Answered

All Sonos products will continue to work past May

  • 23 January 2020
  • 52 replies
  • 1420 views
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

jgatie

What about a low cost bridge type device they could sell or give away at cost that connects to the legacy speaker via the ethernet port and then that becomes its new modern brain?

 

Or:

- legacy only ecosystem - carry on as before

- modern only ecosystem - carry on with updates

- legacy and modern coexist, a modern device always becomes the master and the legacy always a slave? Create a light weight firmware for the legacy that strips out all the master bloat stuff as it will never be needed and create some “space” to keep it going a bit longer.

if the legacy gets sold or added to a legacy only system it just need to get its old legacy firmware back!

 

Already discussed.  In short, it won’t be low cost.  The Bridge is low cost because it is just a network device with a WiFi card. No different than an access point, but with some mesh logic.  

Sonos players stream using a proprietary timing/syncing/communication protocol, and that is subject to change (which is why a legacy system won’t always be compatible with up to date systems).  In short, each unit must speak the same language or nothing gets played, nothing gets grouped, nothing is synced, etc. 

The “Bridge” you speak of would have to process the streams and control protocol, translating up to 32 simultaneous streams from legacy to modern or modern to legacy, which requires far more processing.  Those processing requirements would probably price it out of the reach of a sensible resolution.  There is also the issue of this additional processing causing timing errors and loss of sync. 

That’s just a couple of things off the top of my head.   

pwt
Userlevel 7
Badge +20

Thanks. So what your saying is that they probably have actually explored and exhausted all avenues and they didn’t really have a choice?

Personally, I disagree with this, although I know that opinions differ.

I think it’s more accurately described as: technical solutions are feasible to allow legacy and modern products to continue to interoperate, but Sonos decided that the (non-trivial) R&D investments required to implement them are not where they should be spending their R&D money.

4 x P:5 | Sub | 4 x P:1 | 3 x Connect | 2 x Boost | Connect:Amp | 2 x One | Amp | Move | Port
pwt
Userlevel 7
Badge +20

Personally, I disagree with this, although I know that opinions differ.

I think it’s more accurately described as: technical solutions are feasible to allow legacy and modern products to continue to interoperate, but Sonos decided that the (non-trivial) R&D investments required to implement them are not where they should be spending their R&D money.

As discussed before, all technical limitations involve financial decisions.  You simply cannot separate the two.  Example: The perfect solution to today’s problem would be to replace every legacy product out there with the equivalent modern product for free. It can be easily done, and it’s feasible. 

Then tell me, what’s keeping them from doing it?

No big deal, but you’ve been suggesting that it’s not technically possible, I’ve been suggesting that it is technically possible, entirely within software, but requiring a system architecture change. That’s the only difference in our positions.

4 x P:5 | Sub | 4 x P:1 | 3 x Connect | 2 x Boost | Connect:Amp | 2 x One | Amp | Move | Port
R
Userlevel 5
Badge +11

Jgatie how do you know “It is technically impossible to make old software coexist with new, so these are the next best choices”

It may be hard or expensive or time consuming (or it may not) but why impossible?

 

pwt
Userlevel 7
Badge +20

No big deal, but you’ve been suggesting that it’s not technically possible, I’ve been suggesting that it is technically possible, entirely within software, but requiring a system architecture change. That’s the only difference in our positions.

My “technically impossible” statement comes with the fact I wear a project lead hat.  As such, financial impact is always figured into my analysis.  Sadly, I long ago passed the day where I could dream big as an engineer.  

I get it. I ran large global software product R&D organisations for many years, as well as having done lots of software development myself. I routinely made decisions of this nature. However there is a difference between technically impossible and too expensive (I didn’t ‘leave off the financials’), and it’s better if we’re honest about that. Just my opinion.

4 x P:5 | Sub | 4 x P:1 | 3 x Connect | 2 x Boost | Connect:Amp | 2 x One | Amp | Move | Port
melvimbe

 

 

 

Also May is a strange month to chose considering I bought my Play 5 Gen 1 from Sonos direct in August 2015 so you would expect their 5 year support would be August 2020?

 

 

I see two possible explanations for May.  One being that it’s a significant distance from the retail shopping season.  Even if there are delays, I’m sure they want this long forgotten (if possible) by the time people start thinking about Christmas.

 

The other (and I speculate) is that it is timed around product releases or other good news to report.  Two years ago, Sonos announced the Beam around April/May and it came out in July, if I recall correctly.  If there is a new product coming out for the summer, I can see where that may appear to soften the blow so to speak for some people.  Not all for sure, but something.    This could also be part of the reason they can’t give full details of the change over in May.  A product release or other functional tied into this somehow might be something that don’t want to talk about right now.  Again, speculating.  Just a WAG.

 

Danny
S
Userlevel 4
Badge +3

What I hope this means is that the split system can still function as one system in terms of streaming the same music. In essence, sharing the least common denominator of features. If they do that, then honestly, I will be happy.

 

...but the more I read it, the more it seems like the same BS, repackaged in a nicer tone. :P

S
Userlevel 4
Badge +3

and we are not taking anything away

 

Unless the legacy speakers can be grouped with the current speakers, then they are absolutely taking something away. So...

jgatie

“Impossible” is a pretty strong term when it comes to software.

 

So how would you solve the scenario I posted above?  

jgatie

Good Lord. :thinking:

Ok, let’s dumb this down:

Old software can’t talk to new software, and new software can’t be loaded on old units.  So therefore, new and old software can’t be on the same system because they can’t talk to each other.  Get it now?

And the viability of technical solutions always has financial factors.  Otherwise, why not just suggest Sonos give away free replacement units to everyone who wants them?  That’s not “impossible”, right? 

jgatie

It’s not clear to me what your problem statement is. What you describe is a scenario that I’ve never seen even on very old Sonos components, but it seems to describe the inconvenience of requiring a wired network connection when adding very old components to a WiFi setup. Nothing in there says the players can’t talk to each other once it is set up or updated. So what is there to fix?

 

 

If the old software cannot communicate with the new software unless it is wired, and you can’t update legacy units with the new software, how are you going to use it wirelessly? 

 

How would I solve this problem in general? Using a bridge device between old and new, that merges the old network with the new one. I seem to recall Sonos having some sort of device that glued a home, wired network to the wireless protocol used by the first gen of players. It was a Sonos bridge device of some sort. I can’t remember its name exactly….Sonos something...

 

And that “Bridge” would need to process 32 different streams at once in order to accommodate the maximum number of Sonos devices.  I’m not sure (if it is even possible to build) that the cost would be something that wouldn’t reach a level of uproar equal to the current level. 

jgatie

Nothing here that cannot be worked around in software, unless they change L1 standards, in which case a whole bunch more kit is about to get relegated to legacy status.

As you and I have discussed in the past, the obstacle here is one of Sonos choosing not to make the investment in a system architecture that can accommodate different protocol versions simultaneously.

I do not think there’s any chance they are going to reconsider this stance, but in making this choice they’ve made a one-time-only transition from a company that keeps all of its player hardware working well together to a company that sells hardware with a limited lifespan of full support. For me, that has fundamentally altered how I see Sonos products.

 

Right. The choice was made.  That’s the reality now.

M

...to a company that sells hardware with a limited lifespan of full support. For me, that has fundamentally altered how I see Sonos products.

 

I personally see every connected hardware manufacturer heading that way, unless they can charge subscription… and even then…

If they put sufficient resources into maintaining support for every legacy unit, a competitor with no legacy devices will be quicker to market with new ranges and features, so they lose share, then have less resources to continue supporting old devices that don’t create revenue, ad mortem.

jgatie

If the old software cannot communicate with the new software unless it is wired, and you can’t update legacy units with the new software, how are you going to use it wirelessly? 

 

Now you’ve lost me. Are you saying that this happened before, and Sonos made products that only worked with wired connections? Or are you speaking hypothetically?

What, exactly, and I mean specifically, is the issue you are referring to? And how, exactly, is wired-to-wireless bridging an unsolvable problem?

 

 

Not at all what I said.  Here’s what happens:

You buy a Sonos device that has sat on the shelf for a few software updates.  So its software is out of date, which is akin to “legacy” software.  You take it home and try to add it to the system, and it sits there and blinks at you.  This is because there were some changes to the wireless protocols that are preventing it from connecting.  The standard response when someone ask for help with this scenario is to connect it via Ethernet, add it to the system, let it update to the new software, then disconnect it and it will run wirelessly.

But by definition, the legacy units are always going to be on legacy software, they can’t be updated.  So when the new software makes a protocol change, there’s no way the wireless legacy units are able to communicate.  Even more extreme, very out of date legacy software (and remember, people want their legacy units to work for a long time!) sometimes can’t even connect using Ethernet, they need Sonos support to intervene.  

 

 

Snip - A lot of Bridge stuff

 

There’s a difference between a simple network device that just passes data like a basic switch, and one that has to translate the protocols from legacy to modern or modern to legacy for 32 streams at once.

jgatie

 

Again, so what? There’s update/install, and then there’s playing audio throughout the zones. I admit that procedure sounds irritating, but playback sounds unaffected. What problem am I solving? Sounds like there’s already a solution to me.

 

You don’t get it.   There is no update/install, because legacy units, by very definition, have to stay on the legacy software and there is no support for the new protocol changes on the legacy software.  They are stuck with the old software that has no way of connecting to the new! 

These aren’t just audio players, they are smart speakers that need to communicate with each other, and they do that through proprietary protocols that are subject to change.  Change the protocols on one, and you need to change the protocols on all of them.  If you can’t change the protocols on the legacy units, the legacy units can’t talk to the modern units.  If they can’t talk to each other, they can’t play audio together.   They are effectively a split system. 

 

 

So support a reasonable limit if 32 is too big.

 

The system supports 32 separate streams.  If you truly want what you have now to work with the stuff in the future, you need to process 32 streams.  Anything else is just bargaining away the facts, a very bad thing in computer science. 

M
Userlevel 5
Badge +13

I think people are a lot more surprised than they ought to be, this strikes me as being a fairly predictable issue with any ‘connected’ devices in modern times.

 

 An EOL notice with 4 months warning is not very customer friendly,

 

This is not an EOL 

 

jgatie

Oh and one more difference between legacy and modern, all legacy models pre-date the 5 GHz standard, all modern devices have 5 GHz capability.  What the significance of that is, or if it is significant at all, I don’t know.

pwt
Userlevel 7
Badge +20

Oh and one more difference between legacy and modern, all legacy models pre-date the 5 GHz standard, all modern devices have 5 GHz capability.  What the significance of that is, or if it is significant at all, I don’t know.

Interesting. I have a non-legacy Connect:Amp. I thought it lacked a 5GHz radio because it can’t be used wirelessly to drive surrounds.

4 x P:5 | Sub | 4 x P:1 | 3 x Connect | 2 x Boost | Connect:Amp | 2 x One | Amp | Move | Port
D
Userlevel 7
Badge +1

What about a low cost bridge type device they could sell or give away at cost that connects to the legacy speaker via the ethernet port and then that becomes its new modern brain?

 

Or:

- legacy only ecosystem - carry on as before

- modern only ecosystem - carry on with updates

- legacy and modern coexist - a modern device always becomes the master and the legacy always a slave? Create a light weight firmware for the legacy that strips out all the master bloat stuff as it will never be needed and create some “space” to keep it going a bit longer.

if the legacy gets sold or added to a legacy only system it just need to get its old legacy firmware back!

caveat to this mode is it always needs a modern device online...

D
Userlevel 7
Badge +1

What about a low cost bridge type device they could sell or give away at cost that connects to the legacy speaker via the ethernet port and then that becomes its new modern brain?

 

Or:

- legacy only ecosystem - carry on as before

- modern only ecosystem - carry on with updates

- legacy and modern coexist, a modern device always becomes the master and the legacy always a slave? Create a light weight firmware for the legacy that strips out all the master bloat stuff as it will never be needed and create some “space” to keep it going a bit longer.

if the legacy gets sold or added to a legacy only system it just need to get its old legacy firmware back!

 

Already discussed.  In short, it won’t be low cost.  The Bridge is low cost because it is just a network device with a WiFi card. No different than an access point, but with some mesh logic.  

Sonos players stream using a proprietary timing/syncing/communication protocol, and that is subject to change (which is why a legacy system won’t always be compatible with up to date systems).  In short, each unit must speak the same language or nothing gets played, nothing gets grouped, etc. 

The “Bridge” you speak of would have to process the streams and control protocol, translating up to 32 simultaneous streams from legacy to modern or modern to legacy, which requires far more processing.  Those processing requirements would probably price it out of the reach of a sensible resolution.  There is also the issue of this additional processing causing timing errors and causing loss of sync. 

That’s just a couple of things off the top of my head.   

Thanks. So what your saying is that they probably have actually explored and exhausted all avenues and they didn’t really have a choice? At the end of the day the equipment is old and reached its limit. Guess they knew this was coming for a long time and dreaded the day they had to announce it. But they should have given more than 4 months notice.

 

Also May is a strange month to chose considering I bought my Play 5 Gen 1 from Sonos direct in August 2015 so you would expect their 5 year support would be August 2020?

 

jgatie

Thanks. So what your saying is that they probably have actually explored and exhausted all avenues and they didn’t really have a choice? At the end of the day the equipment is old and reached its limit. Guess they knew this was coming for a long time and dreaded the day they had to announce it. But they should have given more than 4 months notice.

 

Also May is a strange month to chose considering I bought my Play 5 Gen 1 from Sonos direct in August 2015 so you would expect their 5 year support would be August 2020?

 

 

Well I have no inside knowledge, but being in the software engineering business, the last thing one wants to do is downgrade the customer experience.  I’m sure they thought of everything, the writing on the wall has been clear for years and yes, it was probably met with many meetings full of PR people not believing what they hear from the engineers.  If I had a nickel for how many times I’ve heard “Just make it work” in my job, I could replace my two P:5G1’s.

As to future support, the thing about knowing this is coming, is you can build for future proof-ness.  Also, RAM and SD memory is far cheaper now than in 2005.  You can get a 256 MB card for the price of a 16 back then, and the Play:5 Gen 2 has 8 times the RAM/storage as the legacy devices.  So if the application and data fit in 32 MB now, it’s going to be some time before it hits 256 on the P:5G2.  Now is this enough to outrace the inevitable code bloat?  Well, since Sonos engineers are pretty good at squeezing blood out of a stone, they can probably keep squeezing, even if the stone is 8 times bigger.  

jgatie

Personally, I disagree with this, although I know that opinions differ.

I think it’s more accurately described as: technical solutions are feasible to allow legacy and modern products to continue to interoperate, but Sonos decided that the (non-trivial) R&D investments required to implement them are not where they should be spending their R&D money.

 

As discussed before, all technical limitations involve financial decisions.  You simply cannot separate the two.  Example: The perfect solution to today’s problem would be to replace every legacy product out there with the equivalent modern product for free. It can be easily done, and it’s feasible. 

Then tell me, what’s keeping them from doing it?

jgatie

No big deal, but you’ve been suggesting that it’s not technically possible, I’ve been suggesting that it is technically possible, entirely within software, but requiring a system architecture change. That’s the only difference in our positions.

 

My “technically impossible” statement comes with the fact I wear a project lead hat.  As such, financial impact is always figured into my analysis.  Sadly, I long ago passed the day where I could dream big as an engineer.  

Besides, it is just as disingenuous (though ingratiating to the mob with the torches and pitchforks) to say “It’s technically possible, Sonos just decided not to do it”, leaving off the financials, as it is to say “Sonos could replace every legacy product out there with the equivalent modern product for free, they just decided not to do it.”*

*Though the few times I perused the main threads, I saw this sentiment posted a lot.  There’s no quelling the mob once they get going.  And this mob is something special.  We actually passed the “Holocaust comparison” barrier at mid-day on announcement day, which is a new record. 

jgatie

I get it. I ran large global software product R&D organisations for many years, as well as having done lots of software development myself. I routinely made decisions of this nature. However there is a difference between technically impossible and too expensive (I didn’t ‘leave off the financials’), and it’s better if we’re honest about that. Just my opinion.

 

Disagree.  Emphasizing the fact that it can be done to an irrational mob only puts them in a more irrational state.  Technical feasibility cannot be separated from costs, any more than giving everyone a free replacement can be separated from costs.  It’s bad enough they are suggesting Sonos bankrupt themselves by giving away free stuff when they know the costs, why give them hope when they can’t possibly know the costs, only that is is “feasible”?  You and I can have that discussion, because we know.  The mob?  They only want a cudgel to beat on Sonos, I’ll not have my knowledge hand them one.

 

And by the way, thanks to @David_366 for a rational discussion without all the furor.  It's back and forth like this that makes me think this place is not just a mob.  Good talk!

melvimbe

I think people are a lot more surprised than they ought to be, this strikes me as being a fairly predictable issue with any ‘connected’ devices in modern times.

 

Personally, I was more surprised by the short lead time, not the announcement itself. An EOL notice with 4 months warning is not very customer friendly, especially when it’s attached to a $2000 bill.

If it was a year, that’d be different for me. I can come up with a reasonable and affordable plan for updating my system (or replacing it) in a year. I can’t do that in 4 months.

 

I think they did not want the announcement to effect the Christmas retail season.  I’m sure that will come off as greedy to some, but sales of new product is their only income.    Other companies could give a year notice and not risk it effecting sales quite as much since the old products are new products are not nearly as tied together.   For example, if Google announces they are dropping support for an android version, it won’t make people pause in their purchase of a Google Mini.

 

As far as people being surprised, how and why this is happened is different then almost any other product out there.  Some compare it to an analog amp or dumb speaker, while some compare it a phone or tablet...and there are similarities in both, yet significant differences.

Danny
Terms & ConditionsCookie settings