Obsolescence doesn't have to mean obsolete

  • 2 February 2020
  • 40 replies
  • 3030 views


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.

40 replies

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.

‘and the suggestion that my Gen 1 Play:5 is now only good as a doorstop’.

Please could you explain what you mean, given that it may be perfectly usable for many years to come?

Presumably the P:5 was bought second hand?

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.

‘and the suggestion that my Gen 1 Play:5 is now only good as a doorstop’.

Please could you explain what you mean, given that it may be perfectly usable for many years to come?

It’s a suggestion others have made, not me, but based on (1) Sonos’ solution to the problem being to offer a 30% discount on new kit in return for bricking the old kit (which would definitely turn it into a doorstop) and (2) Sonos’ suggestion that they will produce a software mod to separate old kit onto a legacy network that makes it inaccessible to the new kit, removing the ability to use the old kit, though perfectly serviceable, as slave speakers to new services through the Multiroom capability.

But, fundamentally, John B, you’ve highlighted the problem perfectly yourself … it may be perfectly usable for many years to come … but then again it may not.  Who wants that sort of uncertainty when they’re making a significant investment in a company’s products?

There is another possibility.  Keep everything on legacy and see what happens.  If the point comes where something essential to you can no longer be used, or there is a new killer feature you have to have, upgrade then.  That day may be in 6 months or 5 years.  It may be 6 months for one user and 5 years for another.  Split system will be one option, and we don’t know exactly what that will look like anyway.  It won’t be the only alternative to ‘bricking’ the legacy speaker.

Anyway, my main concern was that you knew there were alternatives to bricking, which wasn’t clear from your original post.  Which option appears best (or least worst) to you is none of my business.  I am not trying to persuade you to one course or another.

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.

 

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.

Then you need to come back in 10 years time with your MacBook Pro, as some of the Sonos Legacy devices in some cases here, were first released in 2006 .. I’d like to see Apple give you 30% off their latest MacBook Pro model in 2030… It is still the case that you are still being bias and looking at ‘all things Sonos' with your glass half empty.

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