Where's the ignore button?
And that’s the point that I made way back up there ^.
The fanboys here don’t want to hear anything that would put any blame at all on Sonos. It’s all someone else’s fault, isn’t it?
Buy once, free support forever is not a very comfortable business model. “Free support forever”, implies that a company must continue to expand its user base by offering currently popular features that will encourage new purchases. A data point that I don’t have access to is what percentage of SONOS sales come from existing customers vs new customers. If virtually all of the revenue comes from new customers, at some point we become a worthless expense.
Would you support a business model requiring fees for continued support of legacy products?
That’s just another diversion, Buzz.
Sonos has already chosen the support costs model (high upfront cost, support for existing users paid for by new customers). What I would prefer isn’t relevant because Sonos aren’t offering me a say in that.
But my criticism is not about the large scale subject of a total support model anyway.
It’s about a relatively small detail: Sonos using Google/Apple as an excuse to skimp on support for older Android/IOS versions - thus making a bad “tech waste” situation worse.
I still think you expect to much from internet connected consumer electronics. You could have stopped the system and the app from updating a long time ago since you did not need internet access. You didn't do that at the time and you accepted all user terms in the meantime. Other users (dare I say most users) have enjoyed the internet connected features.
If I remember it well Sonos said it removed the management features from the Windows app to save valuable development and maintenance time. As I have explained the app needs to move with te system software, so you cannot manage an up to date system with an out of dtae (Windows XP) app.
I think your anger should be directed at your phone maker that stops updating the OS after a period that is (way) shorter than the time you want to enjoy your phone. Sonos just follows this lead (though it must be said closer than other manufacturers).
Actually that’s not quite true. My app informed me that if I wanted to add a speaker to my existing network (a speaker that had dropped off the network then needed to be reconnected) then I had to update ‘the system’ and ‘the controller’. It was the only choice I had. So I disagree with your statement that I didn’t have to accept it - I had no choice! When you get a warning that ‘your system is out of date’ the instinct is to update it - this was long before S2 was around. You don’t realise at the time that an essential feature is going to be removed.
If I had purchased windows XP, sure its not supported anymore but there would be nothing to stop me from installing XP on a PC and using it - obviously at my risk due to the bugs/security holes and it being unsupported BUT I could still use it.
The ability to add speakers to a network, or create a new networks is a basic essential requirement. The system should be capable of being rolled back to a factory fresh state and reinstall repeated. But no, I can’t do that now.
Buy once, free support forever is not a very comfortable business model. “Free support forever”, implies that a company must continue to expand its user base by offering currently popular features that will encourage new purchases. A data point that I don’t have access to is what percentage of SONOS sales come from existing customers vs new customers. If virtually all of the revenue comes from new customers, at some point we become a worthless expense.
Would you support a business model requiring fees for continued support of legacy products?
Buzz
I don’t expect support to last forever. BUT I do expect to be able to use the product in the configuration that I originally purchased it as, and to use the features that were available at that time (i.e. add speakers to the network). Basic network configuration has nothing to do with the internet, or support.
I see Sonos as hardware - and I purchased Sonos as I would any other amplifier - to use to play music. So yes I buy it once and I may add to the system as time/money/requirements allow. If I’d purchased a Yamaha audio amplifier say, I wouldn’t expect not to be able to use it in 10 years time because the power lead wire colours had changed!!!
No, but that’s my decision to make. Sonos’ have removed the ability for me to add my existing products to my network. If I could roll back the controller to a previous version, or if the windows app had the ability to manage the speaker network, then I would not be as disgruntled as I am.
12 years ago I had that feature. Now I don’t and I’m trapped. I’ve bought a hardware product that no longer serves the purpose it was purchased for
Furthermore, quoting from the End Of Software Support Clarifications:
“After May, systems that include legacy products will continue to work as before - but they will no longer receive software updates or new features. “
Well my legacy product is *not* working as before. I cannot add speakers or create a network. QED
That’s just another diversion, Buzz.
Sonos has already chosen the support costs model (high upfront cost, support for existing users paid for by new customers). What I would prefer isn’t relevant because Sonos aren’t offering me a say in that.
But my criticism is not about the large scale subject of a total support model anyway.
It’s about a relatively small detail: Sonos using Google/Apple as an excuse to skimp on support for older Android/IOS versions - thus making a bad “tech waste” situation worse.
You’re mixing terms here. Allowing, or making it easier for users to continue using older versions of Sonos software without support is not the same as providing support for older versions. Are you saying that Sonos should provide support on Google/Apple OSs that Google and Apple don’t support?
If the suggestion is that Sonos should just let customers stay on an old unsupported versions of Sonos software, there is a couple concerns, or confusion, with this policy. One is that it’s quite possible that customers will not fully understand the implications of being on an unsupported version. Besides security concerns, it means that if they cannot connect to a streaming service or what have you, Sonos can’t help out. Perhaps that’s more acceptable for other apps, particularly when they are fully free apps that aren’t tied to a product they paid for. From what I’ve seen those, customers typically aren’t happy with unsupported software, and reasonable expectations don’t really factor in.
The other is that there are surely customers who have both old and new devices. Perhaps an old tablet and a new phone, or a spouse has an old phone while the other is new. For that scenario, then the customers would want to upgrade to the most current version of Sonos, in order to get the latest security and firmware.. That customers would be able to do system administration with the new device, while continuing to control with the old device. Basically, this is exactly what Sonos offers now. If Sonos put in setup where the user was only allowed (or encouraged) to update to a version that their oldest device could handle, then there would many customers who aren’t getting the right version for them. ( As aside, this situation is a big difference between the Sonos app and other apps, dependency on hardware and software in other devices on your network, not just standalone software or API to a cloud service)
My point basically is that it gets confusing and complicated really quickly if Sonos were pushing, or making it easier, to use of unsupported versions of Sonos. I think it’s reasonable to say that it could very likely causing more confusion and disappoint for customers in general than for those customers who have no modern devices that Google or Apple support the OS on.
I’m not suggesting that Sonos has multiple, confusing versions of their app.
What I want to see is that Sonos write their app to recognise what version of the OS is running, and use the appropriate, fully functional code for that OS. Is that so difficult?
Let’s take Barclays Bank’s mobile banking app: Do they have multiple, confusing old versions of their app for old versions of the OS? No - they have one app that recognises the OS, all the way back to Android 5, and it uses the correct code for each OS variant. How is that difficult or confusing?
What’s happening now is that Sonos has modified the app so that it recognises an “older” version and, instead of using the fully functional code that already exists and works, is now running cut-down code that they have modified to tell you what you can’t do.
Users like Eyuppp are not suggesting using older versions because they ~want~ to use older versions. It’s simply one way of getting round Sonos’ crippling of the current version.
I’m not suggesting that Sonos has multiple, confusing versions of their app.
What I want to see is that Sonos write their app to recognise what version of the OS is running, and use the appropriate, fully functional code for that OS. Is that so difficult?
Sonos does this already for features that feel they can support with the OS that the app is currently installed on. Are you saying that Sonos should have a single app that has supported and unsupported features on a single app? Wouldn’t that be a bit complex and confusing? How then would Sonos know whether a a new product was installed using a supported method or an unsupported method? Or does it really come down to wanting Sonos to support the app on every version of OS even if the OS itself isn’t supported?
Let’s take Barclays Bank’s mobile banking app: Do they have multiple, confusing old versions of their app for old versions of the OS? No - they have one app that recognises the OS, all the way back to Android 5, and it uses the correct code for each OS variant. How is that difficult or confusing?
Apples and Oranges comparison. Presumably the Barclay bank is just using APIs to connect to the bank’s secure server. It does not need to communicate with other device on your personal network and/or direct other devices on your network to install firmware. It seems Sonos feels comfortable with the control aspect, at least in some areas, but does not feel like they can support installation of firmware and other administrative tasks with your Sonos network. I would bet as well that your Barclay bank app simply leaves your version alone on older OS versions, and supports as is from that point forward. It does not matter if your version of the Barclay app uses the same API version that a more updated Barclay app uses, etc. Sonos can’t do the same because the software has to be updated to be able to administer the features of your speakers.
What’s happening now is that Sonos has modified the app so that it recognises an “older” version and, instead of using the fully functional code that already exists and works, is now running cut-down code that they have modified to tell you what you can’t do.
Not true, since the administration part of the app is updated from time to time to include new features and products that Sonos offers. You can’t just leave it alone on this older version and say it’s an unsupported and untested feature on the app when used on an older version...it may or not be able to administer the speakers properly. Customers would certainly not be happy with that.
Users like Eyuppp are not suggesting using older versions because they ~want~ to use older versions. It’s simply one way of getting round Sonos’ crippling of the current version.
You mean older versions of Sonos right, not older versions of OSs? Assuming that’s your context, again, I disagree You’re taking the standpoint that the Sonos app administration features are essentially static, and can continue to work properly (and be unsupported) if you just leave them alone on older OS versions, despite the fact that the firmware on the Sonos speakers themselves have been updated. I don’t think that’s the case.
Of course there will be cost and complication. If Sonos change their features and APIs then they will need to create new code and modify existing code - I didn’t say that they would not.
But this is essentially what has happened:
Sonos has been faced with two choices:
- Continue to maintain old code, updating it with new APIs, and bear the maintenance cost or
- Push the cost onto the user, making them buy new phones/tablets instead.
And - surprise, surprise - they have chosen the one that involves as little cost to them as possible.
The problem with that is that - as already explained - option 2 involves people throwing away what would otherwise perfectly usable phones/tablets - and that has an environmental cost which option 1 does not.
What I’m trying to do here is to let Sonos know that at least some of their customers care about this, and the unnecessary high-tech waste that it will produce.
Of course there will be cost and complication. If Sonos change their features and APIs then they will need to create new code and modify existing code - I didn’t say that they would not.
You did actually. You stated that Sonos should just use the fully functioning code that already exists.
But this is essentially what has happened:
Sonos has been faced with two choices:
- Continue to maintain old code, updating it with new APIs, and bear the maintenance cost or
- Push the cost onto the user, making them buy new phones/tablets instead.
It’s not that black and white. You’ve provided two extreme choices , where the reality is somewhere in the middle. Sonos existed before there was an Apple iOS or Google Android. Option 1 is essentially saying that Sonos should continue to support the original versions of the OSs till the end of time. Obviously, that’s not a realistic expectation. Maybe you didn’t intend for it to be interpreted in the extreme, but you didn’t exactly say how old an OS Sonos should support and for how long, since you don’t currently like where it it now.
Option 2 suggests that Sonos only supports the most current versions of OS, which isn’t true either.
Sonos has chosen to draw the line in between exactly where Apple and Google have drawn the line. Agreed, the result on customers is different due to the difference between a whole home audio system and an phone OS, but Sonos has to draw the line somewhere.
So the question is, where should Sonos draw the line? Should they wait till every phone on a particularly OS has died? Till every customer never uses Sonos on that OS (if they can determine that)? A survey? Should they wait till only a certain percentage of people use that OS? Maybe wait another two years after Google/Android stop support? Or till a feature just can’t be done on an older OS? Where is the sweet spot for length of support where you’ve maximized positives and minimized the negatives?
And - surprise, surprise - they have chosen the one that involves as little cost to them as possible.
The problem with that is that - as already explained - option 2 involves people throwing away what would otherwise perfectly usable phones/tablets - and that has an environmental cost which option 1 does not.
What I’m trying to do here is to let Sonos know that at least some of their customers care about this, and the unnecessary high-tech waste that it will produce.
As I stated before, Sonos is in between your two options, and I get that you want them to be further to option 1 than option 2.
Even I, with my “silly” environmental concerns, am not quite silly enough to think that Sonos could keep re-using older code without doing any maintenance work on it.
Anyway - let’s take a look at what some of their competitors do, in terms of not making people discard their phones/tablets when they are 4 years old:
- Roon Labs remote app: Android 5 and above
- Harmon Kardon remote app: Android 4 and above
- Bluesound BlueOS app: Android 5 and above
- Bose SoundTouch app: Android 4.4 and above
Those were the first four I looked at - I didn’t find any that gave up and stopped support for Android 5 - except for Sonos who have already given up on Android 7.
So… those facts support my assertion that Sonos are taking the lazy, low-cost route, and adding to the environmentally damaging need to throw away high-tech devices before we really need to. They should be trying harder.
