Ok, I feel like someone should correct the misinformation here. The reason the PS3 lost BC was a laundry list of things that happened.
1) They changed graphics card companies. So the PS2 company got all pissed and refused to allow true emulation of the chip.
2) They tried adding on the PS2 hardware but that ended up being way too costly (and still didn't fully work)
3) So they resorted to a dropping it entirely.
It wasn't because Sony wanted to cash in on digital sales (but I'm sure it helped). The real reason was because they couldn't sell a $600 PS2. So they cut the price and focused on selling people new games.
Can you point out exactly where I was misleading anyone? Specifically the bit about "Sony took out BC to resell you games"? I never alluded to that, I said it was a scumbag move to push for PS+ and then have the PS4 not playback any PS3 software, that would be mindboggling stupid (just like anti-used games lockout).
The PS3 was originally intended to do software emulation before it was scrapped at the last minute in favor of hardware emulation. The European launch models used a hybrid of both software and hardware for PS2 games -- which was later taken and used for the 2nd gen fat PS3 models.
And if by rant you mean articulating why not having BC for next-gen is unacceptable given the push for more PS+ subscriptions, then yeah, totally a rant. If Sony wants more people to pay for a premium service such as PS+, the very least they could do is make the library compatible on the PS4.
Oh and by the way, it was Microsoft, not Sony who was not allowed to use the GPU in their next console. NVidia claimed the rights and wanted royalty fees, Microsoft said lol no and asked AMD for help (ATI at the time). It's the reason why the Xbox 360's BC is purely software emulated, they didn't want to pay Nvidia for what was essentially their own chip device.
Probably not gonna get an apology out of you. :P