by justinjlynn on 8/22/17, 11:34 AM
It seems like nobody actually owns anything any more - that we're all just digital serfs living on someone else's land. I really don't know why anyone would willingly make such a deal.
by cm2187 on 8/22/17, 8:21 PM
To be honest I had a pretty average experience with Sonos so far. It is connected with cat6 ethernet, professional switches, with no other connectivity problems on that network (and I tested all cables). I have 3 systems (pay1, play 5 and the sonos amp), and they keep losing track of each others, I have to regroup them regularly. They also struggle with long music tracks (i.e. 1h podcasts off a synology shared drive) and often stall in the middle.
If they brick my devices, I will only be half upset.
by pantsofhonking on 8/22/17, 8:22 PM
Wow talk about blowing something out of proportion. The new software comes with new terms. If you don't accept the new terms you keep the existing software. Over time, it is possible that current software sill stop working with e.g. some future Pandora API, and you'll have a choice of either updating your software or foregoing that feature.
I have a Sonos in every room of my house and I've owned them since the very first generation. Sonos has been extremely good about updating the software. The current software still works on the very first hardware, with all the functionality save for a single feature, room-correcting equalization, that requires the newer DSP. This company is the gold standard of ongoing software support for consumer goods and this article is trying to spin the situation in just the perfect way to make the Internet commentariat explode.
by MikeGale on 8/22/17, 11:18 PM
I suspect that legislators are so far behind the curve on this, that they'll never protect decent humans from such guys.
Answer: Forget the protection afforded by the state. Protect yourself. Blacklist the scum manufacturers, warn your acquaintances.
What other suggestions.
by sverige on 8/23/17, 1:24 AM
I hate all smart devices. The TV should just be a TV, the dishwasher should wash dishes, the refrigerator should keep stuff cold, the washing machine and dryer should clean my clothes, and speakers should just produce sounds. I have yet to hear any compelling reason to make these devices dependent on software.
by lamecicle on 8/22/17, 12:07 PM
I remember a time when the phrase "if you don't know what the product is, you're the product" made sense.
Now it's, "if you don't kn... oh f*ck it, you're the product!"
by solomatov on 8/23/17, 1:20 AM
This problem should be solved in a legislative way, similar to Europe's GDPR. There should some minimum privacy rights which can't be opted out of and which are protected by government. That's the only viable solution. Markets don't help here.
by swiley on 8/22/17, 1:12 PM
If you can't read the source and build the firmware yourself you don't own the device.
It's that simple. Stop putting up with closed non trivial firmware and these sorts of problems go away.
by CaptSpify on 8/22/17, 9:53 PM
I looked at these speakers a few months ago. They look really cool. As soon as I saw that they
require phoning home, I said "lolno" and built my own speaker system with RPIs.
I love the idea of smart devices, but only as long as the software is Free and Open. I really don't understand people who think situations like this are acceptable.
by jeffehobbs on 8/22/17, 12:33 PM
I'll be honest, I'm just glad to see they are still actually working on their software.
by mnw21cam on 8/22/17, 12:13 PM
Sale of goods act (and similar consumer protection laws in so many countries around the world)?
by jwr on 8/23/17, 2:12 AM
While I don't like this new development, I will drop in one data point: I bought my first Sonos devices more than 11 years ago, and over this time they all received software updates with increasing functionality. Think about it: my first Sonos players were bought in the pre-iPhone times. A lot has changed in the tech world since then.
This is something other manufacturers could learn from. It seems these days most products are launched by marketing teams: fire and forget, the moment the product is out the door, all software development ceases and it never gets updated.
I do hope they reconsider the new privacy policy, though. It's worrying.
by eveningcoffee on 8/22/17, 8:32 PM
There should be way to fight it back. If this kind of thinking spreads even more it will suffocate our society.
by allwein on 8/22/17, 1:08 PM
I might understand this if it was for new customers going forward. But I don't understand how they can tell their existing customers this and not expect a lawsuit.
by hkmurakami on 8/22/17, 10:35 PM
This is why I will never want my home to be "smart".
You'll have to pry my physical wall switches and copper wires from the cold, dead hands.
by pedrocr on 8/22/17, 9:41 PM
Anyone have another suggestion for a pair of wifi speakers that can be assigned to Left/Right to get stereo and can be network streamed to and have another device on the network with a line-in?
I was about to buy 2 Play1's and a Connect to do a stereo install in a room where I don't want to run speaker cable. I had researched wackier home-built solutions and was going to give up and go for the Sonos. Now I'm once again considering wackier home-built stuff like 3 raspberry pi's attached to line-in and two dumb powered speakers.
by voidz on 8/22/17, 11:47 AM
The actual solution is simple: stop using these devices.
by pm24601 on 8/22/17, 2:48 PM
And reason #458 why I am skipping the whole "IoT revolution" in my home.
I consider this motivation for DIY.
by bogomipz on 8/23/17, 1:19 AM
I am sincerely curious and maybe a Sonos owner can offer some feedback. what does Sonos offer me now that a streaming music provider, a smart phone and a portable bluetooth speaker doesn't?
I understand that Sonos can stream to multiple "zones" simultaneously but besides the occasion of a house party how often is this necessary?
This news to me is just another reason for me to never buy one.
by JimRoepcke on 8/22/17, 8:23 PM
Sonos: I am altering the deal. Pray I don't alter it any further.
by avs733 on 8/22/17, 1:17 PM
What is provided to the consumer/user in exchange for agreeing to this contract? I assume, because I am becoming increasingly nihilistic about technology, that challenges to this would fail in court. However, this seems to fail both the consideration and the competency and capacity elements of a functional contract.
by iomotoko on 8/23/17, 1:54 AM
mhm, please excuse me all if this is wrong, but isn't this the exact same way it works with pretty much all of the updates from e.g. Apple and co?
Let's say a new Itunes update comes along, this requires the user to opt into a privacy policy, if there happens to have been a change in said policy since the last update, then accepting the new conditions is required in order to install the update? Same for an update in browsers, iOS, Android, ...
I am not in favour, just confused as to why this specific case is singled out? Especially since not updating critical software (Operating systems, browsers, et cetera) seems to have far more serious consequences than w/ a speaker?
by softwaredoug on 8/22/17, 12:35 PM
Is there a use case for Sonos that good Bluetooth speakers don't address more simply?
by ace_of_spades on 8/23/17, 7:39 AM
Maybe it's just a naive idea but wouldn't it make sense to have "smart devices" be smart in sofar that they have some local computation power and the ability to communicate near range? Maybe have local orchestrator (e.g., apple tv, google home, what not) dedicated for communicating with companies while the rest stays rather dumb and completely interchangeable. Why is literally every smart device sending back information to another company?? Why aren't Distributed IoT and Smart Objects paradigms more of a thing already?
by INTPenis on 8/22/17, 12:06 PM
I bought one of those for my gf because I wanted to see if it was any good.
Quick review.
iOS users have to use their spotify app which is lousy.
Google Play users can cast to it, thankfully.
Major positive point is that it uses wifi and supports casting from Google Play. But for my gf who uses iphone she hates it.
Overall we prefer the Marshall bluetooth speakers over Sonos because in an apartment there's rarely a need for wifi casting music.
Edit: Chromecast audio is also a viable alternative. Based on how well my regular Chromecast (video) works for me I assume the audio one is as good.
by invisible on 8/23/17, 3:06 AM
I'd be interested how those complaining about this "problem" would handle the business decision of how to update your terms when adding software that relies on third party offerings. If they add support for Some Music service, do they make it an awful experience where you have to agree to the terms for each vendor?
In earnest, what is a better approach here?
by thrillgore on 8/22/17, 8:44 PM
I've long considered going to Sonos, but I think i'll stay with my Plex VM and my NAS
by circa on 8/22/17, 11:49 PM
For some reason I read this as Sophos. That would not be good.
by exabrial on 8/23/17, 12:57 AM
Lawsuit time
by DarkKomunalec on 8/22/17, 12:15 PM
RMS was right again.
by natch on 8/22/17, 12:56 PM
Maybe there is a Google acquisition looming and this is being dictated by Google. Speculation obviously, but look what happened with Nest.
by throwaway2016a on 8/22/17, 2:17 PM
As a Sonos (I have close to $2000 worth of products) user this actually doesn't bother me.
To all the people talking about ownership. I find it hard to believe the aux in will cease to work. So worst case is they turn into regular speakers.
What it sounds like is you won't be able to update your firmware. So more likely than not, everything would keep working but random Internet related services (like Spotify Integration) may break over time because, for instance, if Spotify changes their API you won't get the software update to fix it.
And that is why I think it is OK. Software updates over the Internet are always subject to licensing. That is not new and not unique to Sonos.