End of Software Support - Clarifications

End of Software Support - Clarifications
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.

4256 replies

J

I did not invest in any Hue products for that very reason.


The difference i feel, between a Hue bulb and a Sonos speaker, is that the price of a sonos speaker is a lot higher than the price of a sonos speaker, and also, a bulb has always been a disposable item, whereas this has never been true with regards to speakers and sound systems.

 

Digressing a little - if the Hue bridge issue calls for replacement of many bulbs it becomes an issue of costs,inconvenience and environmental damage; I don't know if that is the case there.

Plus, the latest LED bulbs are no longer disposable as the old filament bulbs were, they are now built for years or even decades of service life in a typical home. So landfilling them before they die is just as irresponsible as doing that to a working Sonos speaker. And those that believe that recycling of such products, even where it is actually done, is as complete as it is for paper and tin cans are allowing themselves to be fooled because it is convenient to do so.

It is certainly a digression.  This has nothing to do with bulbs.  It is like making the Bridge redundant so that people need a Boost to have a fully functioning system.  Except that with Sonos. you don’t need a Bridge or a Boost.

K

 I am sure if you are interested you’ll be able to investigate this fully and understand UK recycling.

I am not interested in what the UK does for recycling in general; on the other hand, if you can point to anything in that data that tells how much percent by weight/volume of trashed products like Sonos is recycled such that it goes back into a new product made either by the same maker or anyone else, and therefore does not end up in landfills, that will be of interest. Somehow, I doubt the link will shed any light on that relevant bit of information for the case we are discussing. I also doubt that this percentage will go into double digits, but that is just my reckoning.

G
Userlevel 6
Badge +4

 I am sure if you are interested you’ll be able to investigate this fully and understand UK recycling.

I am not interested in what the UK does for recycling in general; on the other hand, if you can point to anything in that data that tells how much percent by weight/volume of trashed products like Sonos is recycled such that it goes back into a new product made either by the same maker or anyone else, and therefore does not end up in landfills, that will be of interest. Somehow, I doubt the link will shed any light on that relevant bit of information for the case we are discussing. I also doubt that this percentage will go into double digits, but that is just my reckoning.

I am not here to do investigation work for you.

You made a wild claim that only paper and tin cans were recycled - I provided evidence to demonstrate that could not be true.

Its up to you to prove your point, not me; and I’ve disproved it anyway

K

I made no such claim. Wild or otherwise.

D
Userlevel 2
Badge +3

 

Sonos has turned me, from being an avid Sonos supporter, to a “Never sonos again”.

A long post from me, explaining my reasons for this exact change, has gone into the spam filter.

Also, I expand the “never Sonos again”, to never again a smart audio system that does not have a cheap and easily replaceable smart front end. For instance, I would not hesitate to buy or recommend Echo Dots, or even the cheap Show 5, but never something like the Echo Studio or Echo Sub.

And a link to an article that is another example why looking to not buy expensive integrated smart solutions/products is the smart thing to do in future:

https://www.slashgear.com/signify-philips-hue-bridge-end-of-support-owner-reaction-06612426/

 

 

I did not invest in any Hue products for that very reason.


The difference i feel, between a Hue bulb and a Sonos speaker, is that the price of a sonos speaker is a lot higher than the price of a sonos speaker, and also, a bulb has always been a disposable item, whereas this has never been true with regards to speakers and sound systems.

 

Looking at that graph that shows how much ram and rom each sonos speaker has, it is clear that they target the units with 32Mbyte ram and rom

It is also clear that the next speakers in line will the the ones that have only 64 Mbyte.

 

This means that the Play 1, the play 3 & Connect amp are next in line and anyone pondering, whether or not to go for the 30% off, should take a good hard look at their current setup, and be aware that in a few years they will have to do the same, all over again with their 1, 3 and Connect amp products.

 

Not to mention the Play 5 2.gen they want you to buy instead of the 1.gen...It has only got 256 Mbyte, and rumours has it that there is a 3.gen play 5 being made, so if i get a Play 5 2.gen, to replace my 1.gen Play 5, i might have to do it all over again in 5 years time.

 

And yes….I am also looking at something that has a speaker, and amplifier, and then i can buy some more inexpensive hardware to do the actual music streaming, that can be just changed for cheap, the day it stops being supported.

Funny that people was mad that they had to scrap their hue bridge that cost 60USD to replace, but Sonos thought that making people change speakers that cost multiple hundred dollars, would be fine.


TBH i think sonos has been living in a bubble, where they convinced themselves, that they were a bit like apple, and the “followers” would loyally and blindly follow the advice of sonos.

Huge difference between 32 and 256MB theres 8 times more memory in the gen2, i dont think thats ever going to be a problem, and If so, i hope sonos Will find a way through the problem, Im happy If my play 5’s gen2 last for atleast 7-8 years, i Will just save a few bucks every month for years and buy the new ones, imagine what people spend on smartphones, thousand dollars every 2 years or so, its tech, but i have confidence in the 256mb menory, 

J

It is indeed masses more memory in this context.  Sonos have probably had only a fraction of the 32MB as marginal memory to play with and have kept products fully updated for 15 years.  I think the effective increase is much bigger than 8x.  I suspect even the Play:3 with its 64MB will last much longer than the minimum guaranteed by Sonos.  I certainly won’t be worrying about it.

D
Userlevel 7
Badge +5

Huge difference between 32 and 256MB theres 8 times more memory in the gen2, i dont think thats ever going to be a problem, and If so, i hope sonos Will find a way through the problem, Im happy If my play 5’s gen2 last for atleast 7-8 years, i Will just save a few bucks every month for years and buy the new ones, imagine what people spend on smartphones, thousand dollars every 2 years or so, its tech, but i have confidence in the 256mb menory, 

I bet that when they designed the Play 5 1.gen they also said “32 Mbyte is enough, we will never fill that up”

 

Also, your claims that sonos will never use up 256 Mbyte makes Sonos look really silly for having put 1Gbyte of ram and rom into the One, Beam,  amp, one gen2 and the move.


What on earth were they thinking off, wasting good ram and rom on someting that Daniel says they will never use anyway.

 

How is it the old saying goes…..640kb ought to be enough for everybody.

J

I made no such claim. Wild or otherwise.

Indeed you didn’t.  A wild claim from you would also be a first on here, I believe.

D
Userlevel 7
Badge +5

It is indeed masses more memory in this context.  Sonos have probably had only a fraction of the 32MB as marginal memory to play with and have kept products fully updated for 15 years.  I think the effective increase is much bigger than 8x.  I suspect even the Play:3 with its 64MB will last much longer than the minimum guaranteed by Sonos.  I certainly won’t be worrying about it.


Until the streaming providers change to formats that are more compressed to save bandwidth cost, and the processor is not able to decode the stream fast enough.

 

I think the worst problem here is that sonos did not update their product in 6 years.

 

The play 5 1.gen was released in 2009, and i bought mine in 2015.

 

Why on earth did they not make a “Play 5.1” in 2012, and the only difference would be to put in a new processor and more ram/rom

 

Certainly they would be able to get a faster CPU for the same money in 2012, and also the prices on flash and ram storage chips would mean that they could get a 256 Mbyte variant for the same money in 2012.

 

Why use the same processor and low amount of ram for 6 years, release the 2.gen and then only support the Play 5 1.gen’s for 5 years after that.

J

Huge difference between 32 and 256MB theres 8 times more memory in the gen2, i dont think thats ever going to be a problem, and If so, i hope sonos Will find a way through the problem, Im happy If my play 5’s gen2 last for atleast 7-8 years, i Will just save a few bucks every month for years and buy the new ones, imagine what people spend on smartphones, thousand dollars every 2 years or so, its tech, but i have confidence in the 256mb menory, 

I bet that when they designed the Play 5 1.gen they also said “32 Mbyte is enough, we will never fill that up”

 

Also, your claims that sonos will never use up 256 Mbyte makes Sonos look really silly for having put 1Gbyte of ram and rom into the One, Beam,  amp, one gen2 and the move.


What on earth were they thinking off, wasting good ram and rom on someting that Daniel says they will never use anyway.

 

How is it the old saying goes…..640kb ought to be enough for everybody.

Memory is cheap now compared with 2009.  The impact of overloading on cost is much less significant now. 

It’s a fair point. though,  that developments always, inevitably, overtake memory that seems more than adequate now.  So it’s a judgement call, as none of us knows.  My judgement is that the Play:5 gen 2 will be good for another 10 years plus, and I will act accordingly.  You may make a different call and act differently.  Fine.

Incidentally, I love the way you switch your arguments just to score points.  Accusing Sonos of putting too much memory in! Hilarious.  Thanks for the entertainment.

D
Userlevel 7
Badge +5

Memory is cheap now compared with 2009.  The impact of overloading on cost is much less significant now. 

It’s a fair point. though,  that developments always, inevitably, overtake memory that seems more than adequate now.  So it’s a judgement call, as none of us knows.  My judgement is that the Play:5 gen 2 will be good for another 10 years plus, and I will act accordingly.  You may make a different call and act differently.  Fine.

Incidentally, I love the way you switch your arguments just to score points.  Accusing Sonos of putting too much memory in! Hilarious.  Thanks for the entertainment.

I did not change my argument, i just say that if Daniel says that they will NEVER use up 256 Mbyte and that this amount is enough forever, it seems stupid of them to put in more memory and storage. Even though prices on memory and flash has gone down, there is a price difference between a 256 Mbyte and a 1 Gbyte flash chip and if they did not think that it was ever needed, they could have saved some money.

Maybe it is only ½ dollar cheaper, but ½ dollar times 100.000 sold devices, would still make 50.000 dollars just for one component.

 

The reason they have put in 1 Gbyte is because they believe that within the lifespan of these devices, they will need about that much ram/rom and that means that inside those products lifecycle, the Play 5 2.gen will be not be around for as long and this device is being sold today, alongside those other products with 4 times ram and rom.

Rumours have it, that the Play 5 will have a “gen 3” iteration, released soon, and if this is true, then you can expect that the Play 5. 2.gen will be phased out “due to low ram/rom” in 5 years time.

J

Memory is cheap now compared with 2009.  The impact of overloading on cost is much less significant now. 

It’s a fair point. though,  that developments always, inevitably, overtake memory that seems more than adequate now.  So it’s a judgement call, as none of us knows.  My judgement is that the Play:5 gen 2 will be good for another 10 years plus, and I will act accordingly.  You may make a different call and act differently.  Fine.

Incidentally, I love the way you switch your arguments just to score points.  Accusing Sonos of putting too much memory in! Hilarious.  Thanks for the entertainment.

I did not change my argument, i just say that if Daniel says that they will NEVER use up 256 Mbyte and that this amount is enough forever, it seems stupid of them to put in more memory and storage. Even though prices on memory and flash has gone down, there is a price difference between a 256 Mbyte and a 1 Gbyte flash chip and if they did not think that it was ever needed, they could have saved some money.

Maybe it is only ½ dollar cheaper, but ½ dollar times 100.000 sold devices, would still make 50.000 dollars just for one component.

 

The reason they have put in 1 Gbyte is because they believe that within the lifespan of these devices, they will need about that much ram/rom and that means that inside those products lifecycle, the Play 5 2.gen will be not be around for as long and this device is being sold today, alongside those other products with 4 times ram and rom.

Rumours have it, that the Play 5 will have a “gen 3” iteration, released soon, and if this is true, then you can expect that the Play 5. 2.gen will be phased out “due to low ram/rom” in 5 years time.

Well your speculation is as good as mine.  I have heard all sorts of rumours about Sonos products.  And interested to learn that you have inside information about why Sonos put 1GB of memory in the One.  Also interesting to learn that you no longer believe that Sonos put too much memory in the One, so that you can re-justify a claim that the gen 2 Play;5 is a dead man walking.  Gets funnier by the post.

D
Userlevel 7
Badge +5

Memory is cheap now compared with 2009.  The impact of overloading on cost is much less significant now. 

It’s a fair point. though,  that developments always, inevitably, overtake memory that seems more than adequate now.  So it’s a judgement call, as none of us knows.  My judgement is that the Play:5 gen 2 will be good for another 10 years plus, and I will act accordingly.  You may make a different call and act differently.  Fine.

Incidentally, I love the way you switch your arguments just to score points.  Accusing Sonos of putting too much memory in! Hilarious.  Thanks for the entertainment.

I did not change my argument, i just say that if Daniel says that they will NEVER use up 256 Mbyte and that this amount is enough forever, it seems stupid of them to put in more memory and storage. Even though prices on memory and flash has gone down, there is a price difference between a 256 Mbyte and a 1 Gbyte flash chip and if they did not think that it was ever needed, they could have saved some money.

Maybe it is only ½ dollar cheaper, but ½ dollar times 100.000 sold devices, would still make 50.000 dollars just for one component.

 

The reason they have put in 1 Gbyte is because they believe that within the lifespan of these devices, they will need about that much ram/rom and that means that inside those products lifecycle, the Play 5 2.gen will be not be around for as long and this device is being sold today, alongside those other products with 4 times ram and rom.

Rumours have it, that the Play 5 will have a “gen 3” iteration, released soon, and if this is true, then you can expect that the Play 5. 2.gen will be phased out “due to low ram/rom” in 5 years time.

Well your speculation is as good as mine.  I have heard all sorts of rumours about Sonos products.  And interested to learn that you have inside information about why Sonos put 1GB of memory in the One.  Also interesting to learn that you no longer believe that Sonos put too much memory in the One, so that you can re-justify a claim that the gen 2 Play;5 is a dead man walking.  Gets funnier by the post.

Wow you are really good at reading stuff in my posts that i never said.

 

I never said they put to much ram/rom in the newest products, i say that if DANIEL says that they will never use more than 256 Mbyte, then they would have put to much inside, in relation to his claims.

The Play 5 gen 1 was retired after 6 years, and the Play 5 gen 2 is 5 years old….

 

I would think it was risky to upgrade the gen 1 to a gen 2 right now, as Sonos tries to get people to do.

 

The SUB that i was thinking of buying before they did this, is from 2012 and only has 64/64 making it REALLY dangerous to buy right now, in a “long term” perspective.

Now that sonos has let the cat out of the box and showed that their products are not just gonna work “forever” whou would dare buy one of their older products.

bockersjv
Userlevel 7
Badge +21

Memory is cheap now compared with 2009.  The impact of overloading on cost is much less significant now. 

It’s a fair point. though,  that developments always, inevitably, overtake memory that seems more than adequate now.  So it’s a judgement call, as none of us knows.  My judgement is that the Play:5 gen 2 will be good for another 10 years plus, and I will act accordingly.  You may make a different call and act differently.  Fine.

Incidentally, I love the way you switch your arguments just to score points.  Accusing Sonos of putting too much memory in! Hilarious.  Thanks for the entertainment.

I did not change my argument, i just say that if Daniel says that they will NEVER use up 256 Mbyte and that this amount is enough forever, it seems stupid of them to put in more memory and storage. Even though prices on memory and flash has gone down, there is a price difference between a 256 Mbyte and a 1 Gbyte flash chip and if they did not think that it was ever needed, they could have saved some money.

Maybe it is only ½ dollar cheaper, but ½ dollar times 100.000 sold devices, would still make 50.000 dollars just for one component.

 

The reason they have put in 1 Gbyte is because they believe that within the lifespan of these devices, they will need about that much ram/rom and that means that inside those products lifecycle, the Play 5 2.gen will be not be around for as long and this device is being sold today, alongside those other products with 4 times ram and rom.

Rumours have it, that the Play 5 will have a “gen 3” iteration, released soon, and if this is true, then you can expect that the Play 5. 2.gen will be phased out “due to low ram/rom” in 5 years time.

Well your speculation is as good as mine.  I have heard all sorts of rumours about Sonos products.  And interested to learn that you have inside information about why Sonos put 1GB of memory in the One.  Also interesting to learn that you no longer believe that Sonos put too much memory in the One, so that you can re-justify a claim that the gen 2 Play;5 is a dead man walking.  Gets funnier by the post.

Wow you are really good at reading stuff in my posts that i never said.

 

I never said they put to much ram/rom in the newest products, i say that if DANIEL says that they will never use more than 256 Mbyte, then they would have put to much inside, in relation to his claims.

The Play 5 gen 1 was retired after 6 years, and the Play 5 gen 2 is 5 years old….

 

I would think it was risky to upgrade the gen 1 to a gen 2 right now, as Sonos tries to get people to do.

 

The SUB that i was thinking of buying before they did this, is from 2012 and only has 64/64 making it REALLY dangerous to buy right now, in a “long term” perspective.

Now that sonos has let the cat out of the box and showed that their products are not just gonna work “forever” whou would dare buy one of their older products.

Yet more misinformation and scaremongering.  If you choose to lock down your system it will run until the electronics fail, probably well over 10 years depending on the life of electronic components such as capacitors.  That applies to all electronics.  Maybe wait for the details on 9th May for the legacy kit?  

J

@DK_Madsen .  Re the Sub.  The Sub will continue to do what it has always done on 64MB of memory. - make loud, low frequency noises when instructed to do so by the Sonos player to which it is bonded.

As @bockersjv says, just scaremongering and misinformation from you.

K

 there is a price difference between a 256 Mbyte and a 1 Gbyte flash chip and if they did not think that it was ever needed, they could have saved some money.

Maybe it is only ½ dollar cheaper, but ½ dollar times 100.000 sold devices, would still make 50.000 dollars just for one component.

 

It is quite possible that for a manufacturer buying in bulk, there is no difference in costs by using the higher capacity chip; the retail prices one sees for any product have little to do with costs, and a lot more to do with what the market will bear.

It is also possible that the 256 Mb chip in the form needed for incorporation into the unit was not even available to Sonos anymore.

I also suspect that it not possible to any more make digital audio kit in high volumes that is NOT Hi Res capable; whether to enable that capability depends on many factors including backward compatibility and music play stability demands.

While I will be staying forever in legacy system mode as far as all my Sonos products are concerned, and have no interest in Hi Res audio, it will be interesting to see exactly how Sonos make use of this additional memory that they will have bought at the cost of significant present user base goodwill. Particularly because none of the present competitors are offering anything more than what Sonos offers today, except the Hi Res thing. I have 64Mb equipped play1 units that could not, even if I wanted them to, do much more than what they already do today, but it will be interesting to see what Sonos does with the 256Mb and then 1Gb expansion of their sand pit. I have a feeling that much of that will be in the sphere of TV audio.

D
Userlevel 7
Badge +5

@DK_Madsen .  Re the Sub.  The Sub will continue to do what it has always done on 64MB of memory. - make loud, low frequency noises when instructed to do so by the Sonos player to which it is bonded.

As @bockersjv says, just scaremongering and misinformation from you.

But Sonos says that they need the same firmware on every unit in the system….How will they fit that firmware onto the sub, with only 64 Mbyte of ram and rom ?

 

This is literally their own argument for not being able to update the firmware in the play 5, that it does not have enough flash and ram to continue running the newer firmwares.

Smilja

@DK_Madsen, if you take a closer look you’ll see that only the voice-enabled products and the Sonos AMP have got 1 GB RAM.

 

 

But Sonos says that they need the same firmware on every unit in the system….How will they fit that firmware onto the sub, with only 64 Mbyte of ram and rom ?

 

 

Sorry I don’t get what you are talking about. The Sub is running the very same firmware build as all the other Sonos products do. You are purposely confusing facts.

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

@DK_Madsen I see your point about what will happen with the Sub when Sonos firmware starts needing more than 64 mb and it deserves an answer. But I don't know what that answer is.

K

Further to the above, my 64mb play 1 units of 2014 are also not going to remain modern for long, but as long as they keep doing what they do today, I don't have a problem. But I would not today buy a new 64 mb driven Sub, for concerns of how much more than 5 years life - the present Sonos promise - it has.

D
Userlevel 7
Badge +5

Sorry I don’t get what you are talking about. The Sub is running the very same firmware build as all the other Sonos products do. You are purposely confusing facts.

Sonos has said that they need to make the Play 5 and a few other units legacy because the firmware HAS to be the same on every single sonos unit in your system, otherwise they will not “communicate”.

The reason they legacy these products is that the firmware can not be held within 32Mbyte anymore.

So when they reach the 64 Mbyte limit, they will have to legacy all 64 Mbyte products as well.

I have earlier suggested that they just make a branch of firmware for the Play 5 for example, where they remove every feature that the 5 does not support from the firmware, as this will offcourse free up some room in the firmware.

Play 1 does not support airplay, alexa, etc, so remove those features from the 5 firmware, then there is room if they need more space for changes to the 5’s core functionality (Streaming from the internet, streaming MP3’s from a NAS and so on) and it will still be able to do multi room, even though the other units get’s new functions and firmware.

K

Which raises another interesting point. I assume that the Sub being made and sold today is 64 mb. And Sonos is promising full support for that for 5 years from today. 

Does that mean that Sonos will restrict firmware size to 64 mb for the next five years and not use the memory available in the 256 mb and 1 gb units for another five years?

Again, I don't have a good answer to this question as well.

 

K

@DK_Madsen Sonos say that unless units are on the same firmware version, they cannot communicate or do multi room. Which is why your idea doesn't work.

Why Sonos says this is not something I can challenge, not knowing what's under the hood of their system. Or, even if I knew it, not being able to understand it!

 

melvimbe

 

Why on earth did they not make a “Play 5.1” in 2012, and the only difference would be to put in a new processor and more ram/rom

 

Certainly they would be able to get a faster CPU for the same money in 2012, and also the prices on flash and ram storage chips would mean that they could get a 256 Mbyte variant for the same money in 2012.

 

Why use the same processor and low amount of ram for 6 years, release the 2.gen and then only support the Play 5 1.gen’s for 5 years after that.

 

I’m not in manufacturing and have no idea what sort of deals Sonos made when purchasing it’s hardware components.  As a hypothetical, perhaps Sonos was able to get a bulk rate for memory over a multi year period on contract.  Another aspect is that changes in hardware surely comes with significant costs in testing out the new hardware, sourcing, manufacturing, etc.  The point being that I don’t think it’s simply a matter of slapping in new hardware when the price drops low enough and throwing it out in the market.  That may be the case for larger companies like Amazon who can create a brand new echo dot every year at a high enough volume that associated costs aren’t nearly as relevant, but not sure that is the case for Sonos and other relatively smaller companies.

 

As far as all the different products using the same firmware version, I don’t believe that means that every piece of code is 100% identical on each product. The same have the same OS and various drivers where it needs to and makes sense, but products that don’t have a certain feature surely don’t have the coding for that feature.  A play:1 surely doesn’t have the coding to support airplay, voice control, or process a dolby digital stream and send channels to surround speakers.  Likewise, a sub doesn’t even need to have the ability to directly stream from a streaming service.  There certainly appears to be a common base code on Sonos products, and Sonos has stated so by saying the share the same firmware version, but I don’t see that meaning that products have code in memory that they cannot utilize.

 

As far as whether it makes sense to buy an older model like the play:5 gen 2 or playbar right now, IMO, it’s not just a matter of longevity as it is a matter of potential new features that a play:5 gen 3 or playbar gen 2 could bring.  

Danny
Smilja

Sorry I don’t get what you are talking about. The Sub is running the very same firmware build as all the other Sonos products do. You are purposely confusing facts.

Sonos has said that they need to make the Play 5 and a few other units legacy because the firmware HAS to be the same on every single sonos unit in your system, otherwise they will not “communicate”.

The reason they legacy these products is that the firmware can not be held within 32Mbyte anymore.

So when they reach the 64 Mbyte limit, they will have to legacy all 64 Mbyte products as well.

 

Considering that Sonos have managed to support up to 15 year old gear until today, they will probably manage to support devices with twice the RAM/ROM of the now legacy gear for at least 8 years from present. A lot can happen in 8 years, the Sub (or any other Sonos product for that matter) may become defective and has to be replaced with a hypothetical 2nd gen Sub anyway for instance. There’s no point in driving yourself mad about anything that may or may not arise in a few years time.

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