Sony Sued Over "Other OS" Option

[Oskamunda]

Sony is trying to protect the developer's profit margin by increasing the difficulty to pirate the system and its games...this has the effect of protecting the consumers, as if a developer cannot make enough money off of its games due to piracy, they can't make any more games for us or even have to close their doors. They have the right to modify, to any degree, their software/hardware/firmware to that end AFTER it is in the hands of the consumer...as long as the user does not agree to the terms of the EULA EVERY TIME they download a firmware update.

Remember that the first obligation of any publicly traded company is to preserve profitability to protect itself and the shareholders. This is why corporations commit acts of corruption and violate known laws in the name of the almighty dollar...if it costs LESS money to violate the law in question AND get caught AND pay whatever court fees may be incurred than to FOLLOW that law, then they are obligated to break the law. That argument shouldn't hold up in court, but variations of it have time and time again; Sony COULD claim that they have the rights to modify their product to ANY degree if it protects the investments of the shareholders, and that will probably be the tactic they choose for the case [if they don't settle]. Even if what they did IS illegal, they have a legal argument to have done it.

Besides, again, the only reason that they have done this is to protect themselves and the consumer by essentially protecting their profit margins. Better profits means better products. No one should argue against that, and anyone who does is just mad because their dreams of pirated PS3 games just got a little dimmer. If you want to use the Other OS feature for something else, go get a developer kit or get an entry level job with a developer...

 

[Danpascooch]

It doesn't matter, they advertised the function back when many people bought their PS3's, and now it is being taken away.

That is false advertising, and a EULA, no matter what it says, doesn't make false advertising legal.

It's not false advertising. They have ceased advertising that it does that, so it's more updating their product than doing anything illegal. They never said the service would always be available indefinitely, or for the life of the console. It's similar to Microsoft discontinuing the original Xbox Live service recently, despite all the people who are still playing Halo 2. Just because they offered it doesn't mean they always have to.

The PS3 isn't advertised as that anymore though, is it? The Slim hasn't been able to do that at all, and they gave adequate notice

I'm not sure if it is, but that doesn't matter, because the people who purchased their PS3's BEFORE they stopped advertising that feature, can't use the feature anymore.

But they were given adequate notice, as I said

If I gave you "adequate notice" that I was going to carjack you, would that make it legal?

And I'm not even sure how many problems I have with that argument, but I'll sum it up by saying that you're taking a far too radical of an approach to it with that comparison.

Analogies often are radical, that's kind of the point. What I meant by it was, adequate notice doesn't make something illegal legal, so even if you don't think disabling the OS feature was illegal, why even bring it up? It's not relevant to anything.

And it doesn't matter if they said it would be there indefinitely, advertisements promised PS3 customers that they were buying a product that could support Linux, they bought that product, and now it can't support Linux, so it can't do what it was advertised as being able to do. That's false advertising, it's as simple as that.

Xbox live shutting down was different, because Xbox live was a separate service that required a subscription fee, it was never promised in an advertisement that the original Xbox would be able to connect to xbox live for free as part of it's services.

Not to mention, Xbox live is something that requires upkeep, so it's different than something that Sony actually made an effort to REMOVE when it required no upkeep and would remain functional had they just left it alone.

It's different in the sense of that regard, but it's still no difference in theory. It was a service they offered at one point, for an unspecified period of time, and have since decided to cease; by name, the service they are ceasing is PSN support for Linux-based OS consoles. I see this as no more different than a store providing a special offer for specific products for an unstated period of time, and then ceasing the offer after a given period of time. You can still buy the product that was once advertised, but now without the added benefit of the free hamster or whatever metaphorical object you desire thrown in. You can still use the product, but since they have stopped support for the specific food that that particular hamster needed to eat, the hamster will soon die, and you'll have a product that once came with free Hamster, but now exists only in tandem with dead hamster. That they gave you attentive warning that they would soon be starving your hamster was a thoughtful little courtesy that they gave you. Sure, you could say that the store is entitled to continue to service your hamster because of the initial deal of the offer, but since the store has executively decided to cease service of the deal-specific hamster food, you can really only get grievance reparations for the death of your hamster, which wouldn't be all that much. Not all companies believe in continuously supplying service to things that were a good idea at the inception of the device, but have seen a loss in use throughout the life of the product. That that original use has been found to be a potential breach of security for the product is one good reason to axe the service, if not the best reason. If there's a part in a car that's causing problems, and might cost the company millions in lawsuits and damages (and harmful points against their reputations as reliable), then the company will either a) discontinue that particular model, or b) decide to do a recall to fix that part. Sony is opting for option b) here, by applying the software patch to fix the problem that has the potential to become deterrent to the revenue stream of the PS3.

It's different because Microsoft discontinued the service, and people stopped paying for it, since it was a "pay as you go" type subscription, people only paid for what they used up till it stopped, therefore, they didn't pay for anything that they did not receive, and it's not illegal.

HOWEVER, since the OS option was part of the PS3, people payed for a product that would have that option, they payed for an indefinite usage of that feature, and now the feature is gone, it is a feature that was advertised at the time they bought the product, and now they cannot use it, therefore, that advertisement was wrong, because the product they bought does not have the feature in the advertisement.

It doesn't matter if it was a security problem, or what Sony's motives were, the fact of the matter is, it was advertised to have it, and it is now gone, so that is false advertising. Also, the whole "recall" thing makes no sense in this context, a feature is being taken away, not fixed or replaced with an identical part, nor is a refund being given, do you know what a recall is? It's not "We are taking this out of your car, not fixing it, not replacing it, not refunding you, simply taking it away and not giving it back" As far as I know there has never been a recall that has done that, because that is not what a recall is.

 

[Oskamunda]

Let's also not forget that no one seems to still be complaining about the dropping of the EMOTION Engine for full backwards-compatibility, the four USB ports for controllers, keyboards, or mouses [not mice, thank you], or the native Wi-Fi capabilities of their newer-gen releases. That's why I'm happy I got a first-gen 60GB model, seeing as even without the Other OS option, I still have a more complete machine than newer editions.

 

[Jfswift]

I am one of the original PS3 owner's and had to make this decision. I don't really like that sony basically said they'd brick my PS3 (and prevent me from playing assassin's creed 2 for example, which is another hot issue) if I didn't comply. It wasn't realy a choice. I am happy that someone is going after them.

 

[BehattedWanderer]

It's different because Microsoft discontinued the service, and people stopped paying for it, since it was a "pay as you go" type subscription, people only paid for what they used up till it stopped, therefore, they didn't pay for anything that they did not receive, and it's not illegal.

HOWEVER, since the OS option was part of the PS3, people payed for a product that would have that option, they payed for an indefinite usage of that feature, and now the feature is gone, it is a feature that was advertised at the time they bought the product, and now they cannot use it, therefore, that advertisement was wrong, because the product they bought does not have the feature in the advertisement.

It doesn't matter if it was a security problem, or what Sony's motives were, the fact of the matter is, it was advertised to have it, and it is now gone, so that is false advertising. Also, the whole "recall" thing makes no sense in this context, a feature is being taken away, not fixed or replaced with an identical part, nor is a refund being given, do you know what a recall is? It's not "We are taking this out of your car, not fixing it, not replacing it, not refunding you, simply taking it away and not giving it back" As far as I know there has never been a recall that has done that, because that is not what a recall is.

And I'm beginning to think you don't completely understand how the use of a metaphor can be varied to show approximate relations as opposed to exact and specific ones, but that is not the point. That you keep saying that the advertising was wrong is incorrect--the advertising was right, at time of purchase. Since there was never a promise that all features would be permanent, and that they are in fact subject to change at Sony's behest, there is no case for false advertising. It would a case for false advertising if the feature was advertised now, and then was missing, but such is not the case, or it was advertised at launch and was not provided. The Slim does not have the feature, and there is much available information on the topic of it being removed from the older models, so it is at the consumer's own risk that they would not have that function if they purchase an older model (and seeing as the group interested in the feature is the group most likely to be aware and concerned over the feature's removal, it is a safe bet to say that the ones buying the older model would be aware of this change). A discontinued service is not false advertising, since the service was at one point offered, with the disclaimer that it was subject to change, and the last time I checked, being removed was a change.

 

[Therumancer]

I have to agree here, Sony should have found ways to address the security issues (if they were being honest to begin with) and maintained this feature as it was a big selling point for some people.

Yeah...for, like, 5 people.

What's more considering that content purchused from PSN requires one to be online, in practice they are also holding whatever you might have bought from them hostage as well. That means your PSOne Classics, Games, etc... all will cease to function if you can't connect. So basically by not complying your also losing all that money you potentially invested as well.

...no, you can play PSOne Classics, PSN games, etc.. offline. You don't need to connect to PSN to play downloaded games. If you mean to buy those things, then yeah, sure, kind of standard for most downloadable games.

Honestly I think Sony needs to grow up, I'm already miffed about the fact that they don't have backwards compadibility on the new model PS-3s and such. Now they want to actively remove features?

At the time, it was either take out the backwards compatibility and lower the price, or keep the price up when people wouldn't buy it anyway. I do agree that they should have at least some more PS2 compatibility now, but frankly you could get a PS2 for $50 anyway.

And they aren't "Actively removing features". Infact, this is the only feature I recall them removing aside from backwards compatibility. I could be wrong though, but regardless hardly anyone really cares about this stupid "Other OS" feature. Never seen it "advertised" as a feature either, like this lawsuit claims, where did Sony advertise "Oh yeah, and you can install another OS on your PS3!" before? Haven't even seen it on the box.

The number of people affected doesn't much matter when your one of them. In general if it's only a tiny number of people, given the legitimate nature of the grievence I would think Sony would have been finding some way to compensate them under the table if nothing else, rather than letting things get to the lawsuit phase.

I didn't use it, but I did know about this feature. I don't like the idea of it being removed to be honest. Basically it's them saying there are less things I can do with my system. I have absolutly no idea why I'd want to use an alternate OS, but if at some point I decide I want to, I will no longer have the abillity.

Truthfully I always thought the idea was to ease software emulation or something, so the PS-3 could play PC games or whatever at some point. I'm guessing the features it was intended to support were things Sony decided not to run with at the 11th hour, or decided could lead to potential lawsuits, so they are now trying to close the door to prevent third party developers from doing some of the things they were thinking of.

Say for example if someone came up with a program that ran through windows that could somehow emulate 360 games on your PS-3 or whatever.

That's a somewhat cynical guess, but it's still what I imagine might be the actual story here. The security risks being mostly risks to their security.

-

As far as things from PSN running without an internet connection, all I can say is that when we had the PSN crash not too long ago that knocked all the older systems (like mine) offline, I was unable to run any of my PSone games, or things like Vandal Hearts and Marvel Vs. Capcom 2. I know because I tried, and even posted during those discussions that I myself was unaware that those programs wouldn't run without a constant online connection. I was not the only one that was surprised by this, on some forums it was a big deal, though I guess it WAS sort of hidden in the text for the download.

It was even mentioned during the current Final Fight fiasco that pretty much all PSN games feature a mandatory connection, the issue with this one is that the text that was present in other downloads (which I'm guessing more people are looking for than were before) was not present, leading some people to believe that this game could be played without the PS3 needing to be online constantly (which is a pain in the rear).

Apparently Sony does this because of the way they implemented their network, which makes it easy for someone to login with someone else's PSN ID and download the things they paid for and use them. The Internet connection is a way of solving this problem, though it means nobody can use their content offline apparently.

As I said, I've personally verified it. When the network was down, so were all my downloaded games.

 

[Oskamunda]

HOWEVER, since the OS option was part of the PS3, people payed for a product that would have that option, they payed for an indefinite usage of that feature, and now the feature is gone, it is a feature that was advertised at the time they bought the product, and now they cannot use it, therefore, that advertisement was wrong, because the product they bought does not have the feature in the advertisement.

It doesn't matter if it was a security problem, or what Sony's motives were, the fact of the matter is, it was advertised to have it, and it is now gone, so that is false advertising. Also, the whole "recall" thing makes no sense in this context, a feature is being taken away, not fixed or replaced with an identical part, nor is a refund being given, do you know what a recall is? It's not "We are taking this out of your car, not fixing it, not replacing it, not refunding you, simply taking it away and not giving it back" As far as I know there has never been a recall that has done that, because that is not what a recall is.

First off, I think the number of people who bought a PS3 over a 360 JUST BECAUSE they could install another OS is disproportionately low as to use it as an argument of false advertising.

Second, the 2010 Dodge Magnum has more features than the 2008 Dodge Magnum; it also has a few LESS options. Should I say that it is false advertising on Dodge's part because the 2010 R/T doesn't have the option of a certain color contrast stitching for the leather seating? Or because the mp3-enabled stereo is of a different make and part number? Or because the backlit LED dashboard display is inferior to the previous model, or doesn't have a tachometer?

Guess what? It doesn't matter. You still CAN install another OS; just don't install the firmware update. You can even rollback to an earlier firmware that allows it. What you will lose is PSN and trophy sync functionality. And PSN is an offering that was never pay-as-you-go anyway, so it's not even comparable to LIVE...you're complaining about what, exactly?

Let's hear from an actual PS3 owner who had actually installed another OS and now has to actually uninstall it and actually revert to the proprietary OS or actually choose not to have online functionality, and hear THEIR opinion. Otherwise, it's just an argument of assumptions that are not relevant to the users making them.

 

[Oskamunda]

The loss of functionality of games only occurs when that game has trophy features; the trophy syncs online to PSN before the game will work. Thusly, in theory, anyone who doesn't have an online connection to begin with cannot play virtually ANY games on the system.

And remember, BehattedWanderer is correct. Advertising only refers to the moment that the advertisement is taking place. It does not have an infinite shelf-life. You cannot say that because ShamWow offered four shammies for $19.99 three years ago and now they only offer three that they are guilty of false advertising. Also, the only functionality affected is that of PSN; connectivity to PSN is not guaranteed to all consumers, whether by choice, geography, or lack of a broadband connection. Connectivity to PSN is an ancillary benefit of the system, and changes made to its functionality have nothing to do with the hardware. You don't want the Other OS option lost? Then just choose not to have access to a product that was not PROMISED from the beginning: PSN.

 

[DoktorSleepless]

Maybe you'd like if they took DVD playback away too? Of course, in the name of "Security".

Oh, kind of like the first-gen 360's [and any other 360 save for the Elite, if memory serves; if not, please don't flame] NEVER supported DVD playback without the ancillary purchase of a $50 remote? All in the name of hardware profitability?...I mean, security?

Say what? I play DVDs on my first-gen 360 just fine, and never had to buy a remote. You might be thinking of the original Xbox, and the remote was $30.

 

[The Random One]

You know, it's easy to say they should just suck it up, and get over it, but I don't judge lawsuits on whether the act is severe enough to justify one, as most people think that pretty much nothing is severe enough to justify a lawsuit, and lawsuits help keep companies in check, by forcing them to be somewhat ethical for fear of a lawsuit if they mistreat customers. That's why I think a few lawsuits here and there is actually a good thing, it reminds companies that there are rules they need to follow.

So I judge lawsuits on whether or not I think they're legally justified, and I think this one is.

A lawsuit usually means nothing to a company. They have a batallion of lawyers and can settle out of court by giving the complaint more money than he could make on ten lifetimes, which is still less than 1% of their bottom line. The only problem is when they lose good will over it, which might happen in this case but I think Sony is more concerned about the domestic (Japanese) market anyway.

As for being legally justified, I recently read about a battery-making company being sued for workplace discrimination due to their decision to stop pregnant women from working with manufactured (which involved chemicals that could be dangerous to the fetus). They lost the lawsuit because anti-discrimination laws say the only thing that can stop people from working on a certain job due to a condition is if they are unable to perform it properly. Since pregnant women's ability to work is not affected, they couldn't stop them from being put into danger. Law is a strange thing, and it's not always clear to argue the spirit versus the letter of the law.


OT: From what little I know about the situation, I'm with the guy. It's ridiculous to say they can choose not to apply the update when doing so disables a good chunk of what the console does. It'd be like Microsoft disavowing any responsability over the RROD by saying it can be avoided by never turning the controller at all.

 

[Pantherman]

I agree with danpascooch. If they really wanted to go after a security issue, they could've resolved it without removing the "Other OS" option.

Just another case of Sony removing a little more of your gaming rights, hoping that no one will pay attention. Anyone remember Sony's A-Track? Great device, as long as you used Sony's player (the ONLY player) that was compatible with A-Track songs.

It died and for good reason, Sony's just being megalomaniacs about the PS3 and it will eventually hurt them. They will eventually remove something in years to come that will make people stand up and say "the hell with this". They just never learn to share, or share right, everything has to be made by them or licensed by them.

 

[Jumplion]

I didn't use it, but I did know about this feature. I don't like the idea of it being removed to be honest. Basically it's them saying there are less things I can do with my system. I have absolutly no idea why I'd want to use an alternate OS, but if at some point I decide I want to, I will no longer have the abillity.

If you want to complain about features being removed that actually affect a whole lot more players, Microsoft recently just shut down their Xbox Originals program so now you can't purchase old Xbox rarities. That affects a hell of a lot more people than removing a feature that hardly had any use whatsoever.

Regardless, I really think everyone is just overreacting to this.

1. Sony has every right to do whatever the hell they want with their console, it's in their EULA or whatever. If they decided to remove the function of playing the games themselves, fine. It'd be incredibly stupid, of course, but that's within their right.
2. I really can't see any real reason to use the "Other OS" option aside from minor internet porn surfing and/or pirating games.
3. It hardly affected anyone, and this lawsuit is just someone who doesn't like change.

Seriously, it's not that big of a deal no matter how many big words you formulate

 

[TelHybrid]

...and so they should be sued. Any company that advertises their product being compatible with particular features, should make their product capable of said function. If not, that defies the sales of goods act, as it is false advertisement.

From a personal standpoint, I'm rather disappointed that they stopped the other os support. When my computer malfunctioned due to my graphics card ceasing to function, and I had to wait for a new one to come in the post, I used my PS3 as a backup computer via yellowdog linux. It was really handy, I could continue doing my college assignments and facebook and stuff with it.

I think it's a shame that Amazon had to pay out instead of Sony. Goes to show how much corporate bullshit businesses get away with these days. I blame the stupidity of the majority of consumers who put up with this shit and defend their decision with "oh well it's just business, nothing we can do", except you can. Just stop bending over backwards for businesses. Just don't support them! /rant

Anyway props to the guy who sued them. I would myself if I had the money for a lawyer.

 

[Composer]

normally anything these days involveing the word sue just pisses me off but this is an actual cause WORTH FIGHTING FOR!

[small] even if i dont have a ps3 [/small]

 

[Danpascooch]

It's different because Microsoft discontinued the service, and people stopped paying for it, since it was a "pay as you go" type subscription, people only paid for what they used up till it stopped, therefore, they didn't pay for anything that they did not receive, and it's not illegal.

HOWEVER, since the OS option was part of the PS3, people payed for a product that would have that option, they payed for an indefinite usage of that feature, and now the feature is gone, it is a feature that was advertised at the time they bought the product, and now they cannot use it, therefore, that advertisement was wrong, because the product they bought does not have the feature in the advertisement.

It doesn't matter if it was a security problem, or what Sony's motives were, the fact of the matter is, it was advertised to have it, and it is now gone, so that is false advertising. Also, the whole "recall" thing makes no sense in this context, a feature is being taken away, not fixed or replaced with an identical part, nor is a refund being given, do you know what a recall is? It's not "We are taking this out of your car, not fixing it, not replacing it, not refunding you, simply taking it away and not giving it back" As far as I know there has never been a recall that has done that, because that is not what a recall is.

And I'm beginning to think you don't completely understand how the use of a metaphor can be varied to show approximate relations as opposed to exact and specific ones, but that is not the point. That you keep saying that the advertising was wrong is incorrect--the advertising was right, at time of purchase. Since there was never a promise that all features would be permanent, and that they are in fact subject to change at Sony's behest, there is no case for false advertising. It would a case for false advertising if the feature was advertised now, and then was missing, but such is not the case, or it was advertised at launch and was not provided. The Slim does not have the feature, and there is much available information on the topic of it being removed from the older models, so it is at the consumer's own risk that they would not have that function if they purchase an older model (and seeing as the group interested in the feature is the group most likely to be aware and concerned over the feature's removal, it is a safe bet to say that the ones buying the older model would be aware of this change). A discontinued service is not false advertising, since the service was at one point offered, with the disclaimer that it was subject to change, and the last time I checked, being removed was a change.

Ah, but see, it wasn't a service, it was a feature.

Service implies that it requires regular upkeep from Sony, that they could terminate at their discretion, but this was a feature of the console, that would still work with nothing from Sony, but they actually came and removed it from the product.

It would be as if you bought a car that advertised a 6 cylinder engine, and the company just showed up at your door one day, popped open the hood, and replaced it with a 4 cylinder one, and left.

 

[Danpascooch]

HOWEVER, since the OS option was part of the PS3, people payed for a product that would have that option, they payed for an indefinite usage of that feature, and now the feature is gone, it is a feature that was advertised at the time they bought the product, and now they cannot use it, therefore, that advertisement was wrong, because the product they bought does not have the feature in the advertisement.

It doesn't matter if it was a security problem, or what Sony's motives were, the fact of the matter is, it was advertised to have it, and it is now gone, so that is false advertising. Also, the whole "recall" thing makes no sense in this context, a feature is being taken away, not fixed or replaced with an identical part, nor is a refund being given, do you know what a recall is? It's not "We are taking this out of your car, not fixing it, not replacing it, not refunding you, simply taking it away and not giving it back" As far as I know there has never been a recall that has done that, because that is not what a recall is.

First off, I think the number of people who bought a PS3 over a 360 JUST BECAUSE they could install another OS is disproportionately low as to use it as an argument of false advertising.

Second, the 2010 Dodge Magnum has more features than the 2008 Dodge Magnum; it also has a few LESS options. Should I say that it is false advertising on Dodge's part because the 2010 R/T doesn't have the option of a certain color contrast stitching for the leather seating? Or because the mp3-enabled stereo is of a different make and part number? Or because the backlit LED dashboard display is inferior to the previous model, or doesn't have a tachometer?

Guess what? It doesn't matter. You still CAN install another OS; just don't install the firmware update. You can even rollback to an earlier firmware that allows it. What you will lose is PSN and trophy sync functionality. And PSN is an offering that was never pay-as-you-go anyway, so it's not even comparable to LIVE...you're complaining about what, exactly?

Let's hear from an actual PS3 owner who had actually installed another OS and now has to actually uninstall it and actually revert to the proprietary OS or actually choose not to have online functionality, and hear THEIR opinion. Otherwise, it's just an argument of assumptions that are not relevant to the users making them.

I'm complaining that people bought the Playstation 3 with the promise (through advertisements) that it would support Linux, and now it has been forcibly removed, so they are not getting the product that was advertised. It's just that simple.

 

[Danpascooch]

HOWEVER, since the OS option was part of the PS3, people payed for a product that would have that option, they payed for an indefinite usage of that feature, and now the feature is gone, it is a feature that was advertised at the time they bought the product, and now they cannot use it, therefore, that advertisement was wrong, because the product they bought does not have the feature in the advertisement.

It doesn't matter if it was a security problem, or what Sony's motives were, the fact of the matter is, it was advertised to have it, and it is now gone, so that is false advertising. Also, the whole "recall" thing makes no sense in this context, a feature is being taken away, not fixed or replaced with an identical part, nor is a refund being given, do you know what a recall is? It's not "We are taking this out of your car, not fixing it, not replacing it, not refunding you, simply taking it away and not giving it back" As far as I know there has never been a recall that has done that, because that is not what a recall is.

First off, I think the number of people who bought a PS3 over a 360 JUST BECAUSE they could install another OS is disproportionately low as to use it as an argument of false advertising.

Second, the 2010 Dodge Magnum has more features than the 2008 Dodge Magnum; it also has a few LESS options. Should I say that it is false advertising on Dodge's part because the 2010 R/T doesn't have the option of a certain color contrast stitching for the leather seating? Or because the mp3-enabled stereo is of a different make and part number? Or because the backlit LED dashboard display is inferior to the previous model, or doesn't have a tachometer?

Guess what? It doesn't matter. You still CAN install another OS; just don't install the firmware update. You can even rollback to an earlier firmware that allows it. What you will lose is PSN and trophy sync functionality. And PSN is an offering that was never pay-as-you-go anyway, so it's not even comparable to LIVE...you're complaining about what, exactly?

Let's hear from an actual PS3 owner who had actually installed another OS and now has to actually uninstall it and actually revert to the proprietary OS or actually choose not to have online functionality, and hear THEIR opinion. Otherwise, it's just an argument of assumptions that are not relevant to the users making them.

It makes no difference to me who bought it just for the extra OS, or what that persons opinion is, since this is about a lawsuit, and I am viewing it from a purely legal standpoint, and from that standpoint, neither of those are relevant.

And your car analogy falls short, because it is different, the people who bought the 2010 Dodge Magnum knew what they were buying before they got it, just like buyers of the PS3, the difference is, they didn't buy a car with leather seats, and have the company show up at their door one day, and rip out all of the leather seats and replace them with fabric, giving them a fools choice such as: "well, you can keep the leather seats, but if you do, we are going to make it so that your car can't use it's headlights" or something stupid like that, like Sony did with the Linux functionality.

If a car company did that, I would certainly be pissed, and rightly so.

These people payed for a PS3 that supports Linux, and they don't have a PS3 that supports Linux, it's very simple.

 

[rainbowunicorns]

I still don't get why people would want to install another OS. Again, you can always just buy a computer for that stuff.

I had a friend in University who, for his honours project, installed Linux on a PS3 and used it to do something with a large number of parallel threads. I never got into the exact details with him, but that many processors isn't something you can easily gain access to.

 

[Oskamunda]

[quote="The Random One" post="7.191686.6021162"
It's ridiculous to say they can choose not to apply the update when doing so disables a good chunk of what the console does. It'd be like Microsoft disavowing any responsability over the RROD by saying it can be avoided by never turning the controller at all.[/quote]

You're right that it disables a good chunk of what the console does, but it isn't fair even in the slightest to compare it to the RROD. The RROD is a DEFECT in the hardware, not a secondary functionality feature. That would be like saying:

The 2011 Chrysler 300 has an internal defect in the engine that causes exhaust fumes to back up in the headers, choking the oxygenation process and raising heat to dangerous levels in the engine block; this can and most likely will lead to explosion of the engine if left running for too long. As this problem is not yet subject to recall and maintenance covered by warranty, the Manufacturer's solution is simple: The consumer should not start the 2011 Chrysler 300.

--and comparing it to:

The 2011 Chrysler 300 12-speaker stereo system has a docking station that is compatible with all models of Apple iPod. The system is not fully compatible with Rhapsody portable devices, and connection of such a device could cause damage to the device and the stereo; this damage is not covered by warranty. Therefore, the Manufacturer suggests not connecting a Rhapsody compatible device to the 12-speaker stereo system of the 2011 Chrysler 300.

One talks about a defect, another talks about proprietary compatibility. Sony should be allowed to alter the proprietary compatibility of their own product. If a virus came out that could actually hurt the PS3, people would be outraged if they DIDN'T change the software to handle the problem. That's what they have done, halt the potential infection of a gangrenous limb by hacking it off. Whether that's too extreme is up for debate; what's not is their legal right to do it.

And it IS a valid argument to say that they can just choose not to get the update, and there are simple reasons why: All the features and benefits provided from changing over to another OS can already be handled by FREE software downloads over the net. PlayStation Media Server can transcode almost ANY single file format for video and audio, removing the need for a dedicated media player that reads files other than .avi and .mpegs. The browser integrated into the PS3 has become far more compatible with more and more websites [this is due to the browser being a "ghosted" mobile browser, and more and more websites are making their pages viewable to mobile devices such as smartphones and iPods and such], removing the need for a fully integrated web browser. What else is there? The performance can't be enhanced with Linux tweaking, it's actually REDUCED when you change over to another OS. You can still install a larger hard drive and install the PS3 OS for free with no problems.

What need is there for another OS? Oh, yeah, to crack the system and play pirated games and media, and to skirt around the new Cinavia DRM. That's not a very good argument at all, and as stated in my previous posts, will NEVER take the industry in a good direction.

Again, let's hear from someone ACTUALLY affected by this.

 

[Oskamunda]

I still don't get why people would want to install another OS. Again, you can always just buy a computer for that stuff.

I had a friend in University who, for his honours project, installed Linux on a PS3 and used it to do something with a large number of parallel threads. I never got into the exact details with him, but that many processors isn't something you can easily gain access to.

And that's something he wouldn't need online functionality to do, seeing as the thing is probably now incapable of playing PS3 games anyway. So, he can rollback to a previous firmware and still install another OS.