distribute it without their blessing, but it's insanely stupid to nerf someone who just solved a problem for you for free. Shoot, if I was running Creative, I'd have hired the guy or made a serious offer. He obviously was brighter than the waste of resources in development.
Compare:
Creative nerfs programmer. Creative gets egg on face and retracts threats.
Programmer fixes Creative's bad code. Creative hires programmer.
Sounds to me like someone at Creative has been taking cues from Apple's playbook.
Re:Backing down or CYA Manuver? (Score:3, Insightful)
In theory yes.
In practice, it's not neutral. It's as evil as the people that control it. It is an extension of those people's will.
Making a fine distinction between a machine and the invisible people controlling it as the machine goes about crushing people, is correct in theory.
But in practice, if the same people keep controlling it, you might as well associate their brand with "Evil". After all those invisible people in control are often so interested in Brand consciousness.
And Brand consciousness is currently the main reason why anyone would buy Creative sound cards.
Re:Backing down or CYA Manuver? (Score:1, Insightful)
While you're at it, also point out where in the law(s) it's spelled out that nobody can found a company with a corporate charter specifying its purpose to be the opposite, i.e. to make a profit only as long as it does it while adhering to a specified moral conduct, and then make this company public.
Good luck.