Why you should support the "Other OS" Lawsuits.

[mysterj]

I said most people don't use Linux, I have no data to support it but is safe to assume 95% of people who bought a fat ps3 don't use linux, even counting the ones using it for research.

5% of millions of people is a lot. Not to mention, it's the legal precedent that matters

If is precedent that matters why isn't something important like Live/Online support, 95% is extremely generous, I'd be surprised if 1% of people are remotely concerned about this, which is ~10,000 people for US, and ~triple that for the entire world.

 

[Danpascooch]

I said most people don't use Linux, I have no data to support it but is safe to assume 95% of people who bought a fat ps3 don't use linux, even counting the ones using it for research.

5% of millions of people is a lot. Not to mention, it's the legal precedent that matters

If is precedent that matters why isn't something important like Live/Online support

Wait.....what?

 

[mysterj]

Apparently there was a bug or something which made me quote wrong post, but I guess u didn't really my initial citation anyways seeing how you believed any company that only has 1 billion total asset can actually make expensive console investment that tend to lose money on its initial cycle.

Not going to blame you on misreading the Sony report though, since it is really hard to digest.

Ok, show me where on the form it ACTUALLY lists their total investments, because I definitely didn't read that incorrectly.

Remember that a company can easily have much more than 1 billion in physical and monetary property, yet still only have 1 billion in assets because of outstanding debts and obligations that are deducted.

No that's not how it works,
http://www.wikinvest.com/wiki/Sony
Under Business and Financial Metric, is 7.7 trillion yen for FY 2009. 90 yen=~1 USD, so is ~80 billion USD in revenue, I don't know why you think so highly of MacDonald that they would be 20x the size of a company that makes electronics, games, and motion picture, several of which are probably sitting around your house right now.

 

[Dexiro]

if Sony wins, then it is legal for companies to strip features you may actually care about in the future.

It depends how justified removing a particular feature is. What Sony did was probably the only feasible way to increase the security on the console, and i trust them enough not to go beserk claiming that removing the game playing feature increases security too.
For that matter i'm not entirely bothered about half the features my PS3 has, as long as it plays games and dvds ;D

I can't imagine any other companies i'd see in the same situation, but if they catch on and remove something worth the effort THEN i'll make a fuss.

I don't buy for a second that it was the only way, seems awfully convenient for Sony who loses money when groups mass buy PS3's for server clustering.

How often is there such a big security hole that a whole OS cannot be patched and must be eliminated as the only feasible option, hint: It's never happened.

I'm not convinced you know how this whole thing works. For a start the OS isn't provided by Sony, they can't possibly make the system secure enough to prevent any Linux variant, or even an OS that users have created themselves.
Not to mention how difficult and time consuming it would be to block up any potential misuse of an entire freaking OS.

I'm sure it would be possible, but only with a couple of years of development maybe. It's hardly something they could cook up in a week or 2.

 

[Danpascooch]

Apparently there was a bug or something which made me quote wrong post, but I guess u didn't really my initial citation anyways seeing how you believed any company that only has 1 billion total asset can actually make expensive console investment that tend to lose money on its initial cycle.

Not going to blame you on misreading the Sony report though, since it is really hard to digest.

Ok, show me where on the form it ACTUALLY lists their total investments, because I definitely didn't read that incorrectly.

Remember that a company can easily have much more than 1 billion in physical and monetary property, yet still only have 1 billion in assets because of outstanding debts and obligations that are deducted.

No that's not how it works,
http://www.wikinvest.com/wiki/Sony
Under Business and Financial Metric, is 7.7 trillion yen for FY 2009. 90 yen=~1 USD, so is ~80 billion USD in revenue, I don't know why you think so highly of MacDonald that they would be 20x the size of a company that makes electronics, games, and motion picture, several of which are probably sitting around your house right now.

That's not assets, that's revenue, of course they are going to have more revenue, what they sell is more expensive, but revenue does not equal net profit.


and revenue CERTAINLY does not equal assets.

Did I ever say I think highly of Mcdonalds? I just think they are a really big ass company is all, and they are a really big ass company.

 

[mysterj]

I said most people don't use Linux, I have no data to support it but is safe to assume 95% of people who bought a fat ps3 don't use linux, even counting the ones using it for research.

5% of millions of people is a lot. Not to mention, it's the legal precedent that matters

If is precedent that matters why isn't something important like Live/Online support

Wait.....what?

Remember when MS discontinued xbox live a while ago? And EA pulling online away from a bunch of games? Yeah they also falsely advertised for a feature that was no longer available, and they can do that because it says so in EULA, which apparently doesn't mean anything because the law comes first?
By this logic every software and hardware that ever discontinued its online support falsely advertised at some point.

 

[Danpascooch]

if Sony wins, then it is legal for companies to strip features you may actually care about in the future.

It depends how justified removing a particular feature is. What Sony did was probably the only feasible way to increase the security on the console, and i trust them enough not to go beserk claiming that removing the game playing feature increases security too.
For that matter i'm not entirely bothered about half the features my PS3 has, as long as it plays games and dvds ;D

I can't imagine any other companies i'd see in the same situation, but if they catch on and remove something worth the effort THEN i'll make a fuss.

I don't buy for a second that it was the only way, seems awfully convenient for Sony who loses money when groups mass buy PS3's for server clustering.

How often is there such a big security hole that a whole OS cannot be patched and must be eliminated as the only feasible option, hint: It's never happened.

I'm not convinced you know how this whole thing works. For a start the OS isn't provided by Sony, they can't possibly make the system secure enough to prevent any Linux variant, or even an OS that users have created themselves.
Not to mention how difficult and time consuming it would be to block up any potential misuse of an entire freaking OS.

I'm sure it would be possible, but only with a couple of years of development maybe. It's hardly something they could cook up in a week or 2.

Not patch the OS, patch how the OS interfaces with the online service, I realize that's not what I said, but that is what I meant to say, I do realize Linux is open source, and all Sony was offering was capability.

Still, at the very worst, they could have allowed people to keep Linux but not let them on PSN, but since they need to get the new firmware to play new PS3 games from now on, anyone who decides to keep Linux will no longer be able to play ANY future PS3 game OR Bluray movies, you can't possibly think THAT part was absolutely necessary.

 

[Danpascooch]

I said most people don't use Linux, I have no data to support it but is safe to assume 95% of people who bought a fat ps3 don't use linux, even counting the ones using it for research.

5% of millions of people is a lot. Not to mention, it's the legal precedent that matters

If is precedent that matters why isn't something important like Live/Online support

Wait.....what?

Remember when MS discontinued xbox live a while ago? And EA pulling online away from a bunch of games? Yeah they also falsely advertised for a feature that was no longer available, and they can do that because it says so in EULA, which apparently doesn't mean anything because the law comes first?
By this logic every software and hardware that ever discontinued its online support falsely advertised at some point.

Ah, I have heard this argument many times, here is the difference.

Xbox live was a SERVICE, and was paid by a subscription fee, therefore when it ended, nobody had paid for any more than they received, since it was a subscription. It also required regular upkeep from Microsoft.

Linux was a FEATURE, meaning it came with the PS3 when you bought it, and people payed fully for the ability to have it on their PS3 for as long as they had their PS3 and it required NO regular upkeep from Sony.

Service = regular upkeep + some form of pay-as-you-go

Feature = no regular upkeep (if they ignored it it would continue to exist) + pay once and own it forever.

Therefore when XBL ended people received what they paid for (a month of play for each month they paid for) but when Linux was pulled, people did NOT receive all that they had payed for (A console that has Linux as long as you still have the console)

Any company can choose to discontinue anything MOVING FORWARD, but they cannot go into the past and rip something off of a product somebody already paid fully for unless it is something they continually have to pour money into in order to allow for it's existence.

 

[mysterj]

Apparently there was a bug or something which made me quote wrong post, but I guess u didn't really my initial citation anyways seeing how you believed any company that only has 1 billion total asset can actually make expensive console investment that tend to lose money on its initial cycle.

Not going to blame you on misreading the Sony report though, since it is really hard to digest.

Ok, show me where on the form it ACTUALLY lists their total investments, because I definitely didn't read that incorrectly.

Remember that a company can easily have much more than 1 billion in physical and monetary property, yet still only have 1 billion in assets because of outstanding debts and obligations that are deducted.

No that's not how it works,
http://www.wikinvest.com/wiki/Sony
Under Business and Financial Metric, is 7.7 trillion yen for FY 2009. 90 yen=~1 USD, so is ~80 billion USD in revenue, I don't know why you think so highly of MacDonald that they would be 20x the size of a company that makes electronics, games, and motion picture, several of which are probably sitting around your house right now.

That's not assets, that's revenue, of course they are going to have more revenue, what they sell is more expensive, but revenue does not equal net profit.


and revenue CERTAINLY does not equal assets.

Did I ever say I think highly of Mcdonalds? I just think they are a really big ass company is all, and they are a really big ass company.

No you quoted 23 billion for MD which is clearly revenue, and asset ratio is ~the same.
If you don't believe me http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mickey_d#cite_note-metricOverview-1
I think 120 billion asset for sony 30 billion for MD, I think wikipedia has credential for at least this. Since both company release detail financial reports which aren't as hard to decipher as you think.

 

[Danpascooch]

Apparently there was a bug or something which made me quote wrong post, but I guess u didn't really my initial citation anyways seeing how you believed any company that only has 1 billion total asset can actually make expensive console investment that tend to lose money on its initial cycle.

Not going to blame you on misreading the Sony report though, since it is really hard to digest.

Ok, show me where on the form it ACTUALLY lists their total investments, because I definitely didn't read that incorrectly.

Remember that a company can easily have much more than 1 billion in physical and monetary property, yet still only have 1 billion in assets because of outstanding debts and obligations that are deducted.

No that's not how it works,
http://www.wikinvest.com/wiki/Sony
Under Business and Financial Metric, is 7.7 trillion yen for FY 2009. 90 yen=~1 USD, so is ~80 billion USD in revenue, I don't know why you think so highly of MacDonald that they would be 20x the size of a company that makes electronics, games, and motion picture, several of which are probably sitting around your house right now.

That's not assets, that's revenue, of course they are going to have more revenue, what they sell is more expensive, but revenue does not equal net profit.


and revenue CERTAINLY does not equal assets.

Did I ever say I think highly of Mcdonalds? I just think they are a really big ass company is all, and they are a really big ass company.

No you quoted 23 billion for MD which is clearly revenue, and asset ratio is ~the same.
If you don't believe me http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mickey_d#cite_note-metricOverview-1
I think 120 billion asset for sony 30 billion for MD, I think wikipedia has credential for at least this. Since both company release detail financial reports which aren't as hard to decipher as you think.

Actually you should probably look at equity, since that shows their balance after deducting debts.

That said, Sony still outweighs Mcdonalds.

It's not as if it's really important to the original argument of my thread, but you're right here, well done sir!

 

[Dexiro]

Still, at the very worst, they could have allowed people to keep Linux but not let them on PSN, but since they need to get the new firmware to play new PS3 games from now on, anyone who decides to keep Linux will no longer be able to play ANY future PS3 game OR Bluray movies, you can't possibly think THAT part was absolutely necessary.

Fair enough, i thought that was how it worked already. Are you sure not getting the firmware stops people from playing newer games, i've only heard about it stopping PSN access. Either way the people that seem most bothered about keeping Linux aren't using the PS3 for the games anyway

Whatever happens, I don't want hackers using it to fiddle with the PS3. It's such an innocent console, the psp was already ruined by hacking

 

[mysterj]

I said most people don't use Linux, I have no data to support it but is safe to assume 95% of people who bought a fat ps3 don't use linux, even counting the ones using it for research.

5% of millions of people is a lot. Not to mention, it's the legal precedent that matters

If is precedent that matters why isn't something important like Live/Online support

Wait.....what?

Remember when MS discontinued xbox live a while ago? And EA pulling online away from a bunch of games? Yeah they also falsely advertised for a feature that was no longer available, and they can do that because it says so in EULA, which apparently doesn't mean anything because the law comes first?
By this logic every software and hardware that ever discontinued its online support falsely advertised at some point.

Ah, I have heard this argument many times, here is the difference.

Xbox live was a SERVICE, and was paid by a subscription fee, therefore when it ended, nobody had paid for any more than they received, since it was a subscription. It also required regular upkeep from Microsoft.

Linux was a FEATURE, meaning it came with the PS3 when you bought it, and people payed fully for the ability to have it on their PS3 for as long as they had their PS3 and it required NO regular upkeep from Sony.

Service = regular upkeep + some form of pay-as-you-go

Feature = no regular upkeep (if they ignored it it would continue to exist) + pay once and own it forever.

Therefore when XBL ended people received what they paid for (a month of play for each month they paid for) but when Linux was pulled, people did NOT receive all that they had payed for (A console that has Linux as long as you still have the console)

Yeah except many softwares pulls online support too, which are clearly features not service by your definition?
And that should be same as the PSN support "feature"?
As for playing newer games, Sony never falsely advertised Killzone 3 with Linux at same time, so that argument is invalid.

 

[Danpascooch]

Still, at the very worst, they could have allowed people to keep Linux but not let them on PSN, but since they need to get the new firmware to play new PS3 games from now on, anyone who decides to keep Linux will no longer be able to play ANY future PS3 game OR Bluray movies, you can't possibly think THAT part was absolutely necessary.

Fair enough, i thought that was how it worked already. Are you sure not getting the firmware stops people from playing newer games, i've only heard about it stopping PSN access. Either way the people that seem most bothered about keeping Linux aren't using the PS3 for the games anyway

Whatever happens, I don't want hackers using it to fiddle with the PS3. It's such an innocent console, the psp was already ruined by hacking

New games require the newest firmware, so yes, when you insert it it will either say "you can't play this" or force the firmware update from the disc (much like putting a new game into a PSP that wasn't updated in a long time)

People aren't seeing the effects of this yet because games are completed months before they are released, so they still have the Pre-deadlinux firmware, however, any games that complete DEVELOPMENT from now on will require the newest firmware that killed Linux.

If it was just PSN or Linux, I'd be pissed, but I could almost understand, but when they remove all new PS3 games, Bluray movies, and PSN, they are removing as much as they can without basically bricking your unit.

 

[Danpascooch]

I said most people don't use Linux, I have no data to support it but is safe to assume 95% of people who bought a fat ps3 don't use linux, even counting the ones using it for research.

5% of millions of people is a lot. Not to mention, it's the legal precedent that matters

If is precedent that matters why isn't something important like Live/Online support

Wait.....what?

Remember when MS discontinued xbox live a while ago? And EA pulling online away from a bunch of games? Yeah they also falsely advertised for a feature that was no longer available, and they can do that because it says so in EULA, which apparently doesn't mean anything because the law comes first?
By this logic every software and hardware that ever discontinued its online support falsely advertised at some point.

Ah, I have heard this argument many times, here is the difference.

Xbox live was a SERVICE, and was paid by a subscription fee, therefore when it ended, nobody had paid for any more than they received, since it was a subscription. It also required regular upkeep from Microsoft.

Linux was a FEATURE, meaning it came with the PS3 when you bought it, and people payed fully for the ability to have it on their PS3 for as long as they had their PS3 and it required NO regular upkeep from Sony.

Service = regular upkeep + some form of pay-as-you-go

Feature = no regular upkeep (if they ignored it it would continue to exist) + pay once and own it forever.

Therefore when XBL ended people received what they paid for (a month of play for each month they paid for) but when Linux was pulled, people did NOT receive all that they had payed for (A console that has Linux as long as you still have the console)

Yeah except many softwares pulls online support too, which are clearly features not service by your definition?
And that should be same as the PSN support "feature"?
As for playing newer games, Sony never falsely advertised Killzone 3 with Linux at same time, so that argument is invalid.

That online support still required regular upkeep for bandwidth and server costs ect. they weren't REMOVING a feature, they were discontinuing a service (those definitions I gave are broad, for example, some MMO's have a lifetime pay feature, but they are still services)

After all, a company can't expect to keep pouring money into maintaining a service forever, however, Linux required no upkeep, they actually had to do more work to remove it than to let it continue to exist, so that is a FEATURE, because it would continue to be there if the company just let it be.

Can you honestly see no difference at all?

 

[Danpascooch]

taking a break. I'll be back......sometime in the future.

 

[JEBWrench]

-The guy with a degree in internet searches, who finds one example where there might semantically be a weakness with the argument - which therefore proves the entire thing, and everything else in the entire world, is proven wrong.

I worked hard for that degree.

Damn straight, frankly, if anyone has the potential to beat my argument to death with a shovel, it's you.

Why thank you, I consider that quite the compliment.

 

[Danpascooch]

-The guy with a degree in internet searches, who finds one example where there might semantically be a weakness with the argument - which therefore proves the entire thing, and everything else in the entire world, is proven wrong.

I worked hard for that degree.

Damn straight, frankly, if anyone has the potential to beat my argument to death with a shovel, it's you.

Why thank you, I consider that quite the compliment.

Don't worry, I hid all of the shovels last night, IT'S HOPELESS FOR YOU NOW!

 

[Seldon2639]

Sony did not promise Linux capability and normal use as concurrent features. Nowhere does the advertising referenced in these suits state that the linux-based machines will also be able to use normal gaming functions, nor that they would continue Linux support (or, for that matter, online support) for any given length of time.

The availability of the EULA online prior to purchase means that consumers knew the limitations of their quasi-contractual relationship with the company from the get go. It can't be false advertising if (a) the company is not removing a feature which was advertised, (b) the company did not advertise the feature existing for any definite period of time, or (c) the knowledge of the company's ability to change such features was available prior to purchase.

 

[mysterj]

That online support still required regular upkeep for bandwidth and server costs ect. they weren't REMOVING a feature, they were discontinuing a service (those definitions I gave are broad, for example, some MMO's have a lifetime pay feature, but they are still services)

After all, a company can't expect to keep pouring money into maintaining a service forever, however, Linux required no upkeep, they actually had to do more work to remove it than to let it continue to exist, so that is a FEATURE, because it would continue to be there if the company just let it be.

Can you honestly see no difference at all?

Yeah I see the difference, but the things you tried to justify doesn't make any legal difference. I mean is clearly stated in EULA they get to that except you apparently don't think so.

But is perfectly reasonable for PSN to require not to use Linux, in the same way that even if PSN suddenly requires a premium to gain access, is still legally justified (according to EULA anyways).

And Sony cited security issues for removing the feature, which could mean launching virus on PSN, running 3rd party cheats while playing games, or pirating games. All of which are perfectly justified.

Microsoft banned millions of users from Live for modding, which is also a removal of feature that's perfectly acceptable because it is written in the EULA they can do so. And these users could also be left alone and even generate some revenue from Live subscription, so your just-leave-us-alone argument doesn't really stand.