Sometimes I can't imagine who's worse the Apple fanboys who justify everything Apple does or the Sony fanboys who believe people don't have a right to their own hardware. It's one thing to believe the lawsuit is frivolous, it's quite another to say "It's Sony's; like people didn't drop $600 on this thing and expect it to work as good as the day they bought it.
This raises all sorts of interesting questions about the implications of software updates on hardware platforms that are governed by consumer protection laws. And none of them I want called into question, since I dropped $600 (and then a $160 repair two years later, after the GPU burned out) on this stupid shiny Foreman grill, and am tired of Sony dicking around with it. I would like them to buy it back from me.
And it's not even a frivolous suit. It says right on the fucking box that I could install another OS on it. And now I can't. What the fuck? If I don't update, then my multiplayer games stop working, I can't watch Blu-Rays that access the internet, and I can't play new game releases or patch existing ones. That's not even borderline wrong, it's clearly wrong, and probably illegal (though I'm not a lawyer.) Otherwise, companies could advertise whatever features they wanted for some product, and then claim they were "disabled in a software update" later on when they don't have those features.
If you want to keep the features you could just stay with your current firmware. It is optional to upgrade, not a forced decision. Also it begs the question of why you want to keep the functionality. If you were going to use it for the cell computing power or just messing around you could always use the old firmware and upgrade when you want to use the playstation network functionality. If you want to keep both features there is a good chance the reason why you would want to do so is to pirate games. Could someone explain to me why there is any legitimacy in this suit?
> If you want to keep both features there is a good chance the reason why you would want to do so is to pirate games
There is no known way to pirate games on the ps3. Geohot's hack only allows access to the hypervisor. There are several security measures in place that would still prevent people from playing copied games.
The problem is that Sony would have to patch vulnerabilities like that and keep maintaining the OtherOS compatibility.
For a service that's useless to like 99% of PS3 owners, it's understandable they no longer want to maintain it. And frankly I don't really care for it, so long as I'm not paying a monthly fee.
> The problem is that Sony would have to patch vulnerabilities like that and keep maintaining the OtherOS compatibility.
You don't understand the problems. There really isn't a good way to patch the vulnerability found. That still doesn't mean I'm not pissed sony removed otheros.
> And frankly I don't really care for it,
Good for you? This discussion is for those who do care.
> Good for you? This discussion is for those who do care.
Thanks.
For those who need OtherOS, you are undoubtedly in the very small minority with special undoubtedly non-gaming or game-purchase-inducing activities.
Therefore the needs of this minority aren't going to be put in front of the needs of those who purchased a PS3 to play games with. If they divert resources to fixing the OtherOS somehow, that detracts from their resources to provide for the game-playing movie-playing users of the PS3.
In other words, if you purchased a PS3 for the OtherOS functionality, why should you expect to also have the cutting edge system updates targeted at people who bought the PS3 for games? You do have a choice to not upgrade and continue using your OtherOS, and for many people who do use OtherOS this is a viable option. For example if you have a cluster of these for scientific research or whatever, you're not going to complain about it not playing some new game.
I think it's one thing if Sony secretly patched your PS3 and removed the OtherOS, but they explicitly ask you if you want to upgrade. You can either choose to upgrade to the new stuff they are providing gratis (after all they are not obligated to provide updates are they?) or maintain the system exactly as you had purchased it, which contain the EXACT functionalities it had when you purchased it (including the ability to play games released at the time you purchased it).
No, it is not optional to upgrade — at least not in the usual sense of the word. If you upgrade, you lose the ability to run Linux. If you don't upgrade, you lose the ability to play games. That's more like an ultimatum than a traditional optional install.
You can still play games. You can't play them online, but it's not like you paid for that privilege. Online play is footed by Sony for free. You can still watch blu-rays.
As someone who installed an OtherOS (Yellowdog linux) and found it completely useless, i can say that for most PS3 users this feature isn't going to be missed, no matter how many friends you told that your ps3 could run linux.
You have to keep in mind that keeping linux support probably ment future man-hours maintaining compatibility in future updates. For such a useless feature, do you really expect them to keep maintaining its compatibility? After all, you don't pay Sony and monthly fees to provide the updates or your online gaming capabilities. I figure they dropped it because it was a) useless, b) apparently exposes a vulnerability in their drm and possible future exploits unless they keep maintaining it.
PS3's hardware is subsidized so that you will buy games at inflated prices. I for one completely understood that when I bought a PS3.
But choosing forces you to lose something that you may have originally bought the console because of. Don't upgrade and you can't play any new games. Do upgrade and you lose Linux. Not really fair is it?
Actually, you can't play many existing games now, either -- some rely on a PSN connection, which you can't make without an updated console. So the claim that the removal of the feature is optional is a lie; either way, features which have been used to advertise the console have been removed.
car analogy: you buy a car advertised with a spacious trunk. Then 2 years after the you get the car they announce a recall to replaca a faulty air bag. And when they return the car the trunk is welded shut.
People who express strong opinions about things they don't understand aren't useful to anyone.
OtherOS has many uses. Even excluding ps3 clusters for scientific research, several ps3 developers I know use their ps3s at home to try out code quickly. The linux environment is more convenient at times than even the official dev kit.
I am a little upset about this whole thing, on one hand I am very happy with my ps3 I bought it when it was cheaper than a blu ray player and the ability to play pretty games was a nice bonus. On the other hand even though I never used the Other OS functionality the fact that Sony removed it with the only option of keeping it being a limited and potentially broken system (when you take into account not being able to play new blu ray discs) makes me a bit angry.
Removing functionality seems so counterintuitive even if you want to stop your system from being exploited, but to be honest I upgraded as I was never going to use Other OS.
26 comments
[ 7.0 ms ] story [ 93.8 ms ] threadAnd it's not even a frivolous suit. It says right on the fucking box that I could install another OS on it. And now I can't. What the fuck? If I don't update, then my multiplayer games stop working, I can't watch Blu-Rays that access the internet, and I can't play new game releases or patch existing ones. That's not even borderline wrong, it's clearly wrong, and probably illegal (though I'm not a lawyer.) Otherwise, companies could advertise whatever features they wanted for some product, and then claim they were "disabled in a software update" later on when they don't have those features.
Which is what Sony did. Fuck you, Sony.
There is no known way to pirate games on the ps3. Geohot's hack only allows access to the hypervisor. There are several security measures in place that would still prevent people from playing copied games.
For a service that's useless to like 99% of PS3 owners, it's understandable they no longer want to maintain it. And frankly I don't really care for it, so long as I'm not paying a monthly fee.
You don't understand the problems. There really isn't a good way to patch the vulnerability found. That still doesn't mean I'm not pissed sony removed otheros.
> And frankly I don't really care for it,
Good for you? This discussion is for those who do care.
Thanks.
For those who need OtherOS, you are undoubtedly in the very small minority with special undoubtedly non-gaming or game-purchase-inducing activities.
Therefore the needs of this minority aren't going to be put in front of the needs of those who purchased a PS3 to play games with. If they divert resources to fixing the OtherOS somehow, that detracts from their resources to provide for the game-playing movie-playing users of the PS3.
In other words, if you purchased a PS3 for the OtherOS functionality, why should you expect to also have the cutting edge system updates targeted at people who bought the PS3 for games? You do have a choice to not upgrade and continue using your OtherOS, and for many people who do use OtherOS this is a viable option. For example if you have a cluster of these for scientific research or whatever, you're not going to complain about it not playing some new game.
I think it's one thing if Sony secretly patched your PS3 and removed the OtherOS, but they explicitly ask you if you want to upgrade. You can either choose to upgrade to the new stuff they are providing gratis (after all they are not obligated to provide updates are they?) or maintain the system exactly as you had purchased it, which contain the EXACT functionalities it had when you purchased it (including the ability to play games released at the time you purchased it).
EDIT: Also new games will not work without upgrading.
As someone who installed an OtherOS (Yellowdog linux) and found it completely useless, i can say that for most PS3 users this feature isn't going to be missed, no matter how many friends you told that your ps3 could run linux.
You have to keep in mind that keeping linux support probably ment future man-hours maintaining compatibility in future updates. For such a useless feature, do you really expect them to keep maintaining its compatibility? After all, you don't pay Sony and monthly fees to provide the updates or your online gaming capabilities. I figure they dropped it because it was a) useless, b) apparently exposes a vulnerability in their drm and possible future exploits unless they keep maintaining it.
PS3's hardware is subsidized so that you will buy games at inflated prices. I for one completely understood that when I bought a PS3.
The justification for removal of the functionality is absolutely ludicrous. It's wrong on so many levels I don't know where to start...
I thought that Sony never stated this was standard functionality. But it seems I was very wrong:
http://www.playstation.com/ps3-openplatform/index.html
So I must agree this is not fair...
However, in this case you will be unable to use any new roads or use the car to visit your friends.
OtherOS has many uses. Even excluding ps3 clusters for scientific research, several ps3 developers I know use their ps3s at home to try out code quickly. The linux environment is more convenient at times than even the official dev kit.
PS3s used for scientific research don't have to upgrade, unless they're also secretly using them to play new games.
Removing functionality seems so counterintuitive even if you want to stop your system from being exploited, but to be honest I upgraded as I was never going to use Other OS.
The suit should be brought on behalf of all people that bought a PS3 between 2006 and 2010, BECAUSE they expected it to be able to run another OS.