Skip to main content

My Sonos life began with a Gen 1 Play:1.  I was amazed by the clarity of sound from something so small and was happy for a while.  But … the sound was mono and I wanted more.  This wasn’t because the Play:1 was in any way deficient in design or execution, it just didn’t have enough speakers in it.

So I went out and bought a second Play:1, and was amazed by the clarify of sound from something so small and was happy for a while.  But … I couldn’t plug it into my TV to listen to music or movies. This wasn’t because the Play:1 was in any way deficient in design or execution, it just didn’t have the right connectivity, or the CPU power to deal with Dolby 5.1 audio.

So I went out and bought a Beam, and was amazed by the clarity of sound from something so small.  I was even more amazed that I could re-purpose my Gen 1 Play:1s as surround speakers: even though there weren’t capable in their own right of connecting to my TV, the Sonos system design allowed them to be used alongside a newer box that didn’t exist when they were brought into being, and to augment that experience.  Big kudos to Sonos for that foresightedness.

Recently I’ve acquired a Gen 1 Play:5, and I’m amazed by the clarity and depth of sound from something so small.  It knocks the socks off my Play:1s.  However, as I understand it, I can’t use Gen 1 Play:5s as surround speakers because they lack the 5GHz wifi hardware necessary to perform that feat. Am I dissatisfied with Sonos’s lack of foresight here? No, because I understand that 10-year-old hardware can’t do everything that today’s hardware can.  I also can’t stream Airplay2 audio from my iPhone to the Play:5, again because it lacks appropriate hardware, and maybe doesn’t have the CPU gumption for the job either.  However, if I stream Airplay2 to the Beam then Sonos’ Multiroom feature can get the audio to the Play:5 and keep it in sync.  More kudos to Sonos.

So now we come to the May 2020 End Of Life announcement, and the suggestion that my Gen 1 Play:5 is now only good as a doorstop.  I don’t get it.  I’m already aware that my Play:5 can’t do many thing that newer devices can do, but it’s still a banging good speaker that should be able to act as a Multiroom slave to any future device that supports some yet-to-be-invented streaming service - how about quantum-encoded octophonic immersive audio? It would be nice to think that Sonos could work out how to slave 8 Gen 1 Play:5s to a Shiny New Box to create an audio experience that makes you think you’re sitting in the middle of the orchestra pit at the Last Night of the Proms.  And why not?

So come on, Sonos, allow us the good sense to understand what it and isn’t possible with your hardware. We aren’t upset when our old kit doesn’t do what the new kit can do, instead we’re amazed how you get the old stuff to work so well with the new, within the limits of its capability.  So don’t give up on the Gen 1 Play:5 and tell us to brick it, commit to keeping it as compatible as possible with the new stuff.  That’s how you keep your customers loyal and continue to stand out from the crowd.

Speaking as a seasoned software engineer, the lack of technical limitations is not the only pre-requisite for a particular development direction to be taken.  The financial benefit of going in that direction has to outweigh the financial cost.  The financial cost that Sonos need to be aware of is that people will stop buying their kit if they start guaranteeing that it will stop working in a few years when previous behaviour has been that 10-year-old kit is still worth having.  My 2016 Macbook Pro is still firing on all cylinders.  My 2011 Mac mini is still going strong.  Hardware doesn’t wear out anywhere near as fast as it used to; software strategy needs to take this into account.

 

Well, duh!  Sonos could easily fix this entire mess by giving away a free modern replacement to every person who has a legacy device.  Problem solved!  Except for the financial hit.

However, also speaking as seasoned software engineer, no sane company is going to forego future sales for a short term “financial decision”.  Let’s assume all that’s claimed in the main thread; this is an easy fix, Sonos could do it if they want to, but . . . “greed” . . . something, something, is true.  

Well, if Sonos is that greedy, why give the ability to keep legacy systems running, reducing sales of current devices. and cutting off  ALL sales of new devices?  Why put forth a strategy which severely limits Sonos’ income from an obviously long established customer base if they could technically achieve a better result that actually encourages sales and keeps customers happy?  It simply makes no sense, unless there actually is a technical limitation.  Looking further, one finds all legacy device have 32 MB RAM and all modern devices have more.  That’s where I say “Jinkees!  A clue!”

@Komobo ‘The financial cost that Sonos need to be aware of is that people will stop buying their kit if they start guaranteeing that it will stop working in a few years when previous behaviour has been that 10-year-old kit is still worth having’

Sonos are not saying that anything will ‘stop working’, as you well know.  And a guarantee that something won’t happen for at least X years is very different from saying it WILL happen after that time.  You are blatantly misrepresenting the facts.  

@Komobo ‘The financial cost that Sonos need to be aware of is that people will stop buying their kit if they start guaranteeing that it will stop working in a few years when previous behaviour has been that 10-year-old kit is still worth having’

Sonos are not saying that anything will ‘stop working’, as you well know.  And a guarantee that something won’t happen for at least X years is very different from saying it WILL happen after that time.  This is blatant misrepresentation of the facts.  

 

Exactly. 

I think people reading this thread of ‘misinformation' should perhaps read this online media report… at least it provides a more balanced report of what the Sonos announcements are perhaps trying to achieve… the report might not be on the side of Sonos, but at least the article attempts to give a balanced viewpoint...

https://www.androidcentral.com/sonos-ending-support-decade-old-speakers-really-isnt-big-deal

Speaking as a seasoned software engineer, the lack of technical limitations is not the only pre-requisite for a particular development direction to be taken.  The financial benefit of going in that direction has to outweigh the financial cost.  The financial cost that Sonos need to be aware of is that people will stop buying their kit if they start guaranteeing that it will stop working in a few years when previous behaviour has been that 10-year-old kit is still worth having.  My 2016 Macbook Pro is still firing on all cylinders.  My 2011 Mac mini is still going strong.  Hardware doesn’t wear out anywhere near as fast as it used to; software strategy needs to take this into account.

 

As pointed out, there is no guarantee that the unit will stop working in a few years.  The actual guarantee is that Sonos products are supported for at least 5 years.  The current “un-supported” units will actually get a level of support in bug fixes and security updates where possible within the hardware after May.

 

But I really wanted to focus on the first part of the statement highlighted.  Do you think Sonos isn’t aware of the financial costs associated with this decision?  No one can really say for sure, but I have no doubt that Sonos has taken a serious look at the projections in making this decisions.  I think they have a good idea of the volume of sales from customers with legacy products buying new products, and how many may abandon Sonos because of this.  I think they also know what their sales may look like as a whole if they don’t go through with this event.  As customers, I don't think we can assume that other customers see things the same way we do, with the same priorities and purchase criteria. 

 

That’s not to say that customers shouldn’t consider what’s in their own best interest and make decisions that make sense for them, whether they are logical or emotional decisions. 

The idea that your existing Sonos equipment is stranded and will not work with newer Sonos equipment is a terrible example of planned obsolescence and a terrible way to treat customers who have spent good money on your product.

This is a software problem that could easily be resolved by Sonos. Now, if I want to add to my system, I basically cannot do it unless I want to junk my existing equipment that is working perfectly well.  

While I may be understanding that some newer features might not play on older systems, the idea that you cannot manage and group old speakers with new speakers has no reasonable justification.  

Similarly, I can’t understand why iOS 13 won’t work on my original iPhone, or why windows 10 won’t work on my old ‘386, or, my xBox One games don’t run on my xBox 360. 

No, more like your Polk Audio speakers won’t work with your Marantz amp, or your Gibson guitar won’t work with your sound board.

The idea that your existing Sonos equipment is stranded and will not work with newer Sonos equipment is a terrible example of planned obsolescence and a terrible way to treat customers who have spent good money on your product.

This is a software problem that could easily be resolved by Sonos. Now, if I want to add to my system, I basically cannot do it unless I want to junk my existing equipment that is working perfectly well.  

While I may be understanding that some newer features might not play on older systems, the idea that you cannot manage and group old speakers with new speakers has no reasonable justification.  

 

Planned obsolescence?  The units that are now legacy were designed well over a decade ago.  If that’s “planned obsolescence”, then it’s an obsolescence that’s been planned for a very long time!

No, more like your Polk Audio speakers won’t work with your Marantz amp, or your Gibson guitar won’t work with your sound board.

 

See, that’s where you are wrong.  You didn’t buy Polk speakers.  You bought networked streaming speakers that are dependent on software and hardware in order to perform.  Don’t agree?  Then tell me this, when’s the last time Polk sent out a free software upgrade to your Polk speakers?  

I seriously doubt that it is a hardware issue. I think it could be easily addressed by the App to provide interoperability. Apple was able to do that well (wish they had continued): They went from PowerPC processors to Intel chips and wrote software that would run PowerPC code on the Intel chips, a fabulous ability that allowed them to progress without stranding all the existing software.  Sonos runs the speakers from a common app, there is no reason that interoperability couldn’t be provided, even if some new features weren’t available to all speakers.

I seriously doubt that it is a hardware issue. I think it could be easily addressed by the App to provide interoperability. Apple was able to do that well (wish they had continued): They went from PowerPC processors to Intel chips and wrote software that would run PowerPC code on the Intel chips, a fabulous ability that allowed them to progress without stranding all the existing software.  Sonos runs the speakers from a common app, there is no reason that interoperability couldn’t be provided, even if some new features weren’t available to all speakers.

 

Sonos speakers don’t run from a common app, they run off the firmware stored on each device.  The app is just a controller and doesn’t even need to be present or turned on for your speakers to operate.  And your example regarding PowerPC is an example of modern hardware running older software.  Sonos is doing that, and has been, with it’s newer devices (except for the 3 released devices) being compatible with the older devices.   The current case with Sonos is trying to run modern current software on old hardware that isn’t capable.  That would be as if the old PowerPC processors were running new software design to maximize what you could get from the intel chips.

I seriously doubt that it is a hardware issue. I think it could be easily addressed by the App to provide interoperability. Apple was able to do that well (wish they had continued): They went from PowerPC processors to Intel chips and wrote software that would run PowerPC code on the Intel chips, a fabulous ability that allowed them to progress without stranding all the existing software.  Sonos runs the speakers from a common app, there is no reason that interoperability couldn’t be provided, even if some new features weren’t available to all speakers.

 

So Sonos is letting you keep the entire/partial system at S1, completely eliminating the possibility of any future sales of new products for that system, when they could have let you have interoperability, thus encouraging future sales?  That makes no sense.

It seems at least there could be downward compatibility. For example, if my system is older hardware running S1 and I get a newer component, it could run at the downgraded level and keep my system interoperable. If I wanted the new S2 features, then I could chose to split systems and upgrade components.

 

It seems at least there could be downward compatibility. For example, if my system is older hardware running S1 and I get a newer component, it could run at the downgraded level and keep my system interoperable. If I wanted the new S2 features, then I could chose to split systems and upgrade components.

I would rather sell/give away my older products, than use a brand new device, like the Arc for example, with older software/firmware.

I see that as being similar to buying a brand new OLED TV and setting it up to only run in ‘black-&-white’ with mono audio. 

It’s time to move on, not standstill.

 

Terms & ConditionsCookie settings