S1 App - "The OS on this device is no longer supported"

Show first post
This topic has been closed for further comments. You can use the search bar to find a similar topic, or create a new one by clicking Create Topic at the top of the page.

52 replies

A
Userlevel 5
Badge +9

I understand and accept that - at some point - all software and hardware will become obsolete.

The problem I have with Sonos’ approach to this is:

  1. That they have set the limit for obsolescence at such a recent date - Android 7 devices were still being widely sold less than 3 years ago.
  2. Unlike almost every other app developer, they are using the software update mechanism against me, their customer. They are forcing me to accept an update that stops the app from working properly.

This is a radical change (in my experience) because normally an app will just continue to work. I have an Android 5 tablet in my van running Torque, which shows data about the performance of the vehicle. The app is over 6 years old, and it still functions correctly. The developers assume that I, as the owner of the device, should be the one to worry about whether the hardware has enough grunt and the underlying kernel is secure enough.

I can’t see anything wrong with that model - because it means that the tablet is likely to be able to function as I intended for the life of the vehicle. It certainly didn’t have to be thrown away when Android 8 came out!

And I should add that the word “cripple” is not particularly inappropriate. If it is the only device that I use to control my Sonos units, then it is severely restricted in what I can do. Not being able to add any new sources is pretty crippling for a streaming device.

ratty

I have to say I’m a bit surprised that a phone sold 3.5 years ago is unable to update from Android 7 to at least Android 8.1, if not 9.0. I still use a Nexus 5X as a (fully functional) Sonos controller, which was discontinued in October 2016 yet runs 8.1.

Android distribution is of course in the hands of the device manufacturer, which brings us back to my earlier point about commercial motivation.

 

I dare say that if the Sonos app was a standalone piece of software it could well be possible to freeze a version that would continue to work on older platforms. It isn’t. It’s part of a comprehensive system that all has to work together. And, security-wise, is as strong as its weakest link.

A
Userlevel 5
Badge +9

My Android 5 tablet continues to function as a tablet, even though it is 5 years old.

The Sonos app on that tablet cannot function as was originally intended, because Sonos has forced me to accept an update that stops it working properly.

There is a significant difference between the two approaches.

I know I won’t get any sympathy here. Perhaps I need to give the subject more publicity elsewhere...

bockersjv
Userlevel 7
Badge +21

So your anoyed that you Android device manufacturer has abandoned it?  By lets kick any app that happens to reside on that abandoned device?

 

Yes it’s very annoying.  I have a drawer of Amazon Fire and Huweli and other Android Tablets.  The later of which never got a single OS update and were essentially useless within 2 years.  I hated moving to Apple but decided if I was going to buy a tablet it should at least be supported for 5 or more years, I certainly wasn’t going to buy another Android device.  And yes there are some manufacturers who support for longer but not the sad bunch i had chosen.  No doubt those devices were cheap for that very reason.

Go and rant elsewhere then, if that will help.  Besides we didn’t think you were here for sympathy but for help, which has been given by fellow Sonos users.  

 

How can Sonos other App developers support Os version they can’t even download anymore?  Are they supposed to maintain a cupboard of redundant devices on redundant OS versions and build an test against them?  It’s just not feasible or possible.

bockersjv
Userlevel 7
Badge +21

I was just saying I had been in the same situation, if my post came across as condescending then i apologise, that was not my intention.

Me, I’m still mildly narked that some of Windows desktop app was removed, and that was ages ago.

Trouble is the bigger the company the less they will be able to support older out of support versions.  In the company I work for we remove support for operating systems no longer under support as soon as feasible, mainly for fear of security breaches and the financial penalties that can result.

 

Airgetlam

You’re conflating the software kernel that runs on the limited memory available on the players, and the controller software that runs on the mobile OS. 

Bruce
ratty

‘Polite condescension’? I was just trying to point out the realities of the situation…

 

they won’t allow their customers any version of Android older than the one before last.

Two before last actually. The current Android is 11. Android 8.1 remains fully supported.

A
Userlevel 5
Badge +9

You’re conflating the software kernel that runs on the limited memory available on the players, and the controller software that runs on the mobile OS. 

I’m not conflating anything at all. I’m pointing out that they are happy to run very old software on their own boxes, but won’t allow their customers to use older software on the devices that they own.

Obviously you don’t see any double standards there?

ratty

The difference is that Sonos control the ‘very old software’ on their own boxes, and have undertaken to fix security issues as best they can. The mobile operating systems in question are unsupported by their suppliers; in the case of Android 7 the last release was 18 months back.

Smilja

Windows Sharing utilizes an HTTP Server which comes with the PC or Mac controller. SMBv1 is still required for NAS Linux systems,though.

»And the world is like an apple whirling silently in space, Like the circles that you find in the windmills of your mind.« (›Windmills Of Your Mind‹ [1967]. Music by Michel Legrand ; English lyrics written by Alan & Marilyn Bergman)
ratty

The discussions about the memory limitations of the older devices -- and their implications for kernel/SMB support -- were had, over and over again, at the time of the S1-to-S2 transition announcement. I’m not going to revisit that subject.

 

Which make of 3.5 yr old phone is it, where the manufacturer didn’t even offer an upgrade to Android 8? That OS was released around the time of the phone’s sale.

A
Userlevel 5
Badge +9

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.

ratty

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.

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?

ratty

You’re getting tied up in detail again.

It doesn’t matter what make and model it is.

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.

A
Userlevel 5
Badge +9

you won’t change Sonos business practices.

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.

ratty

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.

A
Userlevel 5
Badge +9

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.

melvimbe

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.

Danny
A
Userlevel 5
Badge +9

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.

 

ratty

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.

melvimbe

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

Danny
A
Userlevel 5
Badge +9

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.
 

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?

buzz

 

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? 

A
Userlevel 5
Badge +9

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?

A
Userlevel 5
Badge +9

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.

Terms & ConditionsCookie settings