Sony Disable “Install Other OS” in firmware (v3.21)

[BadTB25]

Ehmm that is as included in the box as the single player experience.

PSN as a service and PS3 as a gameplaying/BR player are 2 separate things in my view. I bought mine primarily as a game player with the added functionality of BR. If it stops doing either of those because I "chose" not to update the FW, I'd be very upset at Sony.

The fact that it is included in the box is an option that no one has to utilize. You aren't forced to utilize PSN if you just want to play games or watch BR.

 

[Acert93]

What's amusing about all this is that people are complaining about losing functionality because it came in the box, but at the same time expecting (free) functionality that didn't come in the box (fw updates) originally.

You can't have it both ways.

Yes you can.

Not adding updates: Sony can do that, sure. But they also will be quickly pushed out of the market. If the PS3's software remained as it was in 2006 the PS3 as a media device and online gaming service would be considered extremely outdates and the updates from competitors would only move to accent how putrid the offering is.

As for the reverse, removing features, when you by a product with 10-checkbox-features it is a sign of poor platform management that they must remove a checkbox to add others--and a slippery one in regards to consumers. You sell something with 10 features, then begin disabling them it doesn't matter WHAT you disabled because customers bought those 10 options. Doesn't matter if you added 100 others (those were value added moves, unpromised, but expected based on promise of platform maturity over time).

This probably doesn't matter to most, but removing features purchased by consumers is a slipperly slope. There is no defense for it. It doesn't matter if it is a rarely used features (like the OtherOS) or a popular one (movie playback, WiFi, etc) at the end of the day these are features consumers purchased.

Maybe Sony should update their software to prevent the big looming fear that is making them react this way... they did/do have that option. Appears the lawyers said it would be cheaper to go the "remove product features from existing consumers" than "solve and update user software in the perpetual fight against bad people doing bad things."

 

[ShadowRunner]

If you are told at the point of purchase that a features availabiliy is subject to wether it poses a security risk then i dont see why people would be supprised and angry when it actually happens.

T&Cs are a funny thing and like Shifty said you cant T&C your way out of everything but at the same time they are there for a reason. Without T&Cs Linux support would have never existed on PS3 to begin with so if you didnt agree with the relevent T&Cs then you were not entitled to Linux support at all in the first place IMO. T&Cs are there for the safety of the consumer and also the producer, by agreeing to them you are effectively shaking hands with them and agreeing on the terms of your relationship. If it is proven either party strayes from this agreement then they are in the wrong. If it is proven that the T&Cs are too vague or they were just obviously violated then Sony would be in the wrong. In this case it is not a blanket statement that they can just remove features willy-nilly they specifically mention it with regards to security concerns. It was always obvious Linux support was subject to change if it became a risk and if you bought a PS3 thinking it would be any other way then it was you who was mistaken. Can anyone here realy say they didnt ever see this coming?

I really wish people would see this for what it is instead of just seeing it at 'they removey a feature', the issue is more complex than that and saying it is just as bad as if they sudenly removed the feature to play games is just nonsense.

 

[eastmen]

If you are told at the point of purchase that a features availabiliy is subject to wether it poses a security risk then i dont see why people would be supprised and angry when it actually happens.

T&Cs are a funny thing and like Shifty said you cant T&C your way out of everything but at the same time they are there for a reason. Without T&Cs Linux support would have never existed on PS3 to begin with so if you didnt agree with the relevent T&Cs then you were not entitled to Linux support at all in the first place IMO. T&Cs are there for the safety of the consumer and also the producer, by agreeing to them you are effectively shaking hands with them and agreeing on the terms of your relationship. If it is proven either party strayes from this agreement then they are in the wrong. If it is proven that the T&Cs are too vague or they were just obviously violated then Sony would be in the wrong. In this case it is not a blanket statement that they can just remove features willy-nilly they specifically mention it with regards to security concerns. It was always obvious Linux support was subject to change if it became a risk and if you bought a PS3 thinking it would be any other way then it was you who was mistaken. Can anyone here realy say they didnt ever see this coming?

I really wish people would see this for what it is instead of just seeing it at 'they removey a feature', the issue is more complex than that and saying it is just as bad as if they sudenly removed the feature to play games is just nonsense.

It would be nice i you'd see this for what it really is .

Your basicly allowing them to remove any feature they want. Oh a bluray movie bug ends up allowing people to hack the ps3 and run unsigned code ? No problem sony will just remove bluray support.

Oh but we shouldn't be mad , Sony is only protecting the sytem and we should all be happy they removed it.


The fact is that if there is a valid exploit sony should find a way to lock it down instead of taking away the feature.

 

[specwarGP2]

How pleased would you be if you were told there's an optional firmware upgrade for your camera required to take more pictures but installing it would lost you ability to use smile recognition that was a listed feature of your camera when you bought it?

Honestly, I'd be annoyed. But the key word here is "optional." If you didnt install the update, your camera would be exactly as you bought it. unless it says in writing somewhere, you have no reasonable expectation that your camera will have any functionality other than what originally came in the box.

 

[Toaddio]

Well I imagine next time the big three release consoles the built in firmware will be almost empty but upon your first connection to the internet you'll have the 'option' to download a million things. Naturally, you'll have to agree that they can be revoked at any time in order to enable them in the first place.

 

[Acert93]

I really wish people would see this for what it is instead of just seeing it at 'they removey a feature', the issue is more complex than that and saying it is just as bad as if they sudenly removed the feature to play games is just nonsense.

It really isn't complex.

A marketed feature
with an initially small market appeal
didn't expand how Sony wanted
partly due to the limitations Sony set on the feature
and later became a liability
both in terms of maintenance
and later in terms of potential security exploits
and as the feature wasn't deemed cost effective
nor played into the platform strategy
the feature was summarily deprecated
instead of investing in securing and maintaining said feature

It really is a cash oriented decision. It didn't take off how they wished, it was costing money, and the potential for undesirable activity could (a) cost money to fight and (b) potentially lead to some lost media sales so the decision was to remove the feature. The lack of general popularity of said feature made it something Sony believes is a solid move as it affects a small market segment and the potential for backlash is nominal compared to removing a major feature.

It all comes down to money: it wasn't worth Sony's money to ensure this feature remained available. Instead of correcting security issues they just through the baby out with the bath water.

Whether people care depends on how they used/planned to use their PS3 as well as potential significance it may have in regards to platform image. It does open a nasty can of worms.

 

[BadTB25]

Check the post I replied to. He's saying that all PS3s should play all games. So that says that yes, if you go out and buy the Move kit, you shouldn't have to install any firmware to play those Move-only games, if a firmware update is required.

Complaining about removing features is quite reasonable, or complaining about Sony arbitrarily locking people out of games with future firmwares. But it's not reasonable to say that every PS3 game should play on any PS3, without firmware updates -- the software platform against which the games were developed has changed several times since launch.

I guess I missed your post. I'm saying that the PS3 should play all PS3 games from the time of launch onward. For Move games and maybe future 3D games, then you obviously would require additional hardware or FW. However, all other games that do not require special hardware should play on my launch PS3 on launch FW.

If you force me to install a FW to play the standard PS3 games, then how is that really a choice/option. It only does "everything" except play games which is the primary purpose of a game console.

If my BC enabled PS3 were to lose BC because someone found an exploit to pirate games on it, I'd be extremely pissed. It's not offered on the new Slims, but to me it was a key reason for me to purchase the MGS4 bundle. Far-fetched???? Maybe....but it does sound similar to what is going on here.

Even games that have patches released are not mandatory and as far as I can recall are only required if you are going to play on-line or have it connected to Live/PSN.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Your basicly allowing them to remove any feature they want. Oh a bluray movie bug ends up allowing people to hack the ps3 and run unsigned code ? No problem sony will just remove bluray support.

That's an exaggeration. People who are okay with Sony removing OtherOS are not allowing them to remove any feature they want. If Sony removed gameplaying from everyone's PS3, everyone's arms would be waving!

Sony are justifying their decision with a logical rationale that has merit, whether one agrees with it or not. A justification for removing other features would also be needed, and that'd be much harder to do when it came to something like removing BRD playback.

So there's no carte blanche here. It's not an open door for Sony to hack away features and leave us all with expensive, useless boxes. That would be business suicide, so they won't do it! They evaluated the risks of Other OS, its usage, and decided they had good enough cause to affect a small enough number of users that it was their best choice. Again, this can be argued in a court of law to decide if they were right or not based on the muddled laws of the land, but this is a situation well removed from Sony just hacking out features for security sakes, and it's not fair to extrapolate this action to other heavy-handed moves that are clearly never going to happen.

 

[Nite_Hawk]

That's an exaggeration. People who are okay with Sony removing OtherOS are not allowing them to remove any feature they want. If Sony removed gameplaying from everyone's PS3, everyone's arms would be waving!

Sony are justifying their decision with a logical rationale that has merit, whether one agrees with it or not. A justification for removing other features would also be needed, and that'd be much harder to do when it came to something like removing BRD playback.

So there's no carte blanche here. It's not an open door for Sony to hack away features and leave us all with expensive, useless boxes. That would be business suicide, so they won't do it! They evaluated the risks of Other OS, its usage, and decided they had good enough cause to affect a small enough number of users that it was their best choice. Again, this can be argued in a court of law to decide if they were right or not based on the muddled laws of the land, but this is a situation well removed from Sony just hacking out features for security sakes, and it's not fair to extrapolate this action to other heavy-handed moves that are clearly never going to happen.

I don't think your views and eastmen's views are incompatible. He's just saying that if Sony does a cost benefit analysis and concludes that continuing to support blue ray isn't beneficial for them they will axe it. You provide a lot of reasons why the result of that cost benefit analysis should be for Sony to keep blue ray support, but as far as I can tell you are not arguing against the basic premise that Sony does what is in it's best interests (regardless of the Law, Morals, etc).

My read of your discussion is that Eastman is saying Sony has no fixed morals besides financial success, and you are saying that Sony has the equivalent of fixed morals because some morals will never be worth breaking financially.

Nite_Hawk

 

[patsu]

My read of your discussion is that Eastman is saying Sony has no fixed morals besides financial success, and you are saying that Sony has the equivalent of fixed morals because some morals will never be worth breaking financially.

They are case by case.

They removed SACD and backward compatibility for future models. There is no need to kill them for older models since they don't cost Sony extra, and pose no threat.

OtherOS is very different. It requires on-going maintenance that delays their new model roll out. It also poses a major threat to the ecosystem, and a distraction for Sony.

If someday, Sony finds that Life with Playstation, PS Home, or the Photo app is no longer used by the consumers, they can indeed do something about them (and rightly so !). Something standalone like the Photo App can probably stay forever. But PS Home, which requires its own servers, will probably be killed, merged into another service, or replaced. There is no simple decisions here. And the outcome may be welcomed by many, and lamented by some. The key thing is Sony stays healthy and continues to invest in more interesting entertainment titles for consumers.

 

[Akumajou]

It really isn't complex.

A marketed feature
with an initially small market appeal
.

Where is the proof that Sony was marketing and insisting to end users to actually install another OS into the PS3, from my recollection of Sony's marketing and the E3 2005, 06, etc the word was always games console with blu ray player format and initial BC support that of course got critisized by the online gaming forums and media by insisting that Sony should be focusing on "next gen" rather than "last gen" (PS2) games, appart from the retail price critisizims.

They are case by case.

They removed SACD and backward compatibility for future models. There is no need to kill them for older models since they don't cost Sony extra, and pose no threat.

OtherOS is very different. It requires on-going maintenance that delays their new model roll out. It also poses a major threat to the ecosystem, and a distraction for Sony.

If someday, Sony finds that Life with Playstation, PS Home, or the Photo app is no longer used by the consumers, they can indeed do something about them (and rightly so !). Something standalone like the Photo App can probably stay forever. But PS Home, which requires its own servers, will probably be killed, merged into another service, or replaced. There is no simple decisions here. And the outcome may be welcomed by many, and lamented by some. The key thing is Sony stays healthy and continues to invest in more interesting entertainment titles for consumers.

SACD and PS2 BC were hardware features that cost Sony money in terms of having the physical chips ie transistors there.

I personally always thought the Install other OS feature to be a way to expand the word of mouth among high tech geek press to prevent the console being dismissed as just a games console.

As far as my memory goes, Nintendo started this with the then Ultra 64 tech by marketing comparisons to SGI Workstation Computers, Sega followed suit comparing their SH4 to Intel Pentiums and the Windows CE capability since to many the term "Windows capable" implies a sort of COMPUTER and word got out that Linux could run on their last console so it was no surprise that Sony PS2, and so on followed suit.

The problem I am seeing is that Sony is noticing two things

1 being that very few people really actually cared about the Install other OS feature in the retail world

2 Microsoft and Nintendo having limited their consoles from running anything other than games or online services and media (the Wii being the most limited to thwart pirates) were initially more successfull in getting the word games out there.

So basically Sony no longer sees any point to keep supporting a feature that is not providing revenue that is significant and it most likely is code in their firmware and OS update that is just taking up space to eliminating it is for the better.

 

[patsu]

So basically Sony no longer sees any point to keep supporting a feature that is not providing revenue that is significant and it most likely is code in their firmware and OS update that is just taking up space to eliminating it is for the better.

This only explains why Sony removed OtherOS from future version of PS3. It does not explain why Sony needs to remove it from old PS3s. Sony already admitted that keeping OtherOS up-to-date with PS3 Slim and future model is a burden.

Security threat was cited as the official reason for removing OtherOS in 3.21 altogether.

 

[obonicus]

Like you said here or elsewhere, it's a combination. Sony might just not be willing to expend any resources playing cat and mouse with hypervisor hackers, so they yanked the feature, full-stop.

 

[patsu]

Exactly. ^_^
They wouldn't risk offending the old PS3 users if it's just for cost reasons.

 

[obonicus]

This may sound unrelated, but Sony's fiscal year ended March 31st?

 

[RobertR1]

Yes.

 

[patsu]

http://kotaku.com/5526847/playstati...ction-suit-against-sony-for-dropping-other-os

Plaintiff Anthony Ventura takes issue with that decision in a suit filed against SCEA in a North District of California court. The suit filed on his behalf believes the change "reflected Sony's concerns that the Other OS feature might be used by 'hackers' to copy and/or steal gaming and other content."

"Sony's decision to force users to disable the Other OS function was based on its own interest and was made at the expense of its customers," reads the complaint.

The class action suit was brought on behalf of "a nationwide class of all persons who purchased a PS3 during the period November 17, 2006 and March 27, 2010 and who did not resell their PS3" during that time.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

T'was bound to happen. Although I read plenty of 'this lawsuit being filed' reports but never any 'this lawsuit resolved, the winner is...'!

 

[deepbrown]

T'was bound to happen. Although I read plenty of 'this lawsuit being filed' reports but never any 'this lawsuit resolved, the winner is...'!

Yes, Sony hasn't been sued yet. Someone is in the process of suing them.