132
We are regressing as a species.
(lemmy.today)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 12 Aug 2026
132 points (100.0% liked)
Linux
18658 readers
265 users here now
Welcome to c/linux!
Welcome to our thriving Linux community! Whether you're a seasoned Linux enthusiast or just starting your journey, we're excited to have you here. Explore, learn, and collaborate with like-minded individuals who share a passion for open-source software and the endless possibilities it offers. Together, let's dive into the world of Linux and embrace the power of freedom, customization, and innovation. Enjoy your stay and feel free to join the vibrant discussions that await you!
Rules:
-
Stay on topic: Posts and discussions should be related to Linux, open source software, and related technologies.
-
Be respectful: Treat fellow community members with respect and courtesy.
-
Quality over quantity: Share informative and thought-provoking content.
-
No spam or self-promotion: Avoid excessive self-promotion or spamming.
-
No NSFW adult content
-
Follow general lemmy guidelines.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
The lawsuit was about the PS3 removing the OtherOS feature. Which, while handled poorly, made some sense.
The system was initially sold at a significant loss, with the software making up for it. The cell architecture made it excellent at distributed processes, so with the OtherOS feature suddenly the cheapest way to build a supercomputer was buying a bunch of PS3s being sold at a loss and linking them together. Any systems built that way were essentially subsidized by Sony.
What they could have done is have the option to pay to unlock the bootloader for the OtherOS install.
No, what they should've done is made Sony eat the losses from its own business screw-up, and send execs to prison for hacking and fraud. Sabotaging people's property to disable functionality they paid for should've been considered a felony violation of the CFAA on a massive scale.
I remember some teacher at school saying that selling something below cost was illegal in Germany. Unfortunately I don't know if that is true and I never got to ask him about consoles.
Could have made a huge difference on the console market if enforced.
A quick Google suggests selling at a loss in order to undercut competition is illegal, but selling at a loss to be a loss leader, or as a temporary sale (e.g. to clear inventory) is allowed. And apparently this is why Walmart failed in Germany; undercutting competitors until they go out of business is their primary tactic.
So German supermarkets can’t sell us €4 rotisserie chickens at a loss just for the foot traffic? Damn.