DG:
Thank you very much for your generous words. I feel similarly about your many constructive contributions to others on these forums. I would much rather be participating the usual kind of collaborative creative dialogue that has inhabited these forums over the years. But, on this issue, I can't remain silent.
I am afraid that, in regard to whether discussion should be private or public, I must respectfully disagree with your position. This became a public discussion because VSL made a public announcement of a policy change. None of us were privately (or publicly) consulted about the wisdom of suddenly announcing an upgrade policy totally inconsistent with the statements originally made by VSL about what its upgrade policy would be. Had I been asked, I would have predicted something similar to the reaction that has, in fact, occurred and I might have suggested another course or at least a more adequate explanation to avoid or minimize such a reaction.
A friend of mine seemed genuinely surprised when, after explaining to his wife of five years that his need for self-expression was such that he would no longer be able to keep his vows of monogamy, his, normally gentle, spouse cracked a porcelain dinner plate upon his head. When he expresssed surprise and dismay with her action - - so uncharacteristic of her usual behavior - - she replied that she too had a need for self-expression.
Again and again people here are saying that a promise was made by VSL and that the change in policy recently announced by VSL breaches that promise. Their upset, like the reaction of my friend's wife, was not impossible to predict. If one announces a course of action and gets the kind of reaction that one sees on this thread, the most rational thing is, I think, to listen to what is being said and consider the possibility that one may have made a mistake. At least that is what I would do (and have done when an action that I thought innocuous elcited unexpected dismay and alarm). When so many react so strongly, it doesn't help to dismiss their response as irrational, one really has to entertain the possibility that people are reacting to something whose significance one did not anticpate or include in one's decision making process. The ball is now, I think, in VSL's court regarding what it wants to do about a significant group of formerly loyal, but now dismayed, customers.
For those who would like to maintain that breaches of promise are ok - - because "it's business," or the "way of the world" or whatever, I suggest reading the following from today's MacObserver:
<<Vista Capable Appeal Upheld, MS Stays in Court
by Jeff Gamet, 10:15 AM EDT, April 22nd, 2008
A lawsuit alleging that Microsoft misled customers with its "Vista Capable" product claims is free to move forward now that an appeals court has denied the company's request to block class-action status. The company had hoped to keep the case from moving forward so that it could keep potentially damaging internal communications from seeing the light of day, according to Computerworld.
Microsoft filed its request with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals after a U.S. District Court Judge ruled in February that the lawsuit qualified for class-action status. The appeals court upheld the lower court's ruling on April 21.
The lawsuit against Microsoft claimed that the software company deceived customers with its "Vista Capable" program that identified certain PCs as ready to run the newest version of the Windows operating system. Many of the computers identified as Windows Vista compatible, according to the suit, were able to run only the Home Basic version of the operating system -- a stripped down version that does not include many of operating system's the more prominently featured components.
Microsoft denied that it misled customers and moved to stall the case while it worked to get the class-action status reversed. According to the Redmond company's filing, continuing the legal action could "jeopardize Microsoft's goodwill" and "disrupt Microsoft's relationships with its business partners" because it would be required to reveal potentially damaging internal email messages.
Now that the case is free to move forward, Microsoft says that it is looking forward to its day in court. Company spokesman Jack Evan commented "The Ninth Circuit's decision not to accept our request for interim review is not a ruling on the merits of our case. We look forward to presenting all of the facts on what the district court itself said is a novel claim.">>
Again, all this is about a broken promise.
