Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

PS3 Owner Refunded For Missing "Other OS"

kdawson posted more than 4 years ago | from the making-good dept.

Operating Systems 353

Toxicgonzo writes "Amazon has given a European PS3 owner a 20% refund for removal of the PS3's OtherOS feature. (We recently discussed hacker Geohot's efforts to restore this feature.) The owner cited European law Directive 1999/44/EC — which states that goods must (1) comply with the description given by the seller and possess the same qualities and characteristics as other similar goods, and (2) be fit for the purpose which the consumer requires them and which was made known to the seller at the time of purchase. How many other European PS3 owners will follow suit? If Amazon forwards the bill to Sony, how will Sony respond?"

cancel ×

353 comments

Justice (4, Interesting)

headkase (533448) | more than 4 years ago | (#31788844)

This is justice for anyone who was actually affected by the removal. And feedback for Sony for future decisions.

Re:Justice (5, Insightful)

Coopjust (872796) | more than 4 years ago | (#31788920)

Justice for anyone who lives and purchased their console from a European retailer.

In the US, the best I can probably hope for is a class action in which lawyers will make millions and I'll get a $10 coupon off of a PS3 game.

And Geohot's hack only works if you are on 3.15 or below, if you're on 3.20 (which has the other OS feature, last firmware to do so), you're out of luck.

Re:Justice (2, Interesting)

theaveng (1243528) | more than 4 years ago | (#31789136)

Questions about the EU:

- How come the customer was not required to go to court *first* before getting his refund?

- What if the retailer had simply said, "No."
- What would have happened next?

Re:Justice (4, Informative)

VJ42 (860241) | more than 4 years ago | (#31789216)

How come the customer was not required to go to court *first* before getting his refund?

At least here in the UK, companies don't like ending up in court (even if they're in the right), so threatening them with legal action (just a letter\email citing the relevant legislation is fine; don't need a solicitor.)often gets you something (refund\replacement\money off vouchers etc.). Hell I've even got a replacement phone battery by complaining over the phone (citing the sale of goods act) at some bloke in a call centre half way round the world.

What if the retailer had simply said, "No." - What would have happened next?

He could then have taken them to the small claims court.

Re:Justice (1, Redundant)

theaveng (1243528) | more than 4 years ago | (#31789244)

So EU law works similar to US law. An American could do this same thing, cite the relevant law regarding flase advertising of a product, and get a refund. -or- Drag the retailer into small claims court.

Re:Justice (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31789488)

This isn't interesting. It's goddamn redundant.

Re:Justice (1)

VJ42 (860241) | more than 4 years ago | (#31789524)

So EU law works similar to US law. An American could do this same thing, cite the relevant law regarding false advertising of a product, and get a refund. -or- Drag the retailer into small claims court.

It'll be different in different member states but here in the UK if the retailer offers something and I later find out that they ripped me off (e.g. they only gave me a 10% refund, but I was entitled to a full 100%) I can still drag them back into the small claims court. If they acted fairly, however then they are fine.


It'll be close the the American system because yours is based on the common law that we invented; I don't know how it works in the rest of Europe, where they are based on the civil law system.

Re:Justice (1)

LordLimecat (1103839) | more than 4 years ago | (#31789228)

I dont normally go to court before getting a refund for things I return to amazon...

Re:Justice (1)

jonbryce (703250) | more than 4 years ago | (#31789232)

Because Amazon chose to refund him rather than face a court hearing

He would have gone to court
A county court judge / sheriff etc depending on juristiction would decide wether or not a refund was due

Re:Justice (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31789458)

SONY should be the one to cough-up refunds, not sellers like amazon... as it's SONY that's pulling the feature... amazon was just being the nice guy to satisfy their customer.. but it was SONY that pissed 'em off.

Re:Justice (1)

jimicus (737525) | more than 4 years ago | (#31789236)

Questions about the EU:

- How come the customer was not required to go to court *first* before getting his refund?

Quite often the threat of going to court is enough to make someone pay up.

- What if the retailer had simply said, "No."
- What would have happened next?

The customer would have had to take them to court. Though most European countries have a small claims system expressly designed to be reasonably straightforward for dealing with these things.

Re:Justice (1)

MoonBuggy (611105) | more than 4 years ago | (#31789522)

Amazon probably didn't take it to court first because they decided that the 20% refund to one guy was a more financially sensible option than allowing it to generate bad publicity and potentially run up legal fees. Whether they'll change their minds tomorrow when they see 1,000 similar claims is anybody's guess, though.

I assume that if they'd refused, the next step would've been a small claim in the county court (I know that's the case for issues like this under UK law, but it may differ since it's an EU directive, even though it took place in the UK). It's apparently fairly well set-up to assist individual claimants representing themselves, and the fees are low.

That said, the time and effort involved is probably still greater than the value of a PS3 - how much further value you place on the principle of the issue, however, is quite another matter!

Re:Justice (2, Informative)

iapetus (24050) | more than 4 years ago | (#31789540)

It wasn't a yes/no question. The question was "what is your position on the fact that Sony have removed functionality from the PS3 in a way that EU law appears to hold you liable for?"

If the retailer had simply said, "Our position is that we don't owe you shit" he would not have taken them to court, and would have reported that this was their position to anyone who was interested. He would then have contacted Trading Standards to ask them whether there was any case against Sony.

Re:Justice (5, Interesting)

Zerth (26112) | more than 4 years ago | (#31789200)

Speaking of European sales, I wonder if any of the European countries will go after Sony for additional VAT and tariffs because the PS3 is now just a gameplaying machine instead of a "freely programmable general purpose computer".

Re:Justice (5, Interesting)

Vanderhoth (1582661) | more than 4 years ago | (#31789220)

I'd like to see that. I've read in several places they only allowed Linux for the EU tax break. I'd like to see Sony have to pay retroactively seeing as how they retroactively removed the feature.

Re:Justice (2, Insightful)

theaveng (1243528) | more than 4 years ago | (#31789380)

Why does Sony keep frakking up? Did they lay-off the old management in 2005 and replace them with new guys who make dumb decisions?

- "Yes the PS2 only cost $300 at release, but we believe customers will want to throw-out the PS2 and pay $800 to get a new machine that has the same games but in HD! No we're not worried about the $250 Wii." [Wii is now the #1 seller.]
-
- "This firmware won't damage your console." "Ooops guess it did. No you won't get a refund for your broken PS3."
- "This firmware will turn off the Other OS function. Ooops guess we owe you a $20 refund under EU and US law for false advertising."
- "Ooops looks like we owe billions in EU taxes too since the PS3's Updated Firmware makes it a taxable game."
- "We have a new Bluray Disc that holds 150 gigabytes! Sorry you'll have to throw-out your old players to get the new 150 HD 3D movies."

Re:Justice (1)

CharlieHedlin (102121) | more than 4 years ago | (#31789402)

In the US you could certainly claim damage and sue in small claims court. Sony will almost certainly settle (with a gag order to try to keep it from spreading). I've considered it, but honestly I haven't found Linux on my PS3 particularly useful. I'm sure if I upgraded the hard drive and wanted to do extensive video encoding I would but I haven't. I spent a great deal of time tweaking the frame buffer to fill my TV without over scanning, and then never used it again.

I have decided to return any unopened Sony products I still have (Car stereo for boat) and buy another brand.

Re:Justice (1)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 4 years ago | (#31789426)

I'm wondering, is there no way to downgrade back to 3.15?

Re:Justice (4, Insightful)

The Moof (859402) | more than 4 years ago | (#31789452)

I wonder if you could argue that this sets precedent for how much Sony has to shell out to each owner. $80 x 20-30 million owners and I think we'll suddenly get our feature back instead of Sony shelling out the roughly 2 billion dollars.

Re:Justice (3, Insightful)

theaveng (1243528) | more than 4 years ago | (#31789572)

In the US, the best I can probably hope for is a class action in which lawyers will make millions and I'll get a $10 coupon off of a PS3 game

Not true.

A US citizen has the same legal protection as an EU citizen, either to demand a refund from sony, or else sue them in court for violating US law.

Re:Justice (1)

RTFA (697910) | more than 4 years ago | (#31788946)

And feedback for Sony for future decisions.

"Amazon has given a [...] refund". So, you assume Sony will refund Amazon?

Altough I am RTFA, I didn't RTFA so:
"(1) comply with the description given by the seller and possess the same qualities and characteristics as other similar goods" Was the Other OS characteristics ever listed as a sales argument / product description by Sony?

Re:Justice (4, Informative)

Vanderhoth (1582661) | more than 4 years ago | (#31788996)

Was the Other OS characteristics ever listed as a sales argument / product description by Sony?

It's on my box. It was one of two main reasons I paid an extra $500 instead of getting a Wii.

Re:Justice (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31789044)

Doesn't it also say they can change it at any time? I had read that it did. Also, did these folks make the requirement known to the seller at the time of sale? Pretty doubtful.

Re:Justice (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31789294)

i think in Europe this kind of shit doesnt go through.
There are standards ,and if what you say will change is against standards - it doesn't matter what you say, your words mean nothing, you are still obliged to provide satisfaction to standards.
E.g., you sell some product that can be classified as food, you say on label, it may cause death or injury, someone eats it - you are in trouble, no one gives a fuck if end user was warned, the fact you broke laws regarding food industry pretty much mean - you are opened to law suit.

Re:Justice (2, Insightful)

ShadowRangerRIT (1301549) | more than 4 years ago | (#31789338)

Those "change at any time" clauses are illegal in a lot of jurisdictions. Contracts require mutual informed consent on a fixed wording; otherwise your agreement to purchase a console could be rewritten into a marriage contract because you agreed that the agreement "could change at any time". Yes, it's an intentionally absurd example, but legally speaking, it's effectively equivalent (aside from those pesky activist judges who might make a decision based on the real world instead of a legal fiction).

Re:Justice (1)

Vanderhoth (1582661) | more than 4 years ago | (#31789374)

Doesn't it also say they can change it at any time? I had read that it did.

In the EULA it says they may change or update a feature, but never says they can remove features.

Also, did these folks make the requirement known to the seller at the time of sale? Pretty doubtful.

The sell person I was dealing with knew about it because I asked about being able to run Linux. The sales clerk pointed out on the box to me and told me I could install Linux. I remember it very clearly because I had read the PS3 could run Linux several times in the weeks leading up to the release and wanted to make sure it really could before I spent all the extra money on it. Maybe the store didn't know and the clerk was just extra knowledgeable, but seeing as how I bought my PS3 on release day I doubt it.

Re:Justice (1)

jisatsusha (755173) | more than 4 years ago | (#31789404)

The other reason being blu ray, I presume?

Re:Justice (5, Informative)

ratboy666 (104074) | more than 4 years ago | (#31789106)

Sure they did

http://www.playstation.com/ps3-openplatform/index.html [playstation.com]

Note though, that the feature is gone (read the red part at the top).

And, let's look at the original version of the page

http://web.archive.org/web/20061118073923/http://www.playstation.com/ps3-openplatform/index.html [archive.org]

Re:Justice (4, Insightful)

Vanderhoth (1582661) | more than 4 years ago | (#31788964)

The issue is it was Amazon that had to pay out not Sony. That being said if Amazon had to pay out to a S*** load of people they'd probably take Sony on. One large corporation taking on another has a better chance then a bunch of Linux geeks, but at best Sony would just have to pay out. I bought my PS3 for the other OS feature and I want to keep it.

If I had kept the receipt for my PS3 I might go after EB games for a refund. After all Sony took my $800 PS3 "super computer" and turned it into a cheap $150 PS3 Slim. I wonder if Sony re-enables the feature if the guy would have to give the money back?

Re:Justice (2, Informative)

Blue Stone (582566) | more than 4 years ago | (#31789040)

>If I had kept the receipt for my PS3 I might go after EB games for a refund.

In the UK, and I guess Europe, you don't need your receipt, just some proof somewhere and somehow that you bought from that company - credit card records, for instance.

Re:Justice (0)

Pvt_Ryan (1102363) | more than 4 years ago | (#31789230)

I bought mine 2nd hand on ebay, I wonder if I can get ebay to pay out.. I wouldnt do it against the seller as they were probably just a decent person trying to get rid of something hardly used.

Re:Justice (1)

theaveng (1243528) | more than 4 years ago | (#31789432)

Also it's not the Ebay seller's fault that Sony altered the product's firmware. Plus you're probably past the 45 day limit to file an Ebay or Paypal dispute.

Re:Justice (0)

Pvt_Ryan (1102363) | more than 4 years ago | (#31789450)

Nor was it Amazon's...
It was just a thought, if i could screw a large corp and get away with it fine, but not some random guy.

Re:Justice (1)

Bert64 (520050) | more than 4 years ago | (#31789476)

Go after the seller, he can go back to wherever he bought it and get 20% of the original price back which should be more than 20% of what you paid anyway...

Re:Justice (2, Informative)

VJ42 (860241) | more than 4 years ago | (#31789282)

>If I had kept the receipt for my PS3 I might go after EB games for a refund.

In the UK, and I guess Europe, you don't need your receipt, just some proof somewhere and somehow that you bought from that company - credit card records, for instance.

Not even that, just reasonable expectation that you bought it from the place you're trying to return it. Fox example, if a phone company has an exclusive phone, it's highly likely you bought it from them, so they have to refund\replace even though in theory you could have bought it from someone else who got it from them. The Sale of Goods act is great like that.

Re:Justice (1)

mysidia (191772) | more than 4 years ago | (#31789062)

Yes, but just one person doing it isn't enough. We need for a significant percentage of Sony customers who bought a PS3 in Europe to do it in order to put a dent in Sony's costs, which probably is not happening.

Re:Justice (1)

somersault (912633) | more than 4 years ago | (#31789320)

I've done it anyway as I think that a message needs to be sent to Sony. Trying to encourage my flatmate to do the same thing despite the fact that he's never used the Other OS feature.

Remains to be seen whether they'll refund me 20% too. If they do, it means I got a seriously good deal on my PS3 :P

Re:Justice (1)

Bert64 (520050) | more than 4 years ago | (#31789506)

Wether your flatmate used the feature or not, 20% cashback on the cost of a PS3 is worth taking.

Re:Justice (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31789252)

yes ps 3 feedback go to www.reklamhizmetleri.org

Re:Justice (1)

Labcoat Samurai (1517479) | more than 4 years ago | (#31789416)

Let me get this out of the way: I'm disappointed in Sony for removing this feature. I firmly come down on the side of "this is bullshit"

However, I think that Amazon paying out for this unit is *also* bullshit. The product did do everything it was advertised to do. You separately agree to an EULA for use of the Playstation Network. Sony can do pretty much whatever it wants regarding that, up to and including terminating the network altogether, so your recourse, in this case, is to give up PSN usage to keep the Other OS feature. If Sony *did* discontinue the PSN service years after you purchased your system, would it be reasonable to expect a payout from Amazon?

Re:Justice (1)

f3rret (1776822) | more than 4 years ago | (#31789500)

ahahah!

Suck it Sony!

Ahem I mean, that's nice for the people who now have the chance to get their money back when Sony decided that they didn't need the product they paid for.

Heh (0, Troll)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 4 years ago | (#31788902)

Cue the complainers who didn't even know their PS3 Fat could do this in the first place.

Re:Heh (2, Interesting)

kramerd (1227006) | more than 4 years ago | (#31788978)

Actually, as a PS3 owner who chooses to use the included OS, I am still angry at functionality that was included with purchase being removed. This affects the potential resale value. Or perhaps I want to play my old PS2 games without buying a PS2, since I sold mine when I bought a PS3 to offset the then $600 price tag. I'm sure the majority of complaints stem from actual issues that vary based on how people use their respective consoles.

Re:Heh (2, Interesting)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 4 years ago | (#31789190)

Don't get me wrong, I'm sure there are a LOT of people out there who were using this capability...I just mean the people who had no idea they could even do this suddenly demanding a refund.

Re:Heh (3, Insightful)

Pvt_Ryan (1102363) | more than 4 years ago | (#31789258)

True but they actually help our cause even if it is out of their own greed. The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

Re:Heh (-1, Troll)

theaveng (1243528) | more than 4 years ago | (#31789544)

>>>people who had no idea they could even do this suddenly demanding a refund.

I certainly would. Any opportunity I have to cause financial damage to the corporations that raped taxpayer wallets for 1500 billion dollars (TARP plus Bailout bills) (almost $14,000 per American home), I am going to take it.

How Does a Refund Fix Anything? (4, Insightful)

JoeCommodore (567479) | more than 4 years ago | (#31788910)

I'm sure a lot of folks would rather see their paid-for features returned than a few dollars back from a retailer.

Re:How Does a Refund Fix Anything? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31788936)

because it begins to acknowledge that removing otherOS was a dick thing to do on sonys behalf

Re:How Does a Refund Fix Anything? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31788950)

If enough people do it, it will cost sony more than they thought it would, and be a warning to others. It's all too late anyway, if they haven't completely opened the door to piracy, they've certainly put down a welcome mat and turned on the porch lights.

Re:How Does a Refund Fix Anything? (4, Insightful)

JoeCommodore (567479) | more than 4 years ago | (#31789026)

>> If enough people do it, it will cost sony more than they thought it would, and be a warning to others. It's all too late anyway, if they haven't completely opened the door to piracy, they've certainly put down a welcome mat and turned on the porch lights.

Hardly. Would show to manufacturers that the feature was really valuable and maybe they can make more money by repackaging it at a higher cost. Also that removing features on the currently installed customer base is something they can get away with. (Of course many companies can claim prior art on that - i.e. Apple with Qucktime and iTunes and many others)

Re:How Does a Refund Fix Anything? (1)

Richard_at_work (517087) | more than 4 years ago | (#31789178)

Amazon can't do anything about the lack of a feature, all they can do is refund.

Re:How Does a Refund Fix Anything? (1)

LoudMusic (199347) | more than 4 years ago | (#31789250)

20% is plenty more than a few dollars. If they bought from Amazon when the device was new they paid Euro equivalent of $600 USD, which would be $120 USD back. That's a fair chunk of change - likely more than a day's pay for the vast majority of PS3 owners.

Re:How Does a Refund Fix Anything? (4, Insightful)

jimicus (737525) | more than 4 years ago | (#31789366)

Unfortunately in the UK (and I think most of Europe), sales of goods law covers the contract between retailer and consumer. Not manufacturer.

Amazon can't (easily) update the firmware of his PS3 to put that feature back again, so their options are pretty limited. The consumer can't get an injunction against Sony to reinstate the feature (because they never had a contract with Sony) and they can't get an injunction against Amazon to reinstate the feature (because it's not physically possible for Amazon to do so).

Myself, I think this demonstrates a huge flaw in current legislation - business to business sales (which Amazon buying a bunch of PS3s from Sony would come under) have nothing like the same level of protection as business to consumer sales. So if a retailer sells a bunch of products which then have functionality removed remotely by the manufacturer - entirely outside of the retailers control - the retailer winds up being held responsible.

Note: IANAL.

Re:How Does a Refund Fix Anything? (5, Informative)

iapetus (24050) | more than 4 years ago | (#31789440)

I've been doing a lot of reading up on these things recently (I'm the PS3 owner mentioned in the story, and quite embarassed to be front page news on Slashdot when all I actually did was send a mail to Amazon asking them to clarify where they stood on this whole affair) - the relevant EU directive (1999/44/EC) states that where the retailer pays out but the lack of conformity was caused by the producer (or someone else further up the supply chain) the retailer has the right to go after the person responsible for the lack of conformity to get their money back - in this case, Sony. I'm hoping Amazon will end up doing this, because they're not the ones to blame for this.

Re:How Does a Refund Fix Anything? (1)

jbssm (961115) | more than 4 years ago | (#31789498)

Well, at least in Portugal, you may choose whether to claim directly with the retailer or the manufacturer.

When I have a problem with any good and want to activate the warranty I normally choose the one that's closer to me, and it works either way.

It lets you buy a small form factor PC (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 4 years ago | (#31789418)

I'm sure a lot of folks would rather see their paid-for features returned than a few dollars back from a retailer.

You can use the refund to buy a PC that contains the paid-for features. Case in point: Even though the Acer Aspire Revo has a fairly weak CPU by gaming standards, it still has an NVIDIA GPU, not a Voodoo3-class Intel GMA or (worse) a dumb frame buffer like that in the PS3 Other OS environment. It also has more RAM than the PS3, so no thrashing swap.

Re:How Does a Refund Fix Anything? (1)

girlintraining (1395911) | more than 4 years ago | (#31789532)

I'm sure a lot of folks would rather see their paid-for features returned than a few dollars back from a retailer.

No. Most people don't care about the feature. But free money would be a welcome thing. Post it to facebook. Tell all your friends -- Get $80 for free, follow the instructions below! That'll fuck 'em long and good. :) Never appeal to the moral high ground when you can get people on board with good old fashioned cash.

It means that eventually you'll agree to a EULA... (1)

Assmasher (456699) | more than 4 years ago | (#31788940)

...when you actually purchase a product. What a horrific, but seemingly inevitable, solution.

Gack!

Re:It means that eventually you'll agree to a EULA (2, Interesting)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 4 years ago | (#31788984)

No EULA will override basic legal principles.
Judges are rather consistent about the fact some rights just cannot be signed away.

Doesn't make it right. (1)

headkase (533448) | more than 4 years ago | (#31788994)

Just because its in an EULA doesn't make it right. Imagine if EULA's were gradually introduced for computers themselves and say over 20 years they became a defacto-standard. As the old hardware died off you would be stuck in the EULA without wanting to be there but forced to through network effects. I don't think there should be EULA's required to make hardware work at all because it contains the word License. I don't license my hardware, I buy it. This is a moral distinction.

There's a word for that: lease (2, Insightful)

tepples (727027) | more than 4 years ago | (#31789474)

I don't license my hardware, I buy it.

Then consumer electronic entertainment products will become no longer available for sale. Instead, they are leased to you for 20 years in a contract among you, the retailer, and the manufacturer. Don't like it? Don't buy consumer electronic entertainment products.

Re:It means that eventually you'll agree to a EULA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31789006)

EULA doesn't trump law though. At least not here.

Re:It means that eventually you'll agree to a EULA (1)

Vanderhoth (1582661) | more than 4 years ago | (#31789066)

Maybe I'm misinterpreting what you're trying to say, but an EULA cannot override federal Law. This guy got money back because in the EU you can't sell a product then remove major features that were the advertised at the point of sale. So signing an EULA when the product was bought wouldn't matter, he still would have gotten his money back.

Car analogy. (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31788980)

(since this is Slashdot and a story is never complete without a car analogy comment)
Imagine that you've bought a 4-door car and everything's working great... you take it in to get a winter tuneup or oil change or whatever and the dealer updates the under-the-hood computer so that the back door locks are always engaged and you can no longer open the back doors. You can still use the space, but anyone who wants to sit in the back has to go in through the front and via the inbetween space between the front seats.

Hows that?
OK, commentators...start you analogy engines! And respond to this comment with your better/updated car analogies!

-------------
TDz.

Re:Car analogy. (5, Insightful)

EasyTarget (43516) | more than 4 years ago | (#31789052)

Better analogy:
You are a nice happy nuclear family, mother, father, three kids.
You buy a 5 seat car for your family.
You get a Safety Recall notice, take the car in.
When it returns it only has 4 seats, the 5th has been removed 'For Safety!'

Re:Car analogy. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31789510)

Better analogy

You buy a car, then one day you take it into the dealer and find out they put in different spark plugs. It has no real effect on you, but you get nerdragey and bitch about it because that's what nerds do.

Re:Car analogy. (1)

Labcoat Samurai (1517479) | more than 4 years ago | (#31789576)

That *is* really close. I'd add one thing. You have the option to keep your fifth seat, but if you do, they'll withold OnStar support.

Re:Car analogy. (4, Insightful)

JoeCommodore (567479) | more than 4 years ago | (#31789092)

How about this, car co a made this nifty car that could take regular gasoline or diesel all you had to do was flip a switch.

One day you take it into the shop and the mechanic removes the switch, regular gas only, even though diesel had better than twice the mpg- "company told me to, sorry. Hey, here's a couple bucks for your troubles."

Re:Car analogy. (-1, Flamebait)

Mad Leper (670146) | more than 4 years ago | (#31789142)

Ok, how about this

A car manufacture advertised a feature where by you could connect a cappuccino machine to the cars cooling system and make coffee while you were driving. After a few years the car manufacture became concerned that misuse of this feature may cause performance problems and so removed the feature from their newer model. Later they had reports of a few customers misusing the feature on the older models and possibly leading to warranty and road safety problems. So the car manufacturer issued a fix to the mechanics to disable the feature on the older models.

A small minority of car owners raise a bloody furor over not being able to froth their milk while driving, claim their basic human rights have been violated and insist on being compensated for their suffering.

Re:Car analogy. (1)

FlyingBishop (1293238) | more than 4 years ago | (#31789234)

It's more like taking off a trailer hitch on a sports car. Practically nobody uses their sports car with a trailer, but it's good to have the option.

Where your analogy fails is that cappuccino making has nothing to do with the basic function of the device. Even though few people use the Other OS feature, it's perfectly natural that people want to use an expensive computer to compute things, much like it's perfectly natural that people want to use an expensive automobile to tow their expensive boat.

Re:Car analogy. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31789574)

More like: they sold him two devices (a games console and a computer), charging a higher price and using the extra capabilities as one of the justifications, and then took one of them back. Car Analogy? Let's say you agree to buy a $10,000 value car for $15,000 because the dealer is giving you a buy one, get one free deal. Once the contract is signed, they take the free car back and you've just paid massively over the odds.

Re:Car analogy. (1)

Bearhouse (1034238) | more than 4 years ago | (#31789158)

OK, I'll bite.
How about you had a car that used to have a removable roof, so that - when you felt like it - you could drop the top and enjoy the free air and sunshine.
It comes back from the garage after a mandatory 'safety' recall, and - without consulting you - they've locked the roof closed forever.
Does not sound like the car you originally purchased...

Re:Car analogy. (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31789256)

You can still use the space, but anyone who wants to sit in the back has to go in through the front and via the inbetween space between the front seats.

Sorry! Crawling into the back space, in any way, is a violation of the DMCA. ISPs will be required to put video cameras in your car to make sure you aren't occupying any unauthorized areas (that's their job don't ya know?).

Re:Car analogy. (1)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 4 years ago | (#31789306)

My Analogy:

You pay premium for a Dodge Challenger. You spend a year souping it up, new fuel injection system, NOS, anything and everything you might have heard of when you watched Fast and the Furious.

Dodge recalls the vehicles, for some issue.

When you go to pick it up, they return you a stock Dodge Neon.

Re:Car analogy. (1)

Pvt_Ryan (1102363) | more than 4 years ago | (#31789310)

How about: You buy a toyota It gets recalled for safety. It gets returned minus the accelerator (gas) pedal.. Oh wait that almost sounds familiar...

Trying this in Norway (5, Interesting)

juletre (739996) | more than 4 years ago | (#31788986)

A friend of mine sent a letter to Sony Norway telling them how his PS3 stopped working as advertised. In Norway any consumer electronics should be expected to work in 5 years. As it stands his PS3 just stopped working well short of the five years.
No reply as of yet, but should be fun.

Re:Trying this in Norway (1)

Rakshasa Taisab (244699) | more than 4 years ago | (#31789068)

Better than just that... The warranty is for 5 years while removing a functionality in this manner is likely to get them a metal rod up their asses when the consumer protection agency finds out.

Re:Trying this in Norway (2, Interesting)

jbssm (961115) | more than 4 years ago | (#31789538)

I believe in this case it's not even a warranty problem. In Portugal, the warranty is 2 years. But they cannot remove functionality just because the warranty is over. Even if it had passed 4 years I would still be entitled to compensation in this case.

its a start (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31789008)

Rightly so. This was a advertised feature. Sony had no right to disable it. I think people should take action to do point that Sony restores this capability.

Amazons bad (0)

cenobyte40k (831687) | more than 4 years ago | (#31789022)

It's up the the seller to make sure that the item is listed correctly. If Amazon failed to note that it was different from the other units it had sold before, that is it's bad and it need to pay. Sony changed the product, they didn't list it on Amazon.

Re:Amazons bad (1)

Vanderhoth (1582661) | more than 4 years ago | (#31789110)

No, The guy got a refund for a PS3 he purchased that originally had the Other OS feature. Sony removed it after he had bought and paid for the PS3, Amazon can't time travel and go back to remove the advertised feature before the guy bought this PS3 so it's not their fault. However, under EU law you can't go after the manufacture for a Bait and Switch you have to go after the seller.

Re:Amazons bad (2, Insightful)

dk90406 (797452) | more than 4 years ago | (#31789218)

Amazon listed correctly. Sony just decided to change the product after the customer bought it. If Amazon has any brains they (and other resellers caught up in this) whould pass the bill on to Sony. Sony may even decide to revert the "update" and reenable the feature in order to save costs.

It is not as if newer firmware wont be hacked. Quite the contrary, now hackers who has left the platform alone, will attack it out of spite.

I can't understand why Sony keeps shooting themselves in the foot.

Re:Amazons bad (1)

Vanderhoth (1582661) | more than 4 years ago | (#31789466)

I can't understand why Sony keeps shooting themselves in the foot.

Because they can't reach the trigger of the shot gun if they try to shoot themselves in the head.

Re:Amazons bad (1)

jittles (1613415) | more than 4 years ago | (#31789358)

Sony removed the Other OS feature a while ago. This is a completely different issue, my friend. He had the Other OS option and Sony removed it via a mandatory (if you play online) software update.

Bait and Switch Bastards (2, Insightful)

WilyCoder (736280) | more than 4 years ago | (#31789050)

This is a classic bait-and-switch that Sony did...

Interested in the results (1)

MoldySpore (1280634) | more than 4 years ago | (#31789070)

While am interested in running Linux on my PS3, I bought a slim so I never had the option anyway (according to Geohot [blogspot.com] his hack could possibly restore the OtherOS option on the slim as well).

I am much more interested to see how this plays out, if Amazon is handing out $ to end-users because of SONY'S decision to remove a feature. This could have huge impacts on any future company that things about removing an established feature from a popular product. Everyone should be watching this turn of events carefully, whether you care about the OtherOS option or not.

Valid anywhere else???? (1)

Zen-Mind (699854) | more than 4 years ago | (#31789108)

Is there anywhere else where this kind of law would apply, even if you have to enforce it with a class action suit?

Now they DID remove a feature that is was first advertised to have, making it LESS than it was when I first purchased it so removing value. To make an analogy, it would be like my car dealer removing my airbags saying there was a security risk, but not replacing it with an equivalent feature and not wanting to give me money back saying I never used the feature ...

No I currently don't use the feature on my old phat PS3, but if I ever buy another console (the slim or a PS4 when it is released), I always considered I could use it as a HTPC ... I don't like throwing away electronics, I always try to find 2nd lives for them.

What about Xbox running other OS? (1)

a1x2 (1313657) | more than 4 years ago | (#31789122)

May that kind of move from Sony lead Xbox to explore the 'opportunity' approach this segment?

Re:What about Xbox running other OS? (1)

ShadowRangerRIT (1301549) | more than 4 years ago | (#31789400)

I've seen nearly identical comments posted before on Sony related articles (though apparently not by you). It makes absolutely no sense. WTF are you trying to say?

What is really interesting is (4, Informative)

Pvt_Ryan (1102363) | more than 4 years ago | (#31789138)

"Without limitation, services may include the provision of the latest update or download of new release that may include security patches, new technology or revised settings and features which may prevent access to unauthorized or pirated content, or use of unauthorized hardware or software in connection with the PS3 system."

It doesn't say anything about removal of features. just adding them or changing them..

Re:What is really interesting is (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31789336)

"removing them" is a change, is it not? ;(

Re:What is really interesting is (1)

Vanderhoth (1582661) | more than 4 years ago | (#31789496)

You mean kind of like I can change your car in to thin air?

That probably should have gone in the car analogy thread

Good news (1)

LoudMusic (199347) | more than 4 years ago | (#31789162)

This is really good news and sets a very important precedent in the digital market of internet connected devices. You can not sell something with an included or promised feature (at time of purchase) and then take it away. That action would seem to correlate to theft.

They'll pay (1)

Bearhouse (1034238) | more than 4 years ago | (#31789186)

If Amazon forwards the bill to Sony, how will Sony respond?"

Sony will pay Amazon, no problem. There's less 'class action' frenzy in Europe, so it will probably be peanuts...

Re:They'll pay (1)

jittles (1613415) | more than 4 years ago | (#31789410)

Except that once people see they can get money back on their purchase they will go after it even if they never intended to use that feature. And why not? Sony shouldn't be removing features. It affects resale value.

Correction "offered", not "given" (2, Insightful)

Rogerborg (306625) | more than 4 years ago | (#31789198)

It's not entirely clear, but I hope that the owner tells them to suck on it, and insists on a full refund or repair.

I need to try this for my defective items (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31789248)

I have to give this a try for the many defective items I've purchased, including:

- The shirt that said "One size fits all" but ripped after only two people were stuffed in it
- The "all purpose" flashlight that refused to peel potatoes
- The hand towel dispenser whose instructions said "rip down, tear up" and after I ripped it down and tore it up my hands were still wet and there were reams of low grade paper and mangled machinery everywhere

full refund (1)

grumpyman (849537) | more than 4 years ago | (#31789288)

They actually should offer full refund to the console regardless of how old they are. It's not the same but what if car manufacturer disabled a 6th gear from a sports car?

http://www.decoramould.com/ (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31789368)

why that was made for the Entire word

Letters and Aussies (1)

fremean (1189177) | more than 4 years ago | (#31789446)

I'm working on my letters, two, one directly to Sony, and one to Harvey Norman.

I suck at letter writing... and I hate it so damn much... but I feel strongly enough about this.

A positive sign for Australians is the state of things in the UK, when I mentioned this to the ACCC they were very interested (I suspect being a Commonwealth country there's some influence here)

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...