Gotta go with you here.Yea someone sued but ruling will be in Sony's favor. They removed linux for a legit reason. They removed it cause of people that want to hack their system using linux. Blame the hackers on this one, not Sony.
Also if a person does not update that means they decline the user agreement. Thats a man-made decision so why should Sony be at fault for that. They offer services for free anyways.
I miss the linux support but working in IT security i completely understand. If someone hacks the PS3 Sony will lose, big time. Someone has already turned this patch back around and added back other operating support with the blu-ray update. Just have to deal with no online play. Give and Take.
jjivey
Sony getting Sued for banning Linux
This topic is locked from further discussion.
[QUOTE="Scianix-Black"]
[QUOTE="jbc7343"]
I wish everyone would stop whining about losing the Install Other OS function of the Playstation 3. It's not coming back. No matter how much litigation is involved.
If this is so important why don't people sue about online functionality of some games being dropped? EA just recently dropped online support for numerous titles, some of which I'm sure people on this board have payed for to play online. Don't give that crap about the back of the box saying they can retire their online services at any time with a 30 days notice because I'm sure Sony has something similar in place for their firmware.
What about DRM on the PC? Any lawsuits against that? I'm sure someone can pull something out of their butt like "Ubisoft's DRM is a violation of my Civil Rights".
We are still in a recession and the only thing gamers can do with their time is sue a game corporation because one of their rarely used features was removed for security reasons. It's people like this that is the blame for why everyone doesn't take gamers seriously.
shawty1984
As much as I like you, I have to somewhat disagree.
Yes, the whining does have to stop, but if you think about it, these guys aren't whining. People in forums whine; these guys are taking action. I also do agree about the EA thing, but right now, this is a bigger issue. Honestly, if people actually cared about those dead EA commuinities, people would revolt, but they're not.
Apparently the Install OS feature is enough incentive for people to get up and do something.
Besides, I think the removal of the feature, even if I never used it, was wrong on Sony's part. If you updated your console to 3.21, then you lost the Install Other OS option, something that was advertised as being a part of the console's functionalities when people dropped $400 - $600 on it; on the other hand, if you choose not to update and keep the option, you lose internet play - yet another feature to be advertised as being one of the PS3's many features.
Sony put their consumers in a "you're damned if you do and you're damned if you don't" position and that's wrong.
That's my $0.02. Whatever Sony does makes no difference to me, so I'm not going to whine or complain - just putting that out there.
Regardless of wether PSN was advertised (this does not matter, it was an advertisement to say you could use PSN, if you agree to their terms) You have never paid for PSN, its a free service offered by Sony and you have to agree to their T&C's to use said service. OtherOS is still there, so you only lose out if YOU decide to update, thats not Sony's fault, losing PSN is not a paid for feature and is seperate from the PS3 itself.
Free online was a part of the advertisement when I bought the console, therefore, it was one of the features I paid money for. But, someone already proved that the ability to install Linux on the PS3 was a FW update that came later on, so Sony had every right to remove it.
Pretty much Sony wins this case even before someone thought of sueing them. it was a feature used by a low percentage of users, not really a big deal.
[QUOTE="shawty1984"]
[QUOTE="Scianix-Black"]
As much as I like you, I have to somewhat disagree.
Yes, the whining does have to stop, but if you think about it, these guys aren't whining. People in forums whine; these guys are taking action. I also do agree about the EA thing, but right now, this is a bigger issue. Honestly, if people actually cared about those dead EA commuinities, people would revolt, but they're not.
Apparently the Install OS feature is enough incentive for people to get up and do something.
Besides, I think the removal of the feature, even if I never used it, was wrong on Sony's part. If you updated your console to 3.21, then you lost the Install Other OS option, something that was advertised as being a part of the console's functionalities when people dropped $400 - $600 on it; on the other hand, if you choose not to update and keep the option, you lose internet play - yet another feature to be advertised as being one of the PS3's many features.
Sony put their consumers in a "you're damned if you do and you're damned if you don't" position and that's wrong.
That's my $0.02. Whatever Sony does makes no difference to me, so I'm not going to whine or complain - just putting that out there.
Scianix-Black
Regardless of wether PSN was advertised (this does not matter, it was an advertisement to say you could use PSN, if you agree to their terms) You have never paid for PSN, its a free service offered by Sony and you have to agree to their T&C's to use said service. OtherOS is still there, so you only lose out if YOU decide to update, thats not Sony's fault, losing PSN is not a paid for feature and is seperate from the PS3 itself.
Free online was a part of the advertisement when I bought the console, therefore, it was one of the features I paid money for. But, someone already proved that the ability to install Linux on the PS3 was a FW update that came later on, so Sony had every right to remove it.
An advertisment does not automatically give you the right to be able to do such a feature. Sony advertised the PS3 as having online play IF you agree to their terms. You have never paid money for PSN, its a free service and is totally seperate from the PS3 itself as you have to sign up and agree to their T&C's.
[QUOTE="Scianix-Black"]
[QUOTE="shawty1984"]
Regardless of wether PSN was advertised (this does not matter, it was an advertisement to say you could use PSN, if you agree to their terms) You have never paid for PSN, its a free service offered by Sony and you have to agree to their T&C's to use said service. OtherOS is still there, so you only lose out if YOU decide to update, thats not Sony's fault, losing PSN is not a paid for feature and is seperate from the PS3 itself.shawty1984
Free online was a part of the advertisement when I bought the console, therefore, it was one of the features I paid money for. But, someone already proved that the ability to install Linux on the PS3 was a FW update that came later on, so Sony had every right to remove it.
An advertisment does not automatically give you the right to be able to do such a feature. Sony advertised the PS3 as having online play IF you agree to their terms. You have never paid money for PSN, its a free service and is totally seperate from the PS3 itself as you have to sign up and agree to their T&C's.
Oh, right, well... there you go.
...not that there was much to argue in the first place.
All Sony has to says in court is "You don't have to update your system." That's your choice Sony doesn't force you to update, and I think you can still use linux even if you don't update the system.
G-Legend
You have to update it if you want to use other features that you paid for: new blue ray, games (which if you don't update Sony would in essence be removing).
[QUOTE="Scianix-Black"]
[QUOTE="shawty1984"]
Regardless of wether PSN was advertised (this does not matter, it was an advertisement to say you could use PSN, if you agree to their terms) You have never paid for PSN, its a free service offered by Sony and you have to agree to their T&C's to use said service. OtherOS is still there, so you only lose out if YOU decide to update, thats not Sony's fault, losing PSN is not a paid for feature and is seperate from the PS3 itself.shawty1984
Free online was a part of the advertisement when I bought the console, therefore, it was one of the features I paid money for. But, someone already proved that the ability to install Linux on the PS3 was a FW update that came later on, so Sony had every right to remove it.
An advertisment does not automatically give you the right to be able to do such a feature. Sony advertised the PS3 as having online play IF you agree to their terms. You have never paid money for PSN, its a free service and is totally seperate from the PS3 itself as you have to sign up and agree to their T&C's.
We didnt agree to the terms when we exchanged money at kmart. No where on the box does it say I would have to agree to their BS terms before playing online. It only says internet required.
They advertised it. I gave them money. They can't changed the deal afterwards.
[QUOTE="jbc7343"]"We are still in a recession and the only thing gamers can do with their time is sue a game corporation because one of their rarely used features was removed for security reasons" How on EARTH does a recession have anything to do with this....I wish everyone would stop whining about losing the Install Other OS function of the Playstation 3. It's not coming back. No matter how much litigation is involved.
If this is so important why don't people sue about online functionality of some games being dropped? EA just recently dropped online support for numerous titles, some of which I'm sure people on this board have payed for to play online. Don't give that crap about the back of the box saying they can retire their online services at any time with a 30 days notice because I'm sure Sony has something similar in place for their firmware.
What about DRM on the PC? Any lawsuits against that? I'm sure someone can pull something out of their butt like "Ubisoft's DRM is a violation of my Civil Rights".
We are still in a recession and the only thing gamers can do with their time is sue a game corporation because one of their rarely used features was removed for security reasons. It's people like this that is the blame for why everyone doesn't take gamers seriously.
fm_coyote
Hmmm ... well let's see. There will be lawyer's fees, the judge has to get paid, and every administrative person in the court room has to get paid so ... that would mean ... that the city has to pay them ... which would mean .... they lose money? This does nothing but tie up courts with stupid lawsuits that would be better let alone. Do you understand now?
[QUOTE="KamuiFei"]Imagine buying a car with say built in navigation and the car company suddenly decided to stop providing that service, so they give you a choice, You can either cop it and it can be tunred off or you cant use any other features apart from turning the car on? You wouldnt be happy then would you? Its pretty amazing what people will let companies get away with these days.It's Sony's software, its theirs to do whatever they want with it. That guy from California isn't going to win this case.
Wuflungdung
Actually that kind of stuff is provided by another company. Much like Sirius radio comes with newer cars. Sure you get it for free when you get the card ... for a time. I think some deals have you getting the good stuff up to 2 years with the car. After that it's up to you to keep it going. So really your arguement holds no water.
[QUOTE="shawty1984"]
[QUOTE="Scianix-Black"]
Free online was a part of the advertisement when I bought the console, therefore, it was one of the features I paid money for. But, someone already proved that the ability to install Linux on the PS3 was a FW update that came later on, so Sony had every right to remove it.
Mr_Ditters
An advertisment does not automatically give you the right to be able to do such a feature. Sony advertised the PS3 as having online play IF you agree to their terms. You have never paid money for PSN, its a free service and is totally seperate from the PS3 itself as you have to sign up and agree to their T&C's.
We didnt agree to the terms when we exchanged money at kmart. No where on the box does it say I would have to agree to their BS terms before playing online. It only says internet required.
They advertised it. I gave them money. They can't changed the deal afterwards.
The first playstations also didn't come with it when it launched. So ... therefore you're paying solely for the Playstation 3. If they too away yoru right to play Blu-rays, games, or access the PSN then it would be a situation to sue. They are not doing this though.
You go into a store and buy a playstation 3 then take it home you are agreeing to their terms of service. They can change anything about the user interface, anything to do with the code, add or remove features at their leisure because they are not taking anything away that you paid for.
I want to see these "so-called" advertisements. I never recall seeing that stuff online. This court case will not get far and that feature is never coming back.
"We are still in a recession and the only thing gamers can do with their time is sue a game corporation because one of their rarely used features was removed for security reasons" How on EARTH does a recession have anything to do with this....[QUOTE="fm_coyote"][QUOTE="jbc7343"]
I wish everyone would stop whining about losing the Install Other OS function of the Playstation 3. It's not coming back. No matter how much litigation is involved.
If this is so important why don't people sue about online functionality of some games being dropped? EA just recently dropped online support for numerous titles, some of which I'm sure people on this board have payed for to play online. Don't give that crap about the back of the box saying they can retire their online services at any time with a 30 days notice because I'm sure Sony has something similar in place for their firmware.
What about DRM on the PC? Any lawsuits against that? I'm sure someone can pull something out of their butt like "Ubisoft's DRM is a violation of my Civil Rights".
We are still in a recession and the only thing gamers can do with their time is sue a game corporation because one of their rarely used features was removed for security reasons. It's people like this that is the blame for why everyone doesn't take gamers seriously.
jbc7343
Hmmm ... well let's see. There will be lawyer's fees, the judge has to get paid, and every administrative person in the court room has to get paid so ... that would mean ... that the city has to pay them ... which would mean .... they lose money? This does nothing but tie up courts with stupid lawsuits that would be better let alone. Do you understand now?
Judges get paid their yearly salary regardless, as well as 99% of most government employees, regardless of where their time is spent. As for the lawyers, the ones bringing the suit to Sony will have to pay that if they lose, so in fact they're going the exact opposite way, and spending their own money. Do you understand now?Yea someone sued but ruling will be in Sony's favor. They removed linux for a legit reason. They removed it cause of people that want to hack their system using linux. Blame the hackers on this one, not Sony.
Also if a person does not update that means they decline the user agreement. Thats a man-made decision so why should Sony be at fault for that. They offer services for free anyways.
I miss the linux support but working in IT security i completely understand. If someone hacks the PS3 Sony will lose, big time. Someone has already turned this patch back around and added back other operating support with the blu-ray update. Just have to deal with no online play. Give and Take.
Pretty much. Although this honestly doesn't affect me because I have a PS3 Slim.Free online was a part of the advertisement when I bought the console, therefore, it was one of the features I paid money for. But, someone already proved that the ability to install Linux on the PS3 was a FW update that came later on, so Sony had every right to remove it.
Scianix-Black
But since Sony released the update, they've been using it as a point of advertisement. If the guys got their ps3s after the point at which Sony released the update, it's still fair game and same arguments apply.
Ya, but court time is a limited resource, like hospital beds. if one case is tying up the courtrooms and taking judges' time, that means another case isn't, and that case has to get deferred.And deferring cases means added cost, wasted time, wasted money.Judges get paid their yearly salary regardless, as well as 99% of most government employees, regardless of where their time is spent. As for the lawyers, the ones bringing the suit to Sony will have to pay that if they lose, so in fact they're going the exact opposite way, and spending their own money. Do you understand now?fm_coyote
I've always expected to see more articles about Microsoft being sued because of some of their cheap practicies, so I was a little surprised by this when I heard about it a few weeks back. I'm honestly more surprised I don't hear more about Microsoft being sued for some of its cheap practices with Xbox.
I'd never buy a system for this feature. But I do understand if this was a selling point for someone that really cared about using Linux, they would have felt lied to by Sony. It doesn't matter if this wasn't advertised at release; that would assume everyone buys a system on the release date. I don't think it's worth sueing over, but I can empathize.
Imagine buying a car with say built in navigation and the car company suddenly decided to stop providing that service, so they give you a choice, You can either cop it and it can be tunred off or you cant use any other features apart from turning the car on? You wouldnt be happy then would you? Its pretty amazing what people will let companies get away with these days.[QUOTE="Wuflungdung"][QUOTE="KamuiFei"]
It's Sony's software, its theirs to do whatever they want with it. That guy from California isn't going to win this case.
Rakuho
but you're missing one point, the "reason" behind why car dealers would want to take away your GPS. You can't just say for the hell of it, because Sony had a reason (whether you agree with it or not) for removing Linux prior to leaving its customers with an ultimatum. And it would only be fair to draw an example that also contains such an element.
you could add people had the potential to misuse it, its the same example. Notice how they havent offered anything to customers for their loss? Even a little gesture like $10 in your psn account would have made 99.9% of people very happy and kept their loyal customers on side. But sony like most huge corporations dont really care about their customers.[QUOTE="Scianix-Black"]
Free online was a part of the advertisement when I bought the console, therefore, it was one of the features I paid money for. But, someone already proved that the ability to install Linux on the PS3 was a FW update that came later on, so Sony had every right to remove it.
clicketyclick
But since Sony released the update, they've been using it as a point of advertisement. If the guys got their ps3s after the point at which Sony released the update, it's still fair game and same arguments apply.
Ya, but court time is a limited resource, like hospital beds. if one case is tying up the courtrooms and taking judges' time, that means another case isn't, and that case has to get deferred.And deferring cases means added cost, wasted time, wasted money. If I take someone to court and I can't get in for 2 years, there is no wasted money on my part. Lawyers only get paid for the time spent on your case, be it in the court room, or building your case, or if they win, pending how they set up their charging. Cases taking up a Judges time doesn't apply, as hes getting paid regardless. This case being in a court room will not waste any more money then any other case, nor will it cost another case to hemorrhage any more money then it would if the case was seen tomorrow. I'm personally going through a case right now, and my lawyer isn't getting paid by the day, but the time spent on said case.Judges get paid their yearly salary regardless, as well as 99% of most government employees, regardless of where their time is spent. As for the lawyers, the ones bringing the suit to Sony will have to pay that if they lose, so in fact they're going the exact opposite way, and spending their own money. Do you understand now?fm_coyote
umm real hardware. thats a little hard, also im sure people are not dye hard to be boot legging ps2 games for ps3. i think its a smart move for sony as well. untouchables111
Real hardware can still get locked by the right kind of software. But I don't think they'll ever do that.
[QUOTE="Rakuho"][QUOTE="Wuflungdung"] Imagine buying a car with say built in navigation and the car company suddenly decided to stop providing that service, so they give you a choice, You can either cop it and it can be tunred off or you cant use any other features apart from turning the car on? You wouldnt be happy then would you? Its pretty amazing what people will let companies get away with these days.Wuflungdung
but you're missing one point, the "reason" behind why car dealers would want to take away your GPS. You can't just say for the hell of it, because Sony had a reason (whether you agree with it or not) for removing Linux prior to leaving its customers with an ultimatum. And it would only be fair to draw an example that also contains such an element.
you could add people had the potential to misuse it, its the same example. Notice how they haven't offered anything to customers for their loss? Even a little gesture like $10 in your psn account would have made 99.9% of people very happy and kept their loyal customers on side. But Sony like most huge corporations don't really care about their customers.yes, but even if you can draw an example that sounds similar to Sony's case, it's still a hypothetical. I could take it one step further and ask you to elaborate on that "misuse." I assume it would be pretty hard to come up with a realistic reason as to why a GPS system would be a threat to car companies/car dealers. I'm still certain you'll be able to come up with something, but chances are, it would be quite a stretch since it's a fictional example.
Anyway, all of that doesn't really matter since the real argument is about the "removal of Linux" and not about the merits of properly drawn examples... So, let's get back to Sony. We all know that there was a cause (i.e. a hack) and an effect (i.e. the removal of Linux). Now you may disagree with the effect, and i obviously have no place to judge your position on this matter, but i fail to see any underhanded tactics that warrant for Sony to be branded as a company that doesn't care about its customers. You think Sony should pay its customers for trying to cover its own a$$ from a realistic threat? That's fine... if that's what you truly believe. But i simply don't see why it should. Of course, this whole "Linux mess" is self-inflicted, and for that, Sony is already paying with its reputation to certain degree... but still, that doesn't change the fact that and Sony had explicit rights to remove Linux without having to worry about compensating any stakeholders and did so for a justifiable reason.
anyway, this is really a difference of opinion, so arguing this any further would be fruitless.
Notice how they havent offered anything to customers for their loss? Even a little gesture like $10 in your psn account would have made 99.9% of people very happy and kept their loyal customers on side. But sony like most huge corporations dont really care about their customers.WuflungdungAnd how exactly would they go about reimbursing people? how would they check who has linux on their system? Just if a person says they had? Such an offer would be open to rampant abuse in claims.
I know he isn't, it makes me smile.It's Sony's software, its theirs to do whatever they want with it. That guy from California isn't going to win this case.
KamuiFei
well in some ways this is a plus in that if the court rules aginst sony it may show sony as well as other companies they cant just do what ever they like . on the other hand its not like linux support was a big deal to lose, at least i think to many people. of course for thos who did use it a lot i guess it was a big deal lol. But sony had to do something as it was the other OS linux thing that allowed the ps3 to be hacked. which is why i hate hackers and pirates. the F it up for the rest of us.
I'm not really surprised, someone was bound to do it. And honestly, I don't hold anything against Sony for doing what they did.LightRYeppp. Same here, its all really stupid i reckon. I mean only a handful of people used it. And to be honest, im pretty sure that they only removed it because remember that guy that hacked the PS3, he said it was 95% software stuff and 5% hardware stuff to hack it. I reckon that he only could have hacked it if he had the Install OS feature. This was probably sonys way of stopping the hacking.
[QUOTE="Scianix-Black"]
Free online was a part of the advertisement when I bought the console, therefore, it was one of the features I paid money for. But, someone already proved that the ability to install Linux on the PS3 was a FW update that came later on, so Sony had every right to remove it.
clicketyclick
But since Sony released the update, they've been using it as a point of advertisement. If the guys got their ps3s after the point at which Sony released the update, it's still fair game and same arguments apply.
Judges get paid their yearly salary regardless, as well as 99% of most government employees, regardless of where their time is spent. As for the lawyers, the ones bringing the suit to Sony will have to pay that if they lose, so in fact they're going the exact opposite way, and spending their own money. Do you understand now?fm_coyote
Ya, but court time is a limited resource, like hospital beds. if one case is tying up the courtrooms and taking judges' time, that means another case isn't, and that case has to get deferred.And deferring cases means added cost, wasted time, wasted money.
Thank you ClicketyClick. At least someone here understands how the system works.
[QUOTE="fm_coyote"]you could add people had the potential to misuse it, its the same example. Notice how they haven't offered anything to customers for their loss? Even a little gesture like $10 in your psn account would have made 99.9% of people very happy and kept their loyal customers on side. But Sony like most huge corporations don't really care about their customers.but you're missing one point, the "reason" behind why car dealers would want to take away your GPS. You can't just say for the hell of it, because Sony had a reason (whether you agree with it or not) for removing Linux prior to leaving its customers with an ultimatum. And it would only be fair to draw an example that also contains such an element.
clicketyclick
yes, but even if you can draw an example that sounds similar to Sony's case, it's still a hypothetical. I could take it one step further and ask you to elaborate on that "misuse." I assume it would be pretty hard to come up with a realistic reason as to why a GPS system would be a threat to car companies/car dealers. I'm still certain you'll be able to come up with something, but chances are, it would be quite a stretch since it's a fictional example.
Anyway, all of that doesn't really matter since the real argument is about the "removal of Linux" and not about the merits of properly drawn examples... So, let's get back to Sony. We all know that there was a cause (i.e. a hack) and an effect (i.e. the removal of Linux). Now you may disagree with the effect, and i obviously have no place to judge your position on this matter, but i fail to see any underhanded tactics that warrant for Sony to be branded as a company that doesn't care about its customers. You think Sony should pay its customers for trying to cover its own a$$ from a realistic threat? That's fine... if that's what you truly believe. But i simply don't see why it should. Of course, this whole "Linux mess" is self-inflicted, and for that, Sony is already paying with its reputation to certain degree... but still, that doesn't change the fact that and Sony had explicit rights to remove Linux without having to worry about compensating any stakeholders and did so for a justifiable reason.
anyway, this is really a difference of opinion, so arguing this any further would be fruitless.
The example can be used on anything currently. the car companies could use the justification that ciminals are using the gps for criminal purposes. its the same thing as ppl could possibly use linux to hack the ps3. there isnt any difference.a company can have any reason and it can be justifiable, they should also be responsible for their actions. I dont promote piracy, but I as a paying consumer should also not be paying for people that do it. There was no warning there was no real explaination. I was given an ultimatum when I turned on my machine to use it when I paid for it. I agree with you we do have a difference of opinion. I just believe companies should beable to act in this way without consequences. A hit to repuation of this kind to a huge corporation means nothing these days because way too many people dont worry. It was like Ipods and Iphones, you get shoddy equipment, but people will just buy new ones cause its trendy.
[QUOTE="G-Legend"]
All Sony has to says in court is "You don't have to update your system." That's your choice Sony doesn't force you to update, and I think you can still use linux even if you don't update the system.
Mr_Ditters
You have to update it if you want to use other features that you paid for: new blue ray, games (which if you don't update Sony would in essence be removing).
Sigh. If you dont update and keep firmware 3.15, you can still play new and future games and still watch new and future Blu-ray films, just not ones that require you to update before play/watching. Come on people, this is pretty simple, yet loads of you are still getting it wrong.
[QUOTE="shawty1984"]
[QUOTE="Scianix-Black"]
Free online was a part of the advertisement when I bought the console, therefore, it was one of the features I paid money for. But, someone already proved that the ability to install Linux on the PS3 was a FW update that came later on, so Sony had every right to remove it.
Mr_Ditters
An advertisment does not automatically give you the right to be able to do such a feature. Sony advertised the PS3 as having online play IF you agree to their terms. You have never paid money for PSN, its a free service and is totally seperate from the PS3 itself as you have to sign up and agree to their T&C's.
We didnt agree to the terms when we exchanged money at kmart. No where on the box does it say I would have to agree to their BS terms before playing online. It only says internet required.
They advertised it. I gave them money. They can't changed the deal afterwards.
Sigh, please try to understand.
PSN is totally seperate and has nothing to do with buying the PS3. It is advertised because you CAN (note dont have to) use it to go online. Just because something is advertised, does not mean that you will have it as soon as you open the box, simple, got it?
I haven't read all the comments here but: There is aboslutely no way they will lose this. You could see that lawsuit coming mileeees away so obviously they've carefully made sure it won't be happening.
When did Sony specifically advertised Linux. I have seen no commercials or on the box where it says, Linux is a feature and how it is awesome to use. No one paid to use linux. You had to download it independently on your own. Who bought a PS3 specifically for the sole purpose of putting linux on it? No one got cheated from their purchase. Linux did not add the cost of building the PS3. Blu Ray was the main cause for the price being so high. I suppose the genral public won't be happy until the PS3 is $100 and it can play PS1, PS2, PSP and dumbed down PS4 games.
Will Sony ever be seen in a positive light? If people are going to sue Sony for this, then why don't they sue MS for still having quite a high faulty rate with their systems? It is assumed that when you buy a system it will not have a high failure rate.
It's funny how every tiny thing Sony does that might considered contraversal that they have to get sued over it, but both Nintendo and Microsoft come out like Heroes because of thier cheaper prices. People need to move on and stop complaining about price tags. People knew what they were buying when they put their money down. Things change in features and in price all the time. If people can sue and win for this stuff, then people that bought any console early in it's life should get some of their money back since it is not fair that they paid more than someone who just bought a system recently. Linux was never in high demand in the first place. To the .08% of the population who had linux on the PS3, move on.
Who really care's in the end Sony will win out. If you read Sony's terms and conditions they have the right to change anything at anytime.
[QUOTE="clicketyclick"][QUOTE="fm_coyote"] you could add people had the potential to misuse it, its the same example. Notice how they haven't offered anything to customers for their loss? Even a little gesture like $10 in your psn account would have made 99.9% of people very happy and kept their loyal customers on side. But Sony like most huge corporations don't really care about their customers.Wuflungdung
yes, but even if you can draw an example that sounds similar to Sony's case, it's still a hypothetical. I could take it one step further and ask you to elaborate on that "misuse." I assume it would be pretty hard to come up with a realistic reason as to why a GPS system would be a threat to car companies/car dealers. I'm still certain you'll be able to come up with something, but chances are, it would be quite a stretch since it's a fictional example.
Anyway, all of that doesn't really matter since the real argument is about the "removal of Linux" and not about the merits of properly drawn examples... So, let's get back to Sony. We all know that there was a cause (i.e. a hack) and an effect (i.e. the removal of Linux). Now you may disagree with the effect, and i obviously have no place to judge your position on this matter, but i fail to see any underhanded tactics that warrant for Sony to be branded as a company that doesn't care about its customers. You think Sony should pay its customers for trying to cover its own a$$ from a realistic threat? That's fine... if that's what you truly believe. But i simply don't see why it should. Of course, this whole "Linux mess" is self-inflicted, and for that, Sony is already paying with its reputation to certain degree... but still, that doesn't change the fact that and Sony had explicit rights to remove Linux without having to worry about compensating any stakeholders and did so for a justifiable reason.
anyway, this is really a difference of opinion, so arguing this any further would be fruitless.
The example can be used on anything currently. the car companies could use the justification that ciminals are using the gps for criminal purposes. its the same thing as ppl could possibly use linux to hack the ps3. there isnt any difference.a company can have any reason and it can be justifiable, they should also be responsible for their actions. I dont promote piracy, but I as a paying consumer should also not be paying for people that do it. There was no warning there was no real explaination. I was given an ultimatum when I turned on my machine to use it when I paid for it. I agree with you we do have a difference of opinion. I just believe companies should beable to act in this way without consequences. A hit to repuation of this kind to a huge corporation means nothing these days because way too many people dont worry. It was like Ipods and Iphones, you get shoddy equipment, but people will just buy new ones cause its trendy.
That's....not one of my posts.Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment