joeorc said:
but here is the POINT people could still refuse the update. yes that make's it where you loose the majority of it's function's , but you would still be able to keep Linux. Sony did not want Mod chipped PS3 access to the PSN. and It may still happen, but atleast they did something for their share holder's. you cannot tell me share holder's would not have wanted Sony to do something anything to prevent this. the point is if Geohot would have just used linux and not used a board shocker and than showed everyone how to do this, this pretty much allowed people to get the first step's of a Mod chip on the PS3. if he would have just stuck to Linux this would never of happened. at this point , while I like Linux, the hacking community did not have to go to the route that they know full well would lead to Piracy. Saying you don't condone Piracy , but yet show other people in great length how you did it and posting it across the internet is exactly like what happened to a certain book that got banned EVEN THOUIGH COPY'S ARE STILL FLOATING you may have heard of it the : Anarchist Cook Book THE POINT BEING Geohot may not condone Piracy, but he knew full well that what he would when released to the public would indeed lead to it, not only that but it would help Pirates not hinder them, he did not care about his effect it would have on Piracy. Sony took what action they needed to remove a security Risk. many People my not like it, but anyone can see that when people already had ideas for Mod chip's and GEOHOT's method already was used to Mod the PS3 already you could understand why Sony did this. like I stated Geohot could have used Linux to make HomeBrew without modding the hardware, but Geohot decided to do so and release his Hack, Sony mostlike did this in response to the Mod Chip bypass more than just doing this out of spite. but it's not like the Hacker's had to do this, He even stated this would lead to playing backup's of playstation 3 software.
|
The PS3 was advertised as having a set of features. Removing one of them later, or telling a consumer to choose between them (which is still effectively removing them), can still count as false advertising, regardless of the reason for doing it.
I can understand they don't want the system modded, but this could even speed up that process. Pissing off the hacking community is NEVER a good idea. I wouldn't be surprised if the normally docile, awesome hackers come out and and find other ways through with or without the other OS option. And, if this gets taken to court, and Sony loses, they could be ordered to restore the feature anyways.
So in a single move, they could bring up 2 bad results, instead of just taking a possible hit from piracy and move on. Not to mention, you would still need the bluray discs and burners, and the write speed isn't amazing, it's not like it's hassle or cost free to pirate.
Most companies act in manners to either minimize losses and maximize profits, but this is a big risk from the 3rd place console manufacturer, and they're increasing the range of possible losses.
But the main point is that this just stomps all over consumer rights. What if someone finds some kind of strange exploit through the use of blu-ray discs that make the PS3 easily hackable? And Sony's only course of action at that point is to remove blu-ray usage? Is that bad only because more people use it? Or is it fine, Sony would have to cover their tracks after all, who cares about consumer rights, they need to minimize losses. I know it's an extreme example, but I think the point there is important. How much a feature is used is unimportant, it was advertised, it should stay there.
