| Dodece said: The irony about this argument is we will never know whether Anonymous would have succeeded or failed in what it was they were trying to do. Their strategy was eclipsed by the hackers that actually breached the network, and made Sony pull the service for three weeks. Maybe their modest attacks might have garnered some sympathy, and Sony may have decided to defuse the situation by changing their stance on alternate operating systems. Given how very stubborn Sony is that was really doubtful, but it was still possible. Everyone is forgetting in these debates that Sony did something that was wrong. They sold the PS3 as a Console/PC. Then after they had sold millions of them they decided unilaterally to remove the secondary feature. Making the argument that they had a choice doesn't negate the fact that they were having something stolen from them. They have every justification to be upset. They bought a dual purpose machine, and were promised the same service that everyone else was promised. Sony just decided to victimize a lot of innocent people to convenience themselves. What really makes it all so tragic is that these dual use consumers are part of how the PS3 survived to become viable in the marketplace. They were heavy among the early adopters. Without them the console might not have made it through the first year. The console was terribly close to being still born. So the current owners might in the end actually owe these guys big time. The same goes for Sony. So what if they threw a tantrum. Had they not been there in the first place to throw the tantrum the network might not be there today. Anyway it was a big blunder on the part of Sony to turn on them. They may not need hardcore early adopters in the here and now. However they will want them when the next console generation comes around, and if the next generation plays out like this generation. They will probably outright need technophiles to buy in early. While the majority of them will not thinking back to how Sony stole from them the last time around. |
you see this is what happens when you say anything to justify what the hackers did - you post nonsense... sony sold ther console originally at a loss of over $100 per console the early adopters you speak of were actually costing sony loads of money
then theres also the other thing you're saying about "sold the PS3 as a Console/PC" no they didn't they never advertised the linux feature it was simply a bonus that users could use if they say fit
furthermore sony did not break into people houses and force them to take off linux they were faced with 2 options either keep linux and forfiet access to any newer versions of sony's software and access to their network or give up linux for continued use of sony's services
what people like you fail to understand is that yes you own your console and the software loaded on it when you bought it but sony owns their network and software updates provided for users ( software updates needed to play newer games ) therefore the bottomline is that to use sony's software and network you must abide by conditions they put forth
if anybody is to blame for what happen its geohot
here's a history lesson for you ( taken from http://gamercrave.com/ps3-hacker-geohot-on-lost-linux-support-im-sorry/2349/ ) :
On Sunday, Sony announced that it the next Playstation 3 firmware update will cut off “Other OS” support, which allowed users to install Linux distributions on the console. Effective April 1, PS3 Linux users will have to back up their data and wave goodbye to the feature or avoid the update and sacrifice online play and other features. Sony has only pinned the change on “security concerns,” but hacker George “Geohot” Hotz, who released the first-ever PS3 hack earlier this year (preceded by several high-profile iPhone jailbreaks), which could ultimately allow piracy or other nefarious uses of the consoles, believes he played a role:
First off, I want to apologize to all the people who use Linux on their PS3. Before releasing, I weighed the pros and cons, and considered the possibility of an impact on OtherOS support. My logic was this. OtherOS support had already been removed from the Slim … The builders had apparently no intention of including it in future products. So for the purposes of openness why not release?
the idiot felt so guilty for what he did that he even felt the need to apologise for it
