The demise of PlayStation Linux
The demise of PlayStation Linux
Posted Apr 2, 2010 6:01 UTC (Fri) by dirtyepic (guest, #30178)In reply to: The demise of PlayStation Linux by giraffedata
Parent article: 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.
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.
> 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..."
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.
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.