By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Sony Discussion - Sony Gets Other OS Class-Action Lawsuite Dismissed

fordy on 19 December 2011
LivingMetal said:


And what sort of conveniences would that be with the context of this thread?  And I didn't know you owned IP's installed on the PS3.  Care to enlighten us on those IP's?


Sony's conveniences with their process allows them to dictate how a consumer's PURCHASED hardware is run. Yes you have a choice, but in both situations you lose something. How exactly is that fair? To add to this, locking down hardware in order to combat piracy is a blatant intrusion on consumer property rights.

I never said anything about IPs. I'm talking about the hardware here. If Sony was handing out free PS3s on condition that they are not modified, then you wouldn't hear from me. But this is hardware that people have legitimately bought.



Around the Network
fordy on 19 December 2011
o_O.Q said:

"you're not understanding the broad scope here"

i would actually say you aren't as the reality is that only a very small minority of ps3 owners used or even knew about other os ( as it wasn't advertised )

 

"It's not just Sony who's guilty here, either"

exactly thats where you had me confused as no console so far ( to my knowledge ) has allowed the user to move the console between networks


"The only way that the Wii Vitality sensor would be anything like the OtherOS"

from my perspective if you're saying that hyping features like these sways customer interest then both are the same

My suspicions are confirmed, as you're only discussing in terms of OtherOS users, whereas I'm talking about the personal property rights of ALL consumers. And I don't give a shit if the OtherOS users are the majority or the minority. They're consumers, they're entitled to personal property rights on goods that they purchased, and no majority should be allowed to take that away.

It is possible that customer interest MAY have been swayed by the Wii vitality sensor, but show me someone who has purchased one and then got burned by Nintendo's backpedal. Pretty hard to do, considering the vitality sensor was not even released...



Icyedge on 19 December 2011

Why not take a reasonable stance everyone? Its not all black or all white.

Sony shoudnt remove the ability to play new PS3 games to "otherOS" users, thats sure, and those affected should ask for compensation. Many users have a valid logic here.

But, the feature was not a main feature, its use was extremely limited. Also, the person/group using it does not usually use their system to play games (server cluster). Its also necessary to place in perspective that Sony removed it in order to protect their system from pirates, not just for the sake of it. Many users also have a valid logic here.

I dont understand the dismissal of any critic towards Sony, but, I dont understand all the hating either.



fordy on 19 December 2011
Icyedge said:
Why not take a reasonable stance everyone? Its not all black or all white.

Sony shoudnt remove the ability to play new PS3 games to "otherOS" users, thats sure, and those affected should ask for compensation. Many users have a valid logic here.

But, the feature was not a main feature, its use was extremely limited. Also, the person/group using it does not usually use their system to play games (server cluster). Its also necessary to place in perspective that Sony removed it in order to protect their system from pirates, not just for the sake of it. Many users also have a valid logic here.

I dont understand the dismissal of any critic towards Sony, but, I dont understand all the hating either.

I like how you use "their system" both from a customer standpoint as well as Sony's. A purchased PS3 can no longer be classed as Sony's system.

Also, there is a strong argument towards whether Sony's excuse for removing OtherOS was valid or not. Think about it. A truly virtualised environment should have no idea of the Operating System that encompasses it. In other words, it SHOULD be truly secluded. How then did GeoHotz manage to break through then? The only answer to that is shoddy development of OtherOS security to begin with.



Icyedge on 19 December 2011
fordy said:
Icyedge said:
Why not take a reasonable stance everyone? Its not all black or all white.

Sony shoudnt remove the ability to play new PS3 games to "otherOS" users, thats sure, and those affected should ask for compensation. Many users have a valid logic here.

But, the feature was not a main feature, its use was extremely limited. Also, the person/group using it does not usually use their system to play games (server cluster). Its also necessary to place in perspective that Sony removed it in order to protect their system from pirates, not just for the sake of it. Many users also have a valid logic here.

I dont understand the dismissal of any critic towards Sony, but, I dont understand all the hating either.

I like how you use "their system" both from a customer standpoint as well as Sony's. A purchased PS3 can no longer be classed as Sony's system.

Also, there is a strong argument towards whether Sony's excuse for removing OtherOS was valid or not. Think about it. A truly virtualised environment should have no idea of the Operating System that encompasses it. In other words, it SHOULD be truly secluded. How then did GeoHotz manage to break through then? The only answer to that is shoddy development of OtherOS security to begin with.

Yes probably, but this doesnt change anything to the reality they were facing at that time. I completely agree that once it is in consumers hand, its not Sony's system anymore, I dont understand why you imply I meant it was Sony's system. Thats why im saying that affected users (those who wants to play games that has mandatory update) should receive compensation :).