Originally Posted by azianai
Try again, main property of a PS3 is a gaming system
main property of a car is driving
I wonder if anyone here would be slightly frustrated to find that their car has no air conditioning or heating after being taken to a dealership for maintenance, and when enquiring about it, being told that the car's AC removed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and then, when demanding for it to be fixed, being told that there's nothing that you can do since the car was never explicitly advertised as having AC and the car's "main property" isn't keeping you cool or warm.
Originally Posted by Stealth Pyros
PS3's ability to "run" hasn't been removed. Your analogy fails. If you insist on comparing a $20,000+ car to a $300 video game system, do so with a little more equality between the comparisons.
PS3's "OtherOS" feature was removed, to protect Sony's own ass against piracy and their customers suffering from players creating and using hacks in online games. This would be roughly equivalent to Toyota repairing the accelerator pedals to protect all drivers on the road that were in danger of Toyota drivers getting their accelerators stuck.
This is about the closest I can think of to realistically comparing the PS3's situation to a car. Again, the analogy fails especially due to the fact that the car is not even closely relative to PS3's software.
Well, if arguing specifics of an analogy is so important...
I never mentioned the price of the car, nor was the value ever implied. Why you had to come up with a number like 20,000 when, at least in this country, I can get a car for less than a PS3 is beyond me.
And the "Toyota analogy" fails because the accelerator fix removes absolutely no functionality (unless you consider uncontrollably crashing into stuff at high speed a feature) and Sony certainly didn't remove the OtherOS feature because it might somehow harm the customer.
Edit: Actually, I just came up with a better way to put it.
Let's say cars happen to have the same closed-source software that a PS3 has with OtherOS, installed into its computer. Now let's say Geo found a way to hack into that software and modify it to do whatever you please with it. The car manufacturer immediately flashes an update over the air to all their cars to remove the OtherOS feature which is where the security hole was. Is the manufacturer wrong in doing so? Geo's hack could have possibly lead to someone hacking into your car's software remotely and making you crash into a wall at full speed or make your car crawl at 2mph for your entire trip. (Just like on PS3 hackers can either cheat online in games or steal your personal information, maybe even crash/brick your PS3 if possible)
Just as Sony has the right to grant you new features, they have the right to remove previous features, especially when they are a security concern. Of COURSE there is going to be a selfish reason behind it, (by selfish I mean for their own benefit) they're a BUSINESS. They don't want to suffer from piracy but at the same time want to also keep their PS3's reputation of being clean of cheaters. The car manufacturer would do the same out of self benefit to prevent lawsuits, but would be protecting the lives and driving experiences of their customers.
Again, I'm not convinced that the hack does anything to harm other users' experience, save for possibly the absolute horror of having lower rank and (*gasp*) less achievements than a dirty, filthy hacker.
But assuming that the things in the bolded part were possible, no, I wouldn't think the manufacturer is wrong. Thenagain, I do believe there is a subtle difference between removing a feature because it might kill you along with many other different people and removing a feature because of a perceived threat to a company's income, even when the company is there for the sole purpose of pleasing shareholders.
As for Sony having the right to do it - well, I won't argue that. I think this is more of an ethical issue (for both sides to be fair) and a question of whether they should
do it rather than a question of whether one has the right
to do it.