The demise of PlayStation Linux
Sony uses embedded Linux in a wide variety of its consumer electronics products: televisions, video recorders, navigation devices, and more. Up until fairly recently, it gave something back to the community by supporting Linux installation on its PlayStation game consoles. While Sony removed the "Install Other OS" option on new PlayStation 3 (PS3) systems back in August 2009, there were millions of older PS3s that could be used for Cell processor hacking on Linux—no more.
Sony announced [Japanese press release] (LWN coverage) that the v3.21 firmware release will disable the "Install Other OS" feature, but it also threatens users with a long list of features that will no longer work if the "upgrade" isn't installed. One might guess that either April fools day is not celebrated in Japan or that Sony Computer Entertainment (SCE) is irony-impaired because the release date for the firmware is April 1. The timing is also a bit suspicious in that it seems like a measure aimed at punishing the "mod" community for a recent successful PS3 "jailbreak".
The ostensible reason for removing the "Install Other OS" feature is
"security concerns
", but as PS3 hacker George Hotz points
out, jailbreaking the PS3 requires opening up the enclosure. The
procedure is not for the faint-of-heart—it involves pulsing a particular
solder point on the PS3 board "low for ~40ns
". This is not
something a casual user will have any way to do, if they were even willing
to try it. It certainly isn't a vector for malware attacks either.
Unsuspecting PS3 Linux users who upgrade will lose the contents of the Linux portion of the hard drive. Because of that, and other restrictions enforced in the new firmware, Hotz has vowed to find a way around those restrictions. He previously had no plans to create custom firmware for the device, but because of SCE's latest move, he does now:
Hotz has also been part of the iPhone/iPod/iPad jailbreaking community, having
released multiple software and hardware jailbreaking hacks for those
platforms, so his track record is good. That means it is pretty likely he
will come up with a way to run v3.21 and still run Linux—just what
SCE evidently fears. But he is also clear that doing so is not about
"piracy", it is about taking back the control of your device: "Hacking
isn't about getting what you didn't pay for, it's about making sure you do
get what you did.
"
That is the crux of the matter for many. Without the firmware update, PS3 owners will not be able to do a number of things they thought they got when buying the device: playing games online, watching new Blu-ray videos, playing new PS3 games, and so on. The EFF is concerned that new Blu-ray disks could even completely disable the Blu-ray drive by revoking the AACS decryption key in the older firmware. Because of the digital rights management (DRM) features included in content meant to be used by PS3s, SCE has the technical means to stop existing, working devices from performing those tasks on new content. The EFF puts it this way:
SCE would undoubtedly argue that it needs to maintain the integrity of its online games, so requiring certain firmware upgrades to participate in its network is reasonable. There is something to that argument, but there is zero evidence that allowing Linux (or any other OS) to be installed had played any kind of role in game "cheats"—in fact its hard to see how it could. If anything is flawed, it is the hardware which allowed Hotz to essentially circumvent the hypervisor that SCE put in place to wall off Linux from the 3D video hardware. In addition, that argument falls flat when considering playing new DVDs or local games.
It is believed that PS3s which need to be serviced for a hardware problem of some kind will be silently upgraded to the latest firmware, which would wipe out any Linux partition on the disk. So, who owns this device that you have, supposedly, bought and paid for? Once a given set of features is released, and works, isn't the manufacturer honor-bound (if not legally bound) to not actively work to disable those features? Some PS3 customers relied on being able to install Linux, while still keeping the other features of the console. In fact, SCE made assurances that the "Install Other OS" feature would be maintained as recently as February.
It is interesting to note that there are folks in the HPC community who were buying PS3s by the thousands to create Linux clusters. Other than the occasional fragging expedition at lunch, one would guess that the vast majority of those machines never actually run games at all. There is clearly a market for low-cost Cell-based machines, but SCE evidently doesn't see that—or can't make money at it. It may be running PS3s on the razor blade model; selling the consoles at a loss, while making up the difference by selling peripherals and games.
Its hard to see how SCE comes out of this looking like anything other than a bully. It sold hardware with a feature set that folks found attractive, so they bought them. Now, when it is somehow inconvenient for SCE to continue supporting some of those features, it turns them off, with little warning and almost no recourse. The vast majority of PS3 owners may be completely unaffected, but those who relied upon SCE's word may think twice before buying from it again. In the meantime, they are likely to follow Hotz's progress with great interest.
Posted Apr 1, 2010 1:50 UTC (Thu)
by MattPerry (guest, #46341)
[Link] (5 responses)
Posted Apr 1, 2010 6:38 UTC (Thu)
by nikanth (guest, #50093)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Apr 1, 2010 12:31 UTC (Thu)
by nowster (subscriber, #67)
[Link]
Posted Apr 9, 2010 5:25 UTC (Fri)
by qu1j0t3 (guest, #25786)
[Link] (2 responses)
Posted Apr 9, 2010 11:25 UTC (Fri)
by inouk (guest, #64516)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Apr 9, 2010 11:33 UTC (Fri)
by qu1j0t3 (guest, #25786)
[Link]
Posted Apr 1, 2010 14:03 UTC (Thu)
by bfeeney (guest, #6855)
[Link] (16 responses)
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.
Posted Apr 1, 2010 15:12 UTC (Thu)
by njs (subscriber, #40338)
[Link]
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?
Posted Apr 1, 2010 15:54 UTC (Thu)
by dlang (guest, #313)
[Link] (14 responses)
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.
Posted Apr 1, 2010 18:29 UTC (Thu)
by smoogen (subscriber, #97)
[Link] (13 responses)
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 :(.
Posted Apr 1, 2010 19:00 UTC (Thu)
by dlang (guest, #313)
[Link] (12 responses)
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?
Posted Apr 2, 2010 0:03 UTC (Fri)
by giraffedata (guest, #1954)
[Link] (11 responses)
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."
Posted Apr 2, 2010 0:23 UTC (Fri)
by jake (editor, #205)
[Link] (1 responses)
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
Posted Apr 2, 2010 1:45 UTC (Fri)
by giraffedata (guest, #1954)
[Link]
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.
Posted Apr 2, 2010 0:34 UTC (Fri)
by dlang (guest, #313)
[Link] (3 responses)
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.
Posted Apr 2, 2010 2:05 UTC (Fri)
by giraffedata (guest, #1954)
[Link] (2 responses)
The update is not always optional.
If you get a unit serviced it will get the update even if you don't want
it.
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).
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.
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.
Posted Apr 2, 2010 2:20 UTC (Fri)
by dlang (guest, #313)
[Link] (1 responses)
so the user has the choice of throwing away the device or having it upgraded to not be useful, even during the warranty period.
Posted Apr 2, 2010 2:57 UTC (Fri)
by giraffedata (guest, #1954)
[Link]
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.
Posted Apr 2, 2010 6:01 UTC (Fri)
by dirtyepic (guest, #30178)
[Link] (3 responses)
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.
Posted Apr 2, 2010 7:09 UTC (Fri)
by giraffedata (guest, #1954)
[Link] (2 responses)
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.
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.
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.
Posted Apr 2, 2010 8:21 UTC (Fri)
by dirtyepic (guest, #30178)
[Link] (1 responses)
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.
Posted Apr 3, 2010 2:11 UTC (Sat)
by giraffedata (guest, #1954)
[Link]
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).
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.
Posted Apr 14, 2010 13:50 UTC (Wed)
by daenzer (subscriber, #7050)
[Link]
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)
Posted Apr 1, 2010 16:25 UTC (Thu)
by christian.convey (guest, #39159)
[Link] (1 responses)
I've never organized a lawsuit fund drive before, but maybe the EFF could establish an account to which we can donate? I'm good for $50, if other people are likely to chip in as well.
Posted Apr 2, 2010 20:16 UTC (Fri)
by davecb (subscriber, #1574)
[Link]
There's lots of case law on that in both the U.S. and Canada, specifically addressing services. The counter-argument is that it's a good, not a service, and the counter-counter argument is that the good was sold for the purpose of providing the service, or alternative that the service can only be provided via the good. Either make them inseparable, and thus treatable as a service.
Don't just think lawsuit: there are lots of statutes in place to deal with deliberate criminality by merchants. My old course on civil and military law had a whole section on dealing with how dishonest merchants try to defraud soldiers, and never mentioned suits once.
--dave
Posted Apr 2, 2010 0:07 UTC (Fri)
by giraffedata (guest, #1954)
[Link]
More to the point, it's about implementing a particular definition of "what you paid for," something that by no means has a universally accepted definition.
Posted Apr 14, 2010 13:54 UTC (Wed)
by daenzer (subscriber, #7050)
[Link]
Thankfully it shouldn't be quite that bad. It'll no longer be possible to access the Linux partition with the PS3, but it should be possible to connect the HD to another system and retrieve the data.
That said, this is a really bad and disappointing move.
The demise of PlayStation Linux
FWIW, Earlier SCE had Linux kit for PS2 but later slim models didn't support it. But it didn't make loss by selling only PS2 consoles without games for HPC setups.
The demise of PlayStation Linux
Having Linux as an option made many people prefer PS3 over other consoles, and provided some initial momentum. Now PS3 does not need it, nor afraid of opposition?!
The demise of PlayStation Linux
Modifying a video game console such as a PlayStation3 or Xbox 360 is a crime in Canada and could result in a penalty of up to 10 years in prison, according to a recent release from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police
Seems the opposite is the case, at least in Canada:
Seems the opposite is the case, at least in Canada:
The article was a bit mystifying. Maybe it will provoke enough discussion that the full picture will emerge.
Granted;
The demise of PlayStation Linux
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).
cell PCs from Sony. The thing is, Sony is a company, not a charity, and
they've racked up awful losses the last few years. They couldn't possibly
justify this loss-making subsidy to their investors.
installs, effectively covering the cost of the subsidy.
Playstations as research boxes are fine, they've already installed Linux,
and they have little or no need for "firmware" upgrades which are just
fixes to the PS3 OS, and to the best of my knowledge have no real relation
to actual firmware (in the classic PC sense) at all. So researchers who
took advantage of this aren't being ripped off.
it because they could install Linux on it, but never got round to it. These
people still have the opportunity to do that, they just now have to decide
is it a gaming machine, or a work machine: they can't have it both ways.
The demise of PlayStation Linux
they'd make money back on game sales (and possibly online subscriptions,
though they seem to have abandoned that for now).
The demise of PlayStation Linux
The demise of PlayStation Linux
The demise of PlayStation Linux
The demise of PlayStation Linux
The demise of PlayStation Linux
> update and all the functions they've always had.
The demise of PlayStation Linux
Well, unless I am missing something, there are no benefits to the update for users, only for SCE.
The demise of PlayStation Linux
The demise of PlayStation Linux
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
Well, that's just wrong.
The demise of PlayStation Linux
The demise of PlayStation Linux
> 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.
> 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..."
The demise of PlayStation Linux
Even if you don't want the benefits of this or future updates you can't keep the current 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..."
The demise of PlayStation Linux
The demise of PlayStation Linux
I'm defining it as the functionality of the system before any of this update/downgrade business started.
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.
The demise of PlayStation Linux
Fund a lawsuit?
Fund a lawsuit?
The demise of PlayStation Linux
"Hacking isn't about getting what you didn't pay for, it's about making sure you do get what you did."
The demise of PlayStation Linux