There is no situation where the firmware update is needed, that it won't be automatically applied.
That is absolutely not true. There is actually no situation where the firmware is automatically installed. You need to go to System Update, agree to the EULA, etc, before an update is installed. And you need to be connected to the internet or have a local copy of the update to be able to do this.
If you simply connect it to the internet, it will do the update.
No. I own a PS3, and it has never updated itself automatically when connected to the internet. It has always required user interaction to initiate and authorize the update.
So it becomes a default, only worth mentioning if there is some special significance.
Well, yeah. That's basically what I'm arguing. It was another poster who mentioned the ethical angle. I was basically pointing out that it's not especially relevant in this case. Businesses try to make money. Best Buy used this gimmick in an effort to make money. There's nothing illegal going on, and nobody is really being harmed - so why should there be an outrage over the ethics of it?
I don't think you know what the word "ethic" means. An Ethic is a value system which guides your judgement on the morality of actions.
And that's exactly what Capitalism and all the other isms do. I think you might be the one who doesn't understand.
Capitalism is an economic system where private entities are the primary participants in economic activity, not governments, and the movement of money ("capital") is paramount.
And the very idea of "economics" is an idea borne of ethics, so therefore so is capitalism.
Capitalism does not enable you to make judgements about right and wrong.
How so? Capitalism enshrines the ownership of resources and participation in economic activity (as you put it yourself). How is that not a judgement about right and wrong? If I were to declare that private ownership of resources was not valid, then wouldn't a Capitalist declare that position to be wrong?
No, charging extra for an expensive luxury item is exploiting the stupidity of people. The only reason it's considered ethical is because neo-liberalism has spent decades advocating crushing those weaker than yourself as the pinnacle of ethics.
Now did I express myself clearly enough?
Not really. Why is it you believe that "neo-liberalism" is doing this? It seems pretty straightforwardly Capitalistic or Libertarian to me.
Anyway, why is the onus on the seller of goods to protect the "stupid people," as you put it, from their own stupidity? Do these customers not have other vendors to buy the goods from? I don't see where any "crushing" comes into it. How is someone crushed by paying $30 more for a product? Perhaps their time is so valuable that it's actually rational to pay $30 to save 20 minutes doing a system update?
Your idea that people need to be protected from their own decisions sounds decidedly neo-liberal to me.
So? Did that minimum wage employee decide on this charge? If not, then what relevance does your comment have?
However, because crushing those weaker than yourself beneath your feet to use as stepping stones to power is the essence of capitalism in general and the oh-so-trendy neo-liberalism in particular,
So, paying $30 extra for an expensive luxury item is "crushing those weaker than yourself"? Nice to see you have a sense of proportion there.
Also, I doubt that the minimum wage guy at Best Buy is on the stepping stones to power. He probably has a bleaker future than the nice old lady who can afford to buy a PS3.
That the system would do that automatically if you just connect it to the internet?
It's unethical that the system would do it automatically? That doesn't make much sense.
More importantly, it's not even true, because you have to go to the System Update control and press buttons and stuff. It doesn't just happen automatically.
Games that need a newer firmware install that firmware automatically.
No, they don't. On the PS3, they give you an error, and then tell you to use the System Update function, which requires you to either connect to the internet, or have the update on some kind of physical media. The game disc doesn't contain the firmware update.
Making money is not the ethic, it's the goal. Ethics are the rules you apply while going for your goal.
It's both. Businesses in America exist within the ethical framework of Capitalism, and one of the guiding principles is making money (the creation of capital). Of course, there are co-existing frameworks here, such as Democracy, but ultimately in our society, making money is considered one of the most important ideas.
Only in the obtuse way that you could say that everything has something to do with ethics
How is that obtuse? Ethics is indeed related to everything we do. Why would making money (a major force in our civilization) be exempt from ethical considerations? To ignore it would be absurd. In fact, our major political and social structures are heavily centered on money.
You've gotta love circular logic and intentionally ignoring the obvious to bolster your argument.
What it boils down to is it sensless to argue with you about this because the ethics, or lack thereof are obvious to anyone with a proper sense of right or wrong.
That's hilarious! You talk about circular logic, and then make your argument with the ultimate statement of circular logic - "I know what's right and wrong." Do you understand anything at all about ethics or philosophy? Ethics is meaningless unless you construct your ethical framework first. Simply declaring something right or wrong is outside the realm of ethics.
For example: "Abortion is unethical because anyone with a proper sense of right and wrong knows that abortion is wrong." Do you agree or disagree with that statement? How about "A woman should have the right to have an abortion, because anyone with a proper sense of right and wrong knows that a woman has the right to choose." Any better?
So if it makes you feel any better you can declare personal victory that you've successfully explained away any doubt that this type of practice is completely ok and should continue.
I never said anything of the kind. Personally, I think this practice is scummy and should not continue. But that's not an argument of ethics.
Those of us with a sense of right or wrong, and a sense of how you create credibility and trust with customers long term, will continue along our obviously naive belief systems.
More hilarity! Obviously, someone who has a different perspective on things than you has "no sense of right and wrong" and is naive. Personally, I think your interpretation of things is much more naive.
You must either live in a very unusual place, or you're kidding yourself.
My condolences if you only have deep-dish "pizza" places around...
I never said "only," I just mentioned the majority. Most pizza places are fast-food joints like Dominoes. Therefore, the average pizza sold is not lovingly hand-made.
This is completely unethical no matter how you slice it.
No, there are plenty of ways you can slice this to make it ethical. After all, ethics are arbitrary.
So grandma goes in to buy her grandkid a PS3. She thinks oh! This is an extra special PS3, they did this firmware thing to it, so my grandkid won't have to. How nice of them! Yeah, totally ethical. Riiight.
OK, but you haven't explained how it is unethical, you have just declared it so. Perhaps one has a system of ethics that says that grandma should have informed herself before buying something she didn't understand? Perhaps your system of ethics is that greed is good?
Perhaps your system of ethics is that giving a gift, where the recipient must wait for a stupid update before being able to use it, is unethical?
In the pre-installation case? They're selling open-box hardware at premium prices? And yes, it should be considered open-box, because who knows what they did once it was opened? They could have dropped it, lost cables and manuals, swiped free software/coupons, etc. Once the manufacturer's seal is broken, you can't be 100% sure what you're getting and thus the merchandise should be discounted appropriately.
But if the customer considers the service more worthwhile than an unopened box, then how is it unethical?
There exist markets in customized cars, motorcycles, computers, etc that take pristine equipment from the manufacturer, and then make modifications that potentially void the warranty. Often the modified items are worth far more than the same product direct from the manufacturer.
The idea that an opened box is inherently less valuable than an unopened one does not hold for all situations. Which is more valuable - a computer in a box with no OS or software installed, or the same computer than has been taken out of the box, configured, and had software installed?
Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't buy an overpriced PS3 from Best Buy. I also think it's a pretty shitty thing to do. But I don't see where it violates the ethical code one would expect a company like Best Buy to have. I don't think there is much of an ethical code there to violate. It's not necessarily unethical to do shitty things.
If I buy a PS3 and they add on $30bucks to every PS3 and consumers who don't have ANY KNOWLEDGE of how the PS3 updates work buy it thinking it's required, then they are unethical sleezbags. It's deception designed to prey on less tech savvy consumers and they should be kicked in the nuts for doing it.
It may be sleazy thing to do, but the ethic of a business is to make money.
Sleazy, yes, but I'm not seeing the ethical angle, unless they are somehow preventing people from shopping somewhere else or preventing them from finding the information about the update elsewhere.
And you know what, EVERYTHING FUCKING WORKS ON IT. IT JUST WORKS.
You say that as if it's something awesome. That's the absolute minimum standard anybody should expect from products they buy. Why would you buy products that don't work? For high-ticket items like digital devices, I expect a lot more than just working.
(Although I'm not sure what your all-caps actually mean - they could mean amazement, but they also look something like anger, and a bit like "I forgot to take my meds," but in no way suggest "I'm happy with this decent product.")
So, government can run without any goods or services from private companies at all? Not pens and pencils? Not catering? That doesn't seem plausible.
Either government is involved with the private sector, or government produces them itself, on the public dime.
For paper, computers, facilities, they usually buy the cheapest offer that they're made.
And that requires [drumroll...] government contracts, the very thing that was being complained about in the first place.
For weapons, they tend to produce them themselves,
What rock have you been living under for the last couple of centuries? Weapons are almost exclusively produced by non-government run industries. What are the government-manufactured weapons you are referring to?
There ain't no such thing as proprietary standards only proprietary formats. Standards are by definition open.
What? Of course it's possible to have proprietary standards. There is nothing in the definition of standards that requires them to be "open.
For example, you could have a standard that is private to your company and not shared with anyone outside. Or you have "industry standards" which require payment or participation in a patent pool. The reason the term "open standards" exists, is because not all standards are open.
Avoid products and file formats that are not forward and backward compatible between versions.
Good luck with that. If you want new features and functions, eventually you are going to need new file formats to support those features and functions. Maintaining backward compatibility is one thing, but maintaining backward and forward compatibility is going to end up needlessly crippling your capabilities. How is one to predict the future, anyway?
Slashdot Mirror
There is no situation where the firmware update is needed, that it won't be automatically applied.
That is absolutely not true. There is actually no situation where the firmware is automatically installed. You need to go to System Update, agree to the EULA, etc, before an update is installed. And you need to be connected to the internet or have a local copy of the update to be able to do this.
If you simply connect it to the internet, it will do the update.
No. I own a PS3, and it has never updated itself automatically when connected to the internet. It has always required user interaction to initiate and authorize the update.
So it becomes a default, only worth mentioning if there is some special significance.
Well, yeah. That's basically what I'm arguing. It was another poster who mentioned the ethical angle. I was basically pointing out that it's not especially relevant in this case. Businesses try to make money. Best Buy used this gimmick in an effort to make money. There's nothing illegal going on, and nobody is really being harmed - so why should there be an outrage over the ethics of it?
I don't think you know what the word "ethic" means. An Ethic is a value system which guides your judgement on the morality of actions.
And that's exactly what Capitalism and all the other isms do. I think you might be the one who doesn't understand.
Capitalism is an economic system where private entities are the primary participants in economic activity, not governments, and the movement of money ("capital") is paramount.
And the very idea of "economics" is an idea borne of ethics, so therefore so is capitalism.
Capitalism does not enable you to make judgements about right and wrong.
How so? Capitalism enshrines the ownership of resources and participation in economic activity (as you put it yourself). How is that not a judgement about right and wrong? If I were to declare that private ownership of resources was not valid, then wouldn't a Capitalist declare that position to be wrong?
No, charging extra for an expensive luxury item is exploiting the stupidity of people. The only reason it's considered ethical is because neo-liberalism has spent decades advocating crushing those weaker than yourself as the pinnacle of ethics.
Now did I express myself clearly enough?
Not really. Why is it you believe that "neo-liberalism" is doing this? It seems pretty straightforwardly Capitalistic or Libertarian to me.
Anyway, why is the onus on the seller of goods to protect the "stupid people," as you put it, from their own stupidity? Do these customers not have other vendors to buy the goods from? I don't see where any "crushing" comes into it. How is someone crushed by paying $30 more for a product? Perhaps their time is so valuable that it's actually rational to pay $30 to save 20 minutes doing a system update?
Your idea that people need to be protected from their own decisions sounds decidedly neo-liberal to me.
So? Did that minimum wage employee decide on this charge? If not, then what relevance does your comment have?
About as much relevance as yours do to reality.
However, because crushing those weaker than yourself beneath your feet to use as stepping stones to power is the essence of capitalism in general and the oh-so-trendy neo-liberalism in particular,
So, paying $30 extra for an expensive luxury item is "crushing those weaker than yourself"? Nice to see you have a sense of proportion there.
Also, I doubt that the minimum wage guy at Best Buy is on the stepping stones to power. He probably has a bleaker future than the nice old lady who can afford to buy a PS3.
That the system would do that automatically if you just connect it to the internet?
It's unethical that the system would do it automatically? That doesn't make much sense.
More importantly, it's not even true, because you have to go to the System Update control and press buttons and stuff. It doesn't just happen automatically.
Games that need a newer firmware install that firmware automatically.
No, they don't. On the PS3, they give you an error, and then tell you to use the System Update function, which requires you to either connect to the internet, or have the update on some kind of physical media. The game disc doesn't contain the firmware update.
Making money is not the ethic, it's the goal. Ethics are the rules you apply while going for your goal.
It's both. Businesses in America exist within the ethical framework of Capitalism, and one of the guiding principles is making money (the creation of capital). Of course, there are co-existing frameworks here, such as Democracy, but ultimately in our society, making money is considered one of the most important ideas.
I think you are mixing up capitalism with ethics.
Capitalism is an ethic, or a system of ethics, just as Communism or Libertarianism are. Why would you think it is not?
Only in the obtuse way that you could say that everything has something to do with ethics
How is that obtuse? Ethics is indeed related to everything we do. Why would making money (a major force in our civilization) be exempt from ethical considerations? To ignore it would be absurd. In fact, our major political and social structures are heavily centered on money.
You've gotta love circular logic and intentionally ignoring the obvious to bolster your argument.
What it boils down to is it sensless to argue with you about this because the ethics, or lack thereof are obvious to anyone with a proper sense of right or wrong.
That's hilarious! You talk about circular logic, and then make your argument with the ultimate statement of circular logic - "I know what's right and wrong." Do you understand anything at all about ethics or philosophy? Ethics is meaningless unless you construct your ethical framework first. Simply declaring something right or wrong is outside the realm of ethics.
For example: "Abortion is unethical because anyone with a proper sense of right and wrong knows that abortion is wrong." Do you agree or disagree with that statement? How about "A woman should have the right to have an abortion, because anyone with a proper sense of right and wrong knows that a woman has the right to choose." Any better?
So if it makes you feel any better you can declare personal victory that you've successfully explained away any doubt that this type of practice is completely ok and should continue.
I never said anything of the kind. Personally, I think this practice is scummy and should not continue. But that's not an argument of ethics.
Those of us with a sense of right or wrong, and a sense of how you create credibility and trust with customers long term, will continue along our obviously naive belief systems.
More hilarity! Obviously, someone who has a different perspective on things than you has "no sense of right and wrong" and is naive. Personally, I think your interpretation of things is much more naive.
They pretty much all do in my town.
You must either live in a very unusual place, or you're kidding yourself.
My condolences if you only have deep-dish "pizza" places around...
I never said "only," I just mentioned the majority. Most pizza places are fast-food joints like Dominoes. Therefore, the average pizza sold is not lovingly hand-made.
The "Paying for labor" argument goes out the window, for starters
Why? Did it not take labor to install the firmware? And who would argue against paying for labor, except those who are pro-slavery?
Hmm. Making money has nothing to do with ethics.
Sure it does. Why would you say it doesn't?
This is completely unethical no matter how you slice it.
No, there are plenty of ways you can slice this to make it ethical. After all, ethics are arbitrary.
So grandma goes in to buy her grandkid a PS3. She thinks oh! This is an extra special PS3, they did this firmware thing to it, so my grandkid won't have to. How nice of them! Yeah, totally ethical. Riiight.
OK, but you haven't explained how it is unethical, you have just declared it so. Perhaps one has a system of ethics that says that grandma should have informed herself before buying something she didn't understand? Perhaps your system of ethics is that greed is good?
Perhaps your system of ethics is that giving a gift, where the recipient must wait for a stupid update before being able to use it, is unethical?
In the pre-installation case? They're selling open-box hardware at premium prices? And yes, it should be considered open-box, because who knows what they did once it was opened? They could have dropped it, lost cables and manuals, swiped free software/coupons, etc. Once the manufacturer's seal is broken, you can't be 100% sure what you're getting and thus the merchandise should be discounted appropriately.
But if the customer considers the service more worthwhile than an unopened box, then how is it unethical?
There exist markets in customized cars, motorcycles, computers, etc that take pristine equipment from the manufacturer, and then make modifications that potentially void the warranty. Often the modified items are worth far more than the same product direct from the manufacturer.
The idea that an opened box is inherently less valuable than an unopened one does not hold for all situations. Which is more valuable - a computer in a box with no OS or software installed, or the same computer than has been taken out of the box, configured, and had software installed?
Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't buy an overpriced PS3 from Best Buy. I also think it's a pretty shitty thing to do. But I don't see where it violates the ethical code one would expect a company like Best Buy to have. I don't think there is much of an ethical code there to violate. It's not necessarily unethical to do shitty things.
If I buy a PS3 and they add on $30bucks to every PS3 and consumers who don't have ANY KNOWLEDGE of how the PS3 updates work buy it thinking it's required, then they are unethical sleezbags. It's deception designed to prey on less tech savvy consumers and they should be kicked in the nuts for doing it.
It may be sleazy thing to do, but the ethic of a business is to make money.
Sleazy, yes, but I'm not seeing the ethical angle, unless they are somehow preventing people from shopping somewhere else or preventing them from finding the information about the update elsewhere.
How about charging for sonething that would happen automatically without the user doing anything more than accepting the update?
OK... so what's the ethical problem with that?
Do you really believe that the vast majority of pizza places "flip, toss and stretch" their dough?
this has less to do with best buy charging fee and more to do with ethical behavior.
But what is unethical about it?
And you know what, EVERYTHING FUCKING WORKS ON IT. IT JUST WORKS.
You say that as if it's something awesome. That's the absolute minimum standard anybody should expect from products they buy. Why would you buy products that don't work? For high-ticket items like digital devices, I expect a lot more than just working.
(Although I'm not sure what your all-caps actually mean - they could mean amazement, but they also look something like anger, and a bit like "I forgot to take my meds," but in no way suggest "I'm happy with this decent product.")
Maybe it doesn't need to run all that.
So, government can run without any goods or services from private companies at all? Not pens and pencils? Not catering? That doesn't seem plausible.
Either government is involved with the private sector, or government produces them itself, on the public dime.
For paper, computers, facilities, they usually buy the cheapest offer that they're made.
And that requires [drumroll...] government contracts, the very thing that was being complained about in the first place.
For weapons, they tend to produce them themselves,
What rock have you been living under for the last couple of centuries? Weapons are almost exclusively produced by non-government run industries. What are the government-manufactured weapons you are referring to?
Perhaps the difference is that *politicians* should be regulated, not corporations.
They are. A lot more heavily than corporations.
There ain't no such thing as proprietary standards only proprietary formats. Standards are by definition open.
What? Of course it's possible to have proprietary standards. There is nothing in the definition of standards that requires them to be "open.
For example, you could have a standard that is private to your company and not shared with anyone outside. Or you have "industry standards" which require payment or participation in a patent pool. The reason the term "open standards" exists, is because not all standards are open.
Everybody's always picking on Ayn Rand.
Well, she just needs to man up and deal with it.
Avoid products and file formats that are not forward and backward compatible between versions.
Good luck with that. If you want new features and functions, eventually you are going to need new file formats to support those features and functions. Maintaining backward compatibility is one thing, but maintaining backward and forward compatibility is going to end up needlessly crippling your capabilities. How is one to predict the future, anyway?