
Sonos’ frantic flailing illustrates the stupidity of smart tech - wooptoo
https://www.extremetech.com/electronics/305263-sonos-frantic-flailing-illustrates-the-stupidity-of-smart-tech
======
scottLobster
Because most "smart tech" isn't actually smart, it's regular tech that
offshores processing to a networked super-computer.

The Star Trek tricorder, that can do with a handheld device what would take an
entire lab, is smart tech. But that requires lots of research and wouldn't
lend itself to a subscription-based or planned-obsolescence business model
even if we could build it. :P

~~~
aikinai
Of course it’s not to Tricorder standards yet, but Apple does all fancy AI
work directly on the phone/computer.

It also has downsides; for example, every new device synced to a photo library
has to process the whole library from scratch (to identify photo content for
searching).

~~~
toomuchtodo
Does Apple store the processing output as part of the image meta data so each
device doesn’t have to redo previously performed ML work? Or a shared index
only accessible to client devices?

------
topkai22
As a Sonos user, it seems Sonos's key innovation has been its software and
ease of use. Multi-room audio was HARD before Sonos- it could easily involve
paying thousands of dollars to install low voltage wires over a house, along
with installing extra controls in each room. Setting up a decent fidelity
streaming audio solution was easier, but nowhere near the "plug it in and it
works" capabilities of Sonos.

And that is what is getting them in trouble currently- Sonos is really a
software product that is masquerading as a hardware product. People bought it
expecting it be like, well, a speaker, but what they really bought was an
experience more like buying a copy of Windows.

pwthornton mentioned that Sonos could becoem a SaaS company and start leasing
hardware instead. I see that being a hard sell for customers, but going fully
the route of being a SaaS subscription service for their coordination and
streaming management services seems possible. That being said, I think they
are terrified of becoming just and audio source- they currently charge $450
for the Sonos port, which basically just acts as an audio source for an
existing stereo system.

~~~
pwthornton
Transitioning to SaaS would be difficult, but they'll probably need to figure
something out. Their current situation isn't tenable. People expect them to
continue updating their software for free forever.

The software they provide that makes their speakers work is the magic as you
say, and it really does work better than anything else. It's certainly way
better than AirPlay 2. But keeping that software working requires updates.

I don't know the best path forward, but they should at least consider the
Eero+ route of selling a subscription service that provides real value that
also helps them support devices long term. Eero is incentivized to continue to
support my 1st-generation Eeros because I pay them $99 a year.

There is a lot of interesting stuff that they could do with a subscription
service that would add value, and would also help them continue to pay for
updates on older devices.

~~~
topkai22
I can see a world where this ends with Spotify buying Sonos and it eventually
getting called Spotify Home Audio, costing an extra $5/month.

------
Havoc
Smart tech isn't the issue.

It's the walled garden "trust us it'll be fine & powered by magic" spiel
that's the issue.

I'm flexible on the whole open source issue - not my crusade, but I do want
some semblance of understanding how it works so that I know a corporate
decision isn't going to take the magic blue smoke out of my devices for me.

------
arnaudsm
It should be mandatory by law to open-source APIs at discontinuation.

~~~
cafxx
Strongly agree, and I would add that if the object in question has _any_
networking capability even the firmware should be open sourced - otherwise the
first serious security vulnerability immediately makes said object unfit for
purpose and - therefore - obsolete.

The stifling innovation argument is faulty anyway. If you are really
innovating, then there should be no reason to fear releasing the code for
something the company considers obsolete. Unless, that is, such innovation is
a red herring and the new product is a mere repackaging of the same, old
technology, done exclusively for the sake of artificially sustaining cash
flow.

~~~
ternaryoperator
"The stifling innovation argument is faulty anyway. If you are really
innovating, then there should be no reason to fear releasing the code for
something the company considers obsolete."

Many products contain proprietary elements that are licensed by third-parties
who have no reason to agree to their software being open-sourced. The company
I work at constantly gets calls to open-source product X that they
discontinued, but they can't because of the reliance on code that doesn't
belong to them. And predictably enough, they're not willing to go back and
renegotiate a new license for a product that they're discontinuing.

~~~
WalterBright
Many companies don't want to open source their code because then they have to
accept liability for the provenance of the code. It's not that they are aware
of improprieties in the provenance, it's just that they don't have proof there
are none.

And since open sourcing it does not result in revenue, they cannot justify the
cost of vetting the provenance.

A way to fix this would be to shorten patent and copyright terms.

------
Causality1
I go by a simple rule: if I can't run it open-source or at least on my own
server, it better be cheap enough for me to throw away. I have plenty of
closed source smart outlets but they didn't cost more than ten dollars each. I
have an Amazon Echo Dot I got for eighteen dollars on prime day. There's no
way I would spend hundreds or even thousands of dollars on equipment I don't
really control.

~~~
yardie
This. If I’m renting tech then charge me the rental rate. But don’t try and
ask me to buy something and then tack on a subscription at the end. I’ve never
paid retail for Android phones. I have a drawer full of them that have reached
the end life far too soon.

------
remote_phone
I used to be a Sonos fan. I have 7 speakers. Now I am worried when my speakers
will become obsolete. I tell everyone I know to stay away and religiously post
reviews saying the same thing.

After spending several thousands of dollars, I shouldn’t have to feel worried
that my investment will become artificially obsolete. Already I can’t directly
play music from my iPhone to my speakers like before, I have to use airplay
which is clunky at best.

~~~
aksss
_IF_ you have a Sonos model that even supports airplay. To their defense, I
think they blamed the dropping of the feature on Apple's own changes to how
they could access data on the phone. Can not confirm though.

------
TwoNineFive
The conspiracy theorist in me says there's something funky going on here.

Sonos has been in the news for the last few months, but before that I had
hardly heard of them. I don't own any of their stuff and I don't have any bone
in this. I just noticed that their name keeps popping up on reddit, in the
news, and here on HN. Mostly it's for negative reasons.

I feel like this is part of some marketing campaign, but almost all of the
news has been negative.

First I remember some articles about Sonos going to war with Amazon over
something or another last October.

Then there was the controversy regarding "Recycle Mode" thing that bricks
their speakers.

Then Sonos sues Google for patent infringement.

Most recently Sonos announced it would not provide software updates for legacy
products, CEO apologizes, bla bla bla.

And then this article.

~~~
TwoNineFive
Just look at the amount of replies this post has. It's nuts. Today I'm seeing
more shit about it on reddit. There's 500-point reply on a 30-point post
meme'ing Sonos.

This is not normal.

------
aksss
Sonos was great but the more they've dicked with it over the years, the more
cumbersome the interface feels, not helped by the visibility of the all-too-
frequent update notifications (occasionally modal). I know some portion of
those updates are for features my speakers won't even support, but at the end
of the day the system seems like a less "transparent" utility in my house and
now like another server that's constantly crying that it needs me to 'think'
about it. "Smart tech" is best when it's transparent, not needy.

------
pcdoodle
We need a time synced network based audio protocol that is standard and
cheaply implemented. 192.168.1.2, yeah you play rear left channel in the
theater. 192.168.1.3 you're the kitchen.

~~~
hanklazard
[https://github.com/badaix/snapcast](https://github.com/badaix/snapcast)

Not simple enough for all consumers yet, but works flawlessly for me every day
in my house.

------
remir
I feel like there's potential for a DIY movement around these "smart" things
that is focused around the total package, not just the software, but also the
design and aesthetic of the end product. With 3D printers and off the shelf
parts, that could be achievable.

------
dreamcompiler
Advent speakers were built in an era when society valued well-built products
that lasted a long time. Then Moore's law made it cheap to add software to
every product. This was seen as good because it meant you could customize,
upgrade, and differentiate products simply by changing software. Where things
went off the rails was when MBA types realized that software (together with
the Internet) could also be used to force the customer to accept a rental
model rather than a purchase model for hardware, thus extracting a recurring
revenue stream from him/her.

The solution is of course for customers to fight back against this bullshit.
But that requires competitors who don't play this game, and _that_ requires
VCs who will tolerate a healthy, slowly-growing business rather than one that
grows exponentially and flames out. I hope we can return to that world
someday.

------
jnordwick
I'll save everybody the trouble:

Curmudgeon likes his 50 year old speaker more than that new fangled tech
stuff. Then rants about tech being in our lives too much. (I could only skim
it as so boring and repetitive - already read this story too 1000 times).

Smart tech has issues around support, but it is so damn useful. I thought
little of it until I started moving everything to it. It also has a network
effect - the more you add the more useful it gets.

When I walk away from my building my the thermostat goes down, door deadbolts,
lights go down, music and TV all go off etc. Pry it from my cold dead hands.

~~~
lowbloodsugar
I think the take-away is that speaker technology is largely unchanged from the
70s. Sure, magnets are better, digital processing is better, and for sure,
online services are better. But don't try to stuff all that into one box, for
one fixed price. I've got 90s speakers, with a $100 hifi-berry, and Roon, and
they sound way better than Sonos.

Microservices vs Monoliths. Don't put speaker, amplifiers, processor and wifi
all in one box.

Put the slow-changing stuff (speakers, amplifier) over here and pay once for
it. Put the fast-changing stuff (pandora! spotify! Tidal!) over here, and pay
a subscription for it. I pay for Tidal and Roon. Tidal for content, Roon for
updating software as iOS updates, linux updates, and SPDIF drivers need
updating. As long as Roon supports SPDIF, I'm good.

~~~
NBorlaug
Spot on take. Having a completely self-contained smart device has advantages
in narrow cases, like portability. Otherwise, if you're doing home audio,
there's no good reason to have in all in one box. Make the system modular and
thus flexibily upgradable.

~~~
pwthornton
This is just false.

Any solution that requires receiver/amp/combo and wires is going to be limited
where you can deploy it.

Before wireless audio like Sonos, most people have a stereo in one room in the
house. Now many people have speakers in almost every room in the house.

I got rid of my Onkyo receiver and JBL studio series to go with Sonos because
it is a better listening experience in the real-world. Audio being synced
across your house is the real deal.

~~~
hoistbypetard
Having scattered several of the ikea sonos-compatible speakers around my
house, I appreciate that perspective.

But I _am_ a little concerned that when I move to the new iDroid Megapixel
XXXL 3000 in late 2025, I'll have to replace them all if I want to be able to
send audio from my phone to the speakers.

When having the sync across the whole house is the main reason you like the
setup, it's even more galling to need to replace them all. I wish (and will be
watching to see if they do, before I add any more speakers to their system)
they'd come up with an upgrade path.

It'd seem like a smart thing for them to do. Surely they could come up with
some kind of bridge gadget you could connect to your network between the old
and new for the cost of about one speaker. That'd spare them having people
angrily leave their ecosystem because, if you need to do 5 rooms at once
anyway, you might as well shop around.

------
happytiger
I wrote an impassioned plea to them as a user with a pretty major investment
in Sonos (say why you like, we love the system) and as a shareholder,
expressing my disappointment with recent moves.

This is the response I got from them. Note: I did not accuse them of bricking
my devices. Also note: they are promising the gradual degradation of my
experience. There is no commitment to support, nor willingness to open source
or find other remedies (or even pay them for continued support, which I
offered in my letter).

Of last note: we have decided to dump Sonos permanently and will actively
avoid doing business with the company again. It’s a fairly tone-deaf response
unfortunately.

Curious if others are as unhappy as we are? We are just disappointed.

Anyways, the response:

Thank you for contacting Sonos Customer Care. I understand your frustration
with the end of software updates announcement. Please know that we in no way
mean to render your system inoperable or brick the devices. The trade-up
program you mentioned bricking units is entirely voluntary and a multi-step
process to ensure it is not mistakenly activated on the system.

Your devices are not being end-of-lifed by any means; they are simply not
receiving new update information beyond a certain version. This is due to the
available memory and processing power available in our legacy line of devices.
This is specifically what separates them from modern and legacy. The Legacy
devices have hit a point where in order to keep allowing new features; we
would have to remove old features because there is simply no room left to
store the new data for newer technologies or changes in outdated technologies
no longer used by our partners. It is similar to having all seats on a plane
full and telling someone already boarded that they need to get off. To keep
your system functioning as it stands; we need to halt the progression of the
software.

Once the change is made, your Sonos system will no longer receive regular
updates, so your experience will initially remain the same. However, the
functionality of features and services will be impacted as technology evolves
over time. The thing to worry about once this takes place is the third party
services and partners offered through our platform. Using Spotify as an
example; if they change something in the way Sonos accesses their service then
your System not receiving new updates will not be able to accommodate this.

However, since this won't be in effect until May of 2020; we are still working
on figuring out workarounds and things of that nature for all of our customers
who will possibly be affected by this change. Just keep an eye out on alerts
from us. Once we do have that information, we will gladly share that with you.

More information here:
[https://support.sonos.com/s/article/4786](https://support.sonos.com/s/article/4786)
[https://support.sonos.com/s/article/4798](https://support.sonos.com/s/article/4798)

Our commitment is to support products with software updates for a minimum of
five years after we stop selling them, and we have a track record of
supporting for longer.

The Trade-Up eligible devices all have newer counterparts that allow the old
connection types while also integrating new features. The best example of this
is the Sonos Connect:AMP and AMP devices; the Connect:AMP was not designed
with Home Theater in mind where the AMP has an input for a TV source without
removing any of the existing connection options that the Connect:AMP had;
while also integrating the airplay functionality into the device and system.

~~~
pwthornton
If you are really upset, contact their CEO. I find that he responds and is
much more thoughtful than your typical customer service rep.

------
mnm1
Technological limits my fucking ass. Sonos is lying through their teeth and
the author believes them. And who cares about updates? I bought sonos because
they can play the music collection on my nas, are wireless, and sound great. I
could shut off their internet access and they'd still work just fine. As far
as what features sonos is adding that would require updates... none. No useful
ones anyway. The eq is still two band. It still plays music. Maybe a new
service here or there that no one cares about. I'm only talking about speakers
of course. Their surveillance devices I have no interest in.

~~~
pwthornton
Every Sonos speaker is a networked device. They need continuous security
updates at a minimum.

~~~
mnm1
If they're not Internet connected, they don't.

------
lunias
Glad I didn't buy into the Sonos ecosystem a few years back when I was looking
for multi-room audio solutions. I've found that it's much more fun and
rewarding building systems for each room than rolling out the same generic
solution everywhere.

There's a lot to play with in a HiFi that you just don't get exposed to with
an off-the-shelf system like Sonos.

------
noizejoy
Planned obsolescence when technological progress comes in large leaps seems
more forgivable, than when the technology improvements are quite small.

Also integrating parts that have widely different reasonable life spans into
inseparable, non-repairable, non-upgradeable units is not responsible waste
management.

And that’s what’s turning some of us into cranky luddites.

------
pwthornton
There are a few issues here, and people are overly harsh on Sonos. They have
just about the best update support in tech. Some of these devices have been
around since 2005. They have been providing longer-term support than Apple has
for their iPhones, for instance, which in turn is much better than you get
from Android.

Updates cost money, and Niley Patel speculates that Sonos is losing money on
older devices with all of the updates they have been providing. But the
devices still work, which is a testament to their build quality. Sonos needs
to figure out a solution.

There are some solutions:

1) I don't know how separated and abstracted their development process is,
but, ideally, they would be able to continue to provide security updates, even
if older devices don't get anything beyond that. But how many years should
they do? 10? 20?

2) Sonos could sell extended support for devices that people have owned after
X amount of years. Even charging $19.99 a year for a household would probably
put this back in the black. If people are going to use Sonos products for
10-20 years and often have expensive and complicated setups, they should
figure out some long-term support.

3) Sonos could start to become a SaaS company and largely lease their
speakers. Microsoft is starting to do this with the Xbox, and it is a way
around this issue. As hardware gets too old, Sonos would replace it with newer
hardware. There is a reason that more and more software is subscription-based.

3) Sonos could come up with a premium subscription offering that bundles in
long-term support. Eero has Eero+, which I find to be a good product, and it's
how they get into the black on hardware sales.

I'm working on a longer write up about this for Medium, but this isn't as easy
of an issue to solve as many make it out to be. Providing infinite support for
networked-based devices will eventually put you out of business. Sonos is the
one dealing with this because they have been selling these speakers the
longest, and they have people who are able to use their devices for a long
time.

One issue I think they are running into is that they used to update products
pretty infrequently. They didn't even do small step updates to keep the CPU
and networking equipment updated. This is particularly an issue with the 1st
gen Play 5 that they sold for about a decade.

People who bought a Play 5 15 years ago should not continue to expect support.
People who bought one five years ago should. They have the same exact
internals.

That was a mistake, and they should make sure they are upgrading the internals
in every device every three years or so. Had Sonos been doing this, they would
be talking about far fewer products.

Sonos has devices that range from 32 GBs of ram to 1024 GBs. The delta in
their older stuff and their newer stuff in terms of tech is huge. This
strategy is on their old CEO, and their new CEO believes Sonos has to update
their stuff more often. It's probably going to take a few years for the update
cadence to sort itself out, but in the meantime, they are kind of in a
quagmire.

~~~
wrs
No. I don’t expect my Sonos system from 2006 to ever do any more than it does
now. It works fine. There’s no “technological limit” involved. It’s just
stereo audio, not 4K 3D VR — how much power do you need?

(edit) So the (new) Sonos position of basically “OK, we’ll keep the hackers
out, just don’t expect us to support the new streaming service released in
2022” seems fine for both sides.

~~~
pwthornton
Do you expect security updates and updates to keep 3rd party services working
to happen in perpetuity?

~~~
wrs
Well, certainly more than five years (see below) — that’s nuts for a device
that costs several hundred dollars. And I would distinguish between security
updates, keeping existing functions working, and adding new functions (in
increasing order of length of “support”).

~~~
pwthornton
My opinion is that they should provide 10 years of security and other similar
updates for free.

They largely have been doing this, but their decision to keep the original
Play 5 on sale for so long means that some people may have bought it within
the last five years, despite being a really old device.

