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.
Page 5 / 6
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.
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?
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?
I have come to the conclusion that people who go on shouting that it was Sonos that killed the CR100 are trolls. Sonos offered an option over three months ago, on Feb 2, that would have allowed this lot to keep the CR100 in use with all the functionality that was present on it when they bought it from Sonos prior to 2009, along with many new features released free thereafter till 2018 Q1. Those that chose not to opt for that option are the ones that did the killing, not Sonos.
It does not take a lawyer to come to this obvious conclusion, just a little application of a rational mind. But it is nice to start a rant with dramatic statements like - Sonos killed my CR 100. By reaching inside my home. Dramatic and attention catching, but grossly inaccurate and a blatant misrepresentation.
It is time to stop feeding these trolls.
It does not take a lawyer to come to this obvious conclusion, just a little application of a rational mind. But it is nice to start a rant with dramatic statements like - Sonos killed my CR 100. By reaching inside my home. Dramatic and attention catching, but grossly inaccurate and a blatant misrepresentation.
It is time to stop feeding these trolls.
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 come to the conclusion that people who go on shouting that it was Sonos that killed the CR100 are trolls. Sonos offered an option over three months ago, on Feb 2, that would have allowed this lot to keep the CR100 in use with all the functionality that was present on it when they bought it from Sonos prior to 2009, along with many new features released free thereafter till 2018 Q1. Those that chose not to opt for that option are the ones that did the killing, not Sonos.
It does not take a lawyer to come to this obvious conclusion, just a little application of a rational mind. But it is nice to start a rant with dramatic statements like - Sonos killed my CR 100. By reaching inside my home. Dramatic and attention catching, but grossly inaccurate and a blatant misrepresentation.
It is time to stop feeding the trolls.
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 come to the conclusion that people who go on shouting that it was Sonos that killed the CR100 are trolls. Sonos offered an option over three months ago, on Feb 2, that would have allowed this lot to keep the CR100 in use with all the functionality that was present on it when they bought it from Sonos prior to 2009, along with many new features released free thereafter till 2018 Q1. Those that chose not to opt for that option are the ones that did the killing, not Sonos.
It does not take a lawyer to come to this obvious conclusion, just a little application of a rational mind. But it is nice to start a rant with dramatic statements like - Sonos killed my CR 100. By reaching inside my home. Dramatic and attention catching, but grossly inaccurate and a blatant misrepresentation.
Time to move on from this silly thread.
It does not take a lawyer to come to this obvious conclusion, just a little application of a rational mind. But it is nice to start a rant with dramatic statements like - Sonos killed my CR 100. By reaching inside my home. Dramatic and attention catching, but grossly inaccurate and a blatant misrepresentation.
Time to move on from this silly thread.
It is satisfying to start a tirade with dramatic statements like - Sonos killed my CR 100. By reaching inside my home. Dramatic and attention catching start, but also grossly inaccurate and a blatant misrepresentation and here is why:
Sonos offered an option over three months ago, on Feb 2, that would have allowed people to keep the CR100 in use with all the functionality that was present on it when they bought it from Sonos prior to 2009, along with many new features released free thereafter till 2018 Q1. Those that chose not to opt for that option are the ones that did the killing, not Sonos.
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.
Sonos offered an option over three months ago, on Feb 2, that would have allowed people to keep the CR100 in use with all the functionality that was present on it when they bought it from Sonos prior to 2009, along with many new features released free thereafter till 2018 Q1. Those that chose not to opt for that option are the ones that did the killing, not Sonos.
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.
Note for Sonos Staff: the continuing silly/incompetent moderation that either you or the Insided filter is doing here is messing up the flow of argument/conversation, as it so often does. Especially when the argument happens on a weekend where the automated filter works but the human responses needed are taking a holiday.
Will you be fixing this old matter that has probably arisen because of the equally old and unresolved spam issue at least before the decade is over?
Will you be fixing this old matter that has probably arisen because of the equally old and unresolved spam issue at least before the decade is over?
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.
so go away, troll.
Nahh, that would involve dealing with a troll:D
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.
Can't stand to look in the mirror, eh???
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.
Utter rubbish. For example, the Sonos offered option to prevent YOU from violating YOURSELF merely said this where the batteries were concerned:
"If you do go this route, you are acknowledging the risk of the aging lithium ion battery in your controller."
And just because you don't like the inevitable cons involved in an option that prevents YOU from killing your beloved CR100 does not mean it is not a REAL option.
In any case, there is nothing you can do about this except live with it. Or file a suit if you have the gumption to do more than rant here in a completely ineffectual way.
All the conversations here throw up in sharp relief one I had a few months ago with a savvy member here on the subject of the irritatingly frequent controller updates that Sonos puts forth these days for what is just a home audio system at the end of the day. He had explained how he had set up his multi zone local NAS based system so that it was immune from these Sonos antics, by denying the internet and therefore Sonos any access to any parts of it and using it thereby in the manner he bought it, as a stable home audio system for many years now. Obviously, it in turn had no access to the net and he was fine with that state of affairs; neither had he any need to buy more Sonos kit for his home. It isn't something that I would like to emulate, using internet music services as I do, but it was a viewpoint to respect, for being supported by effective actions and not just words and rants.
I can't recall if the CR100/200 were part of his set up, but if they were I am sure all this noise and heat over the CR100 would not be even a small cloud on his horizon.
I can't recall if the CR100/200 were part of his set up, but if they were I am sure all this noise and heat over the CR100 would not be even a small cloud on his horizon.
And a question addressed to the community regulars only:
Suppose someone was to choose the Sonos explained option of keeping the CR100 alive, apart from the battery issue, what would be the downsides that will be faced? What dire things will happen if someone was to choose to not get any further updates? I can understand adding new units will not be possible, but what else?
Suppose someone was to choose the Sonos explained option of keeping the CR100 alive, apart from the battery issue, what would be the downsides that will be faced? What dire things will happen if someone was to choose to not get any further updates? I can understand adding new units will not be possible, but what else?
Now that I have found them, his exact words quoted below, that explains the above in his own words, from one that has chosen to get off the Sonos upgrade path for good:
"In this case I like the hardware the way it was designed, fit for its original purpose. I resent any company removing features I use in order to implement features I don't want without my permission. Especially on hardware I own.
But I am content to keep the system, preserved, walled off from the internet. I am seperate from Sonos now, I have purchased my last hardware.
Leave my system intact. I see no reason for it to degrade outside of hardware failure and as the owner of many ZP80's and CR100's I am quite adept at repair.
That's all I'm asking for...to be left alone."
So he does have CR100s as I expected, and isn't raving about losing them because - he isn't going to lose them. But he does not want any new features either, so he understands that he can't have his cake and eat it as well by wanting the Cr100 to work, but also wanting everything else Sonos does to enhance the system after April 2018 to also do so.
As I said, this isn't something I would do, but I can see the rational and clear thinking in his behaviour, something that seems missing in many posts on this thread.
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.
And you are 100% wrong on this. I have no doubt you feel this way, but it's completely inaccurate. First off, Sonos isn't updating their software on the products you own without your consent. You have to accept the updates and/or turn on auto updating. So it would be more accurate to say that you 'invited them in'. And has been mentioned already, you can avoid the software update simply by not inviting them in.
As far as destroying your property, that's incorrect as well. The CR100 is your property. The software on it is not your property. You have a license to use the software given to you by Sonos, that they actually give to you for free. If you actually owned it, you could legally modify it and do whatever you want with it. Even sell it. You can't do that though, because you don't own it. So, since the CR100, the hardware, has not been damaged in any way, your property is not damaged. For that matter you could repurpose the CR100 for whatever you wish, even using the APIs Sonos provides to allow it to control your system in some fashion.
And in case, you're thinking Sonos is unethical because they gave you a software license instead of giving you the software or letting you buy in outright, this is how software has worked for decades. This is why you're always asked to sign a license agreement before using software. It's even more relevant in today's world with cloud computing.
All that said, there is no doubt that Sonos sold it's hardware with a relative understanding that the free software would be available and support for several years.to come. Sonos knows that and clearly has attempted to meet that expectation. To the satisfaction of some, but clearly not all. I'd say this is where it gets into the issue of morality. It's subjective. A person can decide not to purchase from Sonos again and/ot sell all they have for whatever reason they want.
Personally, I think this sort of thing is going to happen more and more with networked appliances. 5-6 years from now, I would not be surprised if original echo's, google home, etc. are no longer functioning because they can't handle the latest tech. Either that or there is an Alexa 2.0 or something, and the original echo's can't work with it.
As for the dog analogy, it looks like it works for describing how you feel, but doesn't come close to matching reality. A dog can't get software upgrades. You own the dog, you don't have a license to use the dog's functionality.
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.
Yep, definitely another CR100 thread.
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.
Except that's not accurate. Sonos is not pushing any software on to your equipment without your consent. Either you except or reject each update individually, or you specify that you automatically want to update whenever they are available. By your comments below, you seem to understand this, so I'm not sure why you would chose to word it as if you had no chose in the matter.
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.
That is effectively what happened, but technically it's not. As with many modern products these days, you purchase the hardware and are given a free license for the software. Sonos didn't change anything on the hardware, just the software that you had a free license for. I get that that is irrelevant from the point of view of many, and it would clearly be bad business if a company made a habit of revoking free licenses. There may even be a legal case that a company most maintain free licenses to users if it was implied to be part of what a customer was buying when they bought hardware.
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.
I find it interesting that some are trying to call Sonos an appliance, like a kitchen toaster, for their analogies, while others are calling it like a computer. The reality is that it's both, and more, since each product is designed (some dependent) to work with other products, services, and the cloud. I think that changes things enough from other products so that most of the analogies are leaving out important aspects. I'd honestly say that this would be more like Amazon deciding that the echo 1.0 can no longer function, communicate with Alexa. That seems shocking right now, but 10 years from now when the tech and protocols have advanced significantly and relatively few are still using dot 1.0 and perhaps similar replacements are readily available and cheap?....I can see that. And to be clear, you aren't buying Alexa when you buy an echo dot.
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.
That's an over reaction. Sonos themselves told us that you can opt not to take the update. Walling the network is a way of preventing you from accidentally accepting the update. It is not to keep Sonos from updating software against your wishes like a virus.
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.
I would guess that's a licensing or patent issue. Perhaps similar to how denon had to remove some functionality because infringed on Sonos patents. And that's a normal reaction, I don't doubt that. I boycotted, Best Buy for several years because of an incident I had with them. It came to the point though that I realized that I was a one off situation, and I was hurting myself by limiting my buying options much more than it was bothering Best Buy.
Regardless, everyone has a right to hold a grudge or not. Morality is subjective.
I never realised Tesla has the ability to remotely kill their cars.
The story involves a company that buys insurance write-offs, repairs and then sells them on. The written off Tesla was bought like any other car for £15K, repaired and sold on.
Later on the new owner had the car remotely killed by Tesla as It was reported as an insurance write off ...
The story involves a company that buys insurance write-offs, repairs and then sells them on. The written off Tesla was bought like any other car for £15K, repaired and sold on.
Later on the new owner had the car remotely killed by Tesla as It was reported as an insurance write off ...
Hi Melvimbe,
I can understand some of your arguments, but it’s partly what sonos have done but also partly how they have done it...
“Except that's not accurate. Sonos is not pushing any software on to your equipment without your consent. Either you except or reject each update individually, or you specify that you automatically want to update whenever they are available. By your comments below, you seem to understand this, so I'm not sure why you would chose to word it as if you had no chose in the matter.”
You’re right I do not have to accept it, but when the ‘do you want to upgrade?’ box appears, there’s no reference to the fact that by choosing to update you are about to brick some of your hardware. In the case of the CR100,these were £350 boxes back in the day so they’re not cheap. Also, if you do end up updating Sonos refuse to let you downgrade back to a working version either.. finally, there’s no option to opt out of the update, you have to ensure no one in your household presses the update button either by taking action such as locking down your network or relying on everyone (including your children) remembering to not press update on any of your sonos controllers or tablet controllers... this has done in a way that leaves a sour taste in the mouth. If sonos had made the update process highlight that it was about to brick the controller and it gave you an option to opt out of future updates such that existing functionality was maintained I think most people would have been happy with this, but they didn’t.
“I find it interesting that some are trying to call Sonos an appliance, like a kitchen toaster, for their analogies, while others are calling it like a computer. The reality is that it's both, and more, since each product is designed (some dependent) to work with other products, services, and the cloud. I think that changes things enough from other products so that most of the analogies are leaving out important aspects. I'd honestly say that this would be more like Amazon deciding that the echo 1.0 can no longer function, communicate with Alexa. That seems shocking right now, but 10 years from now when the tech and protocols have advanced significantly and relatively few are still using dot 1.0 and perhaps similar replacements are readily available and cheap?....I can see that. And to be clear, you aren't buying Alexa when you buy an echo dot.”
Interesting analogy here, one with many parallels... I do have an echo dot and would be annoyed if existing functionality was withdrawn at any time in the future as the packaging did not say it was a time limited product. However, I don’t expect all new functionality to work in finitum as hardware does move on. The other difference is that an echo dot is a £40 device, not something that people have spend £1000’s on over the years - this is a factor as well in my opinion.
“That's an over reaction. Sonos themselves told us that you can opt not to take the update. Walling the network is a way of preventing you from accidentally accepting the update. It is not to keep Sonos from updating software against your wishes like a virus.”
Disagree on this point. If sonos had provided options to avoid the update, instructions as to how to prevent the update hitting and they provided a downgrade path for those who had accidentally accepted the update then I’d have accepted this as fair and moral. The fact is they did not provide any advice as to how to prevent the update and they only referenced sonos community generated instructions how to achieve this after a lot of bad feeling being vented on the boards.
Thanks for the decent reasoned response though !!
I can understand some of your arguments, but it’s partly what sonos have done but also partly how they have done it...
“Except that's not accurate. Sonos is not pushing any software on to your equipment without your consent. Either you except or reject each update individually, or you specify that you automatically want to update whenever they are available. By your comments below, you seem to understand this, so I'm not sure why you would chose to word it as if you had no chose in the matter.”
You’re right I do not have to accept it, but when the ‘do you want to upgrade?’ box appears, there’s no reference to the fact that by choosing to update you are about to brick some of your hardware. In the case of the CR100,these were £350 boxes back in the day so they’re not cheap. Also, if you do end up updating Sonos refuse to let you downgrade back to a working version either.. finally, there’s no option to opt out of the update, you have to ensure no one in your household presses the update button either by taking action such as locking down your network or relying on everyone (including your children) remembering to not press update on any of your sonos controllers or tablet controllers... this has done in a way that leaves a sour taste in the mouth. If sonos had made the update process highlight that it was about to brick the controller and it gave you an option to opt out of future updates such that existing functionality was maintained I think most people would have been happy with this, but they didn’t.
“I find it interesting that some are trying to call Sonos an appliance, like a kitchen toaster, for their analogies, while others are calling it like a computer. The reality is that it's both, and more, since each product is designed (some dependent) to work with other products, services, and the cloud. I think that changes things enough from other products so that most of the analogies are leaving out important aspects. I'd honestly say that this would be more like Amazon deciding that the echo 1.0 can no longer function, communicate with Alexa. That seems shocking right now, but 10 years from now when the tech and protocols have advanced significantly and relatively few are still using dot 1.0 and perhaps similar replacements are readily available and cheap?....I can see that. And to be clear, you aren't buying Alexa when you buy an echo dot.”
Interesting analogy here, one with many parallels... I do have an echo dot and would be annoyed if existing functionality was withdrawn at any time in the future as the packaging did not say it was a time limited product. However, I don’t expect all new functionality to work in finitum as hardware does move on. The other difference is that an echo dot is a £40 device, not something that people have spend £1000’s on over the years - this is a factor as well in my opinion.
“That's an over reaction. Sonos themselves told us that you can opt not to take the update. Walling the network is a way of preventing you from accidentally accepting the update. It is not to keep Sonos from updating software against your wishes like a virus.”
Disagree on this point. If sonos had provided options to avoid the update, instructions as to how to prevent the update hitting and they provided a downgrade path for those who had accidentally accepted the update then I’d have accepted this as fair and moral. The fact is they did not provide any advice as to how to prevent the update and they only referenced sonos community generated instructions how to achieve this after a lot of bad feeling being vented on the boards.
Thanks for the decent reasoned response though !!
You’re right I do not have to accept it, but when the ‘do you want to upgrade?’ box appears, there’s no reference to the fact that by choosing to update you are about to brick some of your hardware. In the case of the CR100,these were £350 boxes back in the day so they’re not cheap. Also, if you do end up updating Sonos refuse to let you downgrade back to a working version either.. finally, there’s no option to opt out of the update, you have to ensure no one in your household presses the update button either by taking action such as locking down your network or relying on everyone (including your children) remembering to not press update on any of your sonos controllers or tablet controllers... this has done in a way that leaves a sour taste in the mouth. If sonos had made the update process highlight that it was about to brick the controller and it gave you an option to opt out of future updates such that existing functionality was maintained I think most people would have been happy with this, but they didn’t.
Sonos did send out emails regarding the CR100, correct? Still you have point regarding specifying the features changes for upgrades. I do not that that would stop someone from still upgrading accidently though.
Interesting analogy here, one with many parallels... I do have an echo dot and would be annoyed if existing functionality was withdrawn at any time in the future as the packaging did not say it was a time limited product. However, I don’t expect all new functionality to work in finitum as hardware does move on. The other difference is that an echo dot is a £40 device, not something that people have spend £1000’s on over the years - this is a factor as well in my opinion.
Agree that cost is a factor. In some way, I think that is part of the reason Sonos choose to do it this way. Many other companies will just put an entire product line to pasture. Sonos 1.0 is dead, everything is 2.0 going forward. However, because this is a whole home product where people are investing a lot and intend to add on products in the future, having no new functionality when it's technically possible and having to scrap everything they have to new stuff that does pretty much what the old stuff does...they wouldn't be that happy.
Disagree on this point. If sonos had provided options to avoid the update, instructions as to how to prevent the update hitting and they provided a downgrade path for those who had accidentally accepted the update then I’d have accepted this as fair and moral. The fact is they did not provide any advice as to how to prevent the update and they only referenced sonos community generated instructions how to achieve this after a lot of bad feeling being vented on the boards.
Well, when it asks if you want to update now, you say no. I don't know what other instructions would be required. As far as a downgrade path, that implies that Sonos is going to support multiple software versions. Then, for the next upgrade, another group of people what their favorite version supported because they like the black background over the white, or vice versa. It's opening up a potential can of worms. A common problem with IT support, as I imagine you are familiar with. I personally work with Oracle ebusiness, where pretty much every customer is pretty much on their own unique version. It's a nightmare trying to get good support.
Thanks for the decent reasoned response though !!
likewise.
Enter your E-mail address. We'll send you an e-mail with instructions to reset your password.