>I don't have much sympathy for the people abusing the system
I disagree with the premise that it's unethical to use a product I purchase and own from a for-profit company for a use that turned out not to be profitable for it. Note that it wasn't much of a hack; Sony sold consoles with the option to install another operating system from its menu [0].
Since the move was so unprofitable to it, Sony should not have offered the option to users in the first place. But since it happened, executives at Sony then just decided that it made business sense for Sony to disable the option in a firmware update.
I just don't understand the framing where it's as if Sony did a favor for its customers who then "took advantage," when Sony just miscalculated a business policy to serve its own self-interest.
They could not do that from the start, but they did, because they planned larger sales. Whether it turns out to be more profitable is their risk, not users. The important change is that people can't have an expectation (a risk) anymore which would turn out to be false a month after. Inability is a much, much lesser issue than a broken expectation.
>I don't have much sympathy for the people abusing the system
I disagree with the premise that it's unethical to use a product I purchase and own from a for-profit company for a use that turned out not to be profitable for it. Note that it wasn't much of a hack; Sony sold consoles with the option to install another operating system from its menu [0].
Since the move was so unprofitable to it, Sony should not have offered the option to users in the first place. But since it happened, executives at Sony then just decided that it made business sense for Sony to disable the option in a firmware update.
I just don't understand the framing where it's as if Sony did a favor for its customers who then "took advantage," when Sony just miscalculated a business policy to serve its own self-interest.
[0] https://www.digitaltrends.com/gaming/sony-settles-over-insta...