You’re getting hung up on details and missing the bigger picture.

My current (now obsolete) mobile phone is a fantastic piece of engineering - huge, bright screen, dual SIM slots, multi-channel GPS receiver, mobile data and WiFi hotspot capable, dual cameras with LED flash, motion sensors, octo-core processor, huge amounts of memory plus a memory card slot, etc, etc.

I want to keep it - not because I can’t afford to replace it (I can) but because it’s a colossal waste of something that does everything I need it to. I don’t need a roll-out double-width screen or a camera that takes 100 Megapixel photos.

So how do we stop the established norm that you have to junk your phone every 3 years?

By speaking up and saying that it’s a colossal waste. Every app developer that cripples all previous releases up to Android 8 when Android 11 comes out is part of the problem, not part of the solution.

That’s all very nice, but it’s a phone which was apparently sold around the time that Android 7 was being superseded by Android 8 and yet the manufacturer (or operator) evidently never saw fit to distribute an OS upgrade. Again, what make is it?

You’re getting tied up in detail again.

It doesn’t matter what make and model it is. The problem exists whatever make and model it is. We are accepting a system that is designed to make us throw away our phones every 3 years - though many people will do it much quicker than that.

It’s a horrible waste of resources, and it will get worse as the whole of the world moves onto mobile phones - many countries having never established their own wired network, because it is cheaper just to use mobile phones and throw them away every few years.

If I feel that it’s a horrible waste, why should I not speak up and object when an application developer deliberately changes an app so that it will not work properly any longer on my phone?

What do I want? I want the application developer to try harder. I want him to explain to me that the performance may decline slightly, and there may be security issues that he will try his best to mitigate, but that he won’t just stop it working because he can.

I want the person who develops the apps for a £399 device (of which I have four) to try harder to do things that make most sense, rather than things that will make most profit.

It is indeed, but you won’t change Sonos business practices.

Your best bet is to get your system to a stable state and then lock your system down from updates, and then Sonos can’t mess about with your older kit again  - but that only works as long as you never want to add new kit.

I don’t think the big picture is being missed, it’s just that the details are important to understand if you’re going to started throwing out blame for why new software doesn’t work on old operating systems.  As stated several times, Sonos removes support of functions when the OS is no longer supported.  Other apps may not do this if they feel there is less of a security threat by leaving the apps alone.

Regarding the question of how to get Google and the rest to support OSs for longer, that’s not going to happen as long as people are willing to get new phones for the latest features and OS.  The reality is that new sales drive support of the existing system, and without those sales, the company won’t be able to support the older systems for free as long as they currently do.  Not without maintenance fees. 

As well, it’s worth noting that the new operating system and hardware features, improvements in tech, don’t happen if people aren’t dumping their old stuff and  buying the latest and greatest.  I think of it more of a catch-22 situation.  There are absolutely sometimes where I’m completely happy with what I have and am not interested in improvements.  Other times, I want new product tech to come out even faster than it does now.  I don’t think there is way to do both very well with connected, infrastructure dependent technology.

In this it does. You appear to have unfortunately purchased a device with woeful after-sales support. As such it effectively became unsupportable only 2 years later, when releases of Android 7 came to an end.

Agreed - but if nobody speaks up, ever, is there any chance that things will change?

Is it possible that people speaking up will change other people’s attitude to what they choose to buy, and what they choose not to? I don’t know.

I’ve pretty much decided that if I want to add more speakers, I will buy something from the Symfonisk range in preference to Sonos-branded products, because I trust Ikea to do the right thing (environmentally) more than I trust Sonos.

The app for the Symfonisk speakers is the Sonos app.

Whilst I won’t disagree that there is far too much “horrible waste” these days, it’s hard to resist the conclusion that in this instance it’s the mobile manufacturer that’s at fault. Either that, or you simply bought a device that was approaching the end of its product life from the vendor’s perspective.

That’s one of the points that I’m trying to make. It’s always “someone else’s fault”, isn’t it?

Although my phone works just fine, it’s the phone manufacturer’s fault that the Sonos developer has stopped their app working properly on my phone, isn’t it?

If it wasn’t the phone manufacturer, it would be Google’s fault that the Sonos developer has decided to stop the Sonos app from working on my phone.

As I said earlier, I want the maker of a £399 device to try harder than that.

Why are you glossing over the fact that OS the phone is using is no longer supported by Google?  It is very much relevant, since Sonos relies on the OS for security, at least in part.  Without that, your Sonos system, and network in general, is open to security threats that Sonos doesn’t want to be responsible for.

It’s not a matter of passing the blame, it’s a matter of understanding exactly what’s happening so blame can be assigned to the property party...or at least understand what tradeoffs are being made.

I’ve already said what I want and why I want it. I want the Sonos developers to try harder to stop from making my device obsolete - because my phone works just fine now, and it will almost certainly still work as a phone in 5 years time. Neither Google nor the phone manufacturer are going to stop it from functioning as a phone, but it can’t run the Sonos app properly now, because Sonos has decided that they won’t let it.

The problem with this thread is that it just comes back to the same “that’s the way it’s always been done” line. There is no possibility of change because it has always worked like this for as long as mobile phones have been mass-market products.

That doesn’t take things forward at all. We are always going to be stuck with what we have if we continue with that line of reasoning.

Perhaps legislation (maybe driven from within Europe) will help to force a longer term view across all of the parties involved, though I won’t hold my breath waiting for that.

Let me try and summarise.

• Google don’t support the Android 7 operating system. The last release was 1.5 years ago. It should therefore be considered potentially insecure. Sonos can do nothing about this.
   
• Sonos, for understandable reasons, wouldn’t wish their reputation to be tarnished by a possible security breach on their installed systems due to an unpatched operating system hole. They have therefore removed the sensitive parts of the controller app, but continue to support straightforward playback control.

What is now becoming clear is that the device in question was approaching the end of its supported life (by the vendor) when it was purchased. It’s embarrassing to have to admit, but that’s surely the situation.

Again, you overlook the security risk involved when allowing the setup/config features on an OS that does not have current security features in place.  It is not an arbitrary decision, as you keep claiming that it is.

I think everyone posting on this thread is in favor of phone OS companies supporting their devices for a longer period of time, thus keeping them up to date and secure for the Sonos app to fully function without being a security risk.

You want to sue Sonos for not supporting a free app on an unsupported OS?

So how does it function as a phone then? When I turn it on, why does Google not tell me that I can’t use this phone because the version of Android is too old?

My phone can run as a phone just fine, even though you tell me that it must be obsolete, and that it is a security risk.

This thread just comes up with the same answer over and over - you can’t do that, because it’s never been done like that. It’s a security risk because Sonos does not have the right relationship with Google to prevent it being a security risk. Why can that not be fixed?

Ok - another example. Let’s say I want to use my obsolete Android phone to access my bank account via one of the banking apps.

Surely that couldn’t be possible with such an ancient 3 ½ year old phone, could it? What bank could possibly accept that level of risk?

Let’s try HSBC - a very well known UK bank. Strange - they are happy with Android 5 onwards. How about Barclaycard? Android 5 onwards there too. Pick another one at random: NatWest Bank - Android 6 onwards.

How could that be possible? Sonos won’t let me use the app to use my own audio hardware devices properly with Android 7, yet my bank is happy for me to use Android 5 for remote access to my bank account (which admittedly has a paltry sum in it). Please explain that one to me.

What would be comfortable annual maintenance fee?

How do you feel about my case where the cell network provider will stop connecting to my phone? 

Is there not enough slack in the near £1600 that I have paid for 4 devices to maintain mine until the next customer comes along?

Seriously, this is a premium price product. I’m just giving my opinion on profit margin, but I think there’s enough to cover a couple of FTEs to maintain the older versions of Android, and “try a bit harder”.

Anyway, what’s the answer to how the banks can tolerate the incredible security risks of Android 5 while Sonos apparently can’t cope with Android 7? - or have all the Android experts in this thread gone to bed?

Your bank clearly doesn’t care enough about you. For example my employer would not allow your phone to connect to its corporate network as it is deemed too a high security risk. Android 9 is the oldest OS that they permit as they value their network very highly. Higher than your bank values your account, for example.

It doesn’t say anything about how much the bank cares about me. I don’t use an app for banking. I just looked on their website to see what requirements they place on a user of their app.

Ok, it was just a sample, but I think it’s fair to say that you can expect a typical financial institution to be risk-averse, and they are happy with either Android 5 or Android 6. So why am I being told here that Android 7 would be such a massive risk for Sonos?

Answer: it isn’t. The reason why Sonos don’t want to support older versions of Android is straight profit and loss. They don’t want to have pay for more staff to maintain older versions properly, so… they turn their problem into my problem, and just tell me that I can’t use Android 7.

Glad I could clear that one up for you all.

Re-reading the OP it appears to be a Moto G4, a 5-year old design. Launched with Android 6, it didn’t advance beyond Android 7.

The sad fact is that at the reported time of purchase the G5 was already available. G5 can run Android 8.1.

In case you were thinking “Ok, those are all banks, with huge resources”, let me give another example: Push Doctor. It’s an app used by the UK National Health Service for private real-time medical consultation with NHS patients. Developed and maintained externally, but “bought in” by the NHS.

What is the minimum version of Android that their app will accept? Android 4.4.

So, the “experts” here that wrote above that it simply wasn’t possible to write and maintain an app that will run under Android 7 in a secure manner were talking complete, arrant nonsense, and doing it with confidence. I guess I shouldn’t be surprised.

I’m not sure how these huge resources could prevent malware installed on that Android 4.4 from harvesting personal data, but it is very likely that the bank’s huge legal team could defend the company against any attempt at recovering that harvested personal data. The groundwork for this is laid in the huge Terms of Service document that almost everyone blindly accepts. FWIW, I read these documents and if the terms are too offensive, I’ll not use the product or service.

I don’t have an issue with SONOS not supporting older OS or devices I understand that it becomes unmanageable. What I think stinks is that they:

1. recommend updates to older devices/OS to improve performance or something similar;
2. then, once updated tell you that it is no longer supported, obsolete or incompatible, and
3. won’t let you revert to the older version that previously worked fine.

I can’t think of any other company that works in this manner. No wonder there are so many unhappy SONOS owners around.

Antifon is right.  I am having similar issues.

What was wrong with the windows app being able to manage the devices.  Sono’s have forced their customers down this path.  I purchased the system in 2012 and there was no indication that these features would be removed.  I could use windows or my smartphone to ‘control’ the system.

It just beggers belief.  We are not the only people with this issue and Sonos need to do something about this.

I don’t need security patches etc.  I purchased Sonos to stream MP3s from my NAS on an internal network.  I never expected to have the ability to manage my system to be removed or disabled.  Yes I get the ‘no longer supported’ but not being able to re-add existing speakers.

Its really poor and I’m pretty sure in breach of the consumer rights act.

Then I would recommend that you seek legal relief, in whatever country you live in. You may want to have your legal counsel double check the legal agreements that came with your speakers, and that you agreed to when you use the Sonos software. But you may have standing, I’ve not met with legal counsel myself.