Class action: SCEA removed PS3 Other OS to save money

so sony is a bunch of greedy people that hate their customers.
what else is new?

@1 Pretty much.

…and MS are a bunch of saints that are here on earth just for the sole purpose of making you happy? Dude, they’re a corporation, all of them are greedy to an extent.

That doesn’t explain why Sony removed it from the phat model, would explain the slim model but that was never advertised to have Other OS.
The only 2 reasons that I can think of why Sony removed it was either IBM threatened of offered a deal with them to do so or that hackers such as GeoHot who successfully managed to access closed off hardware like the GPU scared Sony into action.

( http://www.voguecatch.us )
Online Store,Get Name Brand Fashion From 12USD Now!

Lv,Gucci,Prada,Coach,Chanel Women sandal is $30

DG,JUICY,Lv,Gucci,Coach Hand-bag price is $35

Polo,Locaste,Levis,EdHardy,Bape,Christan Audigier AF,COOGI Tshirt price is $12
( http://www.voguecatch.us )

Jeans price is $34

Paypal accept,Door to Door services!
5 days arrive your home or you
( http://www.voguecatch.us )
ur friends’ adress by EMS,DHL,UPs
click my link under here!
@#$%^&*(@#$%^&*&^%$#@#$%^&

And this is why I’m predominantly a PC owner. It’s an open platform and it always will be, and I can’t have some uninformed suit deciding what I can or cannot do with it at any given time. Which is precisely what happened here. The only real irritation with this is that the PS3 makes for a nice, cheap server. (And one that can only improve now, thanks to the hackers, who continue to do Sony favours that Sony fail to recognise.)

Also, that’s really nonsense, Crysis. Firmware like that is version independent (‘phat’ or ‘slim’). The firmware they roll out for the older models is the same as the newer models, because the core hardware is the same. Therefore, to continue supporting something for the older models, they might as well do so for the newer ones too, since it’s the same bloody firmware. They pulled that feature to save on firmware dev costs.

This is what rose the ire of people who had every right to want to keep the feature that was advertised at point of sale, as a feature of the product they bought. It’s not a service, that, it’s a product. So Sony can’t legally pull something like that. This had nothing to do with hackers or IBM, this was all about Sony saving money. And in doing so, they invited the ire of hackers who felt that their rights were violated. Sony did a poor rocket jump there, shooting at their own feet and all.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again – the only people who’ve ever hurt Sony are Sony. There has been a bad string of management decisions in regards to the PS3, and I hope whomever is responsible for them is fired so that SCEA can find their pride again.

@1,2,and 3 you guys are funny. Did you even read the article? This didn’t say sony admitted to it. It states that they have to give a reason why they removed it. That every bullshit accusation that was originally protested was dismissed but this one. And that they have until the 28th to respond to said accusation. You guys are clearly just hating

It’s an accusation. They always sound damning if you assume they are true. #7 has his head on straight. Let’s get some facts before we judge one way or the other. Otherwise, “the fearmongerers win,” to take words from Mr. Hotz’ mouth.

#3 is why we can’t have nice things. This isn’t some odd zero-sum game of ethics accusations. Just because someone insulted Sony or MS doesn’t mean you automatically have to lodge the same complaint against their competitor in order to prevent some weird butt-hurt feelings.

This would be like someone lobbing an insult against ExxonMobil for an oil spill or somesuch and thinking a legitimate defense would be that Royal Dutch Shell also spilt oil.

Just out of curiosity, can anyone actually quote specifically where in US law it states that a company does not have a right to remove features of its software when she user agrees to update it of their own free will?

I mean, you did have to agree to update the firmware of your own free will. If you wanted to maintain the feature, you had the option of declining the firmware update.NO

“Sony’s actions are like a car manufacturer telling a buyer that it is going to remove the engine because it does not want to service the part anymore and then telling the consumer, ‘tough luck, we are not going to give you a breakrefund,’

No it isn’t. It isn’t anything like that at all. Its actually more like this:

“Sony’s actions are like a car manufacturer offering you completely free new parts for your car. Some of the parts are better and more reliable in most areas, but it might not be able to do everything your old car did, such as not be able to support a media player on your radio. You, as the consumer, can accept or refuse this offer, but we can’t guard all your old parts will be supported in the future, as we have simply choosen to discontinue them.”

#10: The only thing regarding that right is the EULA–the one by which every PSN user agreed that Sony can remove features like Other OS at its own discretion. If these supposed consumer rights are so important, why are consumers giving them away without batting an eye?

This kind of decadent thinking–this feeling of entitlement–is all too common. We sign away our rights and are surprised when companies act like we signed them away. We want protection from the law, but we are not willing to pay for it, act for it, or even speak for it until after we let others take advantage of us. We want the rights, but we can’t stand the idea of taking on responsibility for them.

Why don’t people grow up and realize that we need to assert our rights before we sign them away? We can’t have it both ways.

Cygnar you’re trying to explain things to inferior species of humans here called euros. They don’t get it and never will thats why #10 comes from a country that is poorer than somalia. What are you on your lunch break from mopping floors O’Connor. Your constant trolling during the day was not missed. Do us all a favor and stay on the grave yard shift as we all get our rest.

I am not a lawyer, but I think they are trying to sue for false advertising coming from Sony employing a “bait and switch” tactic. In other words, you advertise to sell one product (the bait) but then replace or exchange it with a different product. (the switch) Normally this happens at the retail shelf itself, but with digital media there is the interesting instance of being able to “enter your home” and switch your product.

And you can’t site that it is a “choice” to install the update, since it is really a Hobson’s Choice. In other words, you have a choice between one option and no other viable option. This is because if you elect to not update the PS3, you can no longer use its core features. Your choice is between having a PS3 or a hobbled computer. Another famous example is when Henry Ford said that you can have a Model-T in any color, as long as it’s black.

@11 Because that would require effort.

@12. Nobody cares about your juvenile ranting, TEA.

You’re like that annoying kid in school who always kept trying to be the centre of attention, but could never take a hint.

@13 It’s not a bait and switch in the slightest. The feature is available in the hardware you purchased. When you choose to update the firmware, that is a choice you made.

Your right to use PSN is a service, not a property. It is not part of the cost of your machine. They have every legal right to deny you access to it if you don’t update the software.

You want Other OS? Don’t update the firmware. It’s that simple.

@14 It is not enough to say you are just losing the “PSN Service”. By not being able to update the firmware, you lose access to: PSN specific features like voice chat, any game features that require PSN, the ability to play games or blu-ray discs that require features added after the 3.21 udate, the ability to play games and blu-ray discs that automatically install the update, the playback of DRM’d videos, the playback of copyrighted videos stored on an external media server, the abilty to re-download legitimately purchased digital games and you lose access to any future features provided by future updates.

This is why it is referred to as a Hobson’s Choice. You say they have every legal right to deny you access, but that isn’t actually true. Sony cannot arbitrarily create a new class to refuse service of a pre-advertised and sold product. This would be like if they suddenly said that people with the name “Dave” no longer get access to the PSN; only instead of “Dave”, the new class they created is “People who want to use a collateral service”.

@8 “Otherwise, “the fearmongerers win,” to take words from Mr. Hotz’ mouth.”

Nicely put. Apostrophe and everything.

@11 Again, perfectly sound reasoning and plainly stated. Total agreement and admiration.

Tell me, where might I read more of your fine work?

“the ability to play games or blu-ray discs that require features added after the 3.21 update” this. sure people would want the otherOS but I’m sure they bought the ps3 to play games. So if people want otherOS, they’re stuck playing old ps3 games? wow.

lies..all lies!

Sony are such a bully!
Constantly lying to the court and using excuses to gain the upper hand while Hotz is doing nothing but telling the truth!

Justice SHALL prevail and Sony will lose this court case!

How can you remove the OtherOS to save money!?
when was the last time they updated the OtherOS? oh yea never!

I can understand they removed the OtherOS from the ps3 slim to save money which is obvious because the price was also lowered.
But removing the OtherOS from older ps3 would not save money!

I wish Hotz lawyers copied all text Sony words from their blog and use it as evidence! Because Sony said they were removing the OtherOS for security adjustment. Now they are lying and the court would buy their lie.

@wulf
in pc, you are not allowed to run ghost drives.

Sony are being sued for this reason in Norway and Sweden, because it is illegal to remove a selling point from an item without compenstation to the buyer.

Here in the UK companies can get away with it because of our stupid laws. If they did it within 6 months, then we can get a full refund and keep the item in question, after that they don’t have to do anything and remove what they want at will.

@xino

Ghost drives? You mean something that has been ghosted via Symantec/Norton Ghost, Drive Image and other such pieces of legal software? Or another type of Ghost Drive like a VDrive which points to a directory and assigns it a drive letter? In all my years of working on PCs and Servers we have used these pieces of software without anyone asking us why we are using them.

#18, U got that right, now what? Does Sony gonna put back the Other OS, because they lied to costumers with a BS as “security reason”…

Other OS they put it in before they hits the market, no wonder student are pissed, a $599,- system that play games, and installing “linux” a nice cheap computer, where else you can buy… even you can install “windows 7″ im pretty sure it will run, if you make partitions on the HDD…

I’ve been reading George’s Blog & can confirm that he has good intentions, but despite this geniuses intentions, he’s clearly too arrogant to understand digital rights & the differences between services & products & why Sony wanted a closed system. Corporations have rights too & without them we would probably be in disarray because they wouldn’t be able to move forward technologically while being commercially successful.

In saying all this, I hope George & Sony settle somewhere in the middle, this kid doesn’t deserve to have his life ruined.

@20 & 18, Can you prove where Sony lied about the removal of Linux? These are just accusations with very little merit behind them.

@20
either bring back the OtherOS, give us back our farking money or compensate us.

Sony chose none and think they can do what ever the hell they want.
Installing linux isn’t just the only thing you can do on OtherOS, you can do various things and more than emulators. Such as using mozilla firefox. At least FF is better than the XMB browser:/

@23 “Sony chose none and think they can do what ever the hell they want.”

And people accepted an agreement allowing them to do that in advance.

@23, im not a student btw, but i understand to be as a student, for $599,- wich i paid for(motorstorm package), it’s a nice game-console, and if you’re a computer-geek, you should install Linux or Windows XP or Windows 7, forget Vista it’s a waste, you should have a killer-machine to print, work, game all in 1 system, i don’t see why Sony removed “other OS feature”, even what they called “security breach” or other BS whatever have in there mind, but now they have “geoHotz” on there @ss, and they will make Sony life living hell, with there magic stick…

I also understand Sony, want to protect there system, of “home-brew” or modifying anything on PS3 is wrong, but i think Homebrew is in every console, not only on PS3….

@TheWulf

Nice to read your post. You pretty much got it all right.

I wonder how or if something like this is going to impact the Hotz case.

I will say it again, sony was the first part to broke the original terms of agreement as soon as they took the Other S option from the phat PS3. plain and simple, they made a mistake and the consumers paid for it.

“they were losing money on every PS3 unit sold (due to poor decisions in the planning and design of the Cell chip as noted above and given the PS3′s extra features)”

Thats what i been stating before, that sony as a big corporation did a poor decision when they were planning the PS3, i mean a terrible job, all the deparments at sony and his investors approved it gave it the go ahead, and thats unaceptable for a big company like this, therefore the consumers paid for that mistake, because the cost of this application was part of the total price, that the consumers paid, and didnt received any compensation whatsoever, pretty much and act of thievery.

TheWulf and oldergamer, + one, nice read, and i agree completly.

@27 – But if the AGREEMENT that people have AGREED to is in place then that’s pretty much it. You’ve already declared your consent allowing them to do this.

Don’t AGREE to it? Then don’t agree to it!
Didn’t read the AGREEMENT? Then don’t agree to it!

The amount of effort and reasoning going into people’s arguments all to overlook this pretty crucial point and paint themselves the victim is becoming tragic.

Stop agreeing to stuff one day and then complaining about what you agreed to the next!

@24
what terms? didn’t Sony advertise PSN as part of the ps experience?
if I don’t accept the terms how the hell would I continue to experience the PSN?

Please use logic!

@30 We are using logic.

Goods and services are two very different things, and different laws apply to them.

When you use a service, you are signing a binding contract, and a company has every single right to deny you that service if you don’t accept it.

You paid for the console (goods) when you bought it in the store, not for access to PSN (services).

@30 Logic like this?:

Justice SHALL prevail and Sony will lose this court case!

How can you remove the OtherOS to save money!?
when was the last time they updated the OtherOS? oh yea never!

“if I don’t accept the terms how the hell would I continue to experience the PSN?”

Please tell me that was a rhetorical question. Please.

#29 i meant what is in the box, the features that came with the product, and for what i did paid for, thats and agreement, with all the things put in the booklets on the box too and in sonys website, so iam not contradicting myself i only stating that sony threw the first stone, and now they act like victims, because someone acted like them, come on

www playstation com/ps3-openplatform/

There is more to the PLAYSTATION®3 (PS3™) computer entertainment system than you may have assumed. In addition to playing games, watching movies, listening to music, and viewing photos, you can use the PS3™ system to run the Linux operating system.

@33 Yes, it is. And the firmware on the machine had the feature.

Should you choose to update the software, you are now making use of a service, and you are making an agreement regarding the nature of that service when doing so.

The removal of the feature was expressly stated before you selected the AGREE option.

And why do you keep linking that? It says this at the very top of the page:

“The Open Platform feature is not available on CECH-2000 series or later models of the PS3™ system.

On PS3™ system models sold earlier than the CECH-2000 series models, the Open Platform feature will not be available if the system software is updated to version 3.21 or later.

It seems to me that people just want an excuse to hate on Sony.

Mate, you’re making broad generalisations about a very specific thing. “What about my agreement!!?”. You want to be vague and general when it serves your side of the argument but very precise and specific when you’re taking the other side to task. Shit don’t work like that bro’. We’ve been here before. It’s clear that the argument you’re passionately arguing about is one you have still failed/refused to grasp at its most fundamental level.

#34, because that is what it saids till the other s removal, and that is what is bound to the purchase of the fat models

#35 that is not for me or for you to say, as you i expresing my opinions, eventually the people that read this site, will make their own opinions based on them,thats what i been stating the way i did, in order to have two sides of the same coin, if ups to the readers to decide ,not me nor you mate
Have a great day and nice weekend ok.

@36 And it is a feature, in box, in the phat model, and you have every right to it.

Until you make use of the PSN service, in which case you are bound by their EULA if you want to make us of it.

Again, people are just looking for an excuse to hate on Sony. I highly doubt any of you (though I’m sure there’ll probably be at least one exception) had any interest or use for this feature.

“It seems to me that people just want an excuse to hate on Sony.”
^^The truth^^

#38 and thats my friend was pretty much the act of theavery, they downgraded a device, that was not part of the original agreement that came with the box, is an after event in order to take a benefit from the consumers, one i didnt receive a compensation whatsoever. so is wrong on all levels.

@38
Yep. You buy the console, but Sony is just letting you use THEIR online service. You have no rights to PSN, no matter how much you paid for the PS3 itself. Same goes for any online system, MS are perfectly capable of banning you from LIVE for whatever reasons they see fit, as are Valve with STEAM.

People really dont seem to understand this, they honestly think they own PSN too because they own the console. Wrong. If you want to use features Sony doesnt approve of anymore or atall, you dont have the right to access their services anymore. SImple as.

It would be a bitch if you were relatively short on cash & the single reason that you bought the PS3 over a cheap computer or 360/Wii was because of it’s Gaming & Linux capability, then again I believe that the PS2 could use Linux too with some add-on or something.

#41 i see it too, but i see it also as a tool in order to take away a benefit, they know quite well that you cannot keep both applications with their oline service, it was a tool implemented in order to erase the original terms and agreements at the moment of the purchase, a one that came with the product and were advertised like that.

P.D By the way, sony did put the other s on the ps3, not me, they took it and i was not compensated by this, this application form part of the total cost of the product, that i did paid full price, not without it, why is so hard to understand that

@40 Yes, I guess it is thievery…

…if thievery consisted of someone walking up to you and politely ask “Hey, I’d like to take something from you, but I need you to sign this form here first, to allow me to do so. If you dont sign this, I won’t take it.”

Good lord.

The only way this could have been constituted as thievery is if they removed the feature without saying so. IT WAS STATED IN PLAIN SIGHT DURING THE FIRWARE UPDATE!

Sony sent their evil flying monkeys into my gaff at night and they did a firmware update when I was sleeping.

It’s not so bad, but those monkeys shit all over my Xbox too.

@42 It’s stated as a feature in any device whose installed firmware still possesses it.

It is not advertised as a feature in later units.

If someone bought a PS3 for Linux (which is perfectly legit) they should already know this. The would also be informed before updating the PS3′s software that this feature will be removed.

Putting this over here too, for the sake of not having to follow two threads on basicly the same subject.

I am also getting burnt out chatting about it. Some of you folks are about as sensible as a brick wall. And don’t listen as well, mind you lol. Kerplunk, imo your just about griefing. Not that it is a problem, I am sure you and a few others on your side of the sistuation would say the same about me. So live and let live I guess.

In the end we can all toss in our two cents, but it is up to the courts to rule on. My fear is that big money(Sony) often influence the courts outcome. I hope not.

Anyways my copied post from the other thread.

@Kerplunk

Nice try.

But what may sound reasonable to one person is utter BS to someone else. Each territory has a different interpretation of rights and the laws surrounding them. That is one thing that makes this discussion tough in this site. So many folks from so many different places.

At the crux of this is Sony claiming they can do whatever they want for whatever reasons they want. And the other side claiming that the EUA goes too far. Companies rights vs. consumers rights.

That’s the challenge. The courts of each territory will ultimately decide.

There are many cases where established laws have grown outdated and have been challenged and then amended. From conduct of biz to consumer protection.

Sure people will have different povs.

I am not for Sony in this one(wouldn’t be in favor of MS either if that were the case). I see this as a greedy move. A move to retain control. And one that steps on people’s rights. That’s my pov.

Also the idea that someone can just not click agree is asinine. The person buys the thing, brings it home, unpacks it … what are the chances that said person isn’t interested in using it? Why do you figure the EUA are always tiny print? Always long? Always use collage level vocab? Always filled with confusing wording? And almost always displayed just before all you have to do is click to use the thing you bought, brought home, and unpacked?

Its psychology. Designed for the average person to simply click past it. Tell me you read all the EUAs? For your Phone, websites, games, music, movies, marketplaces, etc etc? No one does. That’s why they do it in the fashion they do.

If said consumer looking to buy the PS3 for use of the OS, was told before purchase that Sony CAN remove that feature would they still buy it? Prolly, because they would reason that if the feature was currently in there, Sony would intend for it be used. Sony wouldn’t intend to remove it.

However if Sony told said consumer that they intended to remove the other OS to cut costs in a few months … would Sony still make a sale? No. And that is why people feel deceived.

It isn’t because they deserve it for not reading the EUA. That is stupid.

Let’s say said consumer did read the EUA, and decided that they didn’t want the thing. Where I live no store will accept it back. They will claim you used it(the PS3). You bought it, took it home, unboxed it, hooked it up, turned it on, set it up, then read something, and returned it to the store. That will fly like a lead balloon.

Whatever your pov, there is an issue that goes beyond some mostly ignorant posters on a website. That’s why I say the courts will decide.

As for Cygnar, sorry but yea, he sounds like a tool. Sony couldn’t have crafted a better statement themselves. Cygnar btw is(among other things) a name for a hacking program.

@46, But say you’re an online gamer or want games that force you to have a newer update, you’re forced to choose & that’s unfair, but that’s only an insignificant minority.

@47, “As for Cygnar, sorry but yea, he sounds like a tool”
But he does have a point, you have to be responsible for your own stupidity when it comes to signing anything, surely you wouldn’t skim through a legal document that you have to sign in person, but everybody ignores the digital ones.

http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-12-air-playstation-3s-supercomputer.html

Tell them the other OS is worthless and pointless

@48 Is it even possible to go back to the PS3 firmware if you install Linux? I honestly have no idea as to the answer of that one myself.