PS3 security is "epic fail"

[Matt_H]

And this all happened because Sony wanted to stop Linux, and by doing so pissed off hackers.
Some top boss in Sony is probably taking his hat and leaving the company by now...

This proves that they need a new business model. At launch, Sony was taking a loss on every console sold and attempted to profit on software. I imagine that's still the case  - if they're selling heaps of consoles with no software to go with them, they're in trouble. They've been able to curtail this customer behavior with DRM nonsense and legal threats, but now the floodgates are open.

I'm not usually one to unquestioningly espouse the philosophy that the free market is always right, but in this case, it is.

Sony needs to learn how to respond to consumer demand and how to make a profit on hardware. The result would be a win-win.

[Matt_H]

What is happening here is the buyer is altering the item in a way that will cause financial harm to the seller-not might, but WILL cause financial harm to the seller.  i don't see how you can justify this, really.

And why does this cause harm to the seller? Because, as I argued in an earlier post, Sony's business model is flawed. They're subsidizing the cost of their hardware with software. That was their decision, and the market is proving it to be a bad one. Technically, if I bought a PS3 and dumped it straight in the trash I'd be causing them the same financial harm, but no one would give me flak for that.

Once a product is out on the market, people will use it how they wish, EULAs be damned. It's where innovation comes from - repurposing and improving existing ideas. Look at this camera stabilizer made from pipes. That's not how the pipe manufacturer intended their pipes to be used, but do you think they're furious about it? No, they'd probably be delighted because it means more sales to consumers who might not ordinarily buy pipes - a new market segment. And it's instant profit, because their overhead costs are built into the price of their pipes.

In fact, take a look at just about anything at http://makezine.com. Or, closer to home, look at the Natami, which was derrived from a C-One board. These are all hacked and modified devices that most likely brought a little extra cash to the parts suppliers that might otherwise not have made those sales.

So if Sony is locking themselves out of this market - the market for hardware hackers, open-source enthusiasts, university researchers, cluster computing datacenters, governments - by failing to cost-reduce their hardware or to subsidize it from a less volatile corporate division, then it's their own damn fault for reaping the financial consequences when the market self-corrects to compensate for their shortsightedness.

And the piracy angle? Yeah, this might result in a bunch of 14-year-olds getting free games, but Sony really should have seen it coming; it's a fact of life. Pretty much every copy protection scheme ever designed has been cracked, so they need to be approaching anti-piracy the same way they'd approach poor sales - better marketing, lower software prices, better supply chain and stock management, promotions, and, dare I say it, better software products that people want to buy.

Do they "deserve" it? No, but they made a business decision and now they have to live with the consequences.

[Matt_H]

Let me get this straight:

It Sony's fault for putting a lock on their hardware to protect illegally copied software from running, and it was this action that FORCED the hackers to break that lock, plus its Sony's fault for making the PS3 too cheap and for not selling software at the price buyers want to pay, and its Sony's fault that people want their software for free?

"Fault" may be too strong a word, but there was a market demand for powerful, open hardware that they weren't meeting. If they can't find a way to turn a profit on hardware alone (like other electronics manufacturers, where the customer's financial relationship with them begins and ends with the hardware purchase), then they've been out-competed. Tough, but that's how it works.

So

1.  you have doors with locks in your house, or your businesses has doors with locks to the premises, and when a thief breaks in its your fault, because you fitted locks?

If you didn't buy insurance or have a backup plan for such a contingency, then I'd say yes.

2.  I see a fridge I want to buy in a retail shop.  i walk in and want it for less.  The seller says no.  I drive a truck through the stores front door, take the fridge and leave the sum of money I wanted to pay for it, and this is OK, because its the retailers fault for not selling the fridge at the price I wanted to pay for it.  Afteral its just the market "self-correcting".  Sure, try that in front of a Court.

In this metaphor, is the fridge the hardware or the software? If it's the software, you may have a point, but software piracy doesn't result in collateral damage to sellers, just a denial of sales.

But I'm thinking in terms of hardware. If I buy the fridge and reconfigure it to do something else, for my own use, the seller can't come into my house and undo what I've done to it. In exchange for my modifications, though, I do think it's fair that I waive any claim to a warranty.

I've heard a lot of cocamamy justifications for piracy but this takes the cake:  its the IP owners fault.

My main point is that piracy is not the only outcome of this security failure. No question that it's not a good one, but it was a predictable one, and Sony failed to plan for it. They had no proverbial insurance behind their single layer of locks. But if you look at piracy as the ultimate form of competition, they might have better luck approaching it as a sales or access problem. Abusing the purchasers of their hardware isn't the kind of strategy that lends itself to a sustainable business.