? If you mean you're not forced to, I sort of beg to differ. my Touch is on fw 2, and there is a lot of software or updated versions of software I own I can't download since i'm not on fw 3.0, which I have to pay for.
I'd argue just the opposite where Microsoft is concerned. Sony has consistently removed features with system updates, ever since the days of the first PlayStation. Microsoft has added features. And while some of those added features have been exclusive to those who subscribe to Live (ie Facebook, Netflix) others have been free for all (install games to hard drive, Xbox 1 compatibility updates, NXE, Divx/MP4 update, Last.FM). Yes, you had to buy a new box to get HDMI, but if you bought the HDMI box it wasn't missing anything that previous boxes had. Yes and no. Apple "has" to charge, only because of the way it does its accounting. If it changed its accounting practices it wouldn't have to charge. So yes, what you're saying is technically true, it is only true within the US (and not outside the US) and it is only true because of Apple's own actions. Apple could easily set it up so that the updates could be given away for free, but that revenue is attractive. -hl718
Except the majority of features you cite on the 360 are restricted to the US only. There was talk about this (getting rid of OtherOS) a few months back I'm sure of of it.
I wouldn't say majority. Facebook, Twitter, the option to install games to hard drive, Xbox 1 compatibility updates, NXE, and the Divx/MP4 update are not exclusive to the US. Netflix is exclusive to the US. But then again, SkyTV is exclusive to the UK (I can't recall if it also works in Europe or not). -hl718
I second the class action lawsuit... seems very very likely to happen if this update rolls out removing other os install.. The console was advertised and sold with this feature... you can't take away a feature that you sold... arguing that the other os is shit is no argument.. people paid for it... not upgrading as they tried to state is no option either as you would lose other advertised features in the process (online gaming, psn store, hell probably wouldn't even be able to re download content you previously bought, can play any new disc games, can't watch any new bluray film if it says sony on the disc you have to have whatever fw update they put in the param.sfo on it )..... I predict a legal shit storm...
There was, then they came out officially stating that they will continue to support it... now they turn a 180 again, it's a crazy move and the response on the eu and us official blogs has been pouring out in protest.. guess we wait and see!
Lawsuit wouldn't work, if they could prove it could potentially harm their business by leaving it in, then they will win.
That's not the case under advertising law in the US. The landmark class action there was against Apple which had sold one of its Performa computers (back in the pre-OS X days) and advertised it as "upgradeable." Apple never offered an upgrade and there was a class action suit against Apple. The US courts took the case and Apple ended up settling the suit by providing (below cost) "upgrade options" in the form of a complete motherboard replacement. It essentially had to give out the core ofa new computer because its advertising dept biffed and included "upgradeable" as a feature and then engineering never provided a CPU upgrade path. I can't think of a similar EU case offhand, but I'm sure there is an example or two. -hl718
The premis on your argument is that a signed contract can be voided if it will do harm to the the business that created it. I would think there are a number of holes that can be opended up in the argument since Sony was the one creating the original contract and there are cases won agaist consumers on these contracts thus upholding the legality of the original contracts. This would make consumer would have agreed to them and so did sony and by such agreement having availibilty to upgrades and optional os. I suspect since this has not truely gone all the way in the end new precedence will be set if a lawsuit is filed.
Our resident lawyer type person can weigh in (assuming he's not busy with a good drink), but another key point is that when you want to dispute a contract provision the law usually holds that the contract will be held in the most favorable light to the party that did not write it. In this case, if contract law (explicit or implied) does apply, the court system just about anywhere should look at things in the light most favorable to the consumer since Sony is the one that authored all the contracts/EULAs. -hl718
Isn't there the old "service/specifications may change/be withdrawn" clause in most of these cases though? Technically Apple didn't lie, it was upgradeable, they just didn't offer the service to do it. God, me defending Apple... I think I need to put this drink down and go to bed... Anyway, the option is still there, if you don't agree with the terms of use on the new firmware, you just refuse, therefore invalidating your right to use their services that require that firmware.
Just because it is in a contract, doesn't mean that the clause is legal or binding. In this case, I think that Sony would end up having to settle a class action suit if they go ahead and remove the functionality. I don't understand why, but a lot of people got the PS3 citing the ability to run Linux as a major reason for buying it.
Apple was also sued (and lost) in the past because it used to offer systems with lifetime free phone support. When it terminated that and switched to 5 years standard, it was sued and the end result is that all systems which were originally sold with lifetime support still get lifetime phone support for free. Courts are sticklers when it comes to truth in advertising. They don't like weasel words. The problem in Sony's case is that the original PS3 was sold as having both "Other OS" support as a feature *and* free PSN access as a feature. Now it is telling consumers to choose one or the other and that's it. In short it is retroactively pulling a standard feature well after the original time of sale even though the product is still actively supported. This would be equivalent to Sony suddenly pulling BC from *all* PS3s. Pulling BC from all *new* PS3s is fine. Same as pulling Other OS from all *new* PS3s. That wasn't an issue because those units were never sold with those features. Geeks love Linux. Sony included it because it knew it would be a selling point for early adopters. They also tried to get it deemed a "computer" in the EU/UK to avoid some taxes based on it including Linux support. Same reason why versions of the PS2 shipped with YA-Basic in the EU. -hl718
May be on their site but I believe the use of blue ray may open up areas for argument since it is also sold as a blue ray player and not getting a future upgrade will mean the blue ray player will stop work. Found the line "Such content or service may include automatic updates or upgrades which may change your current operating system, cause a loss of data or content or cause a loss of functionalities or utilities." I still believe an argument could be made that it is being used for a linux player and blue ray player and loss of one constitutes sony devaluing the system.
Well they might be fucked under American law, but from what I can see they should be fine in the EU. Seriously though, is someone that sad they are going to go to the supreme court over a gimped PC with 256MB RAM and no GPU acceleration? As has been said above, the ones buying these things for cluster computers are probably still on firmware 1.00, will never connect to the PSN and never care about some ubernerd not being able to use his PS3 as a media server.
People shouldn't be surprised by this. Sony has been doing nothing but taking away from the PS3. PS3 does not do everything. They should end that add campaign quick.
I would not count on it. I do not know EU law but if they used the basis of linux to save on taxes and with all goverments hurting for cash it could open some eyebrows.
Regardless of whether someone uses it or not, every response in this thread should always be "oh well".
I am personally amazed at this. The first time they have taken something away from users on something you already own (not talking hardware revisions). I think they added it to stop Linux hack groups from trying to hack the PS3. Unfortunately it has become a vulnerability.
