Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

producing a freer device means you cannot force a business model that is more profitable. For example, Playstation 3 used to be able to run a version of linux, but as time went by, sony removed that capability - they didn't want non-gamers to buy it and use it in clustered computing. Their business model is to sell the machine at cost (or even, take a loss), and recoup/profit on the game sales.

A device maker which makes completely open machines is going to get out-competed with low-margin knock-offs, or generic branded copies from places like china. This is good for the consumer, but not good for a business's bottom-line. This is why there are very few branded computers these days (at least, desktop). You can count them on your fingers.



Not exactly true. Why would Sony have added Linux functionality in the first place?

* Good will among the community

* More familiarity with Cell software development for clusters (although this was behind a VM)

* Import tax savings in certain territories due to the box being classed as a ‘computer’ instead of a ‘games system’.

Which do you think was most important? (hint: it’s the last one) Conversely, when the ability to run Linux was pulled a hypervisor exploit had been discovered. Now the cost equation tipped back the other way. The import tax hit was still there, but the machine had halved in price since launch so that wasn’t as painful. The community had moved away from PS3 clusters as they weren’t energy effective any more: not as painful. The major pain point from removing it was losing the goodwill of the community, but when balanced against the piracy implications they made their decision.

Personally I think they should have patched the hypervisor holes and kept the functionality, but you can see why they decided to remove it.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: