5 ms·

I'm sorry, but I think this comment severely misrepresents what happened and the precedent it helped establish. First, the firmware update didn't remove suppor

I'm sorry, but I think this comment severely misrepresents what happened and the precedent it helped establish. First, the firmware update didn't remove support for a feature, it explicitly blocked certain user space software. It forced consumers to use Sony's PS OS rather than an alternative like Linux. Second, it helps establish precedence that hardware vendors can have control/part ownership of hardware after you purchase it. Gone are the days where the computer you purchase pre-assembled is your own. Now vendors can apparently control what you decide to do with hardware that you purchase. Sony isn't alone in this, Microsoft has been moving towards this for a long time, and Apple is probably the worst offender, but they are joined by most hardware vendors at this point. It's anti-consumer behavior. It probably shouldn't even be legal, but yet corporations can get away with it, so they continue to do it since it aligns with their best interests (barriers to competition).

slavik81 10y ago
How does it imply any sort of loss of ownership? They removed Linux support in an update. The update was not forced. You got the choice to install it or not. If you wanted to decline the update and keep using Linux, you could. All your existing games would continue working, too, but you couldn't play games released after the update (which require the newer firmware). Nor could you play online, as having all updates is a requirement of connectng to their online service. I have a 60GB PS3, but I agree with the grandparent that a legal obligation to maintain support indefinitely would set a bad precedent.
- gshulegaard 10y ago
  It's placing an artificial barrier on user software choices at the firmware level. There was no reason Linux couldn't run on a PS3, except Sony said so. Second, it wasn't optional for people, like me, who bought a PS3 after the update. Since I bought a console with the restriction, I don't remember exactly whether people could refuse the update. But your points, about not being able to play future games or playing online are also arbitrary restrictions which, while not outright preventing you from refusing the update, are designed to arbitrarily handicap you to the point that not updating is more of a hindrance than not.
  - slavik81 10y ago
    The entire console market is built on arbitrary restrictions. Running only signed code is a part of the business model of every console. Even when the PS3 supported Linux, there were arbitrary restrictions on access to the GPU to ensure it could not be a good gaming platform.
- peeters 10y ago
  > The update was not forced. You got the choice to install it or not. Some choice: > However, without updating, console owners couldn't connect to the PlayStation Network, play any games online, play any games or Blu-ray movies that required the new firmware, play any files kept on a media server, or download any future updates. If you buy a product on a claim that it performs N features, and a future update forces you to choose which subset of N features you would like to keep, the company has still failed on their claim.
  - slavik81 10y ago
    Those things also all happen when a platform is no longer supported. So, if Sony wanted to shut down their games division tomorrow, how many new games would you require they release for the PS4 and how long should they be required to keep running their servers? While I think there's an argument for being required to allow online access to those within warranty, it makes way more sense to just guarantee it plays the games it played when you got it. It's something that consumers could easily understand and depend on.
    - peeters 10y ago
      > Those things also all happen when a platform is no longer supported. That's not a given. Some of the features require no ongoing support, like playing media from a local server. > So, if Sony wanted to shut down their games division tomorrow (...) how long should they be required to keep running their servers? Leave the concrete numbers to the judges and juries. But if today I bought a $700 console from an authorized dealer, and tomorrow it was a brick, I'm pretty sure I'd have a case for getting a big chunk of that money back. If in a year it was mostly a brick, I'd expect less money back. Exact numbers in these cases come down to negotiation. All this is tangential of course because Sony didn't stop supporting the platform.
rayiner 10y ago
> It probably shouldn't even be legal, Why should it be illegal to sell a product on whatever terms you want? Sony got sued because they advertised one set of terms but changed them after the fact. That's reasonable. But it's not like Apple purports to do anything other than sell a locked down device. What's wrong with that?
- teacup50 10y ago
  > What's wrong with that? The undermining of private property rights comes to mind.
  - rayiner 10y ago
    A property right is a "bundle of sticks."[1] It's a bundle of things you're allowed to do with respect to a piece of property. It is wholly legitimate to sell bundles with a subset of all possible sticks. E.g. a railroad might keep the surface rights to some land, but sell the air rights so a building can be built over its tracks. Apple selling you a locked-down piece of hardware does not undermine your property rights. You get to freely exercise all the rights you purchased. Nothing is forcing you to buy a bundle of sticks that doesn't have the specific sticks you want. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundle_of_rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundle_of_rights.
    - teacup50 10y ago
      DRM claws back property rights; breaking it is illegal, regardless of whether its protecting something that you would otherwise have the legal right to do. I call bullshit. Up, down, right, left and center. So much bullshit.
- uxp 10y ago
  Since you brought up Apple... How is it that Apple was legally bound to sell the FaceTime app for Mac OS X, or the 802.11n update, because adding new features to an already sold product crossed some weird accounting issue, but Sony had to be sued when they removed an advertised feature and forced to compensate for the loss? The law doesn't make sense most of the time. http://forums.macrumors.com/threads/apple-launches-0-99-mac-facetime-app-on-mac-app-store.1101731/ http://forums.macrumors.com/threads/apple-launches-0-99-mac-... http://www.macrumors.com/2011/02/24/apples-0-99-facetime-charge-due-to-accounting-requirements/ http://www.macrumors.com/2011/02/24/apples-0-99-facetime-cha...

slavik81 10y ago

How does it imply any sort of loss of ownership? They removed Linux support in an update. The update was not forced. You got the choice to install it or not. If you wanted to decline the update and keep using Linux, you could. All your existing games would continue working, too, but you couldn't play games released after the update (which require the newer firmware). Nor could you play online, as having all updates is a requirement of connectng to their online service. I have a 60GB PS3, but I agree with the grandparent that a legal obligation to maintain support indefinitely would set a bad precedent.

gshulegaard 10y ago
It's placing an artificial barrier on user software choices at the firmware level. There was no reason Linux couldn't run on a PS3, except Sony said so. Second, it wasn't optional for people, like me, who bought a PS3 after the update. Since I bought a console with the restriction, I don't remember exactly whether people could refuse the update. But your points, about not being able to play future games or playing online are also arbitrary restrictions which, while not outright preventing you from refusing the update, are designed to arbitrarily handicap you to the point that not updating is more of a hindrance than not.
- slavik81 10y ago
  The entire console market is built on arbitrary restrictions. Running only signed code is a part of the business model of every console. Even when the PS3 supported Linux, there were arbitrary restrictions on access to the GPU to ensure it could not be a good gaming platform.
peeters 10y ago
> The update was not forced. You got the choice to install it or not. Some choice: > However, without updating, console owners couldn't connect to the PlayStation Network, play any games online, play any games or Blu-ray movies that required the new firmware, play any files kept on a media server, or download any future updates. If you buy a product on a claim that it performs N features, and a future update forces you to choose which subset of N features you would like to keep, the company has still failed on their claim.
- slavik81 10y ago
  Those things also all happen when a platform is no longer supported. So, if Sony wanted to shut down their games division tomorrow, how many new games would you require they release for the PS4 and how long should they be required to keep running their servers? While I think there's an argument for being required to allow online access to those within warranty, it makes way more sense to just guarantee it plays the games it played when you got it. It's something that consumers could easily understand and depend on.
  - peeters 10y ago
    > Those things also all happen when a platform is no longer supported. That's not a given. Some of the features require no ongoing support, like playing media from a local server. > So, if Sony wanted to shut down their games division tomorrow (...) how long should they be required to keep running their servers? Leave the concrete numbers to the judges and juries. But if today I bought a $700 console from an authorized dealer, and tomorrow it was a brick, I'm pretty sure I'd have a case for getting a big chunk of that money back. If in a year it was mostly a brick, I'd expect less money back. Exact numbers in these cases come down to negotiation. All this is tangential of course because Sony didn't stop supporting the platform.

rayiner 10y ago

> It probably shouldn't even be legal, Why should it be illegal to sell a product on whatever terms you want? Sony got sued because they advertised one set of terms but changed them after the fact. That's reasonable. But it's not like Apple purports to do anything other than sell a locked down device. What's wrong with that?

teacup50 10y ago
> What's wrong with that? The undermining of private property rights comes to mind.
- rayiner 10y ago
  A property right is a "bundle of sticks."[1] It's a bundle of things you're allowed to do with respect to a piece of property. It is wholly legitimate to sell bundles with a subset of all possible sticks. E.g. a railroad might keep the surface rights to some land, but sell the air rights so a building can be built over its tracks. Apple selling you a locked-down piece of hardware does not undermine your property rights. You get to freely exercise all the rights you purchased. Nothing is forcing you to buy a bundle of sticks that doesn't have the specific sticks you want. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundle_of_rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundle_of_rights.
  - teacup50 10y ago
    DRM claws back property rights; breaking it is illegal, regardless of whether its protecting something that you would otherwise have the legal right to do. I call bullshit. Up, down, right, left and center. So much bullshit.
uxp 10y ago
Since you brought up Apple... How is it that Apple was legally bound to sell the FaceTime app for Mac OS X, or the 802.11n update, because adding new features to an already sold product crossed some weird accounting issue, but Sony had to be sued when they removed an advertised feature and forced to compensate for the loss? The law doesn't make sense most of the time. http://forums.macrumors.com/threads/apple-launches-0-99-mac-facetime-app-on-mac-app-store.1101731/ http://forums.macrumors.com/threads/apple-launches-0-99-mac-... http://www.macrumors.com/2011/02/24/apples-0-99-facetime-charge-due-to-accounting-requirements/ http://www.macrumors.com/2011/02/24/apples-0-99-facetime-cha...