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

Forums - Sony Discussion - sony's illegal business practice!!!!!!!

yanamaster on 03 April 2010

Oh dear, uneducated sony fanboys. Go figure.

About that microsoft lawsuit for banning people frm xbox live, that was in America, where you basically don't give that much a damn about consumer rights, don't try to put the EU in the same position.



If i lose access to this profile as well....I'm done with this site.....You've been warned!!.....whoever you are...

Happy Wii60 user. Me and my family are a perfect example of where hardcore meets casual and together mutate into something awesome.

Around the Network
joeorc on 03 April 2010
slowmo said:
joeorc said:
thranx said:
emo_parker said:
What a waste of internet space this guy is..

Lets sue Microsoft for removing the old blade interface.

Lets sue Sony for removing the old crappy html PSN store.

You must not understand what this is about. It is about consumers getting what is advertised. Using other OS was advertised as someting the ps3 could do, and was touted as an attribute to the ps3. The blade interface was not, neither was the old psn store, both of which you have substitutes for mind you. This about something being taken away from a system that may have been the reason a person bought it. very different from what you said

AND IT STILL CAN!

if you choose not to update you can still use linux...yes or No?

if you choose not too do you still have the function of Linux..yes or no?

Has sony informed the Owner's of the Phat PS3 what they would loose access too before they decide to not update ..yes or no?

the point being is Sony is covered. it's still as advertised, with changes's to How OTHER OS FUNCTION WORK'S! it works prior to 3.21

before there was not CON's to using Linux. On the PS3, Now there is due to security concern's which Sony did tell the consumer before they released this update to be used or not used.

the point is how much does Linux mean to you

if its very important, than do not update. and you still get to keep Linux.

so sony is not forcing the consumer to update, you can choose not too therefore it's still work's as advertised.

Stop spinning and defending Sony, THEY ARE FORCING people to choose Other OS or potentially kill their PS3 for gaming.  This is forcing people to choose, therefor it is a forced decision.  Fair enough if you don't think its a big issue but the fact remains this is a mandatory update if you want PSN right now and in the future it will be mandatory for new games.  Pros and cons don't matter to a consumer, a feature that was present on their console when bought is being taken away, that is WRONG.

Im not spinning it. the very fact that your not being forced. it's up to you on how important Linux is, slomo while I do think it's a raw deal, It also is the choice of the consumer Sony is not outright deleteing it from anyone's PS3. Never mind the fact that you would loose access to PSN, or some Game's that would be the price now for running Linux on the PS3. The reason is because it's a security risk for PSN and mod chipped PS3's.

while I do think it's once again a bad deal , it's also something people would have to make the choice on their own.

Sony even stated what would happen , and alo if you would like to keep the function they told you not to update. therefor it's not

as people have been so quick to say:

mandatory

1 : containing or constituting a command : obligatory <the mandatory retirement age>
2 : of, by, relating to, or holding a League of Nations mandate

— man·da·tor·i·ly \-ˌtȯr-ə-lē\ adverb

mandate

1 : an authoritative command; especially : a formal order from a superior court or official to an inferior one
2 : an authorization to act given to a representative <accepted the mandate of the people>
3 a : an order or commission granted by the League of Nations to a member nation for the establishment of a responsible government over a former German colony or other conquered territory b : a mandated territory

obligatory

1 : binding in law or conscience
2 : relating to or enforcing an obligation <a writ obligatory>
3 : mandatory, required <obligatory military service>; also : so commonplace as to be a convention, fashion, or cliché <the obligatory death scene in opera>
4 : obligate 1

— oblig·a·to·ri·ly \ə-ˌbli-gə-ˈtȯr-ə-lē, ä- also ˌä-bli-gə-\ adverb

your not obligated, an your not mandated to update your PS3. therefore it is not 

mandatory

 




I AM BOLO

100% lover "nothing else matter's" after that...

ps:

Proud psOne/2/3/p owner.  I survived Aplcalyps3 and all I got was this lousy Signature.

Porcupine_I on 03 April 2010

Has anyone ever brought up the point that the Phat is a discontinued product?

 

Anyway, i'm going to sue unilever now, because the Axe-effect doesn't work as advertised !



“It appeared that there had even been demonstrations to thank Big Brother for raising the chocolate ration to twenty grams a week. And only yesterday, he reflected, it had been announced that the ration was to be reduced to twenty grams a week. Was it possible that they could swallow that, after only twenty-four hours? Yes, they swallowed it.”

- George Orwell, ‘1984’

fighter on 03 April 2010

Well... it's not easy going against the masses but here goes :


The OP is right, either their recent PSN moves are illegal since they contradict the advertising claims, either the claims are to be considered false.


It's not that important though.



slowmo on 03 April 2010
joeorc said:
slowmo said:
joeorc said:
thranx said:
emo_parker said:
What a waste of internet space this guy is..

Lets sue Microsoft for removing the old blade interface.

Lets sue Sony for removing the old crappy html PSN store.

You must not understand what this is about. It is about consumers getting what is advertised. Using other OS was advertised as someting the ps3 could do, and was touted as an attribute to the ps3. The blade interface was not, neither was the old psn store, both of which you have substitutes for mind you. This about something being taken away from a system that may have been the reason a person bought it. very different from what you said

AND IT STILL CAN!

if you choose not to update you can still use linux...yes or No?

if you choose not too do you still have the function of Linux..yes or no?

Has sony informed the Owner's of the Phat PS3 what they would loose access too before they decide to not update ..yes or no?

the point being is Sony is covered. it's still as advertised, with changes's to How OTHER OS FUNCTION WORK'S! it works prior to 3.21

before there was not CON's to using Linux. On the PS3, Now there is due to security concern's which Sony did tell the consumer before they released this update to be used or not used.

the point is how much does Linux mean to you

if its very important, than do not update. and you still get to keep Linux.

so sony is not forcing the consumer to update, you can choose not too therefore it's still work's as advertised.

Stop spinning and defending Sony, THEY ARE FORCING people to choose Other OS or potentially kill their PS3 for gaming.  This is forcing people to choose, therefor it is a forced decision.  Fair enough if you don't think its a big issue but the fact remains this is a mandatory update if you want PSN right now and in the future it will be mandatory for new games.  Pros and cons don't matter to a consumer, a feature that was present on their console when bought is being taken away, that is WRONG.

Im not spinning it. the very fact that your not being forced. it's up to you on how important Linux is, slomo while I do think it's a raw deal, It also is the choice of the consumer Sony is not outright deleteing it from anyone's PS3. Never mind the fact that you would loose access to PSN, or some Game's that would be the price now for running Linux on the PS3. The reason is because it's a security risk for PSN and mod chipped PS3's.

while I do think it's once again a bad deal , it's also something people would have to make the choice on their own

The best way to deal with this would have been to go a dual firmware route, this is where the PSN update kills Other OS but there is an option to download another version that still has functionality from Sony's website.  Using this method those who wanted to have other OS and gaming would have been kept happy while those sticking their head in the sand saying they don't care would not be bothered either.  There is no choice being given to the consumer, they either cripple their device for other OS or cripple it for PSN and evenually gaming, this isn't a choice!

You can easily roll back firmware on the PS3 so this isn't stopping the hackers, if the PS3 gets hacked there will be no issue rolling back to a firmware with Other OS so you could then hack your console.  This is hurting real consumers and not affecting hackers at all, as for modded PS3's on PSN I'm pretty sure the hardware hacks required would be detectable easily on PSN so the consoles could be banned.

Its like been given the chance to shoot yourself in the right arm or left arm, if you're right handed then the no brainer is to shoot your left arm, still doesn't mean you'd rather not be FORCED to shoot either arm at all. 

 

Edit - So if I want to connect to PSN this update isn't mandatory????  You're saying Sony are allowing people to connect without this update.  You're really scraping the barrel with definitions to try and offset a lost argument now.  By the way that is absolutely spinning.



Around the Network
Seihyouken on 03 April 2010
slowmo said:
joeorc said:
thranx said:
emo_parker said:
What a waste of internet space this guy is..

Lets sue Microsoft for removing the old blade interface.

Lets sue Sony for removing the old crappy html PSN store.

You must not understand what this is about. It is about consumers getting what is advertised. Using other OS was advertised as someting the ps3 could do, and was touted as an attribute to the ps3. The blade interface was not, neither was the old psn store, both of which you have substitutes for mind you. This about something being taken away from a system that may have been the reason a person bought it. very different from what you said

AND IT STILL CAN!

if you choose not to update you can still use linux...yes or No?

if you choose not too do you still have the function of Linux..yes or no?

Has sony informed the Owner's of the Phat PS3 what they would loose access too before they decide to not update ..yes or no?

the point being is Sony is covered. it's still as advertised, with changes's to How OTHER OS FUNCTION WORK'S! it works prior to 3.21

before there was not CON's to using Linux. On the PS3, Now there is due to security concern's which Sony did tell the consumer before they released this update to be used or not used.

the point is how much does Linux mean to you

if its very important, than do not update. and you still get to keep Linux.

so sony is not forcing the consumer to update, you can choose not too therefore it's still work's as advertised.

Stop spinning and defending Sony, THEY ARE FORCING people to choose Other OS or potentially kill their PS3 for gaming.  This is forcing people to choose, therefor it is a forced decision.  Fair enough if you don't think its a big issue but the fact remains this is a mandatory update if you want PSN right now and in the future it will be mandatory for new games.  Pros and cons don't matter to a consumer, a feature that was present on their console when bought is being taken away, that is WRONG.

I wouldn't say it's not wrong, but it has still yet to be shown that it's illegal which is what this topic is about.

The fact of the matter is, Sony is giving PS3 owners the choice between OtherOS and PSN and future games. Sony has the right to deny PSN to anyone they want. It's their service. There's the matter of "After-Market Modification" on Sony's part with this, but if taken to court, Sony need simply bring up that keeping the feature reduced their ability to run their business due to the threat of piracy and the court will likely take Sony's side.

Some people may cry false advertising, but it's only false advertising if Sony advertises a PS3 using OtherOS and PSN following the update. Any advertising that is done prior to the update is worthless because the circumstances of the device have changed.



deskpro2k3 on 03 April 2010



CPU: Ryzen 7950X
GPU: MSI 4090 SUPRIM X 24G
Motherboard: MSI MEG X670E GODLIKE
RAM: CORSAIR DOMINATOR PLATINUM 32GB DDR5
SSD: Kingston FURY Renegade 4TB
Gaming Console: PLAYSTATION 5
slowmo on 03 April 2010
Seihyouken said:
slowmo said:
joeorc said:
thranx said:
emo_parker said:
What a waste of internet space this guy is..

Lets sue Microsoft for removing the old blade interface.

Lets sue Sony for removing the old crappy html PSN store.

You must not understand what this is about. It is about consumers getting what is advertised. Using other OS was advertised as someting the ps3 could do, and was touted as an attribute to the ps3. The blade interface was not, neither was the old psn store, both of which you have substitutes for mind you. This about something being taken away from a system that may have been the reason a person bought it. very different from what you said

AND IT STILL CAN!

if you choose not to update you can still use linux...yes or No?

if you choose not too do you still have the function of Linux..yes or no?

Has sony informed the Owner's of the Phat PS3 what they would loose access too before they decide to not update ..yes or no?

the point being is Sony is covered. it's still as advertised, with changes's to How OTHER OS FUNCTION WORK'S! it works prior to 3.21

before there was not CON's to using Linux. On the PS3, Now there is due to security concern's which Sony did tell the consumer before they released this update to be used or not used.

the point is how much does Linux mean to you

if its very important, than do not update. and you still get to keep Linux.

so sony is not forcing the consumer to update, you can choose not too therefore it's still work's as advertised.

Stop spinning and defending Sony, THEY ARE FORCING people to choose Other OS or potentially kill their PS3 for gaming.  This is forcing people to choose, therefor it is a forced decision.  Fair enough if you don't think its a big issue but the fact remains this is a mandatory update if you want PSN right now and in the future it will be mandatory for new games.  Pros and cons don't matter to a consumer, a feature that was present on their console when bought is being taken away, that is WRONG.

I wouldn't say it's not wrong, but it has still yet to be shown that it's illegal which is what this topic is about.

The fact of the matter is, Sony is giving PS3 owners the choice between OtherOS and PSN and future games. Sony has the right to deny PSN to anyone they want. It's their service. There's the matter of "After-Market Modification" on Sony's part with this, but if taken to court, Sony need simply bring up that keeping the feature reduced their ability to run their business due to the threat of piracy and the court will likely take Sony's side.

Some people may cry false advertising, but it's only false advertising if Sony advertises a PS3 using OtherOS and PSN following the update. Any advertising that is done prior to the update is worthless because the circumstances of the device have changed.

I've not mentioned anything on legality, I happen to think Sony aren't stupid enough to break any laws with a update, still doesn't make it right from an ethics perspective.  I reported this thread as I happen to think the debate is a non issue and should have been in one of the other 2-3 threads already on this subject.  I'm merely highlighting that saying this update isn't being forced onto people is ridiculous, once this has been accepted as a fact I'll drop the subject.



Jicale on 03 April 2010

lol you guys/gals have to get over it, how many more threads are gonna be made about this. Go play some games and have fun >.>



RVDondaPC on 03 April 2010

For some reason I think they will have to prove that "other OS" was used as a major selling point and that customers were influenced by this selling point to make a purchase. Also they would have to prove that Sony knowingly used it as a selling point even when they had already planned to remove it. Other wise it would seem to be such a slippery slope that subsequent software updates for anything on any platform ever would all be deemed illegal.