| |||||||||||||
The demise of PlayStation LinuxThe demise of PlayStation LinuxPosted Apr 1, 2010 14:03 UTC (Thu) by bfeeney (guest, #6855)Parent article: The demise of PlayStation Linux
I'm not sure that I'd agree with the statement that this is "bullying".
Like the article said, Sony sold consoles at a loss on the assumption that they'd make money back on game sales (and possibly online subscriptions, though they seem to have abandoned that for now).
Researchers were taking advantage of the Linux option to get subsidized
A better option would be to charge a fee for allowing "foreign" OS
In the meantime, I can't help but think that anyone who's already bought
The only people who could claim to have been duped were people who bought
It's a pity, but it hardly seems unjust.
(Log in to post comments)
The demise of PlayStation Linux Posted Apr 1, 2010 15:12 UTC (Thu) by njs (guest, #40338) [Link]
> I'm not sure that I'd agree with the statement that this is "bullying". Like the article said, Sony sold consoles at a loss on the assumption that
they'd make money back on game sales (and possibly online subscriptions, though they seem to have abandoned that for now).
That's a fine argument for why they might decide not to sell consoles with the ability to run Linux. Indeed, they stopped selling such consoles a while ago, and AFAIK people were a little annoyed but basically accepted that that was their right.
There's no connection between that and disabling the ability to run Linux on consoles that are already out there. They've already taken the loss on those consoles, long ago. Why should they care what people do with them now?
The demise of PlayStation Linux Posted Apr 1, 2010 15:54 UTC (Thu) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313) [Link]
just because the company made a bad business decision on how to set the price on the consoles doesn't give them the right to change the capability of the consoles after they are sold.
Since they are saying that any consoles sent in for service will get upgraded this definitely does affect the researchers. They now have machines that they cannot repair under warranty without making them unusable for the purpose they were purchased for.
The demise of PlayStation Linux Posted Apr 1, 2010 18:29 UTC (Thu) by smoogen (subscriber, #97) [Link]
I am going to assume that the small print on the systems says that they could change the status of things at any time. It is usually in the block of all caps letters that the brain freezes up and skims over. And it is probably something that pops up and the user clicks blankly [Accept] the first time they join the network.
Now that the fact that most people don't read this or think that those click-thru or shrink wrap licenses mean anything.. probably won't stand up in court :(.
The demise of PlayStation Linux Posted Apr 1, 2010 19:00 UTC (Thu) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313) [Link]
I didn't say that they didn't claim the right to do this, I was just disputing the claim that this doesn't really hurt people who are depending on this feature.
the legal fine print on every product is written to give the seller/publisher all the rights that the law gives them, and anything else they think they can get away with as well. That doesn't mean that they really can get away with everything they claim to.
for example, every companies privacy policy includes the right to change it at any time, and usually with simply updating a website (there are a few cases like credit cards that require written notification, but even there it's written as "if you don't response, even if this letter is stolen from your mailbox and you never see it, you are liable for anything we say in this policy")
As such, it would be legal for the companies to have a policy that says 'we will never give anyone your data', then at 11:50 pm on saturday night change the policy to read 'we can give you data to anyone we want' sell the data and transfer it, then at 11:55pm that same night change the policy on the site back to 'we will never give anyone your data'
now, even though this may be legal, do you think that any company would be able to get away with this once word leaked out?
The demise of PlayStation Linux Posted Apr 2, 2010 0:03 UTC (Fri) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954) [Link] Is Sony really taking anything away? Sony is offering an update. How is that taking something back? The complaint appears to be that people want the benefits of the update and all the functions they've always had. I can see the view that what's being taken away is the ability to e.g. play current movies. That's ironic, because it's the opposite of the usual argument against anti-hacking measures. The argument usually goes, "I didn't buy a movie playing service; I bought a box. It's now mine, free and clear, and after the sale, Sony has no connection to it, so it's none of Sony's business if I run Linux on it." But the argument against offering this upgrade-packaged-with-a-downgrade is, "I bought the ability to watch current movies and run Linux. Years after the sale, Sony is still responsible for making sure I can do both."
The demise of PlayStation Linux Posted Apr 2, 2010 0:23 UTC (Fri) by jake (editor, #205) [Link]
> The complaint appears to be that people want the benefits of the
> update and all the functions they've always had.
Well, unless I am missing something, there are no benefits to the update for users, only for SCE. They sold a box that they advertised could run Linux, watch movies, and play games on their network. Now, in order to do two of those, you have to give up one.
Maybe I missed it, but I didn't see any list of "new exciting" features that the "upgrade" provides.
jake
The demise of PlayStation Linux Posted Apr 2, 2010 1:45 UTC (Fri) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954) [Link] Well, unless I am missing something, there are no benefits to the update for users, only for SCE. You're probably looking at too high a level, like whether the whole concept of the updates has benefits for the community of users. I'm talking about an individual PS3 owner interacting with Sony over with respect to an individual machine: if there is no benefit to him of applying the update, then he has no reason to apply it, and there's no issue. But there are significant benefits to applying the update vs not applying it.
The demise of PlayStation Linux Posted Apr 2, 2010 0:34 UTC (Fri) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313) [Link]
The update is not always optional.
If you get a unit serviced it will get the update even if you don't want it.
They have the ability to make it so that when you play some future DVD it will tell your box that it's keys are no longer valid and therefor it will no longer play your existing DVDs. Since they claim that the reason for this update is security, it's not unreasonable to expect them to do this.
They are saying that you will not be able to play new games or play on the network unless you install this update, so unless you install this update you loose your existing ability to play on the network.
remember, this isn't a 'years after the sale', this is very soon (weeks I think) after they told everyone that this capability would not be going away.
The demise of PlayStation Linux Posted Apr 2, 2010 2:05 UTC (Fri) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954) [Link]
It's interesting how some people classify mandatory and optional (usually in sentences like, "my employer forces me to ..."). Do you have to get a unit serviced? Is Sony even required to service it? (If we're talking about an obligation Sony has under a warranty, that's a horse of a different color; It may well be a warranty violation if Sony refuses to fix a box without removing stuff from it that was there when you bought it).
They are saying that you will not be able to play new games or play on the network unless you install this update, so unless you install this update you loose your existing ability to play on the network. Yep, that's the second view I mentioned, in which something is being taken away. You bought the ability to play on the network; you won't have it tomorrow. remember, this isn't a 'years after the sale', this is very soon (weeks I think) after they told everyone that this capability would not be going away. But I don't think anyone's arguing that what Sony did is wrong only because it was a few months later, and if it were more than two years since Sony induced people to buy PS3s with the promise of Linux that it would be OK to screw them now.
The demise of PlayStation Linux Posted Apr 2, 2010 2:20 UTC (Fri) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313) [Link]
I am talking about warranty repairs. Sony has stated that any units it repairs under warranty will be upgraded, no option.
so the user has the choice of throwing away the device or having it upgraded to not be useful, even during the warranty period.
The demise of PlayStation Linux Posted Apr 2, 2010 2:57 UTC (Fri) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954) [Link] Well, that's just wrong.I'm sure Sony has an out in its warranty that lets it just buy the machine back, and it should do the decent thing and at least exercise that for people who have broken Linux-bearing PS3s.
The demise of PlayStation Linux Posted Apr 2, 2010 6:01 UTC (Fri) by dirtyepic (subscriber, #30178) [Link]
> Is Sony really taking anything away? Sony is offering an update. How is
> that taking something back? The complaint appears to be that people want > the benefits of the update and all the functions they've always had.
The complaint is not that you can't have both. It's that you can't have either. Even if you don't want the benefits of this or future updates you can't keep the current functionality. That's called taking something away.
> I can see the view that what's being taken away is the ability to e.g.
No, it's still the same argument. Games and movies I already own are not services. Netflix is a service. I don't think Sony has the right to disable products I've bought and own any more than Amazon has the right to delete ebooks from people's Kindles.
The demise of PlayStation Linux Posted Apr 2, 2010 7:09 UTC (Fri) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954) [Link] Even if you don't want the benefits of this or future updates you can't keep the current functionality And I assume you're defining "current functionality" in a way that it's something you no longer have if you don't do the update. It's also possible to define it the other way, so that whatever the box does without the update is current functionality, and anything you need the update for is additional functionality.
I can see the view that what's being taken away is the ability to e.g. play current movies. That's ironic, because it's the opposite of the usual argument against anti-hacking measures. The argument usually goes, "I didn't buy a movie playing service; I bought a box..." Now you've mixed up the ownership of games and movies with ownership of a PS3. The issue is what does it mean to "own" a PS3. Is the PS3 a service like Netflix or a naked chunk of hardware? The pro-hackability argument is that it's more like naked hardware; the anti-disabling-update argument is that it's more like a service. Remember: as a chunk of hardware, as long as it's still sitting in your safe, no one has taken anything from you.
The demise of PlayStation Linux Posted Apr 2, 2010 8:21 UTC (Fri) by dirtyepic (subscriber, #30178) [Link]
> And I assume you're defining "current functionality" in a way that it's something you no longer have if you don't do the update. It's also possible to define it the other way, so that whatever the box does without the update is current functionality, and anything you need the update for is additional functionality.
I'm defining it as the functionality of the system before any of this update/downgrade business started. I can call it "previous functionality" if that makes more sense. In any case, it's something I no longer have regardless of if I apply the update or not, therefore that functionality has been taken away.
> Now you've mixed up the ownership of games and movies with ownership of a PS3. The issue is what does it mean to "own" a PS3. Is the PS3 a service like Netflix or a naked chunk of hardware? The pro-hackability argument is that it's more like naked hardware; the anti-disabling-update argument is that it's more like a service. Remember: as a chunk of hardware, as long as it's still sitting in your safe, no one has taken anything from you.
The way I see it, a "product" is something a consumer owns that would continue to function in a useful way if the producer of the product suddenly vanished from the face of the earth. A "service" is something requiring an ongoing provider/user interaction. So I'd classify the PS3 as a product (though admittedly under this definition PSN would be a service, which would shoot down my previous statement about games). I realize nothing physical has been taken away from me and that changing the services it provides is well within Sony's rights. I have no problem with that. It's just aggravating to own a product that becomes less and less useful as time goes on. It's like buying a bicycle and having the manufacture stop by a couple months later and ask which tire you want to keep.
The demise of PlayStation Linux Posted Apr 3, 2010 2:11 UTC (Sat) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954) [Link] I'm defining it as the functionality of the system before any of this update/downgrade business started. I guess you missed my point, because there are two ways to interpret that definition. Considering the issue that you need the update in order to play certain yet-to-be-published movies: 1) I could play current movies as they came out before, but now I can't unless I apply the update, so either that or my Linux capability has been taken away; 2) I could play certain movies before, and I can still play those movies even if I refuse the update. So I just refuse the update and I have everything I had before. With respect to Sony's gaming network refusing to play with the un-updated machine, one can say that without the update the PS3 is still fully capable of talking to Sony's network, it's just that Sony's network has decided not to play with it. (So it's the network, not the PS3 that has had features withdrawn). The way I see it, a "product" is something a consumer owns that would continue to function in a useful way if the producer of the product suddenly vanished from the face of the earth. A "service" is something requiring an ongoing provider/user interaction. So the distinction is whether the vendor delivers everything at once or on a continuing basis. That's an excellent way to draw the line (though you should pick a word other than "product" -- a product is something that is produced, and services are the products of service companies). It's apparent that some PS3 customers expect it to be an ongoing delivery -- future updates to accomodate new movie and game formats, new games for the box, security updates, access to the onling gaming network.
The demise of PlayStation Linux Posted Apr 14, 2010 13:50 UTC (Wed) by daenzer (✭ supporter ✭, #7050) [Link]
> Is Sony really taking anything away?
Yes: the possibility to run Linux and use Playstation Network services on one and the same PS3. (You can no longer log into Playstation Network at all using a PS3 running an older version of the firmware)
|
|||||||||||||