• PS3 Hacks, PS3 Legal (Sony) , 10.03.2011

    An amended complaint has been filed for the OtherOS removal case which addresses the deficiencies that the judge found in the original filing and brings some interesting allegations to the table. The new amendment complaint claims that the OtherOS removal was not because of the security vulnerability (revealed by Geohot back at the time), but it was financial reasons. The amendment further claims that IBM was not happy that the millitary was using the PS3, rather than the IBM blade servers for clustering.

    To quote:

    The Amended Complaint claims that Sony Computer Entertainment America didn’t remove OtherOS functionality due to security concerns. It had other options, if security had been the real issue. It was done, they claim, for financial reasons, and that Sony’s justification for the removal of Linux functionality was “false”, chosen so Sony could rely on the wording of various terms. They also point a finger at IBM, claiming that possibly IBM was not happy about the military using PS3s for clustering, instead of buying IBM Blades servers:


    159. SCEA suggested initially that the removal of the “Other OS” function from the “fat” models in April 2010 was for security and intellectual property reasons.

    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).

    It’s even more interesting because this allegation could also affect the Geohot vs Sony case.

    And here is an excerpt from the whole case (for those interested):

    SCEA’s purported Justifications for Removal were False

    159. SCEA suggested initially that the removal of the “Other OS” function from the “fat” models in April 2010 was for security and intellectual property reasons.

    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.

    164. Blu-Ray piracy using the Other OS was not a unique threat. In order to pirate a Blu-Ray disc, a hacker requires a secret code or key; with that key, a hacker can pirate a Blu-Ray using a PC or a PS3 or any other computer – there is nothing unique about the PS3 in this regard.

    165. In the AV Watch article discussed supra, Takase-San also commented on security not being an issue by saying: “That with respect to the Other OS security becomes the hole, but with the PS3 very firm security measures are being done, presently there is no such problem. If anything, support power is lightened.”

    166. In short, SCEA has offered no valid security justifications for removing the Other OS feature. The PS3 became subject to hacking after SCEA removed the “Other OS” feature and angry users sought ways to have their advertised and paid for features turned back on.

    167. Further, in February 2011, well after the Other OS feature was removed, it was a Sony employee who “tweeted” (sent a message via Twitter) the code that allowed users to get around the protections that prevent the PS3 from playing pirated games.

    168. It was only on February 16, 2011, that SCEA announced that “[u]nauthorized circumvention devices for the PlayStation 3 system have been recently released by hackers.” Notably, this was only after SCEA had removed the “Other OS” feature and then tweeted the PS3’s anti-circumvention codes to the world.

    169. SCEA could have taken other steps that were less intrusive than removing an advertised function of the device if security truly were a concern. Indeed, SCEA revealed that it had the capacity to monitor PS3 systems using “hacking” software and would remove those consoles from its PSN if they violated the TOS. In its February announcement, SCEA stated: “Consumers using circumvention devices or running unauthorized or pirated software will have access to the PlayStation Network and access to Qriocity services through PlayStation 3 system terminated permanently.”

    170. Thus, if any security concerns truly did exist at the time that justified SCEA’s removal of the “Other OS” feature, it could have taken alternative steps at that time and barred “hackers” or “jailbroken” consoles from the PSN as opposed to removing the “Other OS” feature for all users. 171. Instead, the true reason SCEI, SCEA and Sony removed the “Other OS” feature was because of financial concerns.

    172. Initially priced at $599 (much more than its competitors), SCEA was losing money on every PS3 console sold. In 2006, isuppli.com estimated that it cost Sony $806 to produce each PS3. That meant that each console sold resulted in a net loss to SCEI and SCEA of over $200.

    173. SCEA priced the PS3 with the expectation that it would make back the money lost on the console through the sale of games and accessories. The problem for SCEA arose from consumers and researchers who used the PS3 for its value as a computer through the other operating system. Such users bought few or no games or accessories, giving SCEA no way to recoup its losses on the console.

    174. As one article noted, Sony “isn’t pleased with the handful of private research labs, companies, and individuals using racks of PS3s as a relatively inexpensive Cell cluster node or workstation. Because Sony sells the PS3 at a loss, any customer who doesn’t buy games for the console is bad for the bottom line.” Further, on the Air Force cluster alone, SCEA likely lost hundreds of thousands of dollars.

    175. SCEA and the other Sony entities were constantly looking for ways to cut costs and lower prices. For example, IBMs Cell chips originally went from 90-nanometers to 65-nanometers and eventually to 45-nanometers in 2009. The 65-nanometer Cell cost Sony $46.46 per unit, and the 45-nanometer Cell was $37.73. This reduction did not substantially alter performance, but was less expensive to manufacture, and reduced the power usage of the PS3, reducing the need for cooling mechanisms. 176. Instead of maintaining the original price in an attempt to profit from these types of lower costs, Sony cut the price of PS3 from $599 to $399 and then to $299 to increase market share and as a result of increasing competition. Isuppli estimates that Sony was still losing money on consoles with a sale price of $299, however, as production costs, while lower, were still estimated at $348 per unit. 177. As SCEA admitted when it removed the “Other OS” feature from the “slim” models, maintaining the hypervisor which allowed for multiple operating systems was very expensive. The tremendous financial pressure to cut costs further led to the removal of this feature – not “security” concerns.

    178. On the Fixstars message board forums, Kai Staats (former CEO of Terra Soft Solutions and later of Fixstars) explained how the hypervisor became increasingly difficult and expensive to maintain for Sony:

    Sony was quite diligent about testing, and with each new rev of the GameOS (which acts as the hypervisor for Linux) there was a battery of tests. Often the GameOS had to be modified to support things which otherwise broke in Linux, so it is not a one-way street. GameOS affects Linux, and Linux affects GameOS. If a component on the mobo changed, the hypervisor code would change to support the new component, and then the testing starts again. While I am not aware of a time when the GameOS was modified to correct something we discovered to be broken in Linux, I can state that with nearly every third release of updated GameOS versions, something broke in Linux for which we compensated on our end, often with the assistance of Geoff [Levand] (who was great to work with, BTW).

    179. As the sonyinsider.com website notes, based on this evidence, the decision to remove the “Other OS” feature appears to be “100% cost-based.”

    180. Other sources have speculated that, IBM, SCEI’s partner in STI, also applied pressure to convince SCEI to remove the “Other OS” feature as it was losing sales of its expensive servers to those who were clustering PS3s (which had the same Cell processor) for much less money.

    181. Although they contained lower performance per unit, PS3s were an inexpensive alternative to IBM’s Cell Blade servers which cost approximately $18,000. When the US military purchased thousands of PS3 for a super-computing cluster, the purchasing report noted that SCEA was the only company capable of manufacturing the required hardware at an economical price.

    182. When an article in The Economist1 noted that the military was making a substantial saving by creating the PS3 network compared to building a traditional super computer, users speculated: “Do you think that other investors in Cell technology. Such as IBM [sic] might be a little pissed at Sony selling devices that are near equivalent to their own more expensive products? One could speculate the pressure to remove PS3 linux came from external sources.”2

    183. Financial pressures were what led SCEI and SCEA to remove the “Other OS” feature. SCEA had no valid basis to remove an advertised feature from its PS3, for which users had paid significant sums, merely because it no longer wanted to pay to support that feature or it was losing money on sales of games and accessories. SCEA’s pretextual “security” or “intellectual property” concerns were not the true reason for the removal of the feature. 184. SCEA relies on wording from its Warranty, SSLA, and TOS to argue that “security” concerns allow it to remove the Other OS feature. Even if security were a concern, the language in these documents does not support SCEA’s interpretation. 185. The Warranty states that “[s]ome [warranty] services may . . . cause some loss of functionality.”

    186. Update 3.21 was not a “warranty service.” Nor did Update 3.21 cause “some loss of functionality.” Users who downloaded Update 3.21 had a core advertised feature removed from their system. Users who did not download Update 3.21 lost other core advertised features. SCEA’s Warranty does not authorize the removal of Other OS or those other features.

    187. The SSLA states “SCE may provide updates, upgrades, or services to your PS3TM to ensure it is functioning properly in accordance with SCE guidelines or provide you with new new offerings. . . . Some services may . . . cause a loss of functionality.”

    188. Update 3.21 was not a “service” as intended in the meaning of the SSLA. It was an optional “update.” SCEA’s SSLA does not claim that an “update” will cause a loss of functionality – only “services” are mentioned as possibly doing so. Nor did Update 3.21 cause “a loss of functionality.” Users who downloaded Update 3.21 had a core advertised feature removed from their system. Users who did not download Update 3.21 lost other core advertised features. SCEA’s SSLA does not authorize the removal of Other OS or those other features.

    189. SCEA’s TOS states “[f]rom time to time, it may become necessary for SCEA to provide certain content to you to ensure that Sony Online Services and content offered through Sony Online Services, your PlayStation3TN computer entertainment system . . . is functioning properly. . . . Such content may include automatic updates or upgrades which may . . . cause a loss of functionalities or utilities.”

    190. Update 3.21 was not an “automatic update or upgrade” as intended in the meaning of the SSLA. It was an “optional” update, meaning that the user selected whether to download the update, and lose a critical feature, or not download the update, and lose a different critical feature.

    191. None of the agreements which SCEA claims apply state that an optional Firmware Update will cause a user to lose core advertised features of the PS3, nor do they alert users that the “Other OS” feature might be disabled, particularly in light of Defendant’s representations that the “Other OS” is a central feature of the PS3 and that Defendant would support it for the ten year lifespan of the PS3. The “Other OS” feature and the ability of the PS3 to operate as a computer (or the elimination of access to the PSN network and play games online, as well as other features) were not “functionalities” – they were core advertised features of the PS3 along the lines of its ability to play games or play Blu-Ray DVDs.

    192. Thus, even if security issues were a valid concern, SCEA was not authorized by any of the purported agreements it has cited to issue Firmware Update 3.21 and remove the “Other OS” feature for millions of users.

    193. In February 2011, SCEA released Firmware Update 3.56. This Update contained a security patch preventing “jailbroken” consoles (such as those that had been “hacked” to actually allow the “Other OS” feature back on to the consoles) from accessing the PSN. Thus, if SCEA truly wanted to prevent “unauthorized” consoles that may have been “hacked,” it had other methods available to it, such as barring access to the PSN (to the extent allowed under its purported agreements), as opposed to removing a feature that it no longer wanted to pay to support, that was causing it to lose money on game sales, and/or that IBM was upset about because of a loss in sales of Blades servers.

    What do you think was the reason for the removal of OtherOS, money or security?

    [VIA Grolaw]

    Tags: , ,

    Discuss in Forums (39)


  • 39 Comments

    1. Pirate
      03-10-2011
      08:53 PM
      1

      Edited + moved to front page

    2. sqrt[36]
      03-10-2011
      08:57 PM
      2

      pretty awesome because sony is forced to prove piracy existed BEFORE otherOS
      was removed

      OR

      they have to prove they are allowed to remove advertised features at any point of a product's life


      gl sony...if the judge accepts this complaint...your gonna need alot of luck

    3. 2die4
      03-10-2011
      09:01 PM
      3

      these big companies need to get whats coming to them so they can profit the consumer must suffer to force the USA army (sic) to buy supercomputer we lost a feature we paid for

    4. elcido6
      03-10-2011
      09:02 PM
      4

      I actually thought Sony admitted this when they decided removed otherOS. That because labs were buying up dozens of PS3s to cluster together supercomputers Sony was not making money but actually losing money per console because of the high cost of PS3 to be developed and build. For the first few years of the PS3 life they had to rely on the sales of peripherals and first party games for their bottom line, and that these labs were only interested in the computing power of the console to perform non-gaming tasks.

    5. Rogerdodger91
      03-10-2011
      09:05 PM
      5

      This is complete bull**** that it was for financial reasons, as its been proven that Linux runs just fine on a slim ps3 cell processor. Sony is always doing some shady bull**** like this. "To prevent the army from clustering ps3s". Just another example of how this greedy corporation is trying to control a free market for their own financial best interests. **** sony.

    6. drphuz
      03-10-2011
      09:10 PM
      6

      IMHO IBM kicked Sony some cash in the long run. Sony is getting caught up in their lies, and I hope they get what they deserve whatever that may be. We jailbreak to get what we paid for. A fully functional system. We should all sue Sony as a community over these new findings. I paid almost 800$ getting a ps3 that played ps3, ps2, ps1 games and ran Linux, and played Blu-Ray movies near launch. I want all functionality returned to my system. These "updates" are strong-armed robberies that are allowed to continue everytime they see fit. I will never buy another Sony product. Boycott anybody?????:musicus:

    7. projectorfreak
      03-10-2011
      09:16 PM
      7

      Didn't sony complain last year about gamestops selling used games and how they thought there should be a law that they get a cut of it?
      Those guys epitomize the word turdburglar
      Those sound like some valid points that will be hard to wriggle out of without blatantly lying about some while confirming others

    8. sqrt[36]
      03-10-2011
      09:20 PM
      8

      Originally Posted by drphuz
      We should all sue Sony as a community over these new findings.
      that is exactly what the class action law suit is about

      if you want to join the class action suit..give those lawyers a call

    9. boaz
      03-10-2011
      10:46 PM
      9

      that was a lot of words. I may have to read it again. My small brain kind of gets it. But I dont think the judge will allow this. I hope sony looses big but that makes me a hypocrite for i was once i was very fond of sony. I once wanted to invest in them. the veil has been lifted. hoodwinked by sony no more. anyway I am anxious to purchace my new anything other than sony gaming future thing. Sony will get no more of my money.:thefinger:

    10. potlick
      03-10-2011
      11:11 PM
      10

      this should all so help graf choco with his case against sony aswell. i hope graf uses this towards his arguement against them.

      :thefinger: SONY! i stoped buying sony **** long ago. i just get em used(just the consoles), hell i dont even buy anything sony(movies, music) products. sony needs to get what they deserve.

    11. Ozz
      03-10-2011
      11:25 PM
      11

      I hope the US Government gets involved. If the US Government was using clusters of these systems and $ony was getting info over unsecure lines, isn't that espionage. Not to mention when they removed Other OS what info did the Government lose.

    12. KillerBug
      03-10-2011
      11:31 PM
      12

      Just think...the DoD is now forced to jailbreak in order to replace the systems that die...and they are probably doing it anyway just to unlock the extra performance that sony locked away (and when geohot unlocked it, sony said that was a "security issue")

      The DoD should really donate to Graf's defense fund; his work could easily save them tens of millions of dollars.

    13. LuckySnake
      03-11-2011
      12:36 AM
      13

      no ozz, sony only gets info from coreos not otheros

    14. Celticninja
      03-11-2011
      12:36 AM
      14

      After Sony removed OtherOS, I bought a 2nd PS3 (second hand so Sony didn't profit from their action) to play online while the first kept OtherOS, and now I have a 3rd PS3 for homebrew, what Sony takes away the Hackers give back.

    15. marty370
      03-11-2011
      01:46 AM
      15

      OtherOS was a security risk, Sony basically removed it to slam the door shut of hackers, that put PS3 users data at risk.

    16. pbanj
      03-11-2011
      02:19 AM
      16

      Originally Posted by Ozz
      I hope the US Government gets involved. If the US Government was using clusters of these systems and $ony was getting info over unsecure lines, isn't that espionage. Not to mention when they removed Other OS what info did the Government lose.
      they would not have lost anything as they would not be updating their ps3s, they dont need gameos all they need it otheros so no need for them to update


      Originally Posted by marty370
      OtherOS was a security risk, Sony basically removed it to slam the door shut of hackers, that put PS3 users data at risk.
      well then guess they didn't slam the door hard enough now did they, and it had nothing to do with hacker sony didnt want to have it in anymore hence why they removed it from the slims, they had already used it for what they needed and that was a tax break(as they were able to ship it listed as a computer) once the slim was out they made profit off it and didn't need the tax break, they were just looking for a reason to remove it altogether

    17. bigo93
      03-11-2011
      03:22 AM
      17

      I believe I heard that Sony was issuing separate updates which still include otheros to companies which purchased ps3s solely for setting up their own supercomputers.

    18. CryptoCore
      03-11-2011
      05:03 AM
      18

      Wow $ony lied about removal of OtherOS...... Personally I am not supprised at all and I am wondering what the SCEA also lied about as well. Judge Illston better not disregard this because then I will be fully under the belief that the judge is being bought out to benefit $ony in the court. I hope $ony goes down in flames for stealing from all of us!

    19. OoZic
      03-11-2011
      05:43 AM
      19

      I have always said that the removal of OtherOS was to force normal users to the moneymaking GameOS.
      And only normal users have updated. Every wannabe hacker who had/has OtherOS didn't update so the tools for hacking the PS3 by OtherOS were/are still there in the hands of the (for Sony) wrong people.

      Reading he whole story something tells me Sony will have a hard time to defend themselves to this.

    20. mightykhan
      03-11-2011
      05:48 AM
      20

      Originally Posted by luckysnake
      no ozz, sony only gets info from coreos not otheros
      As far as anyone knows, as of this year.

      What they've been doing in the past 4 years when nobody could find out, is anybody's guess.

      That's why the government was foolish to use computers with cryptic operating systems to begin with. But the simple fact that the computers would communicate in unknown, undecipherable ways with an external network if connected to the internet, combined with the likelihood Sony never told them it would do so, would still be a security breach and could still count as espionage.

      It's unauthorized access to US government property containing sensitive or classified material. Even if you can't actually get to the classified material, unauthorized access alone can still be prosecuted. And if the stuff elsewhere on this site about what the ps3 uploads at startup is true, Sony might know things like what kind of monitors the air force cluster uses, how many ps3's there still are in the cluster, what usb devices are connected to them...

      I'd like to see Sony try to tell the US government that it's still their property, like they tell everyone else.

    21. KillerBug
      03-11-2011
      06:08 AM
      21

      This whole "they removed it to save money" argument is crap...they made a few claims, and they are all invalid (with the possible exception of the last one).

      1.) They say that the OtherOS team was a huge drain on finances, but the team was small, and they did almost nothing since the release of the PS3. All the updates were coming from the Linux community. I would say that the entire team could have been replaced by a single talented programmer like Graf or George...except that either of those guys would have done a whole lot more than the whole OtherOS team.

      2.) They imply that OtherOS removal from the slim was to allow for cheaper construction of the systems...using hardware incapable of running Linux. You can argue all you want about the cut corners on the PS3...but Linux runs just fine on the slim, and it would not be a reason for removing OtherOS from the fat anyway. The cost cuts here also destroy the old standby that Sony looses money on PS3 supercomputers; if they are making money off the hardware itself, then this is not a loss.

      3.) They imply that IBM may have either given a kickback to sony or a lower cost per chip to sony in return for forcing organizations to buy $3000 blade servers instead of $300 PS3s...this is the only argument that I cannot disprove. Like many conspiracy theories, there really isn't anything anyone could do to disprove it, and the only way to prove it would be to get internal documents leaked.

      Ultimately, I think it is just a matter of control. Sony does not want you to have control over their system. From the things that their lawyers have said in the geohot and OtherOS cases, buying a PS3 works something like this: The $300-$600 price of the system is a rental fee; that gets you one year of functionality. After the year is up, you are still subject to all the restrictions, but they no longer guarantee full functionality, or any functionality for that matter. In fact, they are so gung-ho about this that they have been killing older systems with firmware updates intentionally...and it seems to have started almost immediately after they started making a profit on every unit sold.

      Don't think that Sony wants control simply to have control...they want control to use it; to force people to buy things that they should not need to buy, or that they have already paid for. This is at the heart of all the cases...should I be able to use my possessions as I see fit, and should I be prevented from doing something simply because a particular corporation does not sell that service, or does not sell a service with that particular feature, or simply charges too much for that service?

      If I want to play Super Mario Brothers 3 on my PS3, I should not have to buy it from the PSN...I already own that game on cartridge. Even if I was willing to cave and to pay the PSN for a game I already own, they don't even offer it for sale. This is what you get from companies that attack any potential competition so brutally...a lackluster selection of overpriced items, often forcing people to repurchase what they already own, simply for the ability to use the licenses that they already have with newer devices.

      As to the claims that OtherOS was/is a security risk, it seems that the USB ports and the ability to update firmware are both much larger security risks, as both have been used for jailbreaking and even piracy, while Linux has never been used for jailbreaking, and the only piracy that was possible with Linux was the piracy of a handful of commercial Linux applications.

      If Sony had even the slightest interest in fixing security issues, the first thing they would do is to encrypt credit card data while it is being transmitted. The second step would be to stop the system from transmitting this and other data for no reason every time the system turns on. The third step would be to remove the rootkit that allows for the remote viewing of files and records, as well as the remote installation of anything (and I mean anything...if this gets hacked, then jailbreaking a system remotely without the permission of the user will become possible). This last thing, the rootkit, is actually new since the removal of OtherOS...I can't think of any combination of lies that they could use to justify removing a feature that people used for potential unspecified security issues, only to add a rootkit that no one wants with obvious security issues. A rootkit is about control; that is the primary purpose, and it is the only purpose. Even sony doesn't deny that the rootkit is all about control...they just claim that they want to control and monitor you, "In the good way".

    22. gabrielleaes
      03-11-2011
      08:07 AM
      22

      they are so ganancious. why my play cant run linux, psx and ps2 games. a powerfull hardware only to play games.

    23. Kondor1
      03-11-2011
      09:01 AM
      23

      Does this mean that my phone/bluray player(with netflix)...etc is a "COMPUTER" too? I am sorry for this rant. Make up your mind is it a console or a computer?

      I wish someone would half-ass mind add the fact that OTHEROS is NOT MENTIONED IN FIRMWARE REVISIONS OTHER THAN 3.21. THEREFORE NOT MENTIONED IT WILL BE REMOVED IN NEWER FIRMWARES.


      Customer By Web Form 02/23/2011 09:12 PM
      I am curious. Is the Playstation 3 still considered a computer after the removal of OtherOS or just a console? If still considered a computer, please tell me why? If a console, why does it still fall under Sony Computer Entertainment America, as a Sony computer would?
      ----------------------------------------------------
      Response Via Email (Sarah E.) 02/26/2011 10:16 AM
      Hello Tobby,

      Thank you for contacting us regarding your questions about the PlayStation�3 system. The PlayStation 3 would still be considered a computer due to the online capabilities, media server connectable, able to stream media content from the Internet.

      I hope this information has been helpful. I would like to thank you for giving me the opportunity to assist you. If you have any further questions and/or concerns regarding this or any other issue you may have with any PlayStation�product please, email us again.

      Regards,
      Sarah E.
      ----------------------------------------------------
      Customer By Web Form 03/07/2011 06:53 AM
      Why is the removal of OtherOS not mentioned in any of the newer updates? I currently have a revision before 3.21 and to play newer games i am required to update. Although the new update does not mention this will be removed. Am i correct to assume that this feature will not be removed since it is not on any notification to be removed? If it is indeed removed, what other features will be removed. How does one know what will be done if they do not have online capabilities and update from the gamedisc? Why are there not firmware revisions for games posted anywhere on/offline to let consumers know if/whether the new game will work on older firmware or not before purchase? basically if i update, i lose otheros that i am using for my linux classes, but no where offline to be found says it will disappear if i update
      ----------------------------------
      Response Via Email (Nicholas C) 03/08/2011 06:59 AM
      Hello Tobby,

      I do apologize for any inconvenience that this has caused you regarding system up. I can understand your frustration and sympathize with your situation.

      On April 1, 2010, Sony Computer Entertainment released the PS3™ system software version 3.21. This version of the PS3 system software will disable the “Install Other OS” feature that was available on the PS3 systems prior to the current slimmer models, launched in September 2009. This feature enabled users to install an operating system, but due to security concerns, Sony Computer Entertainment will remove the functionality through the 3.21 system software update.

      The reason it was removed was 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. If a user (of a previous model) updates their PS3™ system to ver. 3.21, users will no longer be able to use the “Other OS” feature (or access the data used by the other OS) regardless of what other OS is installed in the system. The update is optional and users can continue to use the “Other OS” feature if they do not update their system software. However, if a user chooses not to upgrade their PS3™ systems, some of the features will no longer be available

      The information below may further assist you:

      System software update history
      Article Link: http://playstation.custhelp.com/app/...etail/a_id/442

      Regards,
      Nicholas C

    24. robster71
      03-11-2011
      09:27 AM
      24

      Their Tv industry stinks too, I know numerous stories of defected TVs and they simply do not care about the consumer. Not consumer friendly at all.. They will eventually diminish, unless someone takes over and cares about the people..You know how to beat a bully right?, Break their knee caps ..lol:thefinger:

    25. Arcanjohack
      03-11-2011
      09:35 AM
      25

      UM DOS MOTIVOS DA SONY ESTAR REALMENTE PREOCUPADA

      Ando lendo muito por ai e uma das coisas que mais me chamou a aten��o foi o uso de algumas bibliotecas de programa��o por parte da Sony. Antes de continuar, para o devido entendimento vamos falar de licen�as Open Source. Existem dois tipos b�sicos:
      - Freetype Project - Mais ameno, apenas diz que precisa manter os cr�ditos.
      - GNU General Public License - diz que o c�digo fonte n�o pode ser negado para o usu�rio final at� mesmo de obras derivadas e que qualquer coisa que o utiliza deve ter uma c�pia do contrato de licen�a LGPL com ele.

      Sony usando arquivos Open-Source? Fala s�rio.
      Sim, ela os usa. Estes s�o exemplos dos regidos pela licen�a Freetype:
      /dev_flash/sys/external/libfreetype.sprx
      /dev_flash/sys/external/libfreetypeTT.sprx

      E este foi criptografado pela Sony, sendo regido pela licen�a GNU (e est� espalhado em v�rias �reas do PS3):
      /dev_flash/sys/externo/libexif.sprx

      Quem tem seu PS3 desbloqueado pode facilmente checar a exist�ncia destes arquivos. smile.gif

      E o que significa isso tudo? Simples: esses arquivos n�o poderiam estar no PS3.

      ONE OF SONY'S STATEMENT TO BE REALLY CONCERNED

      Walk around and reading a lot of things that caught my attention was the use of some programming libraries from Sony. Before proceeding to the proper understanding we will talk about Open Source licenses. There are two basic types:
      - Freetype Project - More mild, just say you need to keep the credits.
      - GNU General Public License - says the source code can not be denied to the end user even derivative works and that anything that uses it must have a copy of the LGPL license agreement with him.

      Sony files using Open-Source? Seriously.
      Yes, it uses them. These are examples of the Freetype license governed by:
      / dev_flash / sys / external / libfreetype.sprx
      / dev_flash / sys / external / libfreetypeTT.sprx

      And that was encrypted by Sony, is regulated by GNU (and is scattered in various areas of the PS3):
      / dev_flash / sys / external / libexif.sprx

      Who has unlocked your PS3 can easily check the existence of these files. smile.gif

      And what does all this mean? Simple: these files could not be on the PS3.

      Creditos: VB

    26. Mystt
      03-11-2011
      10:02 AM
      26

      Sony's ambitions "if we can get away with doing it, let's do it and deal with the courts later"

    27. fahadsul3man
      03-11-2011
      10:15 AM
      27

      Attention

      Wind your neck in, dont be so crule and act more mature



    28. killerninja
      03-11-2011
      10:16 AM
      28

      Originally Posted by mightykhan
      As far as anyone knows, as of this year.

      What they've been doing in the past 4 years when nobody could find out, is anybody's guess.

      That's why the government was foolish to use computers with cryptic operating systems to begin with. But the simple fact that the computers would communicate in unknown, undecipherable ways with an external network if connected to the internet, combined with the likelihood Sony never told them it would do so, would still be a security breach and could still count as espionage.

      It's unauthorized access to US government property containing sensitive or classified material. Even if you can't actually get to the classified material, unauthorized access alone can still be prosecuted. And if the stuff elsewhere on this site about what the ps3 uploads at startup is true, Sony might know things like what kind of monitors the air force cluster uses, how many ps3's there still are in the cluster, what usb devices are connected to them...

      I'd like to see Sony try to tell the US government that it's still their property, like they tell everyone else.
      I can guarantee the military's PS3 clusters never talk to the internet. They are locked down behind proxies, firewalls and in a controlled DMZ environment. There's not a packet that goes unaccounted for.

    29. null_Dereferenced
      03-11-2011
      11:41 AM
      29

      Is the swastika really necessary in the graphic? I don't feel that Sony's ridiculous legal actions are equivalent to the systematic destruction of an entire population of people. I hate Sony right now too, but I don't think that what we are going through is anything like what the ***ish people endured.

    30. SuperDre
      03-11-2011
      02:14 PM
      30

      Also one of the money reasons why OtherOS was shipped in the first place was because of the importduties, due to OtherOS the PS3 was seen as a computer in a lot of countries which meant lower importduties compared to it being a gameconsole, and the importduties on $599 is a big part..
      But I always said it was due to moneyreasons and not security...

      Originally Posted by null_Dereferenced
      Is the swastika really necessary in the graphic? I don't feel that Sony's ridiculous legal actions are equivalent to the systematic destruction of an entire population of people. I hate Sony right now too, but I don't think that what we are going through is anything like what the ***ish people endured.
      I Agree.. It doesn't give the site a good name IMHO (more of an immature one)..

    31. Wolfie708
      03-11-2011
      02:31 PM
      31

      Originally Posted by null_Dereferenced
      Is the swastika really necessary in the graphic? I don't feel that Sony's ridiculous legal actions are equivalent to the systematic destruction of an entire population of people. I hate Sony right now too, but I don't think that what we are going through is anything like what the ***ish people endured.
      The swastika as known today is actually a reversal of a much older symbol anyways, and as much as I detest racism etc. (check some of my past posts), I honestly do have to say that it fits just who and what Sony are at this moment. They may not be using physical violence or torture to enforce their will, but enforce their will is exactly what they are trying to with all this.

      If you want a racist comment, then just look at the one I have quoted below.

      Originally Posted by fahadsul3man
      woohoo sony lost today due to earthquake:musicus:
      On that note fahadsul3man, just which parts of America did todays earthquake affect, or do I have to spell out SCEA again???????????

    32. GregoryRasputin
      03-11-2011
      02:43 PM
      32

      Originally Posted by null_Dereferenced
      Is the swastika really necessary in the graphic? I don't feel that Sony's ridiculous legal actions are equivalent to the systematic destruction of an entire population of people. I hate Sony right now too, but I don't think that what we are going through is anything like what the ***ish people endured.

      You guys really need to learn some history, a quote from Wikipedia:
      The word swastika came from the Sanskrit word svastika, meaning any lucky or auspicious object, and in particular a mark made on persons and things to denote good luck. It is composed of su- meaning "good, well" and asti "to be" svasti thus means "well-being." The suffix -ka either forms a diminutive or intensifies the verbal meaning, and svastika might thus be translated literally as "that which is associated with well-being," corresponding to "lucky charm" or "thing that is auspicious." The word in this sense is first used in the Harivamsa. As noted by Monier-Williams in his Sanskrit-English dictionary, according to Alexander Cunningham, its shape represents a monogram formed by interlacing of the letters of the auspicious words su-ast� (svasti) written in Ashokan characters.
      Matilde E. Moisant an American aviator wore the Swastika symbol, in 1912, it was worn as a good luck charm.

      Yes it is true that the Nazi's used the Swastika and in no way am i trying to say that what Sony are doing is anyway as atrocious as the suffering caused by hundreds of thousands during the Nazi era in WWII, the Nazi reference in no way was in association with the horrors that happened.

      The context that it is meant is this:

      nazi mod
      A moderator of an online forum or community who strictly enforces rules, bans or deletes users' posts for vague or no reason. They often apply their forum powers to users who disagree with them.
      nazi teacher
      A teacher that is never satisfied with the work of their students, always finds something wrong with them/their work even if there is nothing wrong at all, and punishes them because they looked wrong at the teacher
      Also
      In popular American culture, the terms Nazi, F�hrer, fascist, Gestapo, and Hitler, are terms of abuse used in describing authoritarian people; hence the American usages grammar Nazi and Feminazi, (see Godwin�s Law of Nazi Analogies).

      I don't see someone moaning about the word Grammar Nazi, anyhow, people need to stop taking things out of context, get off their anal high horse and realise that things just aren't what they believe they are.

      The Nazi symbol in the Sony logo, is an expression towards Sony's authoritarianism, greed and destruction it is causing, what is worrying is the attempt at repressing a freedom of speech and feeling, that is indeed more immature, more dangerous than a Nazi symbol being put in a Sony logo....

    33. SuperDre
      03-11-2011
      04:40 PM
      33

      Originally Posted by GregoryRasputin
      Matilde E. Moisant an American aviator wore the Swastika symbol, in 1912, it was worn as a good luck charm.

      The Nazi symbol in the Sony logo, is an expression towards Sony's authoritarianism, greed and destruction it is causing, what is worrying is the attempt at repressing a freedom of speech and feeling, that is indeed more immature, more dangerous than a Nazi symbol being put in a Sony logo....
      I'm sorry to say, but the 'peacefull' swastika is upright, the 'evil' swastika is tilted, there is a big difference.. and you do know that in a lot of countries it's illegal to use the 'evil' swastika, for instance you would be in trouble if your site is hosted in germany where it's illegal.

      Personally I still think it's immature and cheap to use the 'evil' swastika symbol in relation to Sony, I do hate sony for what they are doing to the enduser, but it certainly has nothing to do with the evil the 'evil' swastika represents.. but hee, it's your site so be as immature about it as you like.. But then again I can't be bothered with anything, even if people are flaming and discriminating each other like hell, I just done care anymore..

    34. japsander
      03-11-2011
      04:49 PM
      34

      Originally Posted by SuperDre
      I'm sorry to say, but the 'peacefull' swastika is upright, the 'evil' swastika is tilted, there is a big difference.. and you do know that in a lot of countries it's illegal to use the 'evil' swastika, for instance you would be in trouble if your site is hosted in germany where it's illegal.

      Personally I still think it's immature and cheap to use the 'evil' swastika symbol in relation to Sony, I do hate sony for what they are doing to the enduser, but it certainly has nothing to do with the evil the 'evil' swastika represents.. but hee, it's your site so be as immature about it as you like.. But then again I can't be bothered with anything, even if people are flaming and discriminating each other like hell, I just done care anymore..
      please see the following link and show me how an angled swastika is an "EVIL" swastika

      http://www.germaniainternational.com/nongermswast.html

      as you will discover, these were around well before the horrors of hitler.

    35. GregoryRasputin
      03-11-2011
      05:01 PM
      35

      Originally Posted by SuperDre
      I'm sorry to say, but the 'peacefull' swastika is upright, the 'evil' swastika is tilted, there is a big difference.. and you do know that in a lot of countries it's illegal to use the 'evil' swastika, for instance you would be in trouble if your site is hosted in germany where it's illegal.

      This is the symbol i used, not exactly a "Nazi" symbol:
      http://uk.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A4%...ishi_manji.png

    36. Wolfie708
      03-11-2011
      05:19 PM
      36

      [QUOTE=SuperDre;180609]I'm sorry to say, but the 'peacefull' swastika is upright, the 'evil' swastika is tilted, there is a big difference.. and you do know that in a lot of countries it's illegal to use the 'evil' swastika, for instance you would be in trouble if your site is hosted in germany where it's illegal.

      I may be wrong (Yes I know, shock horror as I am always right... NOT!!!! LOL), but from what I know, it is illegal to use it as an aid to incite enimity towards a group of people just as Hitler did, but not illegal to portray disdain and disgust?

      Basically, it is the intent that is judged not the act of using it, and as far as I am aware that is the case in any country.

      Regardless, you have the right to your opinion, but as it is you who are calling people immature etc, I truly do think you should read the intent more closely as it is you who are now making a judgment on people with no evidence but your own interpretation of what a symbol means.

    37. jordan313
      03-11-2011
      06:05 PM
      37

      Originally Posted by KillerBug
      This whole "they removed it to save money" argument is crap...they made a few claims, and they are all invalid (with the possible exception of the last one).

      2.) They imply that OtherOS removal from the slim was to allow for cheaper construction of the systems...using hardware incapable of running Linux. You can argue all you want about the cut corners on the PS3...but Linux runs just fine on the slim, and it would not be a reason for removing OtherOS from the fat anyway. The cost cuts here also destroy the old standby that Sony looses money on PS3 supercomputers; if they are making money off the hardware itself, then this is not a loss.
      175. SCEA and the other Sony entities were constantly looking for ways to cut costs and lower prices. For example, IBMs Cell chips originally went from 90-nanometers to 65-nanometers and eventually to 45-nanometers in 2009. The 65-nanometer Cell cost Sony $46.46 per unit, and the 45-nanometer Cell was $37.73. This reduction did not substantially alter performance, but was less expensive to manufacture, and reduced the power usage of the PS3, reducing the need for cooling mechanisms.

      176. Instead of maintaining the original price in an attempt to profit from these types of lower costs, Sony cut the price of PS3 from $599 to $399 and then to $299 to increase market share and as a result of increasing competition. Isuppli estimates that Sony was still losing money on consoles with a sale price of $299, however, as production costs, while lower, were still estimated at $348 per unit.

      Read more: http://www.ps3hax.net/2011/03/othero...#ixzz1GKkoVV2Y
      so.....i guess we can scratch #2 from your list?

      Originally Posted by KillerBug
      1.) They say that the OtherOS team was a huge drain on finances, but the team was small, and they did almost nothing since the release of the PS3. All the updates were coming from the Linux community. I would say that the entire team could have been replaced by a single talented programmer like Graf or George...except that either of those guys would have done a whole lot more than the whole OtherOS team.
      178. On the Fixstars message board forums, Kai Staats (former CEO of Terra Soft Solutions and later of Fixstars) explained how the hypervisor became increasingly difficult and expensive to maintain for Sony:
      "Sony was quite diligent about testing, and with each new rev of the GameOS (which acts as the hypervisor for Linux) there was a battery of tests. Often the GameOS had to be modified to support things which otherwise broke in Linux, so it is not a one-way street. GameOS affects Linux, and Linux affects GameOS. If a component on the mobo changed, the hypervisor code would change to support the new component, and then the testing starts again. While I am not aware of a time when the GameOS was modified to correct something we discovered to be broken in Linux, I can state that with nearly every third release of updated GameOS versions, something broke in Linux for which we compensated on our end, often with the assistance of Geoff [Levand] (who was great to work with, BTW)."
      While not a definitive as the point I made about #2, if you actually read this you will see that while they did not add any features per se to otherOS, maintaining the "proper" level of security, compatibility with the hypervisor, and interoperability with gameOS was a large amount of work and money for something that they (Sony) felt was essentially given away for free AND an excuse not to buy games on a system that is being sold at a loss that is expected to be recouped through the purchase of games. So:

      initial loss of money from sale of system
      + purchasers who only want otherOS and no games
      + cost of having a team maintain otherOS security, hypervisor compatability, and gameOS interoperability
      = a large financial loss
      = a large profit motive
      = a good excuse to **** consumers

      While I agree with your points about the right to do what we choose with anything we purchase and that sony wants control over everything we do, I also support the idea that this was financially motivated as well. In the end, in a capitalist society (especially when it comes to big businesses) EVERYTHING IS FINANCIALLY MOTIVATED!

      Control (force us to do profitable things, stop us from doing even legal things on our own for free)
      + Cut costs through any means possible including removing key features (increase profits of things we are already buying)
      + Create better relationships with partners (IBM) (better friends get better deals on component parts which...cuts costs)
      = Orgasm (for greedy pricks like sony....and every other major biz out there)

    38. depblkman
      03-11-2011
      06:24 PM
      38

      [QUOTE=Wolfie708;180619]

      Originally Posted by SuperDre
      I'm sorry to say, but the 'peacefull' swastika is upright, the 'evil' swastika is tilted, there is a big difference.. and you do know that in a lot of countries it's illegal to use the 'evil' swastika, for instance you would be in trouble if your site is hosted in germany where it's illegal.

      I may be wrong (Yes I know, shock horror as I am always right... NOT!!!! LOL), but from what I know, it is illegal to use it as an aid to incite enimity towards a group of people just as Hitler did, but not illegal to portray disdain and disgust?

      Basically, it is the intent that is judged not the act of using it, and as far as I am aware that is the case in any country.

      Regardless, you have the right to your opinion, but as it is you who are calling people immature etc, I truly do think you should read the intent more closely as it is you who are now making a judgment on people with no evidence but your own interpretation of what a symbol means.
      now as i do love this site and learning something new each day, the swastika really has no bearing on the fact that Sony lied to all of us. love the history lesson though

      all kidding aside, if, according to sony, updating is optional, why is access to PSN only obtainable thru an update? updating is optional on my computer but it doesn't stop me from running and customizing it to the way i like it. bottom line is: sony's practices are, for the most part, Illegal and we as consumers need to stand up for it. Hopefully Geohot will take a closer look at this and create an exploit for this too...lol

    39. Wolfie708
      03-11-2011
      06:35 PM
      39

      Originally Posted by jordan313
      so.....i guess we can scratch #2 from your list?





      While not a definitive as the point I made about #2, if you actually read this you will see that while they did not add any features per se to otherOS, maintaining the "proper" level of security, compatibility with the hypervisor, and interoperability with gameOS was a large amount of work and money for something that they (Sony) felt was essentially given away for free AND an excuse not to buy games on a system that is being sold at a loss that is expected to be recouped through the purchase of games. So:

      initial loss of money from sale of system
      + purchasers who only want otherOS and no games
      + cost of having a team maintain otherOS security, hypervisor compatability, and gameOS interoperability
      = a large financial loss
      = a large profit motive
      = a good excuse to **** consumers

      While I agree with your points about the right to do what we choose with anything we purchase and that sony wants control over everything we do, I also support the idea that this was financially motivated as well. In the end, in a capitalist society (especially when it comes to big businesses) EVERYTHING IS FINANCIALLY MOTIVATED!

      Control (force us to do profitable things, stop us from doing even legal things on our own for free)
      + Cut costs through any means possible including removing key features (increase profits of things we are already buying)
      + Create better relationships with partners (IBM) (better friends get better deals on component parts which...cuts costs)
      = Orgasm (for greedy pricks like sony....and every other major biz out there)
      I especially agree with your arythmatic at the end although better friends does not mean better deals as that is a no no as it equates to a 'back hander', but for me (and a lot of others I think), it is not about cutting costs in a competetive market. It is about forcing the customer to do as they are told or they will not be able to use the piece of kit. I have mentioned OFW downgrades before, and removal of any actual feature is a downgrade. Sony can do as many security updates and patches as they wish, but barring the 3D addition I have seen no actual upgrades of the PS3 in any way, and even that is forced upon us by the fact that newer games need the latest OFW even though there is absolutely nothing in their code that needs it.

      The OFW revisions have been nothing more than security fixes to the console, and barring 3D, they have no actual relevance to the games or how they are coded. This has been proved by the fact that no software house worth it's salt can rewrite the game code to utilise any additional enhanced features as quickly as they have been patched to require the latest OFW.

      I have zero problem if a game is released in the future that actively needs a OFW revision to run, but until that day comes then Sony are doing nothing other than forcing me to do as I am told, and sorry, but the only people who have ever had that right are my parents. (I am 42 btw lol).

      It is my choice whether I patch my security or not, and they do not have the right to bar me from playing a game which will run perfectly on my console as it stands today because they are assuming that I am a thief.