Sethos Posted April 29, 2010 Share Posted April 29, 2010 I am not sure why there are people taking sides with Sony on this. Even if you never intended on using the Other OS option that does not give Sony the right to remove the option. The PS3 was sold with the OPTION to install Linux, it should not matter how many people actually used the feature, what if one day you wanted to try it out. I agree that the $$ amount is crazy but I would be against any company that sells a product with a feature then removes it. Well said, taking sides with Sony in this case does smell a bit of having a different agenda than the normal consumer - Even if you didn't use it, still puts users in a worse off position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AbandonedTrolley Posted April 29, 2010 Share Posted April 29, 2010 The PS3 gets quieter??! I can't even hear my PS3 fat. The fan on my 80GB PS3 is on about 80% of the time it's running. Even just things like PlayTV or watching an AVI file kicks in the fans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Audioboxer Subscriber² Posted April 29, 2010 Subscriber² Share Posted April 29, 2010 I am not sure why there are people taking sides with Sony on this. Even if you never intended on using the Other OS option that does not give Sony the right to remove the option. The PS3 was sold with the OPTION to install Linux, it should not matter how many people actually used the feature, what if one day you wanted to try it out. I agree that the $ amount is crazy but I would be against any company that sells a product with a feature then removes it. Being against a company and dissecting the launching of a lawsuit that's most likely going to fail are two different things. Feel free to be against any company you want, just like everyone around here is free to share their opinions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hedon Posted April 29, 2010 Author Share Posted April 29, 2010 The fan on my 80GB PS3 is on about 80% of the time it's running. Even just things like PlayTV or watching an AVI file kicks in the fans. Ah. I have a 40gb model. However, mine is in a media room, separate from my hometheater. I never hear it when the disk is running (because that means I am in the other room using it), but when I turn it on and off and put disks in and out of it, I don't hear it at all. I suppose it could be making noise when I am not by it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jerzdawg Posted April 29, 2010 Share Posted April 29, 2010 Being against a company and dissecting the launching of a lawsuit that's most likely going to fail are two different things. Feel free to be against any company you want, just like everyone around here is free to share their opinions. you arent just dissecting.. you keep making mention of how many users actually used the Other OS option. That shouldnt matter, company A sold you a product with Features A, B, C, D - a few years later they decide to remove feature B. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Audioboxer Subscriber² Posted April 29, 2010 Subscriber² Share Posted April 29, 2010 you arent just dissecting.. you keep making mention of how many users actually used the Other OS option. That shouldnt matter, company A sold you a product with Features A, B, C, D - a few years later they decide to remove feature B. It'll matter to the lawsuit, especially with the figure being asked for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vice Posted April 29, 2010 Share Posted April 29, 2010 I bought a PS3 from Amazon a few years ago. And since that guy from NeoGAF received 20% of the cost of his console back I thought I'd give it a go. Here is the reply I received from Amazon Dear xxxxxxxxThank you for your email. We take this opportunity to express our regret at the issues you have had with the Sony PS3. We have considered carefully the points expressed in your email, and we recommend that you bring this matter to the attention of the manufacturer, Sony. We do not consider the application of either EU Directive 1999/44/EC or the Sale of Goods Act 1979 to be relevant in these circumstances. We apologise that we cannot assist you further on this occasion. Sony can be contacted at: Uk customers: http://www.sony.co.uk/ (08705 111999) If you have any further concerns please contact us at the above email address. Thank you for shopping at Amazon.co.uk Regards :rofl: Amazon passing the buck to Sony, even though Amazon are the ones who sold it to me. No refund for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jerzdawg Posted April 29, 2010 Share Posted April 29, 2010 It'll matter to the lawsuit, especially with the figure being asked for. So because someone didnt install Linux before the firmware update that means they were never going to? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Southern Patriot Posted April 29, 2010 Share Posted April 29, 2010 I agree that the $$ amount is crazy but I would be against any company that sells a product with a feature then removes it. Again, since people around here don't seem to get the concept of a class action lawsuit: That amount would be divided up between ALL of the members of the class, meaning everyone who bought a PS3 between launch and announcement of the 3.21 update, not including those who sold the PS3 before the update announcement. It also includes legal fees! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DPyro Posted April 29, 2010 Share Posted April 29, 2010 Random American suing? We see this so often, given this case isn't as ridiculous as others, still good luck he'll need it. Hope he doesn't lose too much money in court expenses. and 5 million? Where the **** do these people pull figures from? Maybe if the amount they wanted to claim wasn't so ridiculous such lawsuits would be taken more seriously. Wow, I thought you of all people would be more educated on this issue. This is a class action lawsuit, so anyone can join. Counting the number of people who join the lawsuit plus legal fees and expenses, he'll be lucky to walk away with $100. I personally would have asked for much more than that. $5 million is chump change for Sony and if you wanted to send a message to them you have to ask for an amount that would actually hurt them financially. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Audioboxer Subscriber² Posted April 29, 2010 Subscriber² Share Posted April 29, 2010 So because someone didnt install Linux before the firmware update that means they were never going to? Quite frankly in the real world, a very good chance of yes. Everyone nowadays can only buy a Slim, and anyone with a fat PS3 has had years to install it if they wanted to use it and can still install it if they haven't updated. How that opinion holds up in court I don't know, just answering the question you asked me. Wow, I thought you of all people would be more educated on this issue. Why? Because I'm studying Law? Or I'm an American used to hearing about stories like this? No to both, you can learn new things everyday, ka-ching I have today, just levelled up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AbandonedTrolley Posted April 29, 2010 Share Posted April 29, 2010 I like the PS3 as much as anyone, BUT whether or not I chose to install Linux before or after the patch isn't the issue. The machine was advertised as being able to do so. It was purchased as being able to do so. Now Sony have decided it can't! It's the same product but certainly NOT with the same features I was sold it with. Just because I didn't use it before doesn't mean I was never going to use it. What if a company sells something with an advertised promise of a future upgrade to something you want, then after purchasing it they decide that they won't be doing that upgrade anymore. You will feel pretty swindled on that purchase. You still have the same product, but suddenly the things it was said to do it no longer will. This is no doubt how a lot of people are feeling towards Sony right now. Sethos 1 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DPyro Posted April 29, 2010 Share Posted April 29, 2010 Why? Because I'm studying Law? Or I'm an American used to hearing about stories like this? No to both, you can learn new things everyday, ka-ching I have today, just levelled up. Certainly not, but normally I see you've done research before you open your big mouth. Sethos 1 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Southern Patriot Posted April 29, 2010 Share Posted April 29, 2010 How that opinion holds up in court I don't know, just answering the question you asked me. In the US, class action lawsuits are designed to include anyone who potentially could be harmed by the action in question. Take the lawsuits against Toyota for example. Even if your car never experienced unintended accelleration, you are a member of the lawsuit class simply because you bought a Toyota with the potential to have the problem. Some of the suits against Toyota are simply because the owners have lost potential resale value: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35776697/ Those suits are potentially more damaging to Toyota's bottom line than the ones were people were actually hurt! edit: From the article I just linked to above, I may have found the reason for the "$5,000,000" amount: Under federal law, a class action must have 100 or more plaintiffs, damages sought must exceed $5 million and the judge must be persuaded the claims are identical or very similar. If a class is not certified, each lawsuit would have to be pursued on its own. So, it seems that this amount is the magic number for a class action suit to be considered valid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Audioboxer Subscriber² Posted April 29, 2010 Subscriber² Share Posted April 29, 2010 Certainly not, but normally I see you've done research before you open your big mouth. One can make a mistake can't they? If you can't see that I don't need you wasting my time, bye bye! In the US, class action lawsuits are designed to include anyone who potentially could be harmed by the action in question. Take the lawsuits against Toyota for example. Even if your car never experienced unintended accelleration, you are a member of the lawsuit class simply because you bought a Toyota with the potential to have the problem. Some of the suits against Toyota are simply because the owners have lost potential resale value: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35776697/ Those suits are potentially more damaging to Toyota's bottom line than the ones were people were actually hurt! Thanks for a better explanation than people just flaming you because you made a mistake over law terminology. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sethos Posted April 29, 2010 Share Posted April 29, 2010 Certainly not, but normally I see you've done research before you open your big mouth. :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C_Guy Posted April 29, 2010 Share Posted April 29, 2010 The disabling of Linux support is not only in breach of the sales contract between Sony and its customers, the suit says, but also a deceptive business practice "perpetrated on millions of unsuspecting customers." Well someone has their underwear all in a knot. You can't call it deception when you take away soemthing that a vast majority of customers either didn't know they had or don't care. And it's ONLY a breach of contract if the customer was aware of the functionality AND purchased it at least in part because of it. So if you change "millions" to "dozens" then you have a reasonable and logical statement there. But "millions"? No, sorry, not even close. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirkburn Posted April 29, 2010 Share Posted April 29, 2010 The disabling of Linux support is not only in breach of the sales contract between Sony and its customers, the suit says, but also a deceptive business practice "perpetrated on millions of unsuspecting customers." Well someone has their underwear all in a knot. You can't call it deception when you take away soemthing that a vast majority of customers either didn't know they had or don't care. And it's ONLY a breach of contract if the customer was aware of the functionality AND purchased it at least in part because of it. So if you change "millions" to "dozens" then you have a reasonable and logical statement there. But "millions"? No, sorry, not even close. It's legal speak. Don't read it in the terms of an everyday person. For example, "millions" is true, because millions of people bought a PS3, and thus have/had the potential to use the Other OS feature. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Southern Patriot Posted April 29, 2010 Share Posted April 29, 2010 Thanks for a better explanation than people just flaming you because you made a mistake over law terminology. No problem, did you happen to notice the edit I added, which explains the reason for the dollar amount? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Audioboxer Subscriber² Posted April 29, 2010 Subscriber² Share Posted April 29, 2010 No problem, did you happen to notice the edit I added, which explains the reason for the dollar amount? Yeah I noticed that, makes much more sense now. Interesting to see where this goes now, the lawsuit seems to only seek for damages, not for Sony to actually reinstate OtherOS/Linux. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Southern Patriot Posted April 29, 2010 Share Posted April 29, 2010 Interesting to see where this goes now, the lawsuit seems to only seek for damages, not for Sony to actually reinstate OtherOS/Linux. It's far easier for them to get Sony to pay damages than to convince them to reinstate OtherOS. However, the lawsuit does ask for "injunctive relief", which could require Sony to either reinstate OtherOS in the firmware or reenable people still on 3.15 (the last version with OtherOS support) to access PSN. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noveed Posted April 29, 2010 Share Posted April 29, 2010 I hope sony truly get screwed over with this and that OtherOS is put back via a future firmware update. I thought updates added on things and not took them off. Its a PS3 goddammit! I want the next update to bring jet packs, nitrous boosters, rocket launchers etc on the PS3, they should be putting stuff on not taking away :\ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Audioboxer Subscriber² Posted April 29, 2010 Subscriber² Share Posted April 29, 2010 GAME response, don't know if anyone has posted it yet Thank you for your email.I understand your disappointment with the removal of the alternative operating system functionality of the PS3. The decision to remove this functionality was made by Sony in an effort to combat piracy. Please refer to paragraph 10 of the PlayStation Network Terms of Service and User Agreement dealing with Maintenance and Upgrades. This provision permits Sony to effect upgrades which may change users current operating system and could cause "loss of data or content, or loss of function or utility." I apologise for any disappointment this may cause however I am afraid it is Sony's decision and we cannot change this. Regards, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rajputwarrior Posted April 29, 2010 Share Posted April 29, 2010 i hope the lawsuit wins, a company shouldn't have that ability to remove features like that especially when someone is using the feature they removed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Audioboxer Subscriber² Posted April 29, 2010 Subscriber² Share Posted April 29, 2010 i hope the lawsuit wins, a company shouldn't have that ability to remove features like that especially when someone is using the feature they removed. The get out clause I think they'll win it on though is they aren't actually forcefully removing any feature, you the user actually remove the feature by upgrading the firmware. To connect to PSN and use games it's a requirement to be using the latest firmware, but that's the same with Live as well. We'll need to see if that holds up in court though if this even goes as far as court. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts