| r505Matt said: That's essentially why some of us are annoyed/upset about this. If they can just start taking away features and get away with it, what's to stop them from taking away something we all actually care about? @joeorc, You have shown in numerous threads that you do not listen to reason on this topic. When a product no longer does what was advertised, that is grounds for false advertising (read and understand this before you move on, it's very important). I understand why Sony did what they did, and I'm pretty sure they thought this was the cheaper option in the end, but that doesn't make it legal. There are legitimate grounds for legal action. In the end, it depends on the decision of the court it is brought to. The only way I can see them getting away with it is if they can prove there is a serious security risk in the removed feature. They can't just make assumptions though, they'd pretty much have to "show their work" so to speak, and show exactly how it poses a security risk. If they do that, they can get away with it, but it would also reveal security flaws in their system that I'm not sure they want to reveal. This is also assuming a justice system that works, but that's a different matter altogether. Saying the update is optional is ridiculous (not to mention everything in life is optional, it's all semantics). The PS3 was advertised as having a set of features, and now people are forced to choose features. Either, keep the Other OS option, or be able to play/watch the newest games/movies and access PSN. Now, you get either PS3 with 1 set of features, or a PS3 with another set of features, but all of them were advertised. I expect the full package when I buy a product. If I bought a phone, and later found out I could keep either the camera, or access the internet, I'd be pretty pissed. How bout you? If you bought a product, and eventually had to choose between a few advertised features, wouldn't you be annoyed/angry/upset yourself? Just because it's not a feature you use or care about doesn't mean it's not important. This sets a dangerous precedent. Again, I reiterate, there are grounds for a false advertisement/bait and switch case. That does not mean that the courts will surely find Sony guilty of false advertisement, but they might, and I think there's a pretty good chance they could. But law is all about semantics and syntax, if you can twist it to your favor, or show legal precedent, you can get around almost anything. That said, I'm mostly talking of US law, I'm even more sure that Sony will get slammed by EU law over this. |
Well, like you said, it's all semantics. It's very easy to make the argument that there's no false advertising involved because at the time Sony advertised the other OS capability, the PS3 did have the function. As long as Sony stops advertising that from the minute that the firmware came out, they're not false advertising anything. Remember, Sony never advertised that capability would exist FOREVER and cannot be removed for the sake of security issues or improving the product, only that it is available at the time you buy the PS3 during the duration that they are advertising the capability. With any product, espcially software and hardware that get routine updates and patches, functionalities get changed, striped down, and even removed all the time. The PS3 is hardly the first and it will definitely not be the last. I don't see how any false advertising suit would be able to hold its ground in the court system.
