In the aftermath of the CR100 debacle it may be helpful to discuss the direction and methods taken by Sonos management to achieve their end goal of retiring the CR100 by force and the impact on and perception of customers future buying decisions
They still have not made it clear in any believable way why they forced this issue which leaves many people puzzled and angry at the rendering useless of their legally owned equipment.
Personally , this is a first for me . I have never owned a product previously that I have bought that has been rendered useless by the creators period,. Far less easy to swallow is the subterfuge of the battery non issue to cover an ulterior motive. This makes the company Sonos look untrustworthy at best . If you have a reason for doing this , spit it out and let people know. I believe that I, as the purchaser gets to decide when it is time to retire my own possession. I have a belief that quality equipment that was sold as a quality product to prospective buyers should be subject to end of life decision only by the buyer and no one else.
I struggle with the management decisions taken that force me to re-evaluate my investment in their goods within my home.
Prior to the CR100 execution , I viewed my home audio system as an asset to my home , something that simply worked and worked well with minimal intervention required from me which is pretty much what I expect from audio equipment . Now I view the lifespan of this investment as something which looks like is beyond my control even if the equipment is still functioning regardless of my desire to maintain that .
The support aspect of this situation where Sonos staff went into hiding and avoided direct questions from concerned customers has to go down as a low point in any companies record in dealing with their best ambassadors.
These are just a few points that caused me to raise this topic for discussion regarding the ethicacy and morality and integrity of the current Sonos operation...any one of the the issues I have listed above would make Sonos or any other company ineligible for consideration for future investment either in business or in domestic life for this individual.
What do others think....? Please keep the thread social.
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.
Page 3 / 6
Userlevel 7
+22
I haven’t a clue wds0001. I just figured this thread was way for CR100 guys to get more attention.
I mean you have some devices that eventually won’t work on Sonos because of iOS or android updates. But that’s kinda out of Sonos hands and they have allowed some older versions to still run when they are able in limited modes (no settings options). I just think with less being Sonos controller in app and more direct streaming from native apps (which I’m not really fan of but does help a lot of people) .. Sonos becomes less and less able to support older operating systems.
I’m not sure why that is an ethical question through. I’m surprised how Sonos still supports fully the original ZP devices. They seem to have a track record better then most at keeping even their oldest devices current.
I mean you have some devices that eventually won’t work on Sonos because of iOS or android updates. But that’s kinda out of Sonos hands and they have allowed some older versions to still run when they are able in limited modes (no settings options). I just think with less being Sonos controller in app and more direct streaming from native apps (which I’m not really fan of but does help a lot of people) .. Sonos becomes less and less able to support older operating systems.
I’m not sure why that is an ethical question through. I’m surprised how Sonos still supports fully the original ZP devices. They seem to have a track record better then most at keeping even their oldest devices current.
Take away ALL the streaming add-ons they put into the unit and it would STILL be a controller for the base system and for people hosting their own files on their own network.
Good point, but not doing this, IMO, does not make Sonos immoral. Did they lie in this case - I can't say, I haven't tracked the CR100 subject. I don't see them doing anything very different from other makes, is the only point I am making.
IMO also by the way, all the controller upgrades they do is just a lot of noise with little forward motion. Take away a few things like Trueplay and I would say no forward motion for all the upgrade noise and heat since the time I have had Sonos from 2011. Fortunately, my upgrade process is robust, so this is just a minor irritant for me.
Now if my two Connect Amps were to ever be bricked in the coming years by Sonos.......
Kumars last sentence in this post highlights one of the issues that I see exists with the operating policy of a company, any company, forget that it is Sonos for moment for the purpose of looking at the decisions made and outcomes of actions by a management team in the consumer market.
Regardless of the product whether electronics or mechanical or any other consumer item , when is it right for the manufacturer to decide lifespan?
When I bought Sonos in 2005 , no one considered lifespan as determined by the manufacturer in the buying decision.
Fast forward 2018 now it appears that I have to do this according to some beliefs. This is something I am deeply uncomfortable with. I transitioned from being a completely happy customer who like a lot of other people happily recommended a product. That changed completely when that company disabled my product. The change for me is that because of that action forced on me I would never consider buying another product from the same company . That is a moral position that I take because I have beliefs regarding how people and businesses should behave.
I started the thread to try to understand the decisions that were made by Sonos management in the aftermath of the CR100 retiral and what led them to try to manage that particular situation in they way that they did. There are fundamental values at the core of doing business with anyone and for me the values have been violated.
I am still none the wiser as to the real reasons behind the retiral , the subterfuge of the battery issue , and the overall handling of the issue which can really only be described as inept , makes me distrust the company, that is a natural reaction.
If anything it should be of interest to Sonos or any other company to examine why a previously very happy customer has gone from being an advocate to someone who will never buy another product.
I have a large number of ZP'S hard wired into multiple properties and am very concerned that they get euthanised also , that is not something that I thought when I bought into the systems that I would ever have to worry about......
Now if my many ZP'S were ever to be bricked in the coming years by Sonos.....
If the ZP units were bricked by Sonos, wouldn't the majority of people be satisfied with the fact there is a modern day equivalent they could use their voucher to buy? After all, I kept reading in the CR100 thread that if they offered a modern hard button controller that was, sturdy, waterproof, and had other features like the CR100, then people wouldn't be upset and would be lining up to buy them.
I have tried as hard as I can to distance this thread from the Save the CR100 thread. Unfortunately your reference to the save the CR100 again takes us back into the territory that I made efforts to avoid from the starter post.
Your previous post mentions a voucher enabling a purchase for a modern day equivalent of a ZP. Are you in addition to being a benevolent ,charitable, delusional , guidance person also a clairvoyant??
Hi Chris
Looking at your tag line that you seem proud of, there are many others that own equipment that dates back way further than you despite your Sonus disciple position. I would counsel that others have greater expectation from major purchases than you. It would seem that the religious fervoura tavched
Yes I can - I gave an example earlier in this very thread (about this very forum!).
Userlevel 7
+22
Being an antogosnit against helpful members of this community doesn’t make the community members loyalists it makes the antagonist the problem.
Yes I can - I gave an example earlier in this very thread (about this very forum!).
You are equating switching forum software with a question of ethics and morality? Seriously? I am the worst fan of InSided you will find here and even I don't think it has anything to do with ethics or morality.
Good grief. :8
Yes I can - I gave an example earlier in this very thread (about this very forum!).
You are equating switching forum software with a question of ethics and morality? Seriously?
Good grief. :8
No "seriously" I was not. The trust of my earlier post had nothing to do with forum software.
You asked
I gave you a specific example with the facts of an actual incident without speculation (but with a real question to be considered at the end) and you are unhappy that I am not an "echo chamber" of your views. - "Good grief" no pleasing some people! :P
Deep breath and back to the subject of the thread (if you can).
The lesson for Sonos perhaps is to just implement product strategies without offering technical reasons for these, and making sure that none of these strategies violate any legal requirements in every country where the products are sold. One can never make everyone happy; one has to choose a business value maximisation strategy and then execute it as well as one can. Making a lot more customers happy than that are made unhappy is the best outcome to be expected, and is also an unavoidable outcome of running any business.
Those that are unhappy will move to another alternative, and that consequent loss of business is the price to be paid if any strategy optimisation is to be done.
Those that are unhappy will move to another alternative, and that consequent loss of business is the price to be paid if any strategy optimisation is to be done.
I say again, good grief. If that's all you've got, no wonder the need for an echo chamber. :8
Dude if you are gonna troll this thread don't get all butt hurt like your friend jgatie when posters respond to you. If having a different opinion than you two stable genius' makes me aragonistic I'll own it.
Userlevel 5
+5
You know that the CR100 ain't a sentient being... right?
And you know that dogs are not considered sentient beings, by law, right?
Same as CR100 is considered property, dogs are legally property.
This is why if your dog bites someone, the law will kill the dog.
This is why if a dog food manufacturer kills your dog with tainted food, you *might* get a refund for the dog food. But most likely you'll get nothing. Even if hundreds or thousands of dogs die from that same food. https://www.petfoodindustry.com/articles/5822-fda-update-jerky-treats-sickened-6200-dogs-killed-1140
https://www.facebook.com/groups/408702489522865/ (This is cats, not dogs, but even fewer people consider them sentient beings.)
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jefflanders/2014/04/17/how-are-pets-handled-in-divorce/#147718c46304
You may view your dog or cat as a member of the family, but in the eyes of the law, your pet is personal property, plain and simple, just like paintings and patio furniture.
https://supreme.findlaw.com/legal-commentary/pets-as-property.html
On reading more for the first time about the specific issue that led to the generic titled OP question, I came across this from Sonos as a way for its fans to keep using the CR100:
"Ignore future upgrades, leaving your Sonos system on its current version. We do not recommend this option. If you do go this route, you are acknowledging the risk of the aging lithium ion battery in your controller. Additionally, opting not to update means you will not receive any new features or future security patches for your entire system – not just the CR100. For example, being on an unsupported version means that you might lose connectivity to music services, as is already the case for Google Play Music on the CR100. It is necessary to configure your system in advance to avoid future updates. Any update applied to the firmware and/or to the app, even unintentionally, is irreversible."
As I see it, Sonos has given CR100 lovers a way to keep it running for an unspecified number of more years. With pros and cons of doing so clearly stated, for a product that was withdrawn as far back as in 2009.
Why then this instance of the CR100 leads to questions posed in the title of the thread baffles me - I too would love to have my cake and eat it too, with the cons of using the CR100 in future not imposed on me, but if I cannot, why is Sonos being immoral or unethical?
For those that invested USD 350 in the CR100 when the product was in the range prior to 2010, I am curious to have the answer to this question: If the way forward suggested by Sonos is followed to keep the CR100 usable, what will the system controlled by the CR100 no longer do, that it was able to do when the CR100 was bought?
"Ignore future upgrades, leaving your Sonos system on its current version. We do not recommend this option. If you do go this route, you are acknowledging the risk of the aging lithium ion battery in your controller. Additionally, opting not to update means you will not receive any new features or future security patches for your entire system – not just the CR100. For example, being on an unsupported version means that you might lose connectivity to music services, as is already the case for Google Play Music on the CR100. It is necessary to configure your system in advance to avoid future updates. Any update applied to the firmware and/or to the app, even unintentionally, is irreversible."
As I see it, Sonos has given CR100 lovers a way to keep it running for an unspecified number of more years. With pros and cons of doing so clearly stated, for a product that was withdrawn as far back as in 2009.
Why then this instance of the CR100 leads to questions posed in the title of the thread baffles me - I too would love to have my cake and eat it too, with the cons of using the CR100 in future not imposed on me, but if I cannot, why is Sonos being immoral or unethical?
For those that invested USD 350 in the CR100 when the product was in the range prior to 2010, I am curious to have the answer to this question: If the way forward suggested by Sonos is followed to keep the CR100 usable, what will the system controlled by the CR100 no longer do, that it was able to do when the CR100 was bought?
... I am curious to have the answer to this question: If the way forward suggested by Sonos is followed to keep the CR100 usable, what will the system controlled by the CR100 no longer do, that it was able to do when the CR100 was bought?
Ask this question in the "Save the CR100" thread and I am sure it will get an answer.
This thread is titled "Sonos Company Ethicacy, Morality and Integrity Core Values?" I have taken that to be a slightly wider question about companies in general and to just use Sonos as an example of what companies can and do do.
So we can look at some of things Sonos has done in the past not to rehash the issues but rather to look at the trend and results and see what we think.
i) Sonos completely changed the way the forum works and the reasons given at the time do not match the outcome. But the outcome could be argued as better for most forum users.
ii) Sonos introduced the Play One to get started with voice control but the marketing of the Play One does not meet the experienced delivered and left some purchasers feeling cheated. But over time these shortcomings may be resolved and customers expectations might even be exceeded (time will tell).
iii) Sonos made the CR100 inoperative with a software update without any plausible explication (so far). But the real reason may emerge and prove that the decision was commercial sound and the overall Sonos experience was enhanced for the majority of users.
Each of these three things have been discussed at length in other threads and there is no need to go over old ground here (as that can be done in their relevant threads), but they can be used as the background to ask; was the conduct of the company OK?, did the end results justify the means used to get it? did the company make a mistake or a deliberate policy decision? was it a mistake at all or just the right commercial decision with perhaps a less than perfect marketing delivery? Should we expect companies to be honest with us at all times or does commercial confidentiality preclude this?
All big questions but then the OP started this thread to discuss; Ethics, Morality and Integral Core Values - All very big themes!! 😉
Kumar
I am not sure that it is fair to condemn Patagonia because they produce $100 work pants. As in every sphere of manufacturing there are different levels of product aimed at different markets. You can buy a $10 watch or a $100,000 watch because the markets exist for these products. What the morals are regarding spending large figures on what some would consider frivolous expensive items when there are people in the world without food is a different conversation.
The poster first mentioned Patagonia in the context of the process of decision making and someone actually choosing the path to achieve an end. I believe he is correct in mentioning them to illustrate a not so subtle point . It is all about the intent.
The intent was to to peddle an untruth to lay the way for a decision that had been made which the management knew would probably be difficult explain. Which is one of the reasons for the title of the thread, it is the intent.
I would love to read transcripts of the management conversations held while they were concocting the tale but realise that is unlikely to happen.
Sadly after all this we are still not any clearer as to the real reasons they took the path they did, one thing is for sure it has been confirmed that management at Sonos do read these threads, so hopefully when they come to kill the next product they will be better briefed in how not to do it.
I am not sure that it is fair to condemn Patagonia because they produce $100 work pants. As in every sphere of manufacturing there are different levels of product aimed at different markets. You can buy a $10 watch or a $100,000 watch because the markets exist for these products. What the morals are regarding spending large figures on what some would consider frivolous expensive items when there are people in the world without food is a different conversation.
The poster first mentioned Patagonia in the context of the process of decision making and someone actually choosing the path to achieve an end. I believe he is correct in mentioning them to illustrate a not so subtle point . It is all about the intent.
The intent was to to peddle an untruth to lay the way for a decision that had been made which the management knew would probably be difficult explain. Which is one of the reasons for the title of the thread, it is the intent.
I would love to read transcripts of the management conversations held while they were concocting the tale but realise that is unlikely to happen.
Sadly after all this we are still not any clearer as to the real reasons they took the path they did, one thing is for sure it has been confirmed that management at Sonos do read these threads, so hopefully when they come to kill the next product they will be better briefed in how not to do it.
I am not sure that it is fair to condemn Patagonia because they produce $100 work pants.
The intent was to to peddle an untruth to lay the way for a decision that had been made which the management knew would probably be difficult explain. Which is one of the reasons for the title of the thread, it is the intent.
The 100 dollar pants by itself are fine, but they do raise the antennae about claims about authenticity being just clever marketing. And as I have set out further, the hypocrisy in outsourcing manufacturing to locations that do not respect the dignity of the employees there, confirms the essential hollowness of the holier than thou statements.
I merely responded in depth about the vaunted Patagonia to demonstrate that no "for profit" corporate acts in noble ways all the time. With very very rare exceptions and I am not saying that Sonos is one of these exceptions either.
As to Sonos/ CR100, what is objectionable about this statement from them, that gives guidance to those users that choose to not kill the CR100?
"Ignore future upgrades, leaving your Sonos system on its current version. We do not recommend this option. If you do go this route, you are acknowledging the risk of the aging lithium ion battery in your controller. Additionally, opting not to update means you will not receive any new features or future security patches for your entire system – not just the CR100. For example, being on an unsupported version means that you might lose connectivity to music services, as is already the case for Google Play Music on the CR100. It is necessary to configure your system in advance to avoid future updates. Any update applied to the firmware and/or to the app, even unintentionally, is irreversible."
What untruth? Where is the peddling? And in the ultimate analysis, is not the user that does not choose this above option presented to him by Sonos the one guilty of killing his CR100? Sonos recommends that it be killed, that's all.
I have to say, this thread is a classic case of much ado about nothing.
No, it came two days (Feb. 2nd) after the 'Save the CR100' topic was created (Jan. 31th).
I note that you said that you had not followed the CR100 story I hope I don't see you here in the future lamenting or justifying the destruction of your ZP'S:)
I found the Sonos response that I quoted with a Feb 2 2018 date attached to it, in the three month old Save the CR 100 thread. As the best answer, obviously so nominated by the OP of the thread, and therefore it was easily found by me, saving me the trouble of reading all 115 pages there. Based on this, the Sonos quote does not seem to me to be much later in the debacle as you suggest. If there has been other communication that "peddles untruths" before the OP first post and the Sonos response on Feb 2 2018 nominated as best answer, I do not know.
If I had the CR100 and wanted to keep it operational, I now see that I would be able to do so following the "how to" steps clearly laid down by Sonos. It would be at the cost of sacrificing updates from 2018 onwards to the system, which sounds fair enough as a price to be paid if I wanted to keep a ten year + old product, not sold since 2009, in use. It means I can't have my cake and eat it too, but I don't expect to be able to do that every time. Where I can do so, it is a bonus.
If Sonos allows me the option of keeping my ZPs or other kit operational in future, ten years after my purchase dates via exercising of similar choices, I will not be lamenting - there would be no justifiable ground to do so in my book.
I therefore do not agree that Sonos has killed the CR100. The decision to do so has been left to every individual user.
When I referred to mindless ranting, it largely was with reference to posts made by some other posters on this thread.
Userlevel 7
+22
And as far as I'm concerned this allegation the Sonos lied about there being a risk of the batteries being a fire hazard is highly dubious. It apparently comes from one user who, via telephone, claims a Sonos employee admitted there isn't a problem with the batteries.
I find it depressing that people will post in a thread questioning Sonos' ethics, morals and integrity and accuse Sonos outright of being liars. I suggest those people are hypocrites of the highest order.
You're entitled to be pissed off with Sonos but that doesn't give you the green light to behave in the exact same way that you accuse Sonos of doing. Besides, if it's good enough for you why not Sonos?
I find it depressing that people will post in a thread questioning Sonos' ethics, morals and integrity and accuse Sonos outright of being liars. I suggest those people are hypocrites of the highest order.
You're entitled to be pissed off with Sonos but that doesn't give you the green light to behave in the exact same way that you accuse Sonos of doing. Besides, if it's good enough for you why not Sonos?
Userlevel 5
+5
Not quite like patio furniture as you say then. Which isn't a surprise and the linked article is as old as 2003. I suspect things will have moved on to a greater recognition of sentience in animals since then.
Clearly either 1. you don't understand the meaning of *analogy* or 2. you're a lawyer or lawyer-wannabe who enjoys using logical fallacies to further their agenda. (I'm betting on 2.)
My analogy stands. SONOS took a stand on something that I own, that is in my house, and reached in and killed it against my wishes. This is morally unethical, and made me feel exactly as stated in my original analogy:
Dogs have an average lifespan of 15 years. In reality, some get sick and die sooner; some live much longer, into their 20's and even 30's. How would you feel if you brought your healthy 16 year old dog to the vet to get some flea treatment and the vet told you that he was going to be put down because he's outlived his useful lifespan? How ethically moral is it for the vet to do this against your wishes?
Userlevel 5
+5
Clearly either 1. you don't understand the meaning of *analogy* or 2. you're a lawyer or lawyer-wannabe who enjoys using logical fallacies to further their agenda. (I'm betting on 2.)
Wrong and wrong. I just happen to think straight and am not able to suffer visible logical fallacies, instead of using these to further an agenda as you seem to be clearly fond of doing.
I have no agenda, other than keeping my highly paid for, working technology, in working condition despite an unethical company that thinks *they* own the piece of equipment that *I* bought and paid for, which resides in *MY* home which requires a key to open the lock, and they have broken and entered and altered *my* bought and paid for technology to make it stop working.
The analogy was to express the emotion I felt when they committed breaking and entering and destroyed my property.
You, on the other hand, clearly have an agenda. I am not interested in your agenda, so go away, troll.
Userlevel 5
+5
It just takes some straight thinking to come to this conclusion. No further value to add to this thread, so it is time to move on.
Clearly you do not know how to read, because you are wrong and wrong. SONOS has stated that the product is faulty and should be disposed of because the battery will blow up. Then they said hey, well maybe you could stop updates, but we're going to make sure that that option doesn't last long.
So no, SONOS hasn't offered *any* option. A sort of, temporary, "at your own risk," won't last and won't work well one. Not a REAL option.
BUT that is not what this thread is about. I feel VIOLATED that SONOS came into my home and destroyed my property. This violation, this breaking and entering that SONOS committed, is unethical and immoral.
Userlevel 5
+5
Can't stand to look in the mirror, eh???
Userlevel 1
Interesting thread, here’s my take on it for anyone that’s interested.
Coming at this as a CR100 owner (just the 2 of them) there are potential legal and moral / ethical issues here.
Legal first, I’m not in the law profession and there are obviously different laws across the world, but I’m assuming that legally (at least here in the uk) sonos have license conditions sewn up in such a way that they can legally send updates to my own purchased equipment in my house and render them useless whenever it decides to do so.
Moral / ethical next. I’m one of the vast majority of people who don’t have time to read dozens of pages of licence conditions in legal speak whenever I buy or upgrade something so I may have unwittingly signed up to conditions that allow them to do this. However, if I’d been alerted to a condition that stated that a company held the legal right to terminate the use of a product that I had legally purchased at a time of their choosing, guess what... I would not have bought it.
There’s plenty of parallels being drawn in this thread but I’m not sure they hit the mark for me. A parallel for me would be if Apple or Microsoft decided that they didn’t want anyone using legacy operating systems any more, so they sent out an ‘upgrade’ that rendered machines that used it unable to function ever again. They don’t do this and there are plenty of XP and NT systems out there, trust me I work in IT. Heck, I even have an old commodore Amiga that still works for the purpose it was purchased for - I accept I can’t do anything modern on it, but that’s fine. Another parallel I’ll draw is viruses... stuxnet last year was a virus that rendered people’s PCs useless, this was seen as a virus and treated as such by the international IT community, it had the same effect of running the ‘upgrade’ to 8.5 for those CR100 owners that were not aware of the effect it would have on their hardware - of which there are plenty.
Final point on this is that I have walled off my network (thanks to the advice of other sonos users, not on the advice of Sonos themselves might I add) and I’m still concerned I might have missed something that may result in an update being applied and therefore rendering my kit useless. In other words, I’m scared of the company that sold me my kit and who have now tried to send an update to it to stop it working and doing the thing I bought it for in the first place. They may as well send someone around to my house with a hammer to trash it when I’m not looking, it’ll be exactly the same outcome.
Therefore is it moral or ethical. Absolutely not in my book.
Interestingly, this isn’t the first time I’ve been affected by something like this. Some years ago, I had a Sony pvr hard drive recorder that worked like a dream. That was until Sony decided to send a update and remove the pvr functionality, leaving me with a box that worked as long as I was there to press the record button when my tv show was about to start... similar behaviour from a corporate that left me with a device that didn’t do what it did when I bought it. Funnily enough I’ve not bought anything with a Sony badge since then and I’ll never do so again as I have a lack of trust in that brand due to this behaviour.
Coming at this as a CR100 owner (just the 2 of them) there are potential legal and moral / ethical issues here.
Legal first, I’m not in the law profession and there are obviously different laws across the world, but I’m assuming that legally (at least here in the uk) sonos have license conditions sewn up in such a way that they can legally send updates to my own purchased equipment in my house and render them useless whenever it decides to do so.
Moral / ethical next. I’m one of the vast majority of people who don’t have time to read dozens of pages of licence conditions in legal speak whenever I buy or upgrade something so I may have unwittingly signed up to conditions that allow them to do this. However, if I’d been alerted to a condition that stated that a company held the legal right to terminate the use of a product that I had legally purchased at a time of their choosing, guess what... I would not have bought it.
There’s plenty of parallels being drawn in this thread but I’m not sure they hit the mark for me. A parallel for me would be if Apple or Microsoft decided that they didn’t want anyone using legacy operating systems any more, so they sent out an ‘upgrade’ that rendered machines that used it unable to function ever again. They don’t do this and there are plenty of XP and NT systems out there, trust me I work in IT. Heck, I even have an old commodore Amiga that still works for the purpose it was purchased for - I accept I can’t do anything modern on it, but that’s fine. Another parallel I’ll draw is viruses... stuxnet last year was a virus that rendered people’s PCs useless, this was seen as a virus and treated as such by the international IT community, it had the same effect of running the ‘upgrade’ to 8.5 for those CR100 owners that were not aware of the effect it would have on their hardware - of which there are plenty.
Final point on this is that I have walled off my network (thanks to the advice of other sonos users, not on the advice of Sonos themselves might I add) and I’m still concerned I might have missed something that may result in an update being applied and therefore rendering my kit useless. In other words, I’m scared of the company that sold me my kit and who have now tried to send an update to it to stop it working and doing the thing I bought it for in the first place. They may as well send someone around to my house with a hammer to trash it when I’m not looking, it’ll be exactly the same outcome.
Therefore is it moral or ethical. Absolutely not in my book.
Interestingly, this isn’t the first time I’ve been affected by something like this. Some years ago, I had a Sony pvr hard drive recorder that worked like a dream. That was until Sony decided to send a update and remove the pvr functionality, leaving me with a box that worked as long as I was there to press the record button when my tv show was about to start... similar behaviour from a corporate that left me with a device that didn’t do what it did when I bought it. Funnily enough I’ve not bought anything with a Sony badge since then and I’ll never do so again as I have a lack of trust in that brand due to this behaviour.
Page 3 / 6
Enter your username or e-mail address. We'll send you an e-mail with instructions to reset your password.