Sony Should Pay For OtherOS Removal, Says Finnish Board

x*yy*x writes "According to Consumer Board in Finland, Sony should pay up 100 euros to a console owner for OtherOS removal. The board said that the removal of OtherOS crippled console features that were present at the time of purchase and agreed that consumers should be compensated. Sony tried to point out that the user agreed to the PS3 EULA, but the consumer board noted that such agreements can't go around consumer laws."

Comments

Why is it being removed in the first place?

[boaworm]

I've been looking around a bit, but I haven't been able to find a good explanation to why Sony is removing the feature in the first place.

Does it allow hacking the console? Does it cost too much to maintain? Anyone knows?

Re:Why is it being removed in the first place?

[jimicus]

You must have been living under a rock for the last year.

It was used for hacking the console, making it possible to run your own software, hacked games and backups of games. Those in favour say "and? I bought the console, I can do what I like." (These people make up the bulk of /. commenters, but by and large are in a minority if you look at various PS3 forums).

Those against say "Games are expensive enough as it is, if there's more piracy they'll get even dearer. And hacked games? Where's the fun in networked play if someone can use an aimbot? The whole benefit of networked console gaming is that you're all on a level playing field."

Sony say "We don't care what you bought, our EULA allows us to add and remove features as we wish."

Legislators say "Consumers can't relinquish statutory rights, that's the whole point of consumer statutory rights. We don't care what your EULA says."

Re:Why is it being removed in the first place?

[neokushan]

Basically, because the PS3 was "unhackable", George Hotz decided to take a look at it and came up with a really convoluted way to unlock a tiny bit more memory access within Linux. This "hack" involved soldering a chip to your PS3 and triggering it at the right time. It was really trigger happy and a bit of a faff to pull off, but it did work eventually. You had to do this EVERY time you restarted your PS3.

That's it. That's the entire reason why Sony removed Linux. This "hack" didn't enable piracy, it didn't grant access to any encrypted files or anything like that, it didn't even give you total control over the PS3 like recent hacks have, it basically allowed you to poke around the memory a bit more. So Sony panicked and removed it from all FAT PS3's.

I should point out - Sony had decided that the PS3 slim would never have OtherOS support long before this happened, but that's ok - that's a refresh of the console line and nowhere did Sony claim the Slim would have OtherOS support. The issue is the Original, "FAT" PS3's that had this feature advertised on the box.

It's quite ludicrous as well, as anyone interested in hacking the PS3 simply didn't update, poked around all they wanted and 6 months later, PSJAILBREAK was released, allowing people to do little more than play backups on (what was at the time) the latest PS3 firmware - which had linux stripped from it. This allowed other teams to REALLY explore the PS3 as it was effectively in Debug mode and the rest is history - all the CFW stuff that's going around now came as a result of this.So it was a pointless move, the cat was out of the bag and rather than just patch the flaw, Sony removed Linux and pissed off a lot of people, giving them a "valid, righteous" reason to push further into the PS3 and unlock as much as they could. The original Geohot exploit never really got that much attention and probably would have died down if Sony had just left well enough alone.

Of course, that's all the official reason. The real reason was probably just to save money. Less support costs, less development costs, less testing costs, etc.

Re:Why is it being removed in the first place?

[erroneus]

Yes, because in the process of teaching or explaining, sometimes you have to say the same things in different ways to get the point across to different people who think and understand things in different ways.

I understand your amazement, it is essentially the same thing as the article summary...

Re:Why is it being removed in the first place?

[Spewns]

Those in favour say "and? I bought the console, I can do what I like." (These people make up the bulk of /. commenters, but by and large are in a minority if you look at various PS3 forums).

Rational people generally are in the minority like that.

Re:Why is it being removed in the first place?

[JohnRoss1968]

It does not matter how many people buy it for games or whatever. What does matter is when a customer bought a PS3, they were told that it has the ability to use the other OS. And then Sony took that ability (that the customers paid for because it was a part of the package they bought.) and removed it without the customers permission. If that is allowed than what else is allowed.
Dear Customers we are disabling the ability to use 3rd party controllers.
Dear Customer we are disabling the ability of your PS3 unit to save games.
Dear Customer we are disabling the ability of your PS3 to play videos
Dear Customer we are disabling the ability of your PS3 to play games.
Dear Customer we are proud to introduce a new update that will allow your PS3 to use 3rd party hardware, and its only $19.99*
Dear Customer we are proud to introduce a new update that will allow your PS3 to now save games, and its only $24.95*
Dear Customer we are proud to introduce a new update that will allow your PS3 to now play movies and videos for only $10.99*
Dear Customer we are proud to introduce a new update that will allow your PS3 to Play GAMES ITS MAGICAL at only $49.99**
* These features may be removed at any time. No refunds. If these features are reintroduced you may need to purchase them again.
** Sony has the right to introduce features into its system to 'refinish' the surface of your game disks. Sony is not responsible for any damage done to your game disks.

PS Sony would like to thank our customers for their hard earned cash and would like to thank them by saying "SUCK IT"

Re:Why is it being removed in the first place?

[eyenot]

It's great how you've presented each POV. I am entirely in the dark on handheld gaming right now.

You might not be surprised that I (and some) would argue all four sides independently.

Full ownership, good. It's yours to fuck up as you please, including the quality of your gaming experience.

And yeah, it sure sucks competing against the borg. You shouldn't be allowed on the network with a hacked console, or, if the parent company feels generous, you shouldn't e allowed on the mainstream network with a hacked console but have to stay in some overcrowded semi public channels.

And sure, it's Sony's network and it's their manifest destiny (we could say) to fuck with your device that they built in a way that you don't know squat about before it happens because micro technology has progressed so far that such a method is possible.

And right, that pisses some people off (me, included) mostly because it goes against the concept of honest business and is akin to selling booby traps. So governments representing the people should take issue.

Its a bright opportunity to design new ware and new methods to ensure that the arguments for and against console hacking are satisfied. It's the best business model and other approaches should be seen as the result of failing to appeal to the cognitive elite and instead asking marketers about security and accountants about response.

What will happen instead is the old arena-based bickering and rebellious super vocalizing of (ultimately) self-inflicted malcontent, crying over the obvious economic sink of entertainment funds and loathing over the ridiculousness of such matters as so weighty in times of global economic turmoil, and therefore less attention paid to more important matters leading to even greater ignorance, setting populations up for repeat performances of the whole "who could have predicted such a tragedy, it's just like in the movies" posturing and swooning.

Re:Why is it being removed in the first place?

[bhtooefr]

To go into more detail on the hacking thing...

The intent of OtherOS was to allow you to run your own software. (Although, some say that the intent was to try to get the PS3 legally considered as a computer for taxation reasons.)

There are two groups that were wanting to hack the console: Those wanting full access or access at all to the console's hardware for their own software, and pirates/cheaters. The pirates/cheaters are basically script kiddies, though - in other words, they don't have the technical ability to actually hack it.

I believe there was minor progress, early on, made towards using more of the console's hardware within OtherOS than Sony allowed, but not much was done with it.

In any case, Sony's attempt to get the PS3 classified as a computer failed, so they removed OtherOS from the PS3 Slim.

That pissed off the people who were wanting more access for their own software, not none whatsoever, so they began hacking the console, to see how to get OtherOS back onto the Slim. An impractical exploit for normal use, but one that exposed more info about the console, was used by Geohot.

That scared the crap out of Sony, and that's what caused them to remove OtherOS from existing consoles.

Re:Why is it being removed in the first place?

[DarkOx]

Its those against that are the problem with society today. I have nothing against people acting in their own self interest. I would never ask or expect someone to act against their own self interest. What I find sad about most people is short sightedness. Its not at all in their self interest to let Sony get away with abuses like this just because it does not effect them and it means a cheaper video game today. Tomorrow when they become the victim of such practices they will have discouraged those who might have stood with them, and they will have created precedent against themselves.

As a consumer its impossible for me to understand how anyone else thinks its a good idea to create a trade environment where manufacturers are free to materially alter products after sale without my consent. There is just no way that is going to work to my favor over the long term. If people won't exercise enough sense to oppose it now wherever they spot it while its relatively benign, its going to be much harder later.

Re:Why is it being removed in the first place?

[Man On Pink Corner]

Idiots weren't happy with the Linux playground they were given to them, no, they wanted more, they wanted to break through the hypervisor. Well, they managed to get more privileges.

I understand a talking snake and a naked chick was involved somewhere, and something about Apple. A lot has been lost in translation, apparently.

Re:Why is it being removed in the first place?

[DarkOx]

So you translate your post...

I don't care if Sony is abusing others because they are not hurting me personally, and I am a short sighted selfish douche who can't see the harm in permitting the destruction of personal property and consumer rights just so I can more fun today.

Re:Why is it being removed in the first place?

[indeterminator]

All of this and the Fins are bitch wanting wtf, 100 Euros per customer? I would have to look at these fucking Fins and say; "Look douchebags, if you are going to force me to give up the protections on this system and open it up to whatever, then we are going to sue the fucking shit out of you when the entire game platform goes into the toilet because nobody plays the fucker due to all the cheaters on it. So, please, is your country worth that much even? Do I get to kick you all out if I win the lawsuit if you can't pay it? Granted, you people are fucking RETARDS, and obviously don't understand WTF a gaming system is and keeping one up, running and secure from ratfuck cheaters and whatnot. But I am willing to overlook that, providing you pull your collective heads out of your asses.

To make a car analogy, Sony pulling the Other OS feature is similar to someone having bought a car with an AC unit, and getting their car back from the yearly servicing finds out that AC has been disabled because it interferes with the airbag system.

In both cases, it's about safety and security, but it's the fault of the manufacturer in the first place. The car manufacturer could argue that 'most people are not using the AC anyway, and it's still a perfectly good car', but they would still have to either compensate their customers or fix those cars.

This is not about evil hackers at all, this is about a corporation selling something, then changing the deal afterwards.

Re:Why is it being removed in the first place?

[Kryptonian Jor-El]

You're missing the biggest point. Sony didn't just remove OtherOS from the Slim, they removed it from all current and past PS3s by a forced PSN update. This forced consumers to either keep OtherOS and lose PSN access, or give up PSN access to keeo OtherOS

Re:Why is it being removed in the first place?

[Gaygirlie]

It was used for hacking the console, making it possible to run your own software, hacked games and backups of games.

That's a downright lie right there: OtherOS NEVER allowed for playing backups or hacking games. First of all, the PS3's own filesystem is encrypted and on a separate partition from the OtherOS partition, so there was no access to the files there in the first place. Secondly, there was no access to GameOS functions whatsoever. OtherOS was absolutely not used for running PS3 games, not then and not now.

Re:Why is it being removed in the first place?

[DrXym]

I've been looking around a bit, but I haven't been able to find a good explanation to why Sony is removing the feature in the first place.

Does it allow hacking the console? Does it cost too much to maintain? Anyone knows?

It became an attack vector to break the hypervisor and gain control of the box. Other OS was entirely absent from the slim models, probably as a cost saving measure.

Re:Why is it being removed in the first place?

[biryokumaru]

Yes, but not on the side you seem to be suggesting.

Re:Why is it being removed in the first place?

[Jesus_666]

Well, all sides are acting rationally:

The hackers want Other OS because it's something they paid for and that the console was advertised with. That's rational.

The regular gamers are happy with Other OS being taken away because not only it it something they don't need, it's actually detrimental to them (as it forces them to deal with cheating to a greater extent). It's rational to be in favor of something exclusively detrimental to one to be removed.

Sony shut Other OS off because it makes it easier to run unlicensed copies of games and to run homebrew that wasn't sold through PSN. Since game sales are essentially what makes the platform profitable it's rational for Sony to try to protect their bottom line.

The legislators point out that the PS3 EULA contains unenforcable provisions and hence Sony didn't have the right to turn off Other OS in their country.


All sides have good arguments. There's no sense to let people run arbitrary code on a device which you use precisely because people can't run arbitrary code on it (while a game is running); I can understand the regular gamers in that regard. On the other hand it's not okay to sell something with a certain feature set and then remove features you decide you don't want on the market after all so the postion of the hackers and the legislators makes sense as well. Ultimately I'd side with the hackers (Sony just handled the whole thing very badly) but I wouldn't call any side in this argument irrational. They just happen to have different perspectives.

Re:Why is it being removed in the first place?

[Bert64]

OtherOS had no detrimental effects to regular gamers, it did not permit cheating in any way...

OtherOS did not make it easier to run copied games...
It did make it easier to run homebrew, but that was the whole point of it in the first place, and the homebrew it could run was intentionally crippled so it could not compete with profit generating games.

Successful hacks against the ps3, which do make it easier to both cheat and run copied games only became available long after the OtherOS feature was removed.

Re:Why is it being removed in the first place?

[drinkypoo]

OtherOS was used for making images of Blu-Ray movies which you can accomplish with nothing more than dd on a ps3 because of the way the drivers worked, but for which you need to use more complicated programs on other systems. Or so I have read in multiple fora; I've never owned a PS3 because I swore off Sony when they killed Lik-Sang. Thus my last Sony experience was Gran Turismo 3 and 4 on the PS2 Slim. Byebye, Sony. You will not be missed.

Re:Why is it being removed in the first place?

[Bert64]

You also lose the ability to play new games, not just PSN...

Re:Why is it being removed in the first place?

[Jesus_666]

One could argue that it started with Sony's marketing as they never pointed out that Other OS would be useless for what most people assumed it would be good for (full access to the PS3's hardware; IIRC, Other OS had some rather arbitrary restrictions). So the hackers poked around and Sony panicked (and even you agree that Sony handled the case badly).

I'd say the main fault lies with Sony for selling the PS3 with a feature they didn't intend to actually support; everything else flowed from that. You can't sell a device based on one feature which you then implement differently from what you advertised and which you deem too expensive to actually support. In the end I'd put it down as a marketing fault on Sony's side; Other OS should never have been advertised in the first place. The rest is people (Sony, the hackers, the gamers, various countries) getting pissed off at one another because everyone has different ideas about what their respective rights are.

Re:Why is it being removed in the first place?

[HikingStick]

I, too, am glad for this decision, because it kept a bad policy from becoming an accepted precedent. If Sony won, it wouldn't be a stretch to envision a world where networked appliances might have their settings overridden by manufacturers in support of some internal policy or due to external pressures:

• To comply with a push to conserve energy, refridgerator manufacturers implements an override that keeps the temperature from being set below a certain temperature (i.e., no more ice-cold milk for you!)
• Similar restrictions on air conditioning systems (beyond current opt-in programs available through utility companies).
• Televisions/screens that shut off for a mandatory 15 minute break (during which you can't power it back on) every two hours in the name of health.
• Blue Ray optical players that receive instructions to no longer play back DVD format disks, so as to force the consumer to buy again under the current format.

Sure, these examples may seem rediculous, but once you set a precedent that allows companies the right to change the basic features of the product after the sale, you open yourself up to all sorts of crap.

Re:Why is it being removed in the first place?

[WhirlwindMonk]

No, Geohot demonstrated a viable attack on the hypervisor. A contemporary report of which is here. Sony had no choice but to shut OtherOS down before the attack was refined into an ISO that people could download, burn & install on the PS3 to root the thing completely.

No choice? Huh, I could have SWORN there could be other options like "Patch the vulnerability without screwing their customers." You know, a REASONABLE response.

Re:Why is it being removed in the first place?

[WhirlwindMonk]

Absolutely. The people skilled enough to hack in general are not pirates. They want homebrew, a powerful development platform, etc. Linux on the PS3 gave them that. Then, once that was removed, they hacked the HECK out of the PS3 to get it back, and then the less skilled pirate hackers took what they did and finished the job, allowing piracy that likely never would have happened (or at least taken nearly until the end of the console's life-cycle) had they just left the feature there.

Re:Why is it being removed in the first place?

[omglolbah]

Nobody said it was a good idea, but that was supposedly the reason they did it.

Geohot (I think it was?) found some flaws in the hypervisor and a bit later they yanked the option altogether.

Re:Why is it being removed in the first place?

[hairyfeet]

I'd say nope, and I'll probably get flamed but here goes: Sony had to kill OtherOS because they were bleeding to death, full stop. Hell there was a site set up showing how to make clusters out of PS3s and every single day a new cluster was highlighted 24/7/365. Now up until recently Sony sold the PS3 at a loss, and I'd wager now the margin is so razor thin they probably are lucky to get $1 after covering the BOM and shipping. The BR drive was stupid and kept their prices higher since they never really took off, and with the X360 being so aggressive they couldn't keep the price high enough to make decent profit on the hardware like Nintendo.

No my friends, once OtherOS and the tutorials showed how damned easy it was to cluster the things every geek and their dog were buying two three four, hell a dozen of the things, and not a single disc or peripheral to go with it. Without the much vaunted sell through Sony was suffering a death by a thousand cuts at a time they could LEAST afford it. While I'm sure you heard of that 24k USAF node what you probably didn't hear of was damned near every college was looking at PS3s and making mini superclusters of their own. Hell right before the killing of OtherOS even the little college down the street was pricing a 12 node setup to give the science dept.

Should they have just killed OtherOS dead? No, IMHO they should have came up with a $1000 "PS3 Supercluster edition" with a GB Ethernet onboard, maybe added a "megacluster edition" with FC connects. Instead they watched in horror as their sell through rate fell off the planet while the X360 was getting something like 8 games per system numbers (last I checked Sony had 3, worse than BOTH the X360 and the Wii) and panicked. They had to come up with a BS excuse because "We can't afford to keep having PS3s end up in clusters, they are killin us" would have been jumped on by MSFT who would have had a field day with the PR.

No they could have handled it better but they had a very good reason for killing OtherOS, they simply couldn't afford to keep it going with their position at last place. I bet even with the hacks that came after their sell through rate went up simply because there weren't so many units going straight from the factory to some lab, and without decent return per unit they won't be able to afford the massive R&D to make PS4. My prediction is that unless they go seriously into debt they may not have the money anyway, especially if MSFT goes big bucks on the X720 or whatever they call it. But the OtherOS wasn't helping them, only hurting.

Re:Why is it being removed in the first place?

[yodleboy]

i bought my PS3 (fatty) because at the time it was one of the best blu-ray players available AND was cheaper than stand-alone models. Might as well get a game console thrown in. I got mine cheap (defintiely a loss leader) and bought 1 game. 1, which i failed to even play more than a couple of hours. Just decided to stick with PC gaming. So yeah, the effort to entice me with a cheap console never paid off with game sales.

Re:Why is it being removed in the first place?

[fast turtle]

The only thing wrong with your argument is

"The moment you use other peoples media on that device, it stops being yours to do whatever you want with it."

because I bought and paid for that physical media. It's called the "Doctrine of First Sale" and this consumer protection law specifically prevents companies from pulling this kind of shit. Sorry but what you're saying is I signed a negotiated contract with Sony and each and every Media Producer when I purchased that PS3 from Walmart/BestBuy/Circuit City/Fry's/Sams Club/Name your Retailer and you're absolutely incorrect, which is what this judgement was all about. They sold these devices with this feature as a feature . Obligatory Car Analogy

Your take your car in for service and the Dealer removes the A/C system entirely as the Manufacturer has said, we decided to not offer the A/C on your car (usually between 0.8 - 1.2K $ in the U.S.)

The other issues you speak of are Copyright Issues, thus must follow Copyright Law in order to be enforced. Otherwise, these companies have taken the Law Into their own Hands and have decided that you no longer need access to that which you paid for.

Re:Why is it being removed in the first place?

[DrXym]

You assume there was a way of fixing it. And what they did was a reasonable response as far as they were concerned. It stopped their platform being opened up to rampant piracy which is overwhelmingly more important to them than pissing off a miniscule number of people using Other OS.

Re:Why is it being removed in the first place?

[TheRaven64]

If they were breaking even on the PS3s, then that doesn't really hold water. Even if they were making a small loss, it doesn't for several reasons:

Firstly, the number of people building PS3 clusters is tiny compared with the total number of sales. They've sold about 50 million PS3s so far. I'd be very surprised if even 100,000 of those were for clusters. A typical small cluster only has about 100 nodes, so even if every university in the EU and USA had one (most don't) then it would still be quite a small percentage of total sales. Most universities that were considering buying them for number crunching just bought one or two as Cell development machines (oops - no cheap way of doing that anymore, I bet IBM and Toshiba are really happy about that), they didn't build complete clusters. The PS3's lack of Infiniband or any equivalent and tiny amount of RAM make it pretty useless for most cluster problems. These days, you can probably get better performance out of GPGPU or some other normal CPU, depending on your workload than from a Cell.

Secondly, if you think that a cluster of PS3s means no game sales then you've never worked in a university research group. I've talked to people in a couple of places where they did build PS3 clusters (a few years ago, when the price/performance actually made sense) at conferences, and their cluster designs had one thing in common: they were designed so that it was really easy to pull a couple of the units out and plug them into projectors for postgrads to play games on when no one was using the cluster.

Thirdly, the 'PS3 is used in supercomputers' meme was great advertising for Sony. No one was building clusters out of the XBox 360 or the Wii. Any time the USAF or anyone else talked about their cheap supercomputer built with PS3s, it was free advertising. The total losses from all of the sales of PS3s for supercomputers are tiny compared to the advertising budget for Sony's PS3 division.

Re:Why is it being removed in the first place?

[Steeltoe]

No problem. I imposed a Never-Buy-Anything-Sony-Again rule on my own person ca 1999, after buying a crippled digital camera with inferior and propriertary Memorysticks. They've never been there for MY NEEDS, so I will never buy anything Sony again no matter what!

Same with Apple ca some time after iJail came out.

Re:Why is it being removed in the first place?

[CronoCloud]

The issue is the Original, "FAT" PS3's that had this feature advertised on the box.

It's not mentioned on the box, never was. I don't know how that "rumor" got started, because it's not true. Show me a picture.

Re:Why is it being removed in the first place?

[GCsoftware]

Yup. There are no Bluray players for Windows, especially none that are found by doing a google search for "blu ray player windows" and called PowerDVD 11.

Re:Why is it being removed in the first place?

[Mad Leper]

It was removed because it was used pretty much 99% as a gateway to cracking the PS3 and getting access to security keys and PSN.

Sony gave it's customers a choice of keeping OtherOS or being cut off from the network, the hackers & pirates took great offence and launched an attack against Sony and it's paying customers that continues to this day.

Re:Why is it being removed in the first place?

[Mad Leper]

Dammit, I meant a choice between keeping OtherOs and being cut off from PSN OR keeping PSN and losing OtherOs. Sorry.

Re:Why is it being removed in the first place?

[Mad Leper]

Ahem, it wasn't forced. Sony offered a choice between PSN or OtherOs. Not many people saw the point in hacking the PS3 if it meant being unable to cheat & pirate, hence the outrage.

Re:Why is it being removed in the first place?

[TFAFalcon]

I'm sure you wouldn't have a problem if your car manufacturer gave you the option between driving on odd or even days.

Re:Why is it being removed in the first place?

[neokushan]

No, you've got it all wrong there.

For one, the "timeline" already mentions this -

6 months later, PSJAILBREAK was released

Furthermore, Geohot didn't actually perform the hack that "released the guts of the PS3", it was a different group (called Fail0verflow) that discovered the flaw in Sony's Encryption that allows you to mathematically calculate the private keys of every module on the system. They are the ones that released the info and tools to do this. All Geohot did was use this knowledge to release the key to metldr, the first stage of the PS3's boot process. Enough information was out there to create custom firmwares WITHOUT anything Geohot released.

Re:Why is it being removed in the first place?

[Travelsonic]

... what? Why should it even be a choice between otherOS and being able to access PSN [AND play newer games that require new firmware]? Choice my ass.

Re:Why is it being removed in the first place?

[marcansoft]

People are going to reply that either 1) it was used to break into the console and pirate games/break DRM/hack online games, or 2) it was costly to maintain. Those are what Sony would like you to believe. However, both of those are lies.

It is true that the first remotely notable break in PS3 security occurred through the use of the Linux functionality. This was geohot's original hypervisor exploit. However, that exploit required hardware (a RAM glitching setup), was extremely unreliable, and didn't get you any further than hypervisor access. Nothing ever came out of that hack directly, it was more of an academic thing. This has never had anything to do with piracy and has never been used for piracy.

The next big PS3 hack (which was actually designed for piracy) was a GameOS exploit (PSJailbreak), and later the core of the PS3 security was compromised, with the goal of running Linux, but without depending on any existing Linux functionality (which had been removed by then). So, in fact, OtherOS has never caused security problems from the PS3. In fact, the only thing it clearly did was prevent attack by giving power users a way to run their own code. The vast majority of people who I know participated in developing PS3 hacks (myself included) did so after Sony removed OtherOS, and wouldn't have done so otherwise.

So that takes care about option #1. What about #2? That's what Sony implied when they removed OtherOS from the PS3 Slim (which, remember, happened before any PS3 security issue at all). And we bought it at the time. And then the PS3 security was broken, Slim included, and we found out that GameOS uses the same hypervisor interface as Linux, and that Linux happily ran on the Slim with trivial modification. The truth is that GameOS depends on the same hypervisor as Linux, and OtherOS is nothing but a launcher and a different guest profile in the hypervisor. The amount of code required is insignificant, and the maintenance required just about nonexistent. By maintaining GameOS they are implicitly maintaining OtherOS. High maintenance cost? My ass. This also exculpates geohot's original hack, since that happened after Linux was removed from the Slim, and we now know that the given reason for removing it from the Slim was bullshit.

Then there's the whole selling PS3s at a loss deal, but we all know that Sony is now making a profit on all PS3s, so Linux doesn't hurt there either.

They turned it off because they WANTED to turn it off. The real motive? There clearly is one, but we don't know what it is. The only mildly plausible explanation that I've read is that Sony wanted to push emulated PSN games a la Virtual Console, but studios were concerned about unofficial emulation via Linux. But that's still not terribly convincing.

Note: I was one of the people named in the Sony lawsuit for bringing Linux back on the PS3, so I think I know what I'm talking about.

Re:Why is it being removed in the first place?

[peppepz]

That's a downright lie right there: OtherOS NEVER allowed for playing backups or hacking games

No, that's a downright truth. *ALL* PS3 exploits started on Linux. Hotz found a way to tamper with the firmware, from Linux, as he proudly demonstrated with screenshots from his blog. He didn't manage to go beyond some unuseful demos, but he showed the way. AFTER the encryption keys were dumped, from Linux, by other people, it became possible to hack even the PS3s lacking the Linux feature.

The result is that now hackers own the platform, there's no point to play online anymore because of cheaters, and you can't do it anyway, because hackers brought the PSN down; honest users pay games for "developers" who get to play for free by downloading games from torrents, Sony removed OtherOS from the honest users who made use of it, and surely they will think 999 times before putting OtherOS on their next consoles.

I guess "developers" will then have to buy other consoles, which support the installation of Linux, have free online gaming, work with standard peripherals instead of expensive proprietary ones. Until now only Sony's consoles did that.

Thank you Hotz, you're so cool.

Re:Why is it being removed in the first place?

[peppepz]

Yesterday somebody asked me for $1.000. I guess I'll have to give him the money, otherwise he'll be motivated to break in my house and take all my money anyway.

Re:Why is it being removed in the first place?

[Runaway1956]

I, for one, simply don't give a rat's ass if Sony were losing money on those PS3's. If indeed, they were, they had several options.
1: sell a new model that didn't have the OtherOS enabled
2: simply raise the price on the original PS3 so that they made a profit
3: change the existing PS3's into two lines, one optimized for the clusters, the other optimized for gaming, and price them accordingly
4: design, build and sell yet another PS3 that was even better for clustering, and price them accordingly - and remove the gaming features from that machine
5: just leave things alone, and when the cluster market was saturated, the gamers would eventually do what gamers do - keep buying consoles for gaming.

I'm sure that others can come up with other ideas. Bottom line - Sony had no right to remove or disable features that they sold. That's right, SOLD. EULA's mean diddly shit - they are coercive in nature, and the only people who "agree" to them are those who simply don't care. I'll click through EULAs all day long, in order to get to the end that I have in mind. I just don't give a shit. Microsoft, Sony, websites, I don't care. They mean nothing to me, and I'll break them forever.

Now, as for that cash settlement - I find that to be unsatisfactory. Any rational court of law should force Sony to restore those features that the original purchasers paid for, AND give them the cash in consideration of all the inconvenience a bunch of jackbooted Gestapo wannabes caused the owners of those PS3's.

Auto analogy? General Motors sold half a zillion cars with turbochargers, then decided that they didn't like their cars running so fast. So - GM recalled all those vehicles and removed the turbochargers. But, rather than just a recall, they sent a mechanic to every home that had a car in their driveway, jacked the car up, and forcibly took out those turbochargers. The owner of the car had zero say in the matter, because each mechanic was accompanied by enough force to ensure that the owner didn't interfere.

Totally wrong, no matter how you look at it.

Re:Why is it being removed in the first place?

[sjames]

That is the crux of the issue. People bought their older PS3 complete with OtherOS. At least some of those people saw OtherOS as the key determining factor in their purchase. Then Sony effectively stole that value from those buyers by altering the device after the fact without discussion or compensation of any kind. The practical effects are indistinguishable from outright theft.

It's sad that thus far, only Finland has seem fit to do anything at all about it abd even then has only managed to make a "recommendation" and it doesn't involve any kind of criminal proceeding. This is hardly the first time Sony has done something on a global scale that would be treated as a serious crime if an individual did it even once to a single person.

Re:Why is it being removed in the first place?

[marcansoft]

I should point out - Sony had decided that the PS3 slim would never have OtherOS support long before this happened, but that's ok

It isn't OK, actually. Not because it's illegal or wrong (they have every right to do it), but because they lied about their motive. It that further confirms that they lied about why they removed Linux on the Fats.

They claimed they removed Linux from the Slim due to cost saving reasons, but now we know that Linux "just works" on the Slim because it runs on top of the same hypervisor that GameOS uses. In other words, maintenance cost was implicitly zero due to the way the PS3 works, and they actually had to put more development time into removing Linux than they would've if they'd just left it there. This means that they had a reason to remove Linux a long time ago already.

They lied about why they removed Linux on the Slim, and we don't know their real reason. It follows that they lied about why they removed Linux on the Fat; they were just itching to remove it for the same (unknown) reason they did on the Slim. The Geohot hack was just a poor excuse that they could use.

One possible explanation is that they were planning on removing Linux across all consoles all along to save money in the long term (simply because they wouldn't have to support the tiny launcher in future firmwares - this doesn't save money if you only do it on the Slim, but it does save some money if you do it across all consoles). Or maybe there's an entirely different reason that we don't know about.

Re:Why is it being removed in the first place?

[rapiddescent]

I'd suspect that it was more about economics and the fact that the console import duty for the EU is at 0% now.

In the UK, even the PS2 had a disk included in the original box that allowed the owner to code in BASIC in an attempt to be classified as a computer (import duty 0%) and not a games console (import duty 2.2%). HOWEVER, the UK HMRC looked in detail when SONY tried to get £50m in tax rebates and decided (not surprisingly!) that it was a sham and charged them 2.2% import levy anyway). The same negotiation happened with the PS3 - SONY really thought they could avoid import duty.

in the EU, the import levy varied over the years from 0.6% to 2.2%. Of course, local VAT was compounded on top of those rates. Today, the import duty from Japan to the UK is 0% (i.e.no incentive for even trying with OtherOS)

Re:Why is it being removed in the first place?

[AlReece45]

Seems a little off:

Yesterday, MegaCorp2020 legally removed $1000 from your safe without permission. You are now motivated to do something about it.

Your options:

1) Do nothing (congratulations laziness)
2) Go through the proper authorities to respond to the wrongdoing (4 years later: after utilizing 80 hours of your time at the beginning of this case, we have determined this was wrong in a class-action lawsuit: you can either have $200 or go against MegaCorp2020 by yourself)
3) Reclaim what was lost on your own (Suspect left a signed blank check under your safe, where your money was, it'll take 2 hours of your time to use it)
4) Respond with revenge (his house has a lot more bullet holes than it used to)

While I certainly understand that ethically/legally the actions may be wrong-- and two wrongs don't make a right-- when someone unethically takes something from their customers, is it surprising that the customers responded with their most logical choice (#3)

Legally: Its probably illegal.

Ethically: There's a lot of gray-- this is a shade of gray; Not a black.

* IANAL: I AM NOT A LAWYER
** Blank check is equivalent to "the signing key is a fixed part of the console's firmware" (use Search Engine).I don't know how accurate it is, but I haven't found any contradicting evidence.

Re:Why is it being removed in the first place?

[pakar]

Incorrect.... That's only what Sony has been trying to push...

Read this:
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20110310172538157

160. On its website, SCEA wrote: Why did you delete the “Other OS” feature?

        A. To protect the intellectual property of the content offered on the PS3 system as well as to provide a more secure system for those users who are enjoying games and other entertainment content on the PS3 system, we have decided to delete the feature to address security vulnerabilities of the system.

161. This statement is a fabrication. SCEA gave these reasons as a pretext so that it could attempt to argue that the Warranty, SSLA, and/or TOS allowed for the removal of the “Other OS” feature. In reality, SCEI and SCEA removed this feature because it was expensive to maintain (as they previously admitted when the feature was removed from the “slim” models – but which they conveniently removed from SCEA’s website); they were losing money on every PS3 unit sold (due to poor decisions in the planning and design of the Cell chip as noted above and given the PS3’s extra features); SCEA needed to promote and sell games to make their money back on the loss-leading PS3 consoles (and there was no profit in users utilizing the computer functions of the PS3); and IBM wanted to sell its expensive servers utilizing the Cell processor (users could cluster PS3s for the same purposes much less expensively).

162. SCEA has never revealed how its “intellectual property” would be unprotected through the use of Linux on the PS3. Moreover, the utilization of Linux did not make the PS3 less “secure.”

163. It is virtually impossible to use the “Other OS” for piracy because the PS3 is specifically designed to avoid allowing piracy through using the “Other OS” feature. When the “Other OS” feature is enabled, the software prevents the proper operation of the gaming feature to avoid allowing the features to interplay. In order for a hacker to pirate a game, it is necessary to perfectly emulate the operating system for which the game is designed, including the API, which is the interface for the game OS that supports all of the features of a game. However, when the Other OS is in use, the API and other hardware features are blocked, including the graphics chip in the PS3, which makes it impossible to run a pirated game on the Other OS. As of January 2011, Sony had yet to identify a single instance in which someone used the Other OS to pirate protected content.

Re:Why is it being removed in the first place?

[Maestro4k]

Sony shut Other OS off because it makes it easier to run unlicensed copies of games and to run homebrew that wasn't sold through PSN. Since game sales are essentially what makes the platform profitable it's rational for Sony to try to protect their bottom line.

Congratulations, you've fallen for Sony's propaganda on this issue. I don't even own a PS3 and I know this is bullshit. What actually happened was Sony removed OtherOS from the PS3 slim. Hackers, Geohotz among them, started looking more seriously at the PS3 to try to find a way to enable OtherOS on the slim (note: playing copies of games and cheating online were not reasons they were trying to do this). Geohotz published some info that suggested he might manage to pull this off using OtherOS to access the hypervisor on a normal non-slim PS3. No actual working exploit to do anything with was released however. Sony saw this, used it as an excuse (or simply freaked out and overreacted) and removed OtherOS from ALL PS3s via a firmware update. Of course Sony insists they didn't actually remove it, users were given a choice: keep OtherOS or lose all access to PSN. (And also not be able to play any future games that required a higher firmware version than the last one that allowed OtherOS.) Not much of a choice as this result from the Finnish board has upheld, it was a removal of functionality no matter what the PS3 owner did.

The predictable happened at that point, hackers started looking at the PS3 seriously and in less than a year it was hacked so severely that the root key was obtained. (Helped along by Sony royally fucking up their public key crypto implementation on the console.) At that point, which was back in December/January, it became possible to start pirating games and cheating online. That point was a good 9 months AFTER OtherOS was removed entirely. (And OtherOS wasn't used to pull off breaking the PS3's security.) OtherOS never allowed cheating, or playing pirated games. But Sony wants gamers to think that's why they removed it, and they have good reasons to be fighting that battle. They're being sued in a class-action lawsuit over removal of OtherOS in the US. If they lose in that lawsuit it could cost them very dearly.

So stop drinking the Sony cool-aid and stop spreading their propaganda. The reality is far, far different than Sony wants you to believe it is.

Re:Why is it being removed in the first place?

[Maestro4k]

Why should it? Have you read any of this thread?

Because people were looking to pirate and/or cheat on PSN. By far the majority of PS3 owners were using PSN and NOT OtherOS, and would be much more put out if the cheaters were using OtherOS to disrupt their gameplay.

I agree not giving any kind of compensation was wrong, but forcing people to choose what was important to them was not necessarily unfair. The only rub is there is no way to downgrade or reenable the functionality, which really should be provided.

Except that OtherOS never, ever allowed people to cheat. That was only possible starting in December/January, some 9 months after OtherOS was removed. (And those who did break the PS3's security didn't use OtherOS to do so.) Also it wasn't choosing what was important to you, it was a choice between losing one type of major functionality or another type of major functionality. It's not just losing PSN, you basically lose the ability to play any future games as well because games require certain firmware levels to play and will install the required firmware if you don't have it. (See the article, this is what happened to the guy in Finland.) As someone else who replied to the grandparent noted, this is similar to a car manufacturer retroactively making it so you can only drive your car on even or odd days, but not both like you could when you bought it.

So perhaps you should read the thread yourself, you're at best misinformed (OtherOS = cheating is total bullshit), or at worst a shill.

Good move

[RenHoek]

That's should stop a lot of companies from removing features at will..

Re:Good move

[dimethylxanthine]

If Amazon, Apple and Sony get the message this would take care of a hefty share of offenders.

Re:Good move

[gerddie]

Don't know about Apple, but Amazon deleted books at the kindle after people bought them, but at least they refunded the money and they also said they wouldn't do it any more.

Re:Good move

[RenHoek]

Amazon giveth.. http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/10/24/222237/Amazon-To-Allow-Book-Lending-On-the-Kindle

And Amazon taketh away.. http://yro.slashdot.org/story/11/03/22/0231214/Amazon-Stymies-Lendle-E-book-Lending-Service

Re:Good move

[Xelios]

It's not even a ruling, it's a 'suggestion' from a government consumer rights watchdog that has no legal power by itself. Courts in Finland will take it into consideration, but nothing's been legally decided yet.

Re:Good move

[Anonymous Coward]

In my experience (as a Finn) both small and large companies follow their "suggestions" without even complaining. I don't know why they have such power, it could be a desire to avoid getting on their public "blacklist" or maybe courts are very likely to come to the same conclusion. For instance, I got a washing machine replaced five years after the two-year-warranty had expired simply because I mentioned that I'll contact the consumer rights authorities, if they don't at least don't give me a substantial discount on a new one. I had a recollection, which turned out to be correct, that consumer rights authorities have guidelines for how long certain products are expected to last so that they at least function reasonably well. A warranty by manufacturers is only seen as an extension of what is required. That is, a warranty guarantees flawless operation whilst consumer rights authorities decide how long it's reasonable to be able to use a product you've bought. Once I also found an interesting statement by the consumer rights authorities, they said that you can essentially tell software companies to take their EULAs and shove them. So whenever I have a problem with a product I've bought, I certainly don't hesitate to contact them because companies do respect their decisions.

Re:Good move

[mysidia]

Just curious, can you give examples for Amazon's and Apple's removed features?

Text to speech.

It used to be a feature of all books. At the behest of a certain publisher monopoly (who wants to charge extra for 'audio books'); Amazon turned removed the feature for any publisher who decided after the fact they wanted the feature removed.

Sony will get its comeuppence with the PS4

[Viol8]

Because most techie types simply will refuse to buy it. Anything Sony has a bad smell about it now and that won't change anytime soon. Sure, techies may only be a small percentage of total buyers but even if its only 1 or 2% thats still a lot of sales money for Sony to lose to its competitors.

Re:Sony will get its comeuppence with the PS4

[Tangential]

Indeed.

I haven't bought any Sony branded equipment since 2005 when it was revealed that they believed that rootkit'ing their customers was a valid business practice.

It's about time that a company as overtly evil as Sony gets it comeupance.

Re:Sony will get its comeuppence with the PS4

[thegrassyknowl]

*grr* I sooo moderated in this, but I couldn't let your comment go to waste.

Sony will get nothing of what I so dearly wish they had coming to them without a huge smack-down from the courts.

A lot of these so-called "techies" have kids, partners or both, who will beg and nag and want PS4 for $LATEST_SHINY_REHASH_OF_GAME.

Have you ever tried to tell your wife she can't have something? Go out and get a wife (or husband, but it's not quite the same) if you don't have one and then try tell them that they can't have something they want. Now imagine that they want it because the kids are dead-set on it. "No! Dear, I run the tech in this house and you are not buying Sony! The foot is down!". Tell me how that works out for you!

I keep waiting for the Air Force to say something

[Tangential]

They've got 1760 PS3's in a supercomputer cluster (http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-12-air-playstation-3s-supercomputer.html) I wonder what happens there if they ever need an update or want to add more nodes?

Re:I keep waiting for the Air Force to say somethi

[Psychotria]

They've got 1760 PS3's in a supercomputer cluster (http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-12-air-playstation-3s-supercomputer.html)

I wonder what happens there if they ever need an update or want to add more nodes?

They'll probably just send a few of their planes with big bombs and stuff out (they have them, right?) to circle Sony headquarters until the matter is resolved.

ps3 sold at loss

[Jeek Elemental]

sony sells the ps3 at a loss, gambling that game purchases will give profit.
With otheros it was increasingly popular to buy them in bulk and use in clusters, with no game purchases.

Maybe they also ran into licensing issues with the cell chip, if it was used for other than entertainment.

Re:ps3 sold at loss

[Gaygirlie]

sony sells the ps3 at a loss, gambling that game purchases will give profit.

Actually PS3 hasn't been sold at a loss for a long time now. At first it was, yes, but as time passed the parts needed for production of PS3 fat model became cheaper and that's when they weren't no longer sold at a loss. The slim model hasn't been sold at a loss at all.

Re:ps3 sold at loss

[joocemann]

Ps3 hasn't been sold at a loss since 2009

And as we all know

[Anonymous Coward]

Where Finland leads, the rest of the world is sure to follow.

Re:I keep waiting for the Air Force to say somethi

[Bios_Hakr]

Same thing we do with Cisco, Microsoft, RedHat, and any other company we buy things from; we don't buy without a good SLA.

If nodes need to be added, we can get them from Sony with whatever firmware revision we want.

Punitive measures please

[Lemming Mark]

A very good step in the right direction, compensating consumers who have been misled. However, I really think that what Sony did requires some kind of punishment. Require them to pay punitive damages to consumers, fine them substantially, do something.

Otherwise, what are we saying? That it's OK to forcibly revoke something somebody's bought so long as you pay for the thing you took away? What Sony did was far more akin to old fashioned theft than piracy *ever* has been. Why? Because they're not getting something for free, they're actively depriving others of valuable things they own. They should be punished for this kind of trick (in a way that they'll notice, rather than just writing off as a minor expense) and / or made to restore the functionality.

This doesn't bother as many people as it should - it's niche functionality, so people don't care, apparently it's OK to swindle as long as it's small numbers of people. Wait a few years and see if you find your music or video playback from non-approved disks and memory cards retroactively disabled or your car satnav is disabled because someone found out how to upload non-approved maps. Then see whether the precedents set on this case look like a good thing.

Re:Punitive measures please

[BronsCon]

No, I purchased hardware running firmware with a specific set of features; additionally, I purchased a license to use said firmware and features. If Sony wants to add features to future firmwares, they have the option of doing so for free or charging a nominal fee for those additional features; however, it becomes (theft, fraud, breach of contract, some other criminal or civil offense, IANAL but I do know it's a legal liability) when they take away some feature I have paid for without at least offering me a choice between selling the entire system back to them, at the original sale price, or receiving reasonable monetary compensation for the removed feature.

Why the choice? Because someone who bought the unit only for the feature being removed is left with a paperweight they shouldn't be forced to take a loss on, while someone who didn't use the feature or used some other features as well may still want the unit but still deserves compensation for the reduction in functionality.

When you buy a DVD, you buy a license to play it on any equipment bearing the DVD logo. If you buy a DVD that uses nonstandard (but somehow compatible with all existing player firmwares) copy protections and, one day, manufacturers release firmware updates patching their players to better follow the standard; now your DVD won't play; should you be out the money you spent on that DVD just because the DVD manufacturer chose to break the standard for their copy protection? Are player manufacturers liable for updating their firmware to better follow the standard, is the DVD manufacturer liable for selling something that they knew didn't follow the standard (while labeling it as following the standard), or is nobody liable because, I mean, fuck, they already have your money and you agreed to their license terms?

If you buy a smartphone made by RIM, Apple, HTC, Samsung, or, really, any other company that makes phones (note that none of those actually own networks), why in the fuck would you think you owned AT&T's, T-Mobile's, Verizon's, Sprint's, or any other carrier's network? Fuck. Just... fuck. However, if you buy a smartphone capable of being used on AT&T's network AND T-Mobile's network and the phone manufacturer later releases a firmware update that disables compatibility with T-Mobile's network, it doesn't matter whether you're using it with ST&T or T-Mobile, you've lost functionality and should be compensated; if you're using it with T-Mobile the manufacturer should buy the phone back from you at the original sale price, if you're using AT&T the manufacturer should refund the portion of the purchase price that came from the dual-network capability. Are you fucking stupid?

If you buy a Linux netbook, it's probably shipping with some distro that's not Ubuntu, so I'm gonna say probably fucking not. You do, however, get a license to do whatever you want with the source code of the Linux kernel, including (provided that you release under the same license) release and distribute that product. Most, if not all, of the software included on that netbook will have the same license. If you bought that netbook, obtained the source code, developed your own distro that people thought was worth paying you for, began selling it, and suddenly the netbook manufacturer retroactively changes their licensing (assume, for a moment, that they buy this right from the entirety of the Linux community) such that your distro is now illegal, that would be breach of contract on their part.

Buuuuuuuuuuuuuuuut... Since you disagree with all of this, I have a proposition for you. How would you like to work for me? I can offer you a position as a software developer, with 100% of any revenue your work generates going directly to you on the first day of your second year working for me (you get no pay during the first year, with all revenue being placed in an account for you, not to be touched by me). I can't fire you, no matter what you do, but the terms of your employment can be changed at any time. Surely you have no issues with me making a few changes to your employment terms on day 365. Sound good? You can start tomorrow if you want.

"Sony tried to point out that"

[unity100]

"Sony tried to point out that the user agreed to the PS3 EULA, BUT, the consumer board noted that such agreements can't go around consumer laws."

and thats the way how it is, in any decent society based on laws.

however in usa, law, for some reason, can be undone by contracts. and then rabid corporations which get used to this in usa, try to perpetuate the same filth in other countries too, saying that it is 'standard practice' and whatnot.

really. america is producing so much filth in the form of rabid corporations that it suffices for entire world. you people really need to put down the law there. that is, if you can.

Re:"Sony tried to point out that"

[GeneralERA]

That's a very relevant point, what with this story discussing a Japanese company in a European court...

Re:"Sony tried to point out that"

[91degrees]

you can't contract your way around murder, around theft, nor around any statute or case law created at any level.

Surely any time you create a contract transferring ownership, whether by a formal legal transfer or simply by purchasing something in a shop (technically a contract), you're contracting around theft by both parties agreeing that you're the legal owner.

But really the problem is consumer protection laws. Companies are all too willing to add to terms and conditions "By agreeing you waive your right under XXX laws", which tends not to be an enforcible condition in the US or anywhere else. Consumer protection laws would be useless if they could be circumvented so easily.

The main problem is a perception that they can be, and also the perception that challenging the company is expensive. The fact is most countries have a small claims system.

Consult a lawyer before Sony purchase

[andydread]

It seems that Sony takes their holy EULA to be the end-all for any legal situation more so than most. I would advise people to seek the advice of legal counsel before purchasing *any* Sony products. Or just simply avoid Sony products all-together. When you look at the history of Sony and the consumer you see that they are consistently hostile towards the consumer. Cracking down on home brew, The wholesale disablement of their customers CD-R Drives on their computers with a rootkit. They also have tried relentlessly to lock people into proprietary technologies and control media standards over the decades. Beta-Max, Memory Stick, Mini-Disc, And finally better success with Blu-Ray. And now draconian legal policies against consumer freedom to tinker with products they bought and share information. At this point avoiding Sony products should be a no-brainer. I for one will advise anyone that mentions the word Sony in my presence to stay far far far away from Sony products.

Re:Consult a lawyer before Sony purchase

[aonaran]

Just wait till they start enforcing the new one:
http://slashdot.org/submission/1535196/Why-doesnt-SONY-like-Canadians

Re:I keep waiting for the Air Force to say somethi

[finkployd]

Tell where else you can spend as little as $800,000 or less to have a decryption engine that is probably capable of decrypting even the strongest of keys.

Not even every PS3 in existence could do this with AES256.

Re:I keep waiting for the Air Force to say somethi

[Posting=!Working]

I calculated a while back that the Air Force cluster would still take a million times longer than the universe has existed to brute force AES-256 encryption (which doesn't have any known cryptanalytic vulnerabilities, so brute force is it). Can't find that post yet (it wasn't here,) so it may have only been as little as 1,000 times the age of everything.

PS3 does make a great, if noisy space heater

[name_already_taken]

Given the problem with PSN in the last few days, it appears there's no viable option left but use the PS3 as an offline gaming machine, an ordinary Blu-ray player or maybe a space heater :-)

It makes a fantastic space heater, easily rivaling the Power Mac G5 Quad I have upstairs, which can actually be used to heat the whole upstairs of our house just by having it transcode a video.

I make sure to turn off the power switch on the back of our PS3 after shutting it down, as there were many times I would come into the living room to find the PS3 running its fans at full speed and blasting out heat - hours after it had been shut down. I don't really care to know what it was doing, I just wanted it to stay "off".

They should have sold OtherOS as an add-on

[name_already_taken]

The PS3 was sold as a loss leader...

Maybe they should have priced it so that it wasn't a money loser, or better yet - price it where it was, but sell the OtherOS functionality as an add-on for the difference in cost between the PS3 retail price, and the actual cost + profit margin.

Obviously not in US

[Usefull Idiot]

Sony should pay up 100 euros to a console owner

In the US they would either pay the federal entity directly, or be required to provide a $10 voucher to but another Sony product. If it was a class action suit, the customers would get no more than $2 a piece, because the lawyers had to get paid. That's the US for you though, suing culture, but only the lawyers get paid.

Re:I keep waiting for the Air Force to say somethi

[YXdr]

Quick note: some analysts have found some completely impractical vulnerabilities in AES-256 (but not AES-128 !?!).
http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2009/07/another_new_aes.html

That's NOT how it works

[pavon]

Here is an interview with the guy who built the airforce PS3 cluster. They haven't gotten any special privileges from Sony:

"The server runs on a Linux operating system that isn't available on the newer firmware of current systems," said Mr. Barnell. "We have to abide by the end-user license agreement like everyone else, so we're only able to use the systems as we get them."

If a Condor PS3 breaks it can't be sent in for repairs because it comes back with system updates that are unable to run Linux. After an update, it's useless in the Condor cluster.

"I have a few spares," he said. "But as they break, we'll end up removing consoles from the cluster."

That's not how pricing works

[artor3]

I see posts like this all the time. "We can't punish the companies, because they'll just jack up prices to push the cost on to us!" That's what the companies want you to think, because that way they don't get punished.

The truth is that the price of a good has very little to do with the cost to make it. The price is set based on how much people are willing to pay -- and if that price isn't high enough to turn a profit, the product doesn't get made.

People are willing to pay $50 to $60 for a video game. If Sony tries to jack up prices, they'll just lose market share because people aren't willing to pay that much.

No, Sony will eat this loss and avoid incurring it in the future, just as the GP suggested.