Slashdot Mirror
Sony Lose Out - PS2 Not a Personal Computer?
Thanks to the UK Guardian for their article discussing Sony's failed attempt to get the PlayStation 2 classified as a personal computer in Europe, for customs reasons. The piece explains: "Sony was not splitting hairs for the sake of hair-splitting; its motives were purely mercenary. The import tariff for computers coming into the European Union is much lower than that for games consoles and a ruling that the PlayStation 2 was a computer could have forced customs authorities to pay back millions in duties." Although the battle is becoming less important, as from January 1st, 2004 "...computers and games consoles will be allowed into the EU at zero tariff", the legal distinction is still interesting - the European court in Luxembourg ruled "...the definition of a computer could not be stretched" because "It is quite clear that [the PS2] is intended mainly to be used to run video games."
Such as this revelation that the PS2 is primarily inteded for games use.
It was a mistake from a spokesperson, apparently. See here.
Mother is the best bet and don't let Satan draw you too fast.
Umm.. you can get a keyboard and mouse for it, you can use it for other things than games, internally it shares many concepts with a conventional computer. IMO a console is a computer even without this, in that it does what a computer does - it computes. It doesn't matter that, out of the box, it doesn't balance your books and write documents - it is as much a glorified calculator with fancy IO as the boxes sat around me at the moment. With the additional capabilities of the linux kit, exactly why is it not a "real" computer?
Now you know the real reason that Sony was selling Linux kits for the PS2. If what was at stake was enough money for them to mess with this bickering match ... then who cares about a few Linux hackers? If someone can convince the XBox people at MicroSoft that such a case is winnable you'll see an XBox distro of Linux or some other OS for the XBox too to prove the point.
[signature]
heh, I think he replied to the right person, and disagrees with your statement ;)
A computer (say, for instance, every computer I've ever built for my home, except for one I built from the spare parts) can be built specifically to play games. It may be capable of performing other functions, and may even be used for performing other functions, but the purpose of the computer itself is to play games. Just because I can do word processing on it doesn't mean it's less of a game machine than my PS2, XBox, GameCube, and DreamCast (in fact, I have far more games for my PC than for these 4 systems combined).
On the other hand, the PS2 is mainly intended for playing games in all cases, but also plays DVDs and CDs as primary functions. With the addition of a couple minor pieces of hardware (and some software installed on the hard drive that is one of those pieces of hardware) the PS2 becomes a computer with all of those other functions.
With a PC I have to add a good graphics card for it to be a gaming machine (and that graphics card can cost more than any current console). With a PS2 I have to add a hard drive (which really isn't much, and I wouldn't be surprised if someone could get a stripped down Linux or *BSD install that didn't require the hard drive). The XBox IS a Windows-based PC, with a stripped down version of Windows that only performs a minor subset of functions (WMA conversion of CD audio (and storage/playback of WMA files), plays licensed games, plays DVDs with the right hardware). A minor change to allow it to run unlicensed software allows it to run a full-blown OS just like any PC that you could buy with similar specs at the time the XBox came out (which actually would've been a low-end processor, high-end video card, and minimal amount of RAM).
With the XBox based on an x86 processor and the Cube based on PPC architecture, the distinction is really getting to be pointless. It's not a matter of what the hardware is any more, it's a matter of what you do with it, and, as the article stated, the distinction is no longer going to matter next year (at least in the EU).
-PainKilleR-[CE]
a PS2 is not a computer in the same way that fertilizer is not classified as a class 5 explosive. The PS2 is intended as a game machine. Sony does not advertise the PS2 as a computer, in the same way that Bandini does not advertise how their product can be "modded" for terrorist purposes. Sure, they may have a linux kit, but have you ever seen a commercial advertisement, where they make the claim that you can do any of the conventional tasks associated with computers, other than playing games?
Isn't this the reason why game console prices in Europe are so damn high compared to North America? The reason why Sony tried to get the PS2 classified as a computer is to get a lowered duty rate so that they can sell the console at cheaper price.
This isn't any different then plasma computer monitors being MUCH cheaper then plasma TVs. The US charges a higher duty for import items classified as a TV. (My next TV will be plasma, but it will be a computer monitor with RGB and SVideo in.)
Because after all, most people use them for balancing their checkbooks, not playing video games. Uh huh.
I can't wait to get a Radeon 9800 to help me word process at 60 fps. I'll frag clippy yet.
Ok, seriously, does this dutch ruling mean that a computer that is used 99% for gaming is a console, or does the definition have to do with the purpose for which a machine is manufactured? In which case, alienware would have a tariff under the old system, gateway wouldn't? Strange world we're living in.
My cat can eat a whole watermelon
The problem _is_ the logical classification. At what point in functionality does it become a "computer". Intent has nothing to do with it; a product is what it is. Where do you draw the line?
Dependable, Reliable Furnishings