By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Lauster on 07 July 2017
Edit Thread
Pemalite said:
Lauster said:

Sony has its wrongs, I don't say otherwise but I think "anti-consumer" is not the good term because it's not an action desired or controlled by them, or else all companies are thus anti-consumers. Each of them can be (or is already) compromised.

I disagree. Sony had it's network vulnerable. It had users information stored vulnerably.
And that is contempt for it's userbase. It was unacceptable, a massive multi-billion dollar tech company should have known better.

Ok, so you miss my point... Unacceptable, yes of course ! Anti-consumer, no.

Definition of anti-consumer : improperly favoring the interests of businesses over the interests of consumers

Please explain me where were the interests of Sony in this attack.

 

Lauster said:

Maybe it could had been a 100% software-based BC (more than just the EE replaced with software for PAL version), but that was not the solution Sony chosen at this time. You said it yourself, they were pretty convinced by the success of their system ("too expensive for you ? Just get a second job !") and they had to react when they had to face reality. Maintain a top tier offer that already proved that it doesn't sell while you're bleeding money ? Well, good luck with that !
Your "if" and "could" aren't a solution too when you have to quickly react. But all of this is only conjectures, the most important for qualifying if it's anti-consumer or not is : What did consumers were expecting most ? a lower price or a feature 80%-90% of them have nothing to do ? hint : see the sales


That just an excuse. Not a solution. I never stated Sony should do *anything*. Just provided examples to reinforce the fact that there are solutions to excuses.
And if they do not provide adequate solutions, then they open themselves up for criticism. No need to be apologetic towards them.

I already had a PS2 and card readers, and I don't like to pay twice for the same thing. Thus, I were pleased by this solution. Yes, it is damaging that they stop the production of a version that could have interested some people, but that's not anti-consumer (moreover, they warned about the end of production and lessened its price for those who wanted it), and if you think they could have maintained the same offer with a lesser price, you're out of touch of this business.

Lauster said:

I don't make excuses for Sony

You have constantly made them in this discussion.

Come on, I think I showed fair and objective criticism toward Sony. I don't tell they are doing nothing wrong, and I don't tell that every points you mentionned are not bad. I tell you that it's not what we call anti-consumers practices.

And I would have said the same if you accuse Nintendo or Microsoft of anti-consumer practices by stoping one of their products for exemple. By the way, you haven't given anti-consumer practices of Nintendo that you mentioned.

Lauster said:

When you know your arm is gangrened, you cut your arm (and Linux was more a small toe than an arm for the majority of consumers, and I'm still generous).

Poor analogy.
If you can cure your arm that has gangrene, you try and cure it. Not cut it off.

Technology is also not biology.

Technology is not biology, and that's why there are techniques like analogy. Mine may be poor, but don't act like you have not grasped the idea, you're better than that.

So, let us remain pragmatic, where were the interests of Sony over the interests of consumers in this case ?