• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Sony being sued over Linux removal?

SamBishop

Banned
missile said:
@SamBishop: Well, I would like to go with you in all the details about why,
what, and whatnot, but that's almost impossible. xD I advice you to read
some of my conversations I had with patsu over at the thread called; 'PS3
Firmware Update 3.21 of preventing piracy by removing Linux
', where I've
written various (long) posts about all that stuff. Esp. read my first post.


It appears to me that you want to judge the value of any outcome of the
OtherOS, right? If so, by what means? What is your measure? Profit? Or games
programed per year under the OtherOS?
Many people who have used (and still use) PS3 Linux have gathered a lot of
knowledge and insights, esp. those who have tinkered around with the hardware.
Let me ask you; is knowledge a reasonable value for you? How do you judge that
someone has implemented a matrix-times-matrix multiplication (the so called
4kx4k SGEMM kernel) on the Cell processor performing at 99% of its
peak-peformance (even more efficient than IBMs own implementation), showing
that Cell's architecture with its parallel working DMA engines is actually
superior to any other architecture in existence within this regard? (Larrabee
clocked at 81%). Is this a reasonable outcome for you -- despite it does not
translate straight into ca$h, video games, or flashy pictures?

But to give you a ca$h and video game example; do you know Lingers in Shadows
from Plastic? Guess what Plastic did before the public became aware of them? Do
you know .deTuned from Farbrausch? Guess what Farbrausch did before the
public become aware of them?
Well man, it's not like that the vast majority that have any use for the
OtherOS jumps over here and tell each and everyone what they do with Linux
on the PS3.

So if you follow no interest in any technical aspect of the PS3, i.e. in
operating systems, in new processor architectures, in embedded systems, and
in programming such systems, then the OtherOS feature is not for you. If you
just wanna watch your favorite YouTube videos or play you favorite flash
games, go use a PC.

The OtherOS feature was never target to the average gamer, it was target to
all the computer programming hobbyists and enthusiasts. With the OtherOS
feature Sony has followed a long tradition in supporting all those enthusiasts
starting back in 1997 on the PS1 with Net Yaroze followed by the PS2 Linux Kit
in 2002 and the OtherOS in 2006/7 for the PS3.


It was gimped from the start? mkey.
The hypervisor per se has nothing to do with the RSX. A hypervisor is a
software that virtualizes system resources and controls access to the
hardware. One can have full access to the RSX while a hypervisor is
running.


And that's the reason I highlight outside last post. You obviously don't know
the inner workings of the PS3 under the OtherOS (the hypervisor) and try
somehow to downplay the usefulness of the OtherOS feature. Why? At best you
can say; some people may find this feature (the OtherOS coupled with Linux)
pretty useful, but i don't have any use for it.

Just to let you know, all of the 256MB of video memory can be used under PS3
Linux. So from your perspective I have suddenly the double amount of memory
at my disposal. Well, I'm awesome! ;)


Things would be different (more flourish) with a fully addressable RSX, no
doubt about it! However, this doesn't diminishes the value of the OtherOS,
i.e. of Linux on the Playstation 3, on any global scale.

Sorry it's taken me so long to get back to this thread, work has been kinda nuts.

First of all, thank you for responding. This is the kind of discussion I really wanted to drum up with my post and I really can't thank you enough for breaking down that wall o' text with responses. I'll try to respond to them in kind, though, I'll do it by way of your individual points without quoting 'em. Hopefully that doesn't rub anyone the wrong way.

For the first point, I was looking for pure application examples of things. XBMC grew out of having full access, by way of modding or softmodding, to the whole of what the Xbox could do (as I understand it, I'm happy again to be corrected) because it was effectively a really well-boxed PC. The CPU could be used, as it was based off a readily-available Pentium chip, to do stuff people wanted -- namely rendering video with a really slick wrapper and the built-in hard drive. I have no idea of what came out of having the OtherOS available to coders to make stuff and I'd love to know if anything new or PS3-centric that could be carried on was ever made.

Again, I was way out of the loop on that scene, but I was hoping that something in the few years it was available made for something uniquely PS3-oriented, that's all. I measure absolutely nothing; commercial success is actually the opposite of what I'm curious about, I'm just looking to see if there were long-term projects that panned out. Apps, games, anything. I have little doubt that being able to plumb some measure of what CELL as a computing environment could offer to future endeavors might yield something new and interesting, I just wanted to see that bear fruit as an actual program or application. I really do feel the need to make it clear that I'm not attacking anything. I just wanted to know if anything came of having stuff like YDL or other OSes run in the cramped environment that Sony allowed, nothing more.

And yes, to answer your question, I've been well aware of the demoscene and have been in utter awe of what they've been able to do over the years -- with far more limited setups. Nothing geeks me out as seeing a microcontroller pumping out complex music, visuals and greets. Nothing. The guys that are able to do that -- from Farbrausch to Plastic to all the crazy stuff that comes out of Breakpoint is held in my mind to be the same kind exploratory wonder as any of our space programs. It's a feat of absolute metal-level tinkering that most of us can only watch as it spirals out from a few kilobytes to something magical on "ancient" hardware. But I'm dorking out a bit here, sorry.

---

The hypervisor absolutely had nothing to do with locking off the RSX on a total hardware availability level, but I was under the impression that it would open up security risks for whatever reason. Thus, it was locked off, and with it half the memory of the system and any ability to tap into the GPUs power. It was absolutely gimped, as an entire chunk of the memory and the rendering power was likewise walled off for people trying to tap the full computing might of the PS3.

I honestly had no idea the full 512MB of RAM was available to everyone under OtherOS, which is awesome. I was under the impression that because the RSX was effectively locked off, it meant no use of any of its resources. The fact that apparently all of that memory was available is fantastic.

Again, I feel it's important to make it clear (and sorry for the bold) I think it's wonderful that there was a Linux PS3 community and that there were inroads made to allow full access to at least all of the memory. I promise you, I'm not attacking anyone and I'm simply looking for clarification on what I thought was the situation. That's precisely why I was looking to find out if anything had come of being able to run the software on the system, but I fully admit it's coming from a place of looking for stuff where there were real-world applications. XBMC was mentioned purely because that's arguably the most impressive reworking of the Xbox hardware into something that's become a must-have app. The PS3 is insanely powerful for crunching numbers and chewing through HD streams -- in fact that's kinda what the chip does best as I understand it.

Please, please don't misunderstand. I want to know what came of OtherOS, but in real-world terms that folks that never used it could understand. Were there PS3-centric programs that normal folks could use? Were there games or projects that were specific to the CELL architecture? This is the kind of stuff that might help those looking outside in to understand the rage.

That's it, I promise. Otherwise, it makes it seem like a lot of huffing and puffing from a minority that I know doesn't represent the OOS community. Hope that clears things up.
 

missile

Member
SamBishop said:
... First of all, thank you for responding. This is the kind of discussion I really wanted to drum up with my post and I really can't thank you enough for breaking down that wall o' text with responses. ...
No problem.

SamBishop said:
... For the first point, I was looking for pure application examples of things. XBMC grew out of having full access, by way of modding or softmodding, to the whole of what the Xbox could do (as I understand it, I'm happy again to be corrected) because it was effectively a really well-boxed PC. The CPU could be used, as it was based off a readily-available Pentium chip, to do stuff people wanted -- namely rendering video with a really slick wrapper and the built-in hard drive. I have no idea of what came out of having the OtherOS available to coders to make stuff and I'd love to know if anything new or PS3-centric that could be carried on was ever made. ...
What about XBMC Running On PS3?

Well, the problem with XBMC on PS3 is essentially that it is build around x86
and needs 3d hardware acceleration. Just because XBMC is open source and runs
on Linux doesn't say it will run on PS3 Linux out of the box. One has to get
rid of all the x86 dependencies and target the project to a PowerPC processor
(the PPU within the Cell processor), which was done recently. However, without
3d acceleration everything will be slow. There is no OpenGL graphics hardware
acceleration for the PS3, since the 3d part of the RSX is locked down. Hence,
OpenGL will fall back to software rendering. And as you can imagine,
performance will suffer. But wait!
Can't the SPEs be used to speed things up? Yes, they can be used. There is
a Mesa driver (Mesa := an open source hardware-independent implementation
of OpenGL) out there utilizing a backend called Gallium tailored to the
Cell processor that processes parts of OpenGL's rendering pipeline, esp.
the rasterizer, on the SPEs in parallel to speed up OpenGL programs.
Now you can count one and one together. Fingers crossed!

As you can see, there are people out there doing stuff with the OtherOS
leading to applications even useful for the average gamer. But in general,
things are moving slowly because the OtherOS was never a friendly environment
for the average PC (graphics) programmer to begin with. The absence of any
graphics acceleration and all the distributed SPEs with its (powerful) DMA
engines have made the PS3 a pretty hostile environment for most of them.
Ask Valve!

Anyway. Another issue is video acceleration. Programming video-coding
algorithms in parallel for the SPEs isn't an easy task. Nobody pays anything
to foster such things, hence it takes time until a suitable implementation is
up. IBM has implemented an H.264/AVC codec for the Cell processor able to
decode an 18Mbit/s video stream on only one SPE! There is a paper about it,
but IBM never released the code. Some people have worked on a media lib
for the PS3 (read my posts from the other thread) and similar projects, but
most of these projects were put on hold (read; closed) once it was known
that the Slim won't feature the OtherOS. :(

For the sake of completeness,
here is another very interesting project similar to XBMC on the PS3; Megabox.

SamBishop said:
... And yes, to answer your question, I've been well aware of the demoscene and have been in utter awe of what they've been able to do over the years -- with far more limited setups. Nothing geeks me out as seeing a microcontroller pumping out complex music, visuals and greets. Nothing. ...
Same over here! But unfortunately, the demoscene never made it over to the
PS3. The dependence on graphics acceleration these days is startling!

An old-skool kid (osk) asks a computer graphics student (cgs) ...

osk: Can you raster a line on the screen?
cgs: Sure!
glBegin(GL_LINE);
glVertex2i(100,100);
glVertex2i(200,200);
glEnd();​
osk: Thx.
cgs: Hmm...?

SamBishop said:
... Please, please don't misunderstand. I want to know what came of OtherOS, but in real-world terms that folks that never used it could understand. Were there PS3-centric programs that normal folks could use? Were there games or projects that were specific to the CELL architecture? This is the kind of stuff that might help those looking outside in to understand the rage. ...
Don't expect too much, mate. Those using the OtherOS aren't paid by Sony.
And like I said; for computer programming hobbyists and enthusiasts.
 

SamBishop

Banned
missile said:
What about XBMC Running On PS3?

Well, the problem with XBMC on PS3 is essentially that it is build around x86
and needs 3d hardware acceleration. Just because XBMC is open source and runs
on Linux doesn't say it will run on PS3 Linux out of the box. One has to get
rid of all the x86 dependencies and target the project to a PowerPC processor
(the PPU within the Cell processor), which was done recently. However, without
3d acceleration everything will be slow. There is no OpenGL graphics hardware
acceleration for the PS3, since the 3d part of the RSX is locked down. Hence,
OpenGL will fall back to software rendering. And as you can imagine,
performance will suffer. But wait!
Can't the SPEs be used to speed things up? Yes, they can be used. There is
a Mesa driver (Mesa := an open source hardware-independent implementation
of OpenGL) out there utilizing a backend called Gallium tailored to the
Cell processor that processes parts of OpenGL's rendering pipeline, esp.
the rasterizer, on the SPEs in parallel to speed up OpenGL programs.
Now you can count one and one together. Fingers crossed!

As you can see, there are people out there doing stuff with the OtherOS
leading to applications even useful for the average gamer. But in general,
things are moving slowly because the OtherOS was never a friendly environment
for the average PC (graphics) programmer to begin with. The absence of any
graphics acceleration and all the distributed SPEs with its (powerful) DMA
engines have made the PS3 a pretty hostile environment for most of them.
Ask Valve!

Anyway. Another issue is video acceleration. Programming video-coding
algorithms in parallel for the SPEs isn't an easy task. Nobody pays anything
to foster such things, hence it takes time until a suitable implementation is
up. IBM has implemented an H.264/AVC codec for the Cell processor able to
decode an 18Mbit/s video stream on only one SPE! There is a paper about it,
but IBM never released the code. Some people have worked on a media lib
for the PS3 (read my posts from the other thread) and similar projects, but
most of these projects were put on hold (read; closed) once it was known
that the Slim won't feature the OtherOS. :(

For the sake of completeness,
here is another very interesting project similar to XBMC on the PS3; Megabox.

I'm guessing this will probably be just us babbling at this point, but you've been so awesome about bringing up points that I do kinda want to keep this going. Sorry if it annoys anyone else that would rather bicker about stupid stuff.

My whole point from the start has been that OtherOS was a severely limited environment to make stuff in. Whereas others were able to use previous hardware (the Xbox is an awesome example) to really leverage the decoding power of the system, the PS3 was, from the start, meant to be a closed box. Sony never wanted people to really use the full breadth of the system, they were essentially offering Net Yaroze or the PS2 Linux Kit part and parcel with the system except they neglected to let those interested really have a run of the place. No hardware acceleration, no RSX. Ever.

Those media center attempts are a perfect example. CELL is designed -- some might say even too designed -- to decode video streams. The thing is a HD processing monster. It will happily, under full load, munch through raw HD in ways most processors could only dream of. It can decode stuff on the fly like nooooobody's bidnizz. But that's the problem; if you're not tapping the whole of the memory, it's stunted. It still needs somewhere to shunt all that data (unless, yet again, I'm misunderstanding) while it lets the SPUs basically do what they were designed to do.

I feel like OtherOS was never a viable environment. The CPU is ridiculously powerful and even made for the exact kind of stuff that I would have loved to see, but it was crippled by the hypervisor that would never let full access to everything in an unrestricted manner. It really was gimped. Intentionally. The work done to either circumvent or work with what was there never bore fruit, not in years because the system was actively working against those efforts. That's why I feel any dev efforts on the system were there to get around whatever blockades were put in place because of security reasons.

I'm sure I'm misinformed on this, but in terms of actual, tangible, usable results that came from OtherOS being offered, nothing on the level of XBMC was possible -- not on the level the system was capable of unrestrained. Sony made sure the system was locked down, and as such OtherOS never offered any huge breakthroughs as far as I know for those of us that might have tapped it were there a really viable way of doing things that can't be done via the XMB with some networking.

missile said:
Same over here! But unfortunately, the demoscene never made it over to the
PS3. The dependence on graphics acceleration these days is startling!

An old-skool kid (osk) asks a computer graphics student (cgs) ...

osk: Can you raster a line on the screen?
cgs: Sure!
glBegin(GL_LINE);
glVertex2i(100,100);
glVertex2i(200,200);
glEnd();​
osk: Thx.
cgs: Hmm...?

This made me smile so much. Thanks, dude.

missile said:
Don't expect too much, mate. Those using the OtherOS aren't paid by Sony.
And like I said; for computer programming hobbyists and enthusiasts.

Nah, I never did. Well, that's not entirely true; I hoped (secretly) that full access to what the PS3 could do would be unlocked at some point, but that would have likely meant 99% would have used it to play ISOs instead of really showing Sony up in terms of what that system could do with all that raw video processing power. Hell, or even just what could be done with OpenGL in a totally different environment. Alas, that probably wasn't going to happen, and now it never well. Not unless Sony actually opens the system up.

That was my whole point all along, though. Had we seen some major gains in harnessing the power of the system in a way consumers that opted to use OtherOS could clean from just installing a distro or something, I could understand the rage. As it stands now, though, it's basically Sony taking something away and I see it as people using that to rage against 'em for a feature that never reaped any benefits in the years it was around -- and that was entirely Sony's idea from the the start. The Hypervisor is a damned impressive bit of engineering.
 

missile

Member
@SamBishop: Sure, we would all love if the system becomes open in a way
everyone can go along with, but from Sony's end this doesn't seems possible
at the moment. In the end, the OtherOS was kind of a gift. No other major
company in the console market has ever done what Sony has done since the PS1,
to give people the possibility to tinker around with the innards of a very
advanced system! That's remarkable if you ask me.

I don't know what the future will hold for us, but I hope Sony can continue
its tradition. And personally I think it will go on. If you think about the
Hypervisor, it's concept (see one of my posts in the other thread) and stuff,
then you will come around that such a software is exactly built to utilize a
given hardware much more efficiently. A Hypervisor is not a software to annoy
people. Quite the contrary is true. It's really useful. The OtherOS was
actually the first large-scale test to test a Hypervisor out in the wild.
And it does pretty good! The PS3 hack isn't even the Hypervisor's fault (as
I've pointed out in the other thread), it was just a miss by Sony not given
the (hashed-) page table (HTAB) the attention it requires. If one glitches
the write of the invalid bit of an HTAB entry, then one of the most
critical system resources could be spoiled. The Hypervisor relies strongly on
the HTAB. The HTAB maps all of memory in the system. Once you have control
over the HTAB you can access each memory address. And if you read IBM's Book
III of the PowerPC architecture, then it becomes pretty clear that the fault
is at Sonys end. This issues could had been fixed with a software update.
But some of Sony's (new) authorities have decided otherwise.

Anyways. In the future we will see a lot more systems running a Hypervisor.
With a Hypervisor you can consolidate system resources! For example, in
medicine there is a computer for each and every software running. One can
combine many of theses computers into one, independent of the operating system
they are running on, since with a Hypervisor you can have multiple operating
systems running. A Hypervisor can be configured in a way to assign priorities
(up to realtime) to certain processing partition (logical processor partitions)
an operating system can run on. You won't believe it, but the GamesOS
(running PS3 Games) can run with Linux at the same time! It's 'just a matter'
of configuring the Hypervisor. However, it doesn't make much sense for the
PS3, since it's not viable to spend some of the limited memory resources to
another partition running. But the future may look differently.

SamBishop said:
... CELL is designed -- some might say even too designed -- to decode video streams. ...
Not really. The Cell processor was built to be able to utilize as many GFLOPS
as possible for a variety of different algorithms. The Cell processor is not
only a stream processor (like many GPUs are, i.e. SIMD arrays), it's a fully
flexible programmable system, a very powerful MIMD architecture. If you look
at it, Nvidia now has gone the same way with its Fermi architecture. Just try
to implement a collision detection system on a general GPU. GFLOPS mean
nothing if you can't address them properly. Many sophisticated algorithms need
dynamic (non-linear) data-structures to work efficiently. And this is where
Cell kicks in. The SPEs are fully programmable and are fast and efficient.
Just read the latest comments on how most developers (% Valve) now love
them after they have realized their potential. Decoding HD streams is a
simple operation for Cell and most GPU.

SamBishop said:
... I feel like OtherOS was never a viable environment. The CPU is ridiculously powerful and even made for the exact kind of stuff that I would have loved to see, but it was crippled by the hypervisor that would never let full access to everything in an unrestricted manner. It really was gimped. Intentionally. The work done to either circumvent or work with what was there never bore fruit, not in years because the system was actively working against those efforts. That's why I feel any dev efforts on the system were there to get around whatever blockades were put in place because of security reasons. ...
It depends. If we look at it, we knew from the start that the RSX was
disabled. So there is no point to argue about it. Many people have projected
the capabilities of the PS3 (the GameOS) 1:1 onto the OtherOS. But this
projection never was the identity mapping. There is a clear specification of
what the OtherOS is capable of and what system resources can be used.
Everything was known from the start. So why should I cry about something which
wasn't there after all?

SamBishop said:
... This made me smile so much. Thanks, dude. ...
I would bet that 9 out of 10 graduated students of computer science, major:
computer graphics, aren't able to raster a line nor are able to scan convert a
polygon on the blackboard. But they may tell you everything about Global
Illumination, Deferred Rendering, and how one graphics system is superior
over another one. ;)
Computer Graphics has changed since 1997 -- with the release of the Monster
3D. The only thing I can tell you is, that if the PS3 were released without
an RSX in 1997, just with the Cell processor and it's main memory, then many
would have started coding cool applications, demos, whatsoever -- in software
-- like on Amiga and on earlier VGA PCs (A000:0000, anyone?). So in a certain
sense, making a computer more easily to use has also lead to a lack of
understanding of important fundamental concepts. Some people may think that
graphics is only possible via OpenGL or DirectX. Such APIs are very important,
no question about that! But if people come around saying they can't program
graphics on PS3 under the OtherOS just because there is no API or hardware
acceleration, then they never knew about graphics to begin with!
And if you ask me, I don't really like the 4k and 64k demos on PC. I mean
it's very cool what one can pull out of just a few bytes, but it doesn't say
anything on how efficiently you have utilized the hardware. Would be cool to
have a demoscene doing stuff on just one SPE. An SPE is a small and very
efficient CPU on its own working out of 256KB of direct programmable memory
clocked at 3.2GHz. Hence, plenty of resources to code outstanding demos. And
you don't even need PS3 Linux to run a demo on a single SPE on your PS3. A
demo can likewise be installed and run as you do with the OtherOS bootloader.
However, such a scene never evolved for the reasons given above.

SamBishop said:
... Nah, I never did. Well, that's not entirely true; I hoped (secretly) that full access to what the PS3 could do would be unlocked at some point, but that would have likely meant 99% would have used it to play ISOs instead of really showing Sony up in terms of what that system could do with all that raw video processing power. Hell, or even just what could be done with OpenGL in a totally different environment. Alas, that probably wasn't going to happen, and now it never well. Not unless Sony actually opens the system up. ...
The degree between piracy and an open system is very small. But from a
mathematical point of view, I think this problem can be solved. Cryptography
has done major leaps within the past years. We now have fast and secure
methods (AES). And the PS3 / the Cell processor has implemented embedded
hardware security (hardware root-of-trust, etc.). The PS3 is secure since
three years now. That's a novelty for the whole industry! And this really
makes me confident that signed and unsigned code / systems / partitions can
live next to each other in the future. Hopefully! It would be a waste of
resources if a possible PS4 can't be used beyond games. And waiting until
Sony does implement a given feature can't be any solution. For example, I
use Opera 10.60 on PS3 Linux, which runs utterly fast and blows the integrated
PS3 browser out of the water like there is no tomorrow -- no kidding!
 

sensi97

Member
News about one of the lawsuits (Australia)

An Australian man who took Sony to court over the company’s decision to remove “Install Other OS” from the PS3 console has lost.

Gamer Michael Trebilcock had asked for AU$800 in compensation (the cost to rent a laptop for each day he was unable to use Linux on his PS3, plus fees), with a claim that the updated console could no longer be used as a computer. He explains that he believed a warning about the update, downloaded on April 1st, was just an April Fool’s joke.
[...]
He’s not alone in his quest – gamers across the US have launched class actions against the company over the same issue.

Unfortunately for Trebilcock, the Magistrates court heard that the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission cleared Sony of any wrongdoing regarding the upgrade, and the claim was dismissed. Mr. Trebilcock was not made to pay Sony‘s legal costs.
http://www.gamepron.com/news/2010/08/31/aussie-gamer-loses-ps3-court-case/

forum post from the guy involved (via slashdot)
 

onken

Member
the cost to rent a laptop for each day he was unable to use Linux on his PS3, plus fees

Maybe if he tried to go after something less fucking stupid he would have stood a better chance. Anyway, it's a shame. I hope this doesn't set future precedents about companies removing features as soon as they become inconvenient.
 

mclem

Member
sensi97 said:
Unfortunately for Trebilcock, the Magistrates court heard that the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission cleared Sony of any wrongdoing regarding the upgrade, and the claim was dismissed. Mr. Trebilcock was not made to pay Sony‘s legal costs.

Ignoring what the Magistrate's court said and this *specific* claim for a moment, it's the first I've heard of this ruling from the Competition and Consumer Commission; has there been any further writeup on this including the logic they used to come to this decision?
 

hirokazu

Member
mclem said:
Ignoring what the Magistrate's court said and this *specific* claim for a moment, it's the first I've heard of this ruling from the Competition and Consumer Commission; has there been any further writeup on this including the logic they used to come to this decision?
Yeah, that doesn't make any sense. However, I did find his reasoning that he thought the multiple warnings prior to upgrading were an April Fool's Joke to be a bit ludicrous. I wonder if this would've ended differently if he didn't upgrade and didn't make a stupid case.
 

mclem

Member
Yeah, this isn't *exactly* what I was expecting to see from a lawsuit, and I hope there's others which elaborate on the real issue here.

His lawsuit: "They tricked me into losing functionality!"

What I wanted to see tested: "They forced me into losing functionality!"

It does look like the mentioned Competition and Consumer Commission report does cover this, hence why I'd like more information about it.
 

Kittonwy

Banned
onken said:
Maybe if he tried to go after something less fucking stupid he would have stood a better chance. Anyway, it's a shame. I hope this doesn't set future precedents about companies removing features as soon as they become inconvenient.

I think fundamentally there is an issue with mandatory updates and compatibility with future games where you can't play future games without updating. Can the user be guaranteed the functionalities can never change? Can the user be guaranteed that the product will be compatible with all future software even without updating?

To retain current functionalities one might not want to update, the problem is that updating will inevitably remove the user's ability to do things a particular way even if a particular functionality is retained, should the user be guaranteed that he can always access a function in 3 steps instead of 4? Is the user interface not allowed to change? Can a person sue the console manufacturer for an update that force him to go through additional items on a menu? This is a broad impact on a console manufacturer's ability to update and tinker with the software of the product.
 

AndyD

aka andydumi
Kittonwy said:
I think fundamentally there is an issue with mandatory updates and compatibility with future games where you can't play future games without updating. Can the user be guaranteed the functionalities can never change? Can the user be guaranteed that the product will be compatible with all future software even without updating?

To retain current functionalities one might not want to update, the problem is that updating will inevitably remove the user's ability to do things a particular way even if a particular functionality is retained, should the user be guaranteed that he can always access a function in 3 steps instead of 4? Is the user interface not allowed to change? Can a person sue the console manufacturer for an update that force him to go through additional items on a menu? This is a broad impact on a console manufacturer's ability to update and tinker with the software of the product.

I think the answer is no to both of those. It would stifle competition and inovation and take us back to the pre internet days of everything is set once you buy it.

Would I buy a Wii, PS3, X360 at each of their launches if I knew there would be no future improvements at the guarantee that all software would work? No. Would I do the same with a TV, a cellphone, a computer, even a car? No. I want to know that if there are issues, they can be fixed easily and cheaply and conveniently for me. The consoles have improved leaps and bounds. My cellphone had its gps and mp3 capabilities expanded. My TV fixed an HDMI glitch via update. My car has an improved ABS system and gas mileage through updates. ANd other than the car, all those were done at my house, on my timetable with 0 expense.

Preventing updates would cause short lifespans of the product. PS3 this holiday. Then PS3.1 next holiday with its own games, then PS3.2 the next holiday and so forth. Forcing manufacturers not to update is a terrible idea.
 

3rdman

Member
http://ps3.ign.com/articles/112/1121709p1.html

Sony contends the plaintiffs' claims that the company advertised the Other OS feature the later removed it - depriving PS3 users of software features - is contradicted by the explicit terms stated in SCEA's written express warranty, the System Software License Agreement and the PSN Terms of Service.

"These contracts specifically provide PS3 purchasers with a license, not an ownership interest, in the software and in the use of the PSN, and provide that SCEA has the right to disable or alter software features or terminate or limit access to the PSN, including by issuing firmware updates," the motion reads. "Plaintiffs therefore cannot succeed in any of their claims because SCEA's alleged alteration/disablement of PS3 features including the Other OS, was entirely proper and authorized."

Dear Sony...Fuck you.

...More at the link.
 

Stinkles

Clothed, sober, cooperative
3rdman said:
http://ps3.ign.com/articles/112/1121709p1.html



Dear Sony...Fuck you.

...More at the link.
Sony is right that they have the contractual right and ability to do this but the phrasing that they somehow didn't advertise and then remove otheros is factually bizarre. Because they did advertise it and they did remove it. However the point remains, it is clearly stated in the tou that they can remove or alter anything they like.

I suspect it will get thrown out.
 

railGUN

Banned
Sony's motion also said the complaint fails to provide any mass media advertising campaign, statements by SCEA, or PS3 packaging that referenced the 'Other OS' feature.

"Instead, it includes a mix of quotes drawn from obscure articles and unrelated third party publications, and a smattering of out of context and incomplete references to a few pages of SCEA's website and user manual," Sony said.

and then...

Sony later referenced various message board postings from PS3 owners admitting they had "no idea that the PS3 even had an Other OS function or Linux functionality."

The company also cited numerous postings from owners who stated they "did not purchase the PS3 because of the Other OS feature and did not use it" and others saying they downloaded the update because "they did not care about the Other OS feature."

they referenced message board postings
 

Dai101

Banned
railGUN said:
and then...



they referenced message board postings

s0G8L.jpg
 

iapetus

Scary Euro Man
OuterWorldVoice said:
Sony is right that they have the contractual right and ability to do this but the phrasing that they somehow didn't advertise and then remove otheros is factually bizarre. Because they did advertise it and they did remove it. However the point remains, it is clearly stated in the tou that they can remove or alter anything they like.

I suspect it will get thrown out.

The issue is that they may not have the right to state that in a one-sided contract. There's precedent in some jurisdictions for these contracts to be invalid - not sure whether that applies to the US.

Ask yourself this, though: if it's that black and white, why are they desperately trying to lie and say they never advertised the feature in any way? It's such a weak case, and so clearly contradicted by the evidence that they surely wouldn't even be trying to do it if they didn't need to, would they?
 

hirokazu

Member
"Instead, it includes a mix of quotes drawn from obscure articles and unrelated third party publications, and a smattering of out of context and incomplete references to a few pages of SCEA's website and user manual," Sony said.
What the fuck? "Don't read our website or manuals, because, we we don't actual mean anything we say"?
 

onken

Member
hirokazu said:
What the fuck? "Don't read our website or manuals, because, we we don't actual mean anything we say"?

It's saying not to take incomplete or out of context references at face value, the statement makes perfect sense (though the sentence as a whole is a flat-out lie). What I find amazing is that from an article of this gravity, that is apparently the only thing you took away from it.
 

davepoobond

you can't put a price on sparks
Neuromancer said:
Yep, remember, you don't own that PS3. Just a license to it.


Hardly. They're saying we don't own the FIRMWARE, we own the hardware obv. You can do whatever you want with the PS3, fuck it for all they care. if you modified the firmware and started distributing it wouldnt mean that you owned the firmware because you bought a ps3.
 

hirokazu

Member
onken said:
It's saying not to take incomplete or out of context references at face value, the statement makes perfect sense (though the sentence as a whole is a flat-out lie). What I find amazing is that from an article of this gravity, that is apparently the only thing you took away from it.
The problem is, none of the quotes from their webpages or manuals have been taken out of context. They mean exactly what they say.
 
davepoobond said:
Hardly. They're saying we don't own the FIRMWARE, we own the hardware obv. You can do whatever you want with the PS3, fuck it for all they care. if you modified the firmware and started distributing it wouldnt mean that you owned the firmware because you bought a ps3.

Yes, but that's a fine line when the firmware determines the functionality of the device. No reasonably person would agree that Sony should have the right to determine post-purchase, that their PS3 is, in fact, just a $600 paperweight. The law does indeed need to determine what changes a company can legally make to functionality post-purchase, and "whatever it wants" is not an acceptable answer.
 
Top Bottom