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

A
Userlevel 5
Badge +9

This has probably already been asked, but I tried putting "The OS on this device is no longer supported" into the search tool and nothing came back so I’ll ask anyway…

I still have a couple of old devices which I manage using the S1 app on my phone, which is an Android-based Moto G4, running Android 7 (kernel version 3.10.84).

When I start up the Sonos S1 app, I get a banner at the top saying "The OS on this device is no longer supported", and providing a link to a Sonos article that says that the S1 app requires Android 5, 6 or 7.

Any suggestions how to resolve this? I also have the S2 app installed on the phone, but even if I make sure that none of the S2 components are running (by rebooting the phone before running the S1 app) it still gives me the message.

It’s not an entirely trivial error report, because it stops me from doing most of the things that I want to do, such as adding a radio station - that is not allowed by the app if your phone is deemed to be “too old” - even if it isn't!

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

Airgetlam

Then seek legal action. Listening to us discuss it won’t change anything. 
 

I would be willing to wager that any lawyer / barrister worth their salt would look at the terms and conditions you agree to on use of the software and turn you down, but perhaps things are different in Australia, and certainly differing laws may apply. 
 

My expectation is Sonos has employed their own legal team to be sure that they can’t be prosecuted, but that wouldn’t stop you from trying. And perhaps succeeding, where others have failed. 

Bruce
J

I can only provide information regarding consumer law in Australia. We have a government run body called the ACCC (Australian Competition and Consumer Commission) that is empowered to enforce Australian Consumer Law (ACL). The Sonos company is in breach of the “Consumer Guarantee” and more specifically the  fit for purpose clause.

The following is an extract from the ACCC Consumer Guarantee clause

“Businesses that sell goods guarantee that those goods:

  • …
  • are fit for any purpose that the consumer made known to the business before buying (either expressly or by implication), or the purpose for which the business said it would be fit for”

No where did Sonos ever mention prior to purchase that they will prevent the use of the device in the future for its original intended purpose. This is a clear breach and is enforceable by ACCC law.   

Airgetlam

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. 

Bruce
E
Badge

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.

J

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.

buzz

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.

A
Userlevel 5
Badge +9

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.

ratty

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. 

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.

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.

controlav
Userlevel 7
Badge +23

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.

Author of the leading independent Sonos app for Windows, the only Sonos app for Xbox, and a Sonos app for iOS
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?

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

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.

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?

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
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.

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.

 

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

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.

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

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

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.

melvimbe

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.

Danny
A

It’s a horrible waste of resources….

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.

A
Userlevel 5
Badge +9

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.

Terms & ConditionsCookie settings