Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Businesses Software Hardware IT

Using 'Legacy' Sonos Devices With Modern Ones Will Prevent Any Future Software Updates (inputmag.com) 134

Posted by msmash from the up-next dept.
Sonos has announced that come May 2020, a number of its older products will no longer receive software updates. From a report: That's fair enough, especially considering some of the devices were introduced as far back as 2005. What's likely to raise the heckles of affected Sonos customers, though, is that should they choose to continue using their legacy products, they won't be able to get updates for their contemporary ones. The reason this is the case is that a multi-speaker Sonos system requires all devices to operate on the same software and older products "do not have enough memory or processing power to sustain future innovation." Thus, as Sonos explains in an email to customers, "If modern products remain connected to legacy products after May, they also will not receive software updates and new features."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Using 'Legacy' Sonos Devices With Modern Ones Will Prevent Any Future Software Updates More

Using 'Legacy' Sonos Devices With Modern Ones Will Prevent Any Future Software Updates

Comments Filter:

  • Translation: "We don't know how to write software" (Score:5, Insightful)

    by dgatwood ( 11270 ) on Tuesday January 21, 2020 @01:37PM (#59641214) Homepage Journal

    The moment it said that it "requires all devices to operate on the same software", I wrote off the entire company as a bunch of clowns. Even if they don't want to spend the effort to implement and test full backwards compatibility across all versions, it really shouldn't be that hard to add a single branch in a small number of spots to freeze backwards compatibility with a single historical version unless their code is complete crap.

    Therefore, we have to assume that their code is complete crap.

    • Re:Translation: "We don't know how to write softwa (Score:4, Interesting)

      by ElectronicSpider ( 6381110 ) on Tuesday January 21, 2020 @01:43PM (#59641238)
      Engineers managed to make colour TV signals compatible with old B/W TV signals, they should take a look at what they did with chrominance and luma and take some inspiration from that.
      • While I agree, what used to be done with incredibly thin resources was amazing. For better or worse, it was a different time. People did not throw things away every 6 months. Heck my maytag washer is still churning away 32 years later and I've no intention of tossing it until it dies.. I have amps, CD players, tuners etc from the 80's. The majority does not value anything older than 6 months. So we are where we are. Sonos will pay no price for this.

      • More to the point, what the F--- are they putting in the devices that takes so much space? Built-in speech recognition?

        If you really need anything complex, you only need one central node that handles that complexity, with everything else being rote receive/play slaves (maybe local broadcast back to the central node if you do need that speech recognition after all).

        Or... oh... you want each room to have a different theme (playlist)? Complete with different ASMR catalog maybe? And each supporting a diff

    • Re:Translation: "We don't know how to write softwa (Score:4, Insightful)

      by shess ( 31691 ) on Tuesday January 21, 2020 @01:46PM (#59641250) Homepage

      The moment it said that it "requires all devices to operate on the same software", I wrote off the entire company as a bunch of clowns. Even if they don't want to spend the effort to implement and test full backwards compatibility across all versions, it really shouldn't be that hard to add a single branch in a small number of spots to freeze backwards compatibility with a single historical version unless their code is complete crap.

      Therefore, we have to assume that their code is complete crap.

      To be fair, the Google solution would have been to come out with an entire incompatible line of products, and just write off the installed base.

      I mean, I agree with you. I just think the software world has arrived in a stupid place.

    • The moment it said that it "requires all devices to operate on the same software", I wrote off the entire company as a bunch of clowns.

      The moment you said that I wrote you off as someone who doesn't think things through. With every interface for backwards compatibility comes feature incompatibility. With every system maintaining something archaic you get stuck unable to implement something neat.

      Sonos gear is designed to work in sync, everything doing every job, every where, regardless if you buy the cheap single speakers, or the hifi stereo amp.

      You idea is effectively the same as pitching to Apple: "Hey, why don't get get away from the ide

      • With every interface for backwards compatibility comes feature incompatibility. With every system maintaining something archaic you get stuck unable to implement something neat.

        Hmm, I see device X only has this feature set, so these advanced features won't be available and information about those won't be sent to device X.

        Advanced features will work with these other advanced devices connected.

        • Congratulations on reading half my post while somehow missing the whole point.

          Read the second half to find out why what you said is exactly the problem.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by dgatwood ( 11270 )

        The moment it said that it "requires all devices to operate on the same software", I wrote off the entire company as a bunch of clowns.

        The moment you said that I wrote you off as someone who doesn't think things through. With every interface for backwards compatibility comes feature incompatibility. With every system maintaining something archaic you get stuck unable to implement something neat.

        Features? It's a speaker. It plays audio. Maybe you have multiple codecs, but it only takes one device to decode the codec. Everything else just has to play a decoded stream. Or, failing that, you could always fall back to the lowest-common-denominator encoding whenever a less capable device is actively playing audio.

        It's called degrading gracefully, and it is really a requirement for anything involving a network anyway, because your network might be slow and need to fall back to a lower-bitrate audio

        • Features? What features! I looks like something I don't research and therefore I like to pull words out of my ass and smear them on Slashdot without ever presenting a resemble of a clue as to what I'm talking about.

          Try again.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by jrumney ( 197329 )

      Given a choice between spending R&D budget on testing backwards compatibility, and increased revenue from coercing existing customers to purchase new hardware, the rational choice in a captalist society is the latter. The best you can do is fight for regulation which would require manufacturers to release sufficient info for a third party to take over support for their products should they choose to end support themselves.

  • Another blacklisted vendor (Score:3)

    by Kobun ( 668169 ) on Tuesday January 21, 2020 @01:38PM (#59641218)
    It's good of them to so clearly inform me that I should all products from their company. There's so many crappy brands out there that purchase choices can be hard - nice to have them self identify.
    • Well dammit. Autocorrect ate my word 'avoid'.

    • You'd prefer they just abandon the old products like most vendors?

      • It was probably never right for the product to function based on remote software updates. What was seen as a cool feature for the product is now a liability. Better to just get "dumb" speakers instead.

      • Yeah, because here they are abandoning old products AS WELL as new.products if the 2 are allowed to mingle.

    • Re:Another blacklisted vendor (Score:4, Funny)

      by thegarbz ( 1787294 ) on Tuesday January 21, 2020 @03:15PM (#59641660)

      It's good of them to so clearly inform me that I should all products from their company.

      Oh my god this bring me back to 2008. But here goes nothing: "You just accidentally a whole word!"

    • Nah, they have been doing it for years.

      Incompatible updates, intentionally and unrecoverably bricking devices through software, and fighting against partners who work with their products.

      This is their standard business model for money extraction.

    • Take a look at the Bluesound [bluesound.com] line of audio devices. I have the Pulse Flex, Pulse 2, Pulse Mini 2i and Node2i. The multi-room audio works quite well using IPv4 and IPv6 multicast streams.
  • You could always just activate Recycle Mode [extremetech.com] on the old speakers and then trade them in for a discount on some new ones that will be able to receive updates. Make the check payable to Sonos please.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by boskone ( 234014 )

      We've had Sonos stuff for 10+ years and really enjoy the ease of use. We have 5 devices and planned to continue to add on to them as we felt the need/wanted to spend money on them to add into more rooms. They're really forcing me to not buy anymore and just run these to failure though.

      One question... at what point after May 2020 will a new device be bought that has a new version preinstalled that can't be downgraded to match my current gear? I'm wondering if I have to buy any future speakers I might ever

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by ganv ( 881057 )
        We also have a Sonos system from 2010 that we really like and received the email today announcing the termination of support for our devices. There could be a big advantage of the software stabilizing and not having to learn new quirks on the interface whenever some interface designer at Sonos needs to feel they have made an impact. Not sure if we want to expand it before new components become incompatible nor how long it will keep working before something goes incompatible. Likely we'll use it until so

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by xanthos ( 73578 )
        I am also another long time user. What puzzles me is that apparently my 7 year old $200 Sonos One is ok, but my 5 year old $500 Connect:Amp is not. WTF? I am very suspicious that the new Sonos Amp isn't selling like they want it to. Sonos better be careful. The clouds of a class action lawsuit in 2020 are starting to form.

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by LynnwoodRooster ( 966895 )
          I worked at SONOS about 8 years ago - I designed most of the acoustics you hear from the Play:1. The Amp was already 3 years old at that time, and the design was not updated at all. So the Play:1 was literally a 5 year newer design, and the Amp has been stable (not updated, except for EOL component replacements) from about 2008. That's the big difference. Not when you bought it, but when it was designed.

        • The clouds of a class action lawsuit in 2020 are starting to form.

          Good luck with that. Unless I'm missing something, there isn't anything stating that they had to support it that long even, or if ever. So unless there is some documentation where they wrote they would support/update it longer then it already has, a class action lawsuit will go no where.

          Every company has abandoned support for products sooner then you (the consumer) would prefer.

        • I have the same concern.

          I just checked, and I bought my first Amp in November 2014 (and another almost exactly a year later). The first is now EOL, but the Play:1s that I bought before them aren't. My original Amp cost £400 - a hefty price for a pretty average bit of kit. Now, with trade-in, I can get the new Amp for £420 - still a hefty price, but at least the product's improved (and has a sub output - which would be very useful). I guess in truth, that's quite a good deal - but really only bec

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Quarters ( 18322 )

      Yeaaaah, no. I looked at the upgrade path this morning, as my trusty Sonos Connect is on the chopping block. The Sonos Connect patches Sonos into a receiver so a traditional stereo system can be used for Sonos output. It can also stream other input devices on your stereo (CD, turntable, etc..) to other Sonos speakers on the network. I never use that aspect of it as I only have a receiver. It's quite handy, has been working without a hitch for almost a decade, and I didn't pay all that much for it. Sonos' su

  • You know what remains compatible? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by TWX ( 665546 ) on Tuesday January 21, 2020 @01:48PM (#59641254)

    You know what remains compatible across years, decades, possibly even centuries?

    Wired speakers.

    So long as the speakers and amplifiers match-impedance, they'll work. I can continue to use the Boston Acoustics speakers from the early eighties in my workshop with my Magnavox stereo amplifier and radio tuner along with a second pair of Kenwood speakers on zone-B even though equipment from the eighties, nineties, and noughties are all mixed together in this configuration.

    I could probably use speakers from decades earlier so long as they remained intact and were eight ohms.

    So that one vendor can't manage to make their own devices interoperate properly over only around fifteen years is pretty damn sad, even if they are wireless.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by b0bby ( 201198 )

      I get what you're saying, but wired speakers still need a source and that's what you're buying as much as anything. I can see that, at some point in the future, Spotify or Google Music could force a change which would be impossible to implement on an older device. At that point, that service would no longer be usable on a Sonos system with older devices. I have a number of those older devices, so this affects me, but I can't get too upset. The system has been so great for me for so many years that it has be

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by TWX ( 665546 )

        Shouldn't a new central controller or receiving-device to then pipe the output to the rest of the Sonos system solve that?

        One of the advantages of discrete components is to be able to update one thing to retain or improve the functionality of the whole stack. What you describe sounds like someone having to scrap their entire hifi system because their old AM/FM tuner doesn't have XM Radio capability, rather than being able to buy an XM-receiver and plug it into an input on their main receiver or amplifier.

        • Shouldn't a new central controller or receiving-device to then pipe the output to the rest of the Sonos system solve that?

          Depends on the change. If they take a page from something like HDMI and require "end-to-end DRM", then nope.

      • but wired speakers still need a source and that's what you're buying as much as anything.

        I have a 40-year old amplifier (Quad 33 and 303) which handily works with a Bluetooth adapter. The Bluetooth adapter was quite cheap and replacement would not be an issue.

        The problem is really caused by integration of products.

      • wired speakers still need a source

        Like how a hamner needs a nail?

      • > I can see that, at some point in the future, Spotify or Google Music could force a change which would be impossible to implement on an older device

        Which again, seeing as the core functionality of the device is to play an audio stream - is bullshit. A Pentium 75 from 25 years ago is more than up to the task of playing any given audio stream, and as consumers we shouldn't be putting up with this bullshit. In no other arena of life does this happen with such capriciousness.

        You don't see car manufacture

        • Re: (Score:3)

          by TWX ( 665546 )

          A 386 without a math co-processor was able to play sixteen bit WAV files without struggling at all if it had a sixteen-bit soundcard. A 486 with a math co-processor could successfully play sixteen bit WAV files through a parallel port DAC that was considered CPU-intensive.

          Now, a WAV is not a compressed stream that has to be decompressed before playback, but point still stands, the hardware to do this is basically thirty years old.

          • Yeah, I just picked a Pentium 75 out of the air as that was in the junk laptop that used to sit on my shelf in my office playing MP3s on a speaker - and the Pentium had to run Windows at the same time too. The shittiest embedded chip from 15 years ago probably has more horsepower than a Pentium 75...

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by madbrain ( 11432 )

            In fact, you could play 16-bit audio on an 8086 with a Soundblaster that used DMA. It wasn't CPU-intensive at all. I wrote code to do just that in assembly in the early 1990s.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Greyfox ( 87712 )
      It wouldn't be particularly difficult to put together a Raspberry Pi with wifi for a few dozen bucks and set up audio streams via ffmpeg. And then hook some really good speakers to one or two of those. Multichannel sound might be marginally more difficult to implement, but the hardest part about it might be finding a file to use as an example for testing.

      Maybe someone with two thumbs and a lot of ffmpeg experience should put together an open source wireless speaker project. Hmm...

      • The Pi's DAC is... well, it isn't, really. It's a class D amplifier, directly driven off an PWM output. Sufficient, but not audiophile-grade. Fortunately you can easily get single-chip dual DACs that are, and plug right into those convenient I2C pins on the Pi.

    • So that one vendor can't manage to make their own devices interoperate properly over only around fifteen years is pretty damn sad, even if they are wireless.

      I don't think it's so much that they can't make the speakers interoperate as they're actively striving to make them not interoperate. They feel their customers are suckers whose response will be to brick the old speakers for a small discount on new speakers. That way they get to sell all new speakers to the suckers while not even having to compete

      • I don't think it's so much that they can't make the speakers interoperate as they're actively striving to make them not interoperate

        If that were true, they'd just brand them "New Sonos" or something, and make them completely incompatible.

        A "compatible but you don't get updates" means you don't have to replace everything.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by TWX ( 665546 )

        The only reason I can see someone buying these kinds of products are because their financial priorities are a bit strange. As in, they're renters, so they can't or aren't supposed to modify where they live to provide for means other than wireless, so instead they spend a lot of money on equipment.

        I've had my own financial priorities that others might have not agreed with, but at the same time if I could find a reasonably priced way to achieve the same result I would pursue that if it would achieve the desi

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by cob666 ( 656740 )

      You know what remains compatible across years, decades, possibly even centuries?

      Wired speakers.

      So long as the speakers and amplifiers match-impedance, they'll work. I can continue to use the Boston Acoustics speakers from the early eighties in my workshop with my Magnavox stereo amplifier and radio tuner along with a second pair of Kenwood speakers on zone-B even though equipment from the eighties, nineties, and noughties are all mixed together in this configuration.

      I could probably use speakers from decades earlier so long as they remained intact and were eight ohms.

      So that one vendor can't manage to make their own devices interoperate properly over only around fifteen years is pretty damn sad, even if they are wireless.

      Having two zones is nice, until you want or need more than 2. Or if you want to play different music on each zone.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by TWX ( 665546 )

        The old Sony receiver in my main AV setup for my movie room has dual-input dual-zone capability. Each zone can use each of the various inputs. I've had that thing a decade.

        • I still have and use my STR-DB930; it's been in service since 2000. Amazing performance and features.

    • You know what remains compatible across years, decades, possibly even centuries?

      Wired speakers.

      You know what you can't do with Wired speakers? Place them somewhere where wires are not an option. You know what else you could do with wired speakers? Connect them to a Sonos.

      I'm not entirely sure what your point is, that you're attached to cheap and nasty consumer electronics and insist on never throwing away a crappy $100 wireless speaker? That you have an aversion to RF signals? That you prefer to buy something based on kids being on your lawn rather than reading the feature list provided and deciding

  • was Sonos.

  • Sonos pushes updates that break things, and there's no going back. Previously, it was "the OSX machine that was supported, is no longer supported (no access to music library)".

    Be careful of updating your phone app post-May 2020...you might lose access to your speakers completely.

  • Did the editors even go to school? I mean, come on.

  • I'm heavily invested in SONOS kit. I even offered to help them add SMB2+ support to their existing products (they didn't take me up on the offer of help).

    Announcing this without having a plan to separate "legacy" models to keep them working whilst adding new features to new kit strikes me as a corporate suicide note.

    The social media fury will be strong on this one... :-).

  • Begin!

    Listening to Sonos, took everything I had left (in my wallet), [youtu.be]
    after their updates, I am become deaf.

    . . .

    Who wins?

    *You* decide!

    Epic Crap Businesses Of History!

  • Planned obsolescence. (Score:3)

    by fahrbot-bot ( 874524 ) on Tuesday January 21, 2020 @03:45PM (#59641776)

    ... older products "do not have enough memory or processing power to sustain future innovation."

    Seems like for a nickle more, Sonos could support backwards compatibility in their newer products -- or people could use something simpler. We got our 2 Pioneer CS-C9000 speakers (150w each) in 1985 and they can still shake the walls using their original 2-wire interface -- though I imagine the Sony DA3200ES home theater receiver helps.

  • Frustrating (Score:3)

    by tungstencoil ( 1016227 ) on Tuesday January 21, 2020 @05:06PM (#59642122)
    Argh. How frustrating. Until recently, they've been a pretty good company to work with, but their ever expanding ecosystem of features and partners has rendered what was once rock-solid and straightforward into something that is flaky, buggy, and often doesn't work as expected or as easily as it did.

    I've had Sonos since about 2006, and have gradually expanded my system. I have no reason to replace my older units. They work fine.

    Required obsolescence is bullshit.

  • Just imagine if your PC stopped working after a few years, simply because microsoft or apple didn't want to update it and they bricked the PC. I don't need to buy another sonos product and neither do you. Make sure that they don't get sales from this.

  • I've owned some of their stuff for years, but they screwed me once already by declaring their iPod Sonos dock "obsolete" and completely ending the ability to use it with one of their software updates. I wouldn't care if they did what you'd expect and called it vintage or whatever, and stopped adding anything new for it. But it literally worked fine one day, and then was rendered unusable junk the next, via an update!

    I still have an iPod Classic that's in good shape that I had planned to basically just leave

  • First they provide shitty screens on their remote controls that fail just outside the warranty period, and then abandon them altogether so I'm forced to use my mobile to control things.

    Now they intend to brick all of my amps, forcing me to upgrade my entire house. If they were customer focused, then they would introduce a "compatibility box" which will bridge the new and old worlds. That would keep my old kit working just fine, and allow them to use whatever processing power they claim to need. There's e

    • Brick.. you keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.

      • True... they only say that it will "affect your listening experience". So features will stop working, no security patches will be applied, and you can't add anything new to your existing system.

        Sure it's not "bricked" in the technical sense, but it's basically consigned all old-ish hardware to the scrapheap unless you're willing to live with a slowly degrading and insecure system. :-/

  • Comment removed based on user account deletion

Slashdot Top Deals

I have hardly ever known a mathematician who was capable of reasoning. -- Plato

Close