US Air Force To Suffer From PS3 Update 349
tlhIngan writes "The US Air Force, having purchased PS3s for supercomputing research, is now the latest victim of Sony's removal of the Install Other OS feature. It turns out that while their PS3s don't need the firmware update, it will be impossible to replace PS3s that fail. PS3s with the Other OS feature are no longer produced since the Slim was introduced, so replacements will have to come from the existing stock of used PS3s. However, as most gamers have probably updated their PS3s, that used stock is no longer suitable for the USAF's research. In addition, smaller educational clusters using PS3s will share the same fate — unable to replace machines that die in their clusters."
In related news, Sony has been hit with two more lawsuits over this issue.
And suddenly PS3 sales drop by 80%? (Score:2, Interesting)
What, the USAF was the only buyer of PS3s, and now suddenly that they can't use them, nobody wants them... the market will be flooded with $0.10 used PS3s nobody can actually use for anything useful.
Opportunity? (Score:3, Interesting)
Retroactive crippling of hw should be illegal (Score:5, Interesting)
There's been a big push in recent years to move to "COTS" (Commercial Off The Shelf) solutions in the government - the military in particular. And while this may be find for things like holsters, backpacks, and office chairs, I think this highlights for EVERYONE, not just bright young aquisitions officers, that sometimes taking COTS technology and using it for your highly specific and critical application is not the best choice. Unfortunately, sometimes (sometimes!) big, expensive, and proprietary in-house solutions really are the best.
No, what it drives home is that, when you purchase a piece of hardware, it belongs to you, and no vendor should have the legal right to modify what you have purchased without your consent, nor to coerce consent for modifications that reduce or cripple the capabilities of something you have purchased.
Maybe now that military and commercial interests are being impacted, we can get the barest modicum of consumer protection to outlaw this shit (and similar, retroactive software modifications as well, such as Steve Jobs foists upon his hapless iPhone slaves ... it all eventually amounts to the same thing, and puts a lot more than the military at risk).
I know for our trading platforms we would never tolerate this kind of thing from a vendor (and Apple has lost out on this on more than one occasion for exactly this reason). I'm amazed the military hasn't come down on Sony like a ton of bricks -- a large investment bank certainly would have.
Re:Opportunity? (Score:3, Interesting)
We also checked out both options for our lab at the university. At that time (3 years back), a PS3 was EUR 600. The only way to get a "cell computer" was via IBM blades.
That's odd. Mercury Computer has had a "cell accelerator board" for $8K since the last quarter of 2006. Basically its a cell processor in a PCIe slot.
Second generation is here: http://www.mc.com/products/boards/accelerator_board2.aspx [mc.com]
Maybe they had export problems with it, although they announced it at a singapore trade show.
Re:Sony is a terrorist organization (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:not necessarily impossible (Score:1, Interesting)
Show up with a bag of money and companies start to do things....
Hell they could contract it out to a 'game' house. Who already has the dev kits...
Then it will work again on 100% of the units. Instead of just the 'older ones'. Hell they could sell the older units on ebay at 6-7 dollars a pop. Then buy up newer slim units at a 50% cost savings on power.
Re:COTS = COST (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Obvious outcome (Score:3, Interesting)
Unless you program your application specifically to use the SPEs, PS3 Linux is basically just not-especially-fast PPC Linux with not much RAM; but the SPEs are available.
Re:Sony is a terrorist organization (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Sony is a terrorist organization (Score:3, Interesting)
You know, this is often trotted out as an indictment of Bush but I think he actually made a very narrow escape from something much worse. Can you imagine what people would have done with a clip of Bush saying "Shame on me"?
Whenever I see him saying what he did say, I kind of imagine a smart adviser's voice screaming through his earpiece "DONT SAY 'SHAME ON ME'. DO NOT SAY 'SHAME ON ME'!".