[Draiko]

*sigh* I guess I need to spell it out for everyone in detail...

HTC said "To make an informed decision about which handset suits them best, consumers should look at the product specification itself instead of using the underlying chipset specifications to define what the product could potentially become."

Ok, this is a valid point. What do consumers have to go on when looking at a product? Press release information, product specs, and advertising.

HTC and the various phone carriers listed the product specifications of the devices would use Windows Mobile 5/6 and that they had Qualcomm's MSM7500 chipset. Nothing more about the capabilities... ok, that's not enough info so who do we turn to next? Qualcomm

As you see, the PRESIDENT of Qualcomm sold us on the capabilities of the chipset promising the following on Sept 2005:

"
* Deliver high-end multimedia with the integrated Launchpad suite and BREW support

* Support high-resolution VGA displays and TV-out to turn wireless handsets into personal media players and leverage the viewing experience of television monitors

* Provide a high-end gaming experience with an embedded ATI 3D graphics engine that further improves the user experience with 3D user interfaces

* Expand the Smartphone market with support for Linux and other third-party operating systems

* Provide support for wireless peripherals such as WiFi, Bluetooth, QUALCOMM's FLO solution, as well as popular broadcast standards
"

Ok, so now consumers have no doubt that anything with the MSM7500 will be one bad a-*shutyomouf!*, right?

HTC, Qualcomm, and the various phone carriers did state which MSM7500 devices would and would not have GPS, qVGA resolution, TV-Out, bluetooth, wifi, and EVDO... but did not state anything about not enabling the chipset's full media functionality... every piece of consumer-available data stated the opposite. This is why everyone is pissed off and why a class-action lawsuit would go through.

Example: Sprint's device spec list for the HTC Touch. On the list of full features, Sprint lists "Easily manage work and play with the versatile Touch. This go-anywhere Windows Mobile 6 device combines a smarter phone with wireless email, built-in web browser and rich media capabilities.", "Enjoy powerful, always-on data flow with expanded capabilities, plus a brilliant, colorful display and broadband-like download speed", and "Download exciting, interactive games that you’ll want to play all the time. With hundreds of options to choose from, it’s easy to find all your favorites." ... on the Microsoft pocketpc specs page for the Sprint HTC TOUCH, it clearly lists that it has a Qualcomm MSM7500 processor but no GPS. There is info about GPS and EVDO rev A both getting enabled by q1 2008 on Sprint's own HTC Touch specification page (wmexperts.com confirmed it). We then fall back to Qualcomm's statement about what the MSM7500 is supposed to do.

My point is that there was nothing released by Sprint, Qualcomm, or HTC to let the consumer know that the MSM7500 would not match the personal media experience of the previous generation, the companies released information giving the opposite impression to consumers.

There's a similar lawsuit going through right now... the "vista capable" litigation. Microsoft got together with the hardware companies and slapped a "Vista capable" sticker on computers that would run vista as well as Jesse Ventura could use a Fro comb.

We bought devices called SMARTPHONES... they specifically offer those "extras" as product features... that's what these devices are SUPPOSED to do.

The legal definition of "False Advertising" is "Any advertising or promotion that misrepresents the nature, characteristics, qualities or geographic origin of goods, services or commercial activities" (Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C.A. § 1125(a)).

Qualcomm's President said "The MSM7500 chipset brings the industry's best personal media experience to wireless, enabling faster, widespread adoption of the high data-rate services that operators and consumers want"

Again, HTC didn't say anything to the contrary. The carriers didn't post any information about product limitations. The nature and characteristics of the products were represented as the best-performing smartphones to date.

Seeing that the media experience of the MSM7xxx windows mobile devices is dwarfed by older Windows mobile devices, it DOES NOT constitute the "industry's best personal media experience" that Qualcomm advertised. Older devices provided a BETTER personal media experience. Ipso Facto... false advertising.

The bottom line is that we paid for the best personal media experience and we're not getting it.

The legality of the issue is pretty clear, HTC and Qualcomm are in the wrong. This seems to be more Qualcomm's fault than HTC's. In a recent interview with an Insider (see wmexperts.com), it was stated that this whole issue came from Qualcomm wanting to charge more for the MSM7xxx advanced video drivers.

"HTC is put in an odd position as they are selling devices based on Qualcomm’s marketing and information, not on their own knowledge of how those processors work and are designed since they are not privy to that information. Qualcomm is not being as straightforward with them and in turn, HTC is trying to work around the issue by trying to fix or enhance their software, even though they are unaware that it is not really their fault."

Qualcomm advertised the best media experience so it was their job to provide all the tools to enable it at the point of sale/licensing. They legally can not charge HTC extra for advertised features and so it would fall upon Qualcomm to remedy this issue by providing HTC with the tools they need to enable the MSM7500 to act as advertised. HTC must deliver an update to avoid fault.

HTC and Qualcomm either need to give consumers the promised media experience, refund them at least half the cost of the device, or offer a free upgrade to a newer device with the promised functionality at a massive discount.

I hope that they go through with the class-action, it's an open-and-shut case. I'm not quite clear on the laws governing the resale of products... if, when faced with a crippled product whose manufacturer was the victim of false advertising, the end user will need to sue the manufacturer of the product or manufacturer of the crippled component. I'm guessing it would go something like this: Consumers sue HTC. HTC is forced to sue Qualcomm. Qualcomm is punished for being a Jerkstore and consumers finally get what they paid for.