End of Software Support - Clarifications

This is a very interesting read even if a couple of points are beyond my comprehension.  I think a fundamental issue in big tech is that these companies are also investment vehicles for wall street.  When the interests of customers (high quality, long lasting products, excellent customer service) and the interests of shareholders (profit, increasing customer base, reduced costs) align, then both groups are happy.  More and more in big tech, wall street seems to have far more influence and often the best interests of the customers fall to the side.  I understand it.  I understand legally that executives have a fiduciary duty to shareholders.  I have no idea how to resolve this issue in publicly traded companies.  I just know that I don't want to have to consider this stuff when deciding whether to purchase an expensive product designed to stream music through my house.

Look...I’m not saying technology doesn’t evolve over time.  But knowing that,  the product should have been designed so that you don’t have to throw the baby (long life hardware  items, speakers, enclosures, etc.) out with the bathwater (outdated software and electronics).  When you guys designed your products you should have foreseen the customer problems that are now consuming your business.  The areas that were most vulnerable to change should have been isolated into a single component that would be subject to change,  and,  only if the customer so desired.  Functionality of the system at any equipment age should not be affected if the customer does not wish to progress to the next technological level.

Update:

It’s been over a week since I emailed to Mr. Spence and he has not responded. So my intentions are as follows:

1. Contact all retail operations (Amazon, Best Buy, Costco, etc) and make sure they know about the disposable products Sonos is selling.
2. Look into the legal ramifications, and taking the appropriate action.  

I’d advise everyone who just received the user experience survey from Sonos to factor recent announcements into their response....

(I’m gonna ruminate.)
While I agree wholeheartedly in principle, this is hindsight. It may well be that Sonos, with this purge of sorts, is underway toward a newer model path that can sustain a new level that at least matches their past support durations, not directly, but in relation to the far shorter period that most consumer electronics companies offer, while simultaneously covering their arse, so to speak, to a certain degree with the 5-years-from-discontinuation support decrees that are newly described (and hopefully from an unspoken “under-promise, over-deliver” framing). Is this all a bit at odds with previous messaging and unfortunate? You bet your speakers it is. But at the time the Sonos system was conceived and engineered initially, these challenges, the breadth of the product/tech landscape and “smart” integrations needed/possible/expected, along with today’s product and update cycles that have accelerated along with all of it --- these concerns just didn’t exist in the way they now do. 

This is all a bummer in many ways. I was remarkably frustrated at the news. It truly changes things. But, taking everything into consideration and really thinking about the future, being more pragmatic with an eyes-now-open to IoT in general, is hugely beneficial for myself and I’d imagine a gigantic number of others, whether invested in Sonos or just hearing/reading about all of this from the sidelines.

What I do not quite understand is the opinion of some that quite literally have been approaching all of this with a certain disparity,  a) understanding the nature of tech and IoT and wanting all future updates and tech integration it offers, while b) at the same time wanting stability and past tech and hardware behaviour to remain unaffected and as-is. That want, we can clearly see, is at odds with itself. This is quite literally a cake-and-eat-it-too stance, wanting legacy and modern, especially when taken without any specific and deep understanding of the proprietary tech and limitations involved in this particular scenario. Plenty of (not quite adequate) analogies can be made; plenty of speculation can be made; plenty of posturing can be made…. But at the end of the day none that really matters. Things are as they are and you get on with it as best you see fit. The sky isn’t falling.

My position has softened. I’m sitting tight until May. I’m auditioning some new gear with generous return policies. I’m trying stuff out. I’m continuing to use Sonos for now. I’m also suspending further investment in Sonos for now, not from a disgruntled bent, but just a pragmatic one. If the future with Sonos is compelling, I’ll pay attention, and if not, I won’t. I (and I expect most) Sonos users entered into the ecosystem for convenience first and foremost, not longevity, or at least a middle-ground between the two. Longevity solutions are still around, tried and true, as they have always been. Sonos is not quite (never was as is evident now) within that world, and figuring out how to best bridge the two worlds is what each person figures out in a way best for them.

We’ve all been a bit naive, and from where I stand that includes Sonos as well. The modern digital world is still rather new… some naivety makes sense. I’m appreciating the lesson here.

2 comments:

1. I understand technology marches forward. The difference whether planned or unplanned, we are dealing with built in obsolescence! If unplanned, Sonos has had plenty of time to “make it right” to slow or stop the bleeding. I’m sorry, 30% trade-in is insulting. We’re not talking about a Kia or Hyundai, we’re talking exotic.
2. My guess is most Sonos users are somewhat cutting edge techies with above average disposable (and I use the term loosely) funds. Many people here have already voiced they have and still use premium electronics! I’m all for moving forward with tech, but do it responsibly. I know there is a way to, as you said, “have your cake and eat it too”.

Very well stated.  However,  isn’t it still appropriate that we judge things in hindsight in order to express our disappointments with the past and be sure that we and those around us aren’t doomed to repeat them in the future?  As you said, technology unknowns at the time are somewhat to blame,  but Sonos does bear responsibility for some foresight if they are to be considered forerunners in the field.  When a product is designed,  there has to be forays into the unknown,  or else there would be no technological advancement ,  would there?  So the company should be judged by their ability to understand what the possible consequences of their actions are,  and how successful they are at predicting them.  That’s what makes them stand or fall by the wayside.  Sonos included.

Boeing for instance, made one helluva misjudgment on the affects that changes they made on their 737 max would have on flight performance.  They can’t pass that off to hindsight just because at the time they couldn’t forsee the consequences of their design decisions.  The key is to find these problems out before you sell the product to your customers.  The reason I use this example is because I spent 35 years in the aircraft design business,  I know what it’s like.

Hello,

we have saved money for a couple of years to be able to place a complete sonos experience throughout our entire house.  We are very happy with your products and had a lot of confidence in your system and company.  Until I heard this news today.  we assessed and tried to justify for ourselves to be able to purchase any new product that you release now or in the future. We were happy taking part in your BETA test and surveys. This with the fullest confidence that we could continue to use your products just like with analog speakers.  (Of course you keep in mind that you may have to replace a 20-year old due to defect) Now that this is not the case, the threshold to buy more Sonos products is so high that we will no longer consider this. I am not IT  specialist but I am convinced that there are possibilities to split the updates into legacy and not legacy updates but to keep linking the whole.  Perhaps the audio quality of the old boxes will then remain lower but the whole can continue to function as 1.
If this option is not offered, you will lose a happy customer so far.
At the moment we do not have legacy products yet, but the feeling that this can be regarded as legacy by you any time, takes away all our confidence.  You mention 5 years as the minimum number of years of support.  We do not gain any confidence from this.

 I hope you benefit from our feedback in your future decisions.

 Kind regards, Pieter & Margriet.

Apologies for the spelling errors.  We are from the Netherlands, therefore our English is not so good.  Pieter & Margriet

Yup. I agree with much of that.

1. I’ve mentioned in days past a couple of times that a further 5-10% added discount for each additional modern unit in a user’s network that stands to be affected by the end-of-support caused by a single connected legacy unit (with some stipulations) would go a long way toward addressing the disparity of impact across different user environments. Unfortunately that’s just a thing that I’ve typed, and not the reality as of now.
2. a) Well, that’s a guess. I personally know of quite a number of people who bought into the Sonos brand for convenience, ease of use and simplicity (if not just aesthetic) who are otherwise definitely not must-have-new-tech types, and definitely not those that participate on community forums for tech related stuff, audio or otherwise (with an exception given to digital photography forums).
   b) Re: cake…. Yes, there certainly is, (that’s part of the lesson as I see it) but highly unlikely from a turn-key solution from a single company/ecosystem.