After much reflection on what Sony had put in place for PSN, it was quite clear that the investment into PSN as a protected, viable service was woefully insufficient. Essentially, they built it up enough (just) to perform its functions but had not taken the same level of effort on crucial infrastructure such as security and authentication. Looking back, we can now see that PSN will be held as a shining example of how not to build a network; and that's not a bad thing and I explain in three key areas:
---
1. Service Levels - Why PSN is not 'free' nor should expectations be lowered because there is no explicit subscription for access.
The biggest counter argument (usually from rose-tinted fanboys who want to hang every hacker on the planet and give Sony's executives a nice stroke on the forehead for putting up with said hackers) is that PSN is free and therefore gamers have no right to demand access to it nor complain when it is down. Quite frankly, this notion is completely misguided and incorrect. Millions of Playstation console owners have purchased their consoles with the understanding that the Playstation Network is not only provided, it is an advertised feature of the console itself. Further to this, many games that are sold feature multiplayer support including those that are exclusively intended for multiplayer such MAG or Battlefield 1943. Then add in streamed services and anything that has been purchased through the network which requires an active connection to benefit.
All in, without the Playstation Network, the Playstation console is less than half of its value to the customer. Sony (and fanboys alike) can argue over the 'free' and the legendary 'terms and conditions' points as much as they like. The reality is much different: gamers are converting in droves to the 360 to get their online kicks. Microsoft has even been clever enough to introduce paypal support to persuade the security-concious. The sales data for Playstation has never looked worse and now that PSN woes are making it into mainstream media headlines, Sony is on the verge of a complete collapse in customer confidence which will extend beyond the Playstation and into ANY cloud services they may offer including cameras, televisions and laptops. Even their new Android business could be in jeopardy.
Regardless of what you may believe is warranted by law, any product that is offered to market with a specified list of features (regardless of their nature) must confirm to trading standards of their respective market which includes clear stipulations on false advertising. This ALSO includes products which have had features taken away, such as the infamous 'alternative OS' function that Sony removed from the PS3. However, the feature in question is PSN on this occasion, which Sony had taken down after an arguably successful hacking disruption. Did Sony make the right decision? Based on what we now know the PSN to have been, yes, but that doesn't mean that Sony isn't still liable for placing themselves in the position of removing access to PSN altogether. In effect, a feature has been withdrawn and with it, effective value from many services and games that depend upon that feature. So could Sony be sued for compensation on this 'free' service? I believe they could and probably should.
When you offer a service as part of a feature set, the market will expect you to uphold that service. For instance, I am a google mail user (both private and commercial). My 'free' private service has been very dependable in the five + years that I have used it and as a result, I had no hesitation in adopting it for my company as the primary email backbone which we pay for. I, like many millions, are dependant on Google providing those services without disruption. We equally expect Google to safeguard our information by rigorously investing in their own network security (which they do). I'd imagine that on the 'free' service, there's a term or condition that reserves the right for Google to remove service, but believe me, if they ever did it would be a catastrophic move to their well-being as a business. Luckily, the Playstation network wasn't yet at the point (I think) that people actually depended on it - but it was headed that way. It's a bloody good thing that Sony is learning this lesson now before people's lives were REALLY disrupted. Had this hacking attempt happened 2-3 years from now, we wouldn't be talking about hackers or game networks; we'd be talking about Sony going out of business. Moving forward, Sony needs to adopt a service level agreement with its customers and abide by it. This will imply that risk management procedures are employed to continually invest in the network security and continuity so that future hacking attempts do not cause disruption to customers.
---
2. Public Relations - How the Hotz case has damaged Sony's reputation as a real player in 21st century technology
Don't worry, this will be a bit shorter (thanks for staying with me this far) - Sony's handling of the Hotz case has been a complete disaster. While Hotz himself certainly didn't help the situation, his actions did uncover widespread condemnation of Sony's arbitrary removal of Linux support amongst PS3 owners. During the case, Sony refused to offer any apology to owners over this feature removal nor did they even acknowledge that there was any wrongdoing on their part. Whether you believe in Anonymous' motives or not, they DID have a point: Don't push your customers around. That's precisely what Sony did and the one person who stood up to them was vilified in the media for it. Should he (Hotz) have distributed his rootkey hack? No. But I do support his right to have 'corrected' his console functionality to re-enable his lost feature. It was his property, not Sony's..;and the notion that Sony had any say over what he did with his property (provided it didn't affect other services, customers or publishers) was very disturbing to me. It's an ugly coincidence that the hack enabled piracy, but Sony was desperate to make it about piracy because they had no willingness to own up to their own evils. Many argue it wasn't a core feature and shouldn't be missed - but I disagree. I'm positive millions out there bought the PS3 to replace their PC for basic home computing in addition to gaming, and removing that feature would have been VERY disruptive to those owners. Had I been one of them (I almost was) I will openly admit that I probably would have sought out the hack to re-enable Linux. I do not support piracy, but I do support any customer who buys a product expecting one thing and getting another without any compensation.
Short of buying every customer a Linux netbook, I still cannot understand how governments have allowed Sony to simply remove the alternative OS feature without repercussions or compensation. I do not believe in vigilante justice, but I will not cry for Sony over the actions by Anonymous. Sony had it coming. Perhaps they should reflect on that. As for me, I have never had a feature removed on any purchase (I don't own a PS3) and I certainly will think twice about investing in Sony's offerings ever again. I certainly won't be buying a Sony Google TV (which I was considering) or any more Sony Bluray players (which I own) nor cameras (2 of them) or phones (1) from now onward. Why? -because Sony has demonstrated to me that they are willing to disrupt features if it suits them, willing to threaten customers who don't like it AND aren't able to demonstrate any reasonable competence or investment into customer security ANYWAY so what possible good can come of owning and using Sony products in this day in age? For me, it will take years for Sony to win me back, and not before I see changes - cultural changes - in Sony's executive branch and ethics. Hopefully, Anonymous has taught them a lesson about customers that will make them think twice about having their cake and eating it too.
3. Being viable in the 21st century. Cloud computing and the implications of its direction.
All manufacturers MUST consider how they are going to support and interact with cloud-based systems. From my vantage point in the tech industry, the movement towards cloud computing is accelerating at break-neck speed to such an extent we are now witnessing another 'Dot-Com' bubble in the markets (which will burst again I'm sorry to say) There are big moves happening around us: Linked-In being revalued at 9 Billion overnight, Microsoft buying Skype for 8.3 billion and looking to buy Nokia (illedgedly). All of this is symptomatic of the rush to build tech clouds and everyone is chasing Google and Facebook. Sony can be no different if they hope to survive. For too long they have walked their own path in devices, standards and software. PSN was a 'me-too' development designed to keep Sony at pat with Microsoft and others while still giving them complete control over their own services. Without getting into a rant as to why I have to buy a 'Memory stick' for my Wife's smartphone rather than the generic MicroSD card it's based on, I will simply say that Sony does not have the competency or the money to stay viable over the next 10 years unless they start making some friends in the tech industry; friends who can deliver the features Sony needs to remain a relevant technology supplier. More than ever, I believe we are witnessing the death-throws of the Playstation Network (in its current form) and will either see it vanish completely by 2015 or become a branded environment that exists within a much larger, more secure and vast cloud: Think Google.
Sony is over their head and yet they clearly aren't ready to admit it. Other manufacturers have already accepted their role and are looking to Google and Microsoft to support their services online. Do people seriously think that 2020 should have a 'Toshiba Cloud', a 'Panasonic Cloud' (amazingly, Panasonic does), a 'Samsung Cloud'?? No. Ridiculous. At best we will see 2 or 3 major unified networks. I guarantee that Google and Microsoft will be two of them. Apple a possible (but unlikely) third. The question is not whether Sony will (or must) join one of these platforms, the question is when and which one? Every day that Sony delays the inevitable is costing them money and marketshare. My personal advice, louder than ever, talk to Google. Now. It's a good fit and Google will propel Sony's devices and services to fantastic heights. If not Sony, then another manufacturer (watching Samsung closely) and their position as a top tech company will be in serious jeopardy.
I hope that Sony feel helpless, lost and scared right now with respect to PSN. It's my hope that these feelings will compel them to act sooner in finding a suitable cloud partner and adopt policies and thinking that can protect them from their own deficiencies -but- allow them to prosper well into the next decade.
No comments:
Post a Comment