
Sonos: users must accept new privacy policy or devices may “cease to function” - ralphm
http://www.zdnet.com/article/sonos-accept-new-privacy-policy-speakers-cease-to-function/
======
justinjlynn
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.

~~~
dvdhnt
Individuals haven't owned much in a very long time; we've been physical serfs
living on someone else's land for even longer.

You only "own" something so long as you pay taxes (aka rents) for the right to
do so, otherwise someone, usually the government, will take it from you. Even
if you don't want to play along, you can only be somewhere public for so long
until you're loitering and subject to fines (more rents), confiscation (again,
more rents), or removal.

The whole system is pretty blatantly anti-competitive [1], detrimental to
individuals [2][3], and rotting the system from the inside out [4][5].

1\. [https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-rent-seeking-is-
too...](https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-rent-seeking-is-too-damn-
high/)

2\. [http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-06-22/us-economy-
perverte...](http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-06-22/us-economy-perverted-
neo-feudal-rent-seeking-abomination)

3\. [https://hackernoon.com/rise-of-the-rent-seeker-how-the-
subsc...](https://hackernoon.com/rise-of-the-rent-seeker-how-the-subscription-
economy-hurts-startups-entrepreneurs-its-af48fe98e555)

4\. [https://devinhelton.com/2013/04/14/rent-seeking-
economy/](https://devinhelton.com/2013/04/14/rent-seeking-economy/)

5\. [https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-09-13/banks-
and...](https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-09-13/banks-and-colleges-
are-wasting-our-money)

~~~
ethnic_throw
Taxes ≠ rents.

~~~
dvdhnt
Generally, I would agree, and in the broadest sense of the terms, they are not
equal. You can call anything whatever you want; you can put lipstick on a pig
but it's still a pig. England used taxation as a way to maintain control over
its colonies regardless of how it turned out. Eventually, and most famously,
the U.S. realized the taxation was a form of oppression and not for the common
good.

People who didn't pay the "taxes" were evicted and their possessions given to
loyalists; sounds a lot like renting.

~~~
Naga
The American Revolution isn't nearly as clear cut as that. It wasn't anti-
taxation, it was anti-taxation without representation. The colonists were
objecting to being taxed without having a say in the levying of the taxes.
There were many colonial Americans who would have been happy returning Members
to Parliament without independence.

The core of the issue really was that Britain defended the American colonies
from French invasion during the Seven Year's War and the British taxpayer bore
the brunt of the taxation (I can't remember exact figures, but Britons were
taxed much, much heavier than Americans, even after the stamp duties and tea
taxes). After the war, Parliament came looking for payback, understandably. So
Britain wasn't using taxation to control the colonies, it was looking to
recoup the costs of defending them.

On a sidenote, this is actually quite interesting in today's context over NATO
military spending, where now it is Britain freeloading on American military
spending.

~~~
eponeponepon
> The American Revolution isn't nearly as clear cut as that.

This is an entirely legitimate statement.

> ...now it is Britain freeloading on American military spending.

...but this you're really going to have to back up. Can you point to a
specific example and explain why it's 'freeloading'?

~~~
KekDemaga
The US has a significant presence in the UK:
[http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/unknown-
terri...](http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/unknown-territory-
america-s-secret-archipelago-of-uk-bases-9084129.html)

------
cm2187
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.

~~~
stock_toaster
If the units are also wifi connected (sonos mesh networking), then either only
plug in one of them to ethernet, or fiddle with your switch spanning tree cost
values. As I recall, sonos uses the older standard spanning tree values, and
until I fiddled with my managed switch settings, the sonos were regularly
bringing down my local network, and/or winning the elections so that large
amounts of my lan traffic went over their wireless mesh network.

Pretty crappy default configuration on Sonos' part (using old default cost
values), if you ask me.

~~~
crummy
^ I worked in Sonos support for 7 years and going wired for everything is the
best configuration - if you're still having issues with that then spanning
tree configuration is the likely cause.

~~~
blktiger
I found Sonos support to be super helpful. First time I've talked with a
support representative where I came away impressed with how knowledgeable they
were.

------
pantsofhonking
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.

~~~
xg15
Whatever the rationale, the posts's core statement - that either people accept
new contract terms or their device will brick the next time they change the
API - is correct.

[edit] apparently the models have a line-in socket? In that case, I agree,
them turning into regular speakers is better than bricking. However, I still
think the article is relevant as it highlights the problem of ownership and
terms of sale with IoT devices. (The conditions under which you bought the
device can change arbitrarily _after_ the sale)

~~~
givinguflac
This is silly, no one is saying they are going to brick the hardware, ever.
But if you don't update and years later Spotify decides to change their end
points, Spotify will likely stop working on your very outdated speaker.

If you have any google account or android device, they already have literally
orders of magnitude more info on your life than Sonos would ever be able to
collect. Not to mention Sonos has said it doesn't ever sell the data, AND you
can opt out of usage info. Not seeing the problem here.

------
MikeGale
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.

~~~
givinguflac
Have you even read what data is being collected? Sonos is not a scum company,
though the article is providing badly inaccurate info.

------
sverige
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.

~~~
KMag
My degree is in mechanical engineering, but I work in software development.
Software is eating the world for good reasons.

How many gates would it take to have a pure hardware decoder for ATSC?

A microcontroller-based dishwasher timer is much cheaper to design and
manufacture, and wears out more slowly under many conditions, than a
mechanical timer.

I wouldn't be surprised if a micontroller could wring another 1% efficiency
out of your refrigerator vs. an analog or mechanical controller.

A microcontroller inside the speaker could perform some digital signal
processing to account for the speaker's frequency response, so that the
receiver doesn't have to know any details about the speakers.

Now, I do see little reason to make any of the non-TV appliances you mention
reliant upon network connectivity or anything outside themselves apart from
power and physical consumables (soap, water, etc.). Ideally, the television
itself would be split into a screen with only HDMI in, and a small box or
dongle that performs ATSC reception, decoding, and any smart TV functionality.
The television itself should be something like a Chromecast.

~~~
gruturo
The "Smart" in the post you replied to stands for something else than your
examples (which are absolutely valid uses cases!).

We could summarize it as "needlessly Internet connected, reporting to some
endpoint in the cloud outside of your control, which is now a point of
failure".

Indeed my dishwasher is likely more reliable, and my fridge can get more
efficient with a microcontroller. But the 2017 version is likely to suddenly
stop working is someone in Korea forgets to renew a certificate (or worse,
become part of a botnet, or act as an breach in the security of your network
like the aquarium in Vegas I read about lately). Most of the times, the "added
value" of this new dependency is harvesting your data for profit (which won't
get passed down to you as a better price, don't worry).

~~~
KMag
I should have quoted the portion I was responding to. I was responding to "I
have yet to hear any compelling reason to make these devices dependent on
software."

~~~
sverige
Yes, you have possibly valid use cases. I should have clarified that my
objection is to Internet connectivity specifically, although I am not yet
persuaded that a 1% efficiency gain for my refrigerator or other appliance
(regardless of connectivity) justifies the additional expense and complexity
of using a microprocessor.

------
lamecicle
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!"

~~~
cm2187
The sentence is if you don't _pay_ for the product, you are the product. But
Sonos isn't exactly free. It isn't exactly cheap either.

~~~
JetSpiegel
Note that the original sentence is a one-way equivalence.

Just because you pay for the product, doesn't mean you can be the product too.

------
solomatov
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.

~~~
programmarchy
Why wouldn't the market help? This is a great opportunity for a competitor to
offer privacy features and capture market share with a better offering.
Promise privacy in perpetuity or your money back, and if consumers care then
they will switch.

~~~
eropple
Because people _already bought the things_ and it would be profoundly shitty
to buy them again? Lock-in is real.

And let's be real: what you've written should be written as "privacy in
perpetuity _or maybe part of your money back years later after a class-action
lawsuit, maybe, if it isn 't just store credit_." That, as much as anything,
is why consumers caring is attenuated.

~~~
programmarchy
It's a luxury speaker, so not the end of the world. The consumer could sell on
eBay, or if it makes sense a competitor could offer incentives like taking
trade ins for a discount, etc.

------
swiley
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.

~~~
lj3
Which makes your options 'roll it yourself' or 'do without'. Just because
somebody chose door #3 doesn't mean they should be expected to get shafted at
every opportunity.

~~~
CaptSpify
I agree that they shouldn't expect to, but they shouldn't be surprised either.

------
CaptSpify
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.

------
jeffehobbs
I'll be honest, I'm just glad to see they are still actually working on their
software.

~~~
mikerice
It's so good but still so buggy. Very much a love-hate relationship.

~~~
zippergz
Really? Are there certain services you find to be buggy? I feel like Sonos is
one of the _least_ buggy pieces of tech in my house. That's what I love about
it. It just works, I don't have to explain to non-technical family members how
to work around issues, etc. But we almost exclusively use it for Apple Music
and Spotify, so maybe there are some rough edges we haven't encountered.

~~~
senectus1
try playing music that is stored on your phone the sonos... it keeps cutting
the effing song off short and starting the next song too early.

a bug that's been around _forever_ and they plain refuse to fix it.

~~~
zippergz
Ok, yeah, that's definitely not a use case I have tried. (In fact, one of the
biggest reasons I switched to Sonos from using Airplay is that I wanted to get
away from relying on my phone's network connection to have the music play.)

------
mnw21cam
Sale of goods act (and similar consumer protection laws in so many countries
around the world)?

~~~
Silhouette
That was my first thought as well. It's clearly not reasonable to assume a
customer bought a product without any knowledge of arbitrary future changes in
the legal terms but understood that the product could cease to provide the
same functionality they bought it for later if they didn't accept those
unrelated changes. This ought to be grounds for returning these devices to
vendors as unfit for purpose and demanding that either they are fixed to
continue working properly or some fair level of compensation is paid.

Also, since we're getting some new data protection laws across the EU next
year that are heavily weighted against organisations that process data,
someone who is upset by this could probably annoy Sonos by doing things like
accepting the policy, getting whatever updates they need to keep their device
running, and then immediately giving notice that they withdraw their consent
for processing any personal data.

In the long term, I think consumer education may be the best solution to the
problem of normal devices depending on fragile remote facilities. It is
illegal to sell cigarettes in my country without showing very obvious warnings
about how smoking is harmful to your health. Perhaps it's time that any
software or electronic devices that rely on someone else's servers or remote
hardware to function have to have 1/3 of their packaging (including 1/3 of the
total screen area for any web pages or app purchase screens) used for a big
statement that this may cause the software or device to stop functioning at
any time, or to give an actionable guarantee about how long such support will
be provided for as a minimum, and that any advertising for such things has to
describe the "purchase" in terms of being a rental rather than buying
something.

~~~
crummy
Isn't Sonos just saying, if you don't accept the new privacy policy you won't
get updates? I highly doubt they're going to deliberately (somehow) break
devices for users that refuse to update.

~~~
Silhouette
The reporting here implies that devices for customers who don't accept the new
terms may "cease to function". Does the mechanism for how that happens matter?
The bottom line is that either the product continues to provide whatever
functionality it was purchased for, or it's now broken.

Typically under consumer protection laws in places like Europe, a product that
ceases to work properly unreasonably quickly after it is purchased will
trigger certain rights for the purchaser, such as getting the device repaired
or replaced so it works again, or getting a full or partial refund as
compensation.

Importantly, there is typically no exception to this principle just because
the product in question involves software or depends on remote services. In
fact, the EU strengthened consumer protections on digital purchases not so
long ago, so the direction of the legal currents is very clear.

I suppose you could say there has been some sort of informal understanding
that because it's so hard to write software with no bugs or security flaws,
it's reasonable for the suppliers of products with software components to
supply software updates post-sale to keep things working properly without
falling foul of the basic "it no longer works" trap if users don't then apply
those updates. But the sorts of shenanigans we've seen recently with software
developers bundling unrelated and possibly unwanted changes in with their bug
fixes and security patches are stretching good faith here, and at some point I
suspect something has got to give.

The same principle applies to products with dependencies on remote services
that don't necessarily last as long as the product itself, whether that's a
server for a multiplayer game, or a DRM scheme with remote authorisation, or a
provider of audio data that makes a speaker system useful.

~~~
X86BSD
I think Sonos just lost me to Apple on yet another device. HomePod here I
come. Seriously this is just another insane digital slavery drive.

~~~
stock_toaster
This does seem like a weird move, given:

a) the high price of Sonos equipment

b) the HomePod coming out sometime in the near future

c) other competitors that are starting to be more competitive (eg. "smart
speakers", bluetooth speakers, etc)

------
jwr
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.

~~~
FussyZeus
My parents have a couple of Sonos devices in their home. The support is
amazing. But this "Accept the new policy or we brick your shit remotely" thing
needs a HARD and FAST response, this cannot be a "Well eventually the market
will-" NO, FUCK THAT. If we allow manufacturers to do this sort of shit,
that's the final nail in the coffin for IoT. It's already a dumpster fire in
terms of software.

------
eveningcoffee
There should be way to fight it back. If this kind of thinking spreads even
more it will suffocate our society.

~~~
cm2187
Plus this is no way to treat a customer if you want them to be repeat
customers.

------
allwein
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.

~~~
inopinatus
I am considering a complaint to the ACCC here in Australia. It's possible this
sort of thing violates our consumer protection laws.

~~~
voltagex_
I'd be really interested in the outcome of this. You may be better going to
your state's Office of Fair Trading first though.

------
hkmurakami
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.

------
pedrocr
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.

~~~
itsmenow
look into the squeezebox ecosystem.

~~~
zantana
Seconding. It's a great system if you can set up your own server, and the
ecosystem at this point is almost completely open to the point where you can
completely build players from other devices like raspberry pis.

------
voidz
The actual solution is simple: stop using these devices.

~~~
thecopy
Could you recommend some alternatives?

~~~
justin66
Run Squeezelite on multiple Raspberry Pis paired with decent USB audio
adapters (Berhinger UCA222 - decent analog and also optical out). Music served
from a PC using the standard Logitech Media Server software, playback
controlled with either the standard web interface or the Squeezer android app.

Plug the RPis into decent stereos (not a powered speaker unless you are some
kind of rabid animal) and you've got a good setup that can be controlled from
anywhere in the house. Multiple stereos can playback in sync and be controlled
from the same UI.

~~~
pavel_lishin
Does Logitech Media Server integrate with all these doodads:
[http://www.sonos.com/en-us/streaming-music](http://www.sonos.com/en-
us/streaming-music) ?

~~~
justin66
A few of them look familiar, but I don't use that stuff. My advice was given
with someone with a digital music collection in mind. Spotify, for example,
was available on the Squeezebox Touch (and not the earlier Squeezebox Classic)
but I don't know how tricky it would be to make it work with Squeezelite.

~~~
itsmenow
There is a new plugin called "spotty" (see here:
[http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?107615-Announce...](http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?107615-Announce-
Spotty-v1-1-0)) that lets you stream spotify to any client.

~~~
justin66
Thanks, I know someone who can use this. I also saw a year or two ago some guy
was selling some product or service or something aimed at supporting the older
hardware with newer streaming services. I just don't generally use the
streaming stuff.

------
pm24601
And reason #458 why I am skipping the whole "IoT revolution" in my home.

I consider this motivation for DIY.

~~~
ViViDboarder
There are a good amount of IoT devices that work offline and don't use public
internet at all.

I specifically buy devices that aren't bound to the Internet and I've found a
good amount.

~~~
CaptSpify
Where do you typically find them? I've had very little luck with that

~~~
tjohns
For one... Philips Hue. The lights connect to a Zigbee base station, which has
a local API for controlling the system.

(The base station does connect to a WAN server for remote control, but you
could always block that at your firewall. The system works entirely fine in
local mode.)

~~~
CaptSpify
The last time that I looked, the Hue/Zigbee/whatever protocols were still
fighting over each other to become the standard. Has that settled down?

------
bogomipz
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.

~~~
rconti
So, even in a 1100sqft house, I consider the multiple-zone streaming to be of
great utility. In fact, I almost NEVER use my Sonos setup without all 5
speakers going. Yes, you can always blast the audio in one room in order to
hear it well in others, but it's quite nice to be able to listen at a
comfortable volume in all rooms. It allows one person in the house to call out
to another and still be heard, for example.

I have it set to wake me to the local streaming radio, so that's a nice
feature, but of course it could be replicated.

I can throw my phone into a passing cement mixer and the music keeps playing
in the house, and then I can open the controller on my laptop and hit "next
track". In this way it's fairly analogous to the Spotify controller where I
can change the music from any device in the house, but the "playing" happens
on the device itself; it's not actually streamed from my phone or computer.

Also, until sometime in the past couple of years Bluetooth was godawful
unusably unreliable. It's gotten REALLY good lately though, and suddenly I
love it.

------
JimRoepcke
Sonos: I am altering the deal. Pray I don't alter it any further.

------
avs733
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.

------
iomotoko
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?

~~~
sowbug
Hardware vs. software.

Declining update and choosing to live without new features vs. ceasing to
function.

~~~
iomotoko
"[...] the customer will not be able to update the software on their Sonos
system, and over time the functionality of the product will decrease."

Sounds to me like maybe the bluetooth syncing with a recent smartphone or
something of that nature might not work if the speaker didn't receive a
certain update, which I consider a possibility. The "cease to function" seems
like a nightmarish-description of such. It's not like "not updating" will
magically brick the device.

Edit: my point being that not updating software is not about not enjoying
certain features, it's in many cases being incredibly vulnerable to certain
types of exploits, in the case of an OS or browser a far more serious
consequence, is it not?

~~~
sowbug
That point is a bit of a red herring. The question isn't the value of the
update; it's whether existing customers should have to accept inferior terms
of service to get it.

The right path for Sonos would be to open-source the kernel and hardware
drivers, then either keep it up to date with a base feature set or budget
$100K or so a year to run a bounty-based community contribution program. That
will end the complaints that Sonos risked bricking hundreds of millions of
dollars' worth of consumer hardware so its marketing department could harvest
email addresses. Not everyone would like that choice, but it would be a better
choice than the gradual decay of perfectly fine (and expensive) hardware that
should otherwise last for decades.

Unfortunately the economics of service-oriented consumer hardware is all
screwed up these days. Should buying a proprietary connected geegaw for a
single up-front fee entitle me to eternal updates? In what non-pyramid-scheme
economic model does that work? Yet in our world where we're still weaning
ourselves from the dot-com years, that's typically the expectation.

------
softwaredoug
Is there a use case for Sonos that good Bluetooth speakers don't address more
simply?

~~~
cujo
* Shared playlist/queue between all users of a household.

* No need to have a second device present to stream music. That is, I can start up music with the controller on my phone, and go to the store, but the music still plays since all the streaming is handled by the sonos speaker.

* No need to pair your phone/computer to the device every time you come home. Just get on the wifi, and you're set.

Those are the big ones for me, and honestly they're huge.

On the flip side, the biggest pain point is that you're beholden to whatever
music services they include in their controller, and you have to use their
controller to play music. So while they support Apple Music, I can't use the
Music app on my phone to play it. I have to drill through the Sonos app and
find what I want. It works pretty well, but it's annoying. Also, I can't
stream Audible books, or Overcast podcasts since they aren't supported by the
Sonos controller.

~~~
majewsky
Why would you need to play music at home while you're going to a store?

Also, activating Bluetooth is as frictionless as activating WiFi.

~~~
pgm8705
Because you aren't the only one enjoying the music at your home. The most
annoying thing about being at a party where bluetooth audio is being used is
when the person paired gets too far away from the speaker.

~~~
letsgetphysITal
Configure a tablet in guided / single app mode for music playback. Trivial
stuff.

~~~
cujo
That's a fine solution if you have an extra one laying around. But I don't and
I'm hesitant to buy a tablet just to drive a speaker.

~~~
leni536
Is it even more expensive to drive a regular speaker with a dedicated tablet
than a Sonos speaker?

~~~
jtuente
Yeah cost is definitely not going to be a reasonable factor wrt Sonos
equipment comparison. I think the tablet being misplaced, broken or otherwise
abused is more troublesome.

------
ace_of_spades
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?

------
INTPenis
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.

~~~
mikerice
There is a Sonos app for iOS, though? But agree using the Spotify app to
manage it is pretty lousy but then I just switch to the Sonos app.

------
invisible
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?

------
thrillgore
I've long considered going to Sonos, but I think i'll stay with my Plex VM and
my NAS

~~~
prawn
Plex just updated their privacy policy to infuriate users before walking it
back after many people complained loudly.

~~~
thrillgore
Well, that's nice. Until they change it without people noticing.

I wish MediaTomb or Ampache was a better DLNA server than Plex.

------
circa
For some reason I read this as Sophos. That would not be good.

------
exabrial
Lawsuit time

------
DarkKomunalec
RMS was right again.

~~~
avs733
I'm torn between two responses...

1) RMS is always right.

2) RMS is that you?

------
natch
Maybe there is a Google acquisition looming and this is being dictated by
Google. Speculation obviously, but look what happened with Nest.

------
throwaway2016a
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.

~~~
pavel_lishin
> _So worst case is they turn into regular speakers._

If I wanted regular speakers, I would have bought regular speakers.

~~~
throwaway2016a
My point being the speakers are the only part of it that are a product.
Everything else is clearly a service.

The part of the speaker that is actually a product is unlikely to stop
working.

~~~
alphaalpha101
Everything else is 'clearly' a service? On what basis? You buy a product, it
has these features, you can do these things, that's the product.

Being able to play music on a 'smart speaker' from my phone isn't a service,
it's just a feature of the product. If you sell a product with features that
require you to host some servers somewhere publicly accessible on the
internet, that doesn't make that product feature a service.

Don't like that? Don't include those features in your product. Design them
better so you don't have to forever maintain these servers.

~~~
pavel_lishin
To be fair, one of the "features" is streaming Spotify, which may require a
constant dance to keep up with API changes.

~~~
alphaalpha101
'Compatible with service X' is a feature. If it stops being compatible with
service X because service X changed their API, then you either need to fix it
so it's compatible again, or refund to your customers.

If you want to announce you are compatible with service X as a feature, you
should have an agreement of compatibility with service X.

