5 ms·

Not the first time a company has pushed an update that removes important features. To my knowledge the first high-profile instance of this was when Sony update

Not the first time a company has pushed an update that removes important features. To my knowledge the first high-profile instance of this was when Sony updated the PS3 to remove Linux support, which resulted in a successful class-action in the US. [0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OtherOS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OtherOS

frozenport 5y ago
Thats because Sony originally marketed OtherOS but then changed the functionality after the users had purchased the machines.
sschueller 5y ago
Successful for whom? The layers or the consumer? Sadly in many class action cases the "victims" get effectively nothing. The way class action is done in the US it only makes sense for the law firms. I have stacks of class action letters and in almost every case I get exactly zero...
- slantyyz 5y ago
  > I have stacks of class action letters and in almost every case I get exactly zero... I was pleasantly surprised when I got around $250 CAD from a Lenovo class action suit. I bought one of their consumer laptops that had a piece of crapware on it. It was big news when it happened. Otherwise, I normally get maybe $20 for the class actions that I sign up for.
  - nybble41 5y ago
    > Otherwise, I normally get maybe $20 for the class actions that I sign up for. Your area requires lawyers to solicit class members to sign up for class actions? Lucky! Around here you'll just be grouped into the class action without asking for consent. If you're lucky they'll mail you a notice about the suit on a postcard and let you "opt out" by locating a non-editable PDF of a form buried somewhere on their site, printing it & filling it in by hand, and sending it to their headquarters by certified mail at your own expense. (If you're less lucky you get to write up your own free-form opt-out letter and hope it meets their standards.) If you don't do this then you lose the ability to sue as an individual, or to refrain from being (ab)used to bully the defendant (and enrich the lawyers) in the event that you don't agree with the basis for the suit.
- colinmhayes 5y ago
  > Successful for whom? Consumers who don't want products to have features disappear. The main thing class action suites accomplish is punishing the offender so that potential offenders in the future think twice.
npteljes 5y ago
My pet feature removal case is when they pushed an update for a GTA that removed a good bunch of the original songs from the radio. The articles I found are for GTA IV but I'm certain that the issue was with an earlier version at first.
spiderice 5y ago
I feel like that was actually a fairly legitimate removal by Sony. Sony was selling the consoles at a loss in order to make money on the games. People were taking advantage by buying cheap Linux computers, never allowing Sony to recoup money from the initial sale. I don't have much sympathy for the people abusing the system in this particular case. Probably an unpopular opinion around here.
- cowpig 5y ago
  I see your definition of "legitimate" is "in their own best interest regardless of legal or moral legitimacy"
- openknot 5y ago
  >People were taking advantage >I don't have much sympathy for the people abusing the system I disagree with the premise that it's unethical to use a product I purchase and own from a for-profit company for a use that turned out not to be profitable for it. Note that it wasn't much of a hack; Sony sold consoles with the option to install another operating system from its menu [0]. Since the move was so unprofitable to it, Sony should not have offered the option to users in the first place. But since it happened, executives at Sony then just decided that it made business sense for Sony to disable the option in a firmware update. I just don't understand the framing where it's as if Sony did a favor for its customers who then "took advantage," when Sony just miscalculated a business policy to serve its own self-interest. [0] https://www.digitaltrends.com/gaming/sony-settles-over-install-other-os/ https://www.digitaltrends.com/gaming/sony-settles-over-insta...
  - renewiltord 5y ago
    Yep, they made a mistake supporting it. And they never will again.
    - wruza 5y ago
      They could not do that from the start, but they did, because they planned larger sales. Whether it turns out to be more profitable is their risk, not users. The important change is that people can't have an expectation (a risk) anymore which would turn out to be false a month after. Inability is a much, much lesser issue than a broken expectation.

frozenport 5y ago

Thats because Sony originally marketed OtherOS but then changed the functionality after the users had purchased the machines.

sschueller 5y ago

Successful for whom? The layers or the consumer? Sadly in many class action cases the "victims" get effectively nothing. The way class action is done in the US it only makes sense for the law firms. I have stacks of class action letters and in almost every case I get exactly zero...

slantyyz 5y ago
> I have stacks of class action letters and in almost every case I get exactly zero... I was pleasantly surprised when I got around $250 CAD from a Lenovo class action suit. I bought one of their consumer laptops that had a piece of crapware on it. It was big news when it happened. Otherwise, I normally get maybe $20 for the class actions that I sign up for.
- nybble41 5y ago
  > Otherwise, I normally get maybe $20 for the class actions that I sign up for. Your area requires lawyers to solicit class members to sign up for class actions? Lucky! Around here you'll just be grouped into the class action without asking for consent. If you're lucky they'll mail you a notice about the suit on a postcard and let you "opt out" by locating a non-editable PDF of a form buried somewhere on their site, printing it & filling it in by hand, and sending it to their headquarters by certified mail at your own expense. (If you're less lucky you get to write up your own free-form opt-out letter and hope it meets their standards.) If you don't do this then you lose the ability to sue as an individual, or to refrain from being (ab)used to bully the defendant (and enrich the lawyers) in the event that you don't agree with the basis for the suit.
colinmhayes 5y ago
> Successful for whom? Consumers who don't want products to have features disappear. The main thing class action suites accomplish is punishing the offender so that potential offenders in the future think twice.

npteljes 5y ago

My pet feature removal case is when they pushed an update for a GTA that removed a good bunch of the original songs from the radio. The articles I found are for GTA IV but I'm certain that the issue was with an earlier version at first.

spiderice 5y ago

I feel like that was actually a fairly legitimate removal by Sony. Sony was selling the consoles at a loss in order to make money on the games. People were taking advantage by buying cheap Linux computers, never allowing Sony to recoup money from the initial sale. I don't have much sympathy for the people abusing the system in this particular case. Probably an unpopular opinion around here.

cowpig 5y ago
I see your definition of "legitimate" is "in their own best interest regardless of legal or moral legitimacy"
openknot 5y ago
>People were taking advantage >I don't have much sympathy for the people abusing the system I disagree with the premise that it's unethical to use a product I purchase and own from a for-profit company for a use that turned out not to be profitable for it. Note that it wasn't much of a hack; Sony sold consoles with the option to install another operating system from its menu [0]. Since the move was so unprofitable to it, Sony should not have offered the option to users in the first place. But since it happened, executives at Sony then just decided that it made business sense for Sony to disable the option in a firmware update. I just don't understand the framing where it's as if Sony did a favor for its customers who then "took advantage," when Sony just miscalculated a business policy to serve its own self-interest. [0] https://www.digitaltrends.com/gaming/sony-settles-over-install-other-os/ https://www.digitaltrends.com/gaming/sony-settles-over-insta...
- renewiltord 5y ago
  Yep, they made a mistake supporting it. And they never will again.
  - wruza 5y ago
    They could not do that from the start, but they did, because they planned larger sales. Whether it turns out to be more profitable is their risk, not users. The important change is that people can't have an expectation (a risk) anymore which would turn out to be false a month after. Inability is a much, much lesser issue than a broken expectation.