Because they have your money by that point thus they 'do not' morally have to protect you from others, it's like if I were to buy a car from Audi, they would not call me ten days later to tell me to watch out for car thieves.
Not to mention it's bad marketing to say "Oh by the way, the product you're buying, you may become a target for scam artists by using it!"
My point exactly...because they have your money already, and it does not benefit them further to offer any more than what they already have.
But your analogy doesn't exactly fit here; it would be more akin to buying a car from Audi -- while Audi had prior knowledge that their car buyers homes would be targeted for burglary, not necessarily because of the purchase, but that the car could offer an easier way into the customers home.
Without regards to moral obligations (I completely agree, it is not their moral obligation), but solely from a marketing and public relations stand point, and maybe even legal (because of the litigious societies we live in) -- would there not be a benefit to educating the customer since they've already admitted to prior knowledge?
And it is never bad marketing to protect your customers -- especially from things that you have prior knowledge of and that could lead to a loss (financial, health, or otherwise) for the customer. I say this from a marketing background.
How did we get down this path anyways, LKP? I think I need to get into the holiday spirit
PS, I am NOT saying that MS should do anything more than they are, only that they could, and it would not hurt them for doing so.
Edited by KJGino, 24 November 2013 - 03:03 PM.