Mama Robotnik said:
They took something that was no longer theirs, that had features A + B + C, then for reasons only beneficial to them, forced a change in that product and amputated feature C (with the token option to preserve it with the loss of mass functionality to the console).
Wrong. The only thing lost was access to PSN, a service which exists outside the box you bought and subject to its own independent terms and conditions. And that wasn't "lost" per se, access rights were simply suspended until the user complied with its terms of service.
The important thing is to consider what the implications would have been had the judgement gone the other way, essentially setting a precedent that once a software feature has been implemented, it cannot ever be removed without risking legal action by an outraged section of the userbase, no matter how small and unrepresentative they are of the whole.
This would be an unbelievably oppressive millstone around the necks of all software and hardware vendors, most likely resulting in hugely accelerated rates of obsolescence due to providers abandoning existing products in order to get a "clean slate" for their next iteration and taking the opportunity to charge consumers again for the next version.
Most importantly though, if you look at the situation rationally there are only a select few circumstances where a provider would ever consider removing existing functionality. Why weaken your value proposition unless the risk of keeping it outweighs it in your business plan? Especially when the far simpler option of simply dropping support and allowing the feature to simply fall into obscurity exists.
The logic of the argument that this decision offers a threat to consumer rights only works if you have a paranoid belief that the "corporations are out to get us". This is nonsense. They want to SELL us things, and removing popular features is not conducive to that goal.
The whole premise that this is some kind of gateway to calamity makes no sense; the removal of OtherOS was not an act of malice, it was done out of fear and a desire to protect the viability of the product and its associated services.
An unviable product is no good for anyone. And as that determination can only be made by the vendor, its up to them to make tough decisions.
The plain truth is that the removal of OtherOS was a non-issue for most users. Its loss doesn't seem to have had an adverse affect on PS3 sales, so maybe killing it was the right decision for their business. I guess we'll never know for sure.
What I am certain of though is that its a feature that they'll never implement again on one of their consoles. And that's a change of policy you can thank Hotz and co for.
