Obsolescence doesn't have to mean obsolete

  • 2 February 2020
  • 40 replies
  • 3030 views
K
Userlevel 3
Badge

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.

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

Ken_Griffiths

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.

 

P

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.

 

jgatie

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.

melvimbe

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.

Danny
P

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.

jgatie

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?  

jgatie

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!

P

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.

Airgetlam

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. 

Bruce
P

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.  

melvimbe

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. 

Danny
Ken_Griffiths

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

jgatie

@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. 

J

@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.  

jgatie

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!”

Ken_Griffiths

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.

K
Userlevel 3
Badge

The best case scenario for Sonos would be to allow newer devices and old devices to coexist on the same system, with newer devices getting updates and future devices able to be added.  This is the only solution that would both satisfy customers and allow for the future sales Sonos is dependent on to survive. 

[...]

In short, the “there are no technical limitations” accusations fall flat in the face of facts.  I fully expect this point to be ignored, but I really wish someone would address it. 

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.

jgatie

The best case scenario for Sonos would be to allow newer devices and old devices to coexist on the same system, with newer devices getting updates and future devices able to be added.  This is the only solution that would both satisfy customers and allow for the future sales Sonos is dependent on to survive. 

So if it were possible to have legacy devices “act as a Multiroom slave to any future device”, why wouldn’t Sonos do that?  It would be the most beneficial to Sonos, both financially and PR-wise, to keep customers happy and ensure future sales.  If there are no technical limitations, this solution (or any other solution that gets legacy, modern, and future devices/functions to coexist) is the optimum for all parties, and Sonos’ powers that be would be fools not to implement them.  So if one is to believe they aren’t fools, we are back to accepting the technical limitations do exist.  There is no other explanation.

In short, the “there are no technical limitations” accusations fall flat in the face of facts.  I fully expect this point to be ignored, but I really wish someone would address it. 

melvimbe

It is possible to run two Sonos households (systems) on the same IP subnet. I repeat that we do not know what a split system will look like after May. Maybe Sonos don't know every detail yet. I have no idea.  What's the hurry?

We do know that the split system is split: two separate islands with an insurmountable void between them. Sonos may not know the detail, but they do know the outline. Why hurry? Because if we complain now then there’s time for them to change the outline and come up with different details, to invent a way that two pools of devices on different software releases can co-exist AND COMMUNICATE with each other. That’s why this debate matters now. By May it will be too late.

 

The problem with this theory is that Sonos is not going to base how this all will be done soley on the volume and noise level of complaints.  Because all products are registered, they actually know the volume of people who have legacy devices and could possibly be looking to do a split system. They know the rate people are trading in their old stuff. They know how many people are choosing to recycle their legacy devices and looking to go with an entirely modern system.  They do not know how many will chose a legacy system only vs a split system, but they will know later.  We also know that Sonos surely doesn’t want customers to stay legacy or use a split system, so they aren’t likely to provide much support for split systems if they don’t have to.

So personally, I think it’s highly unlikely that Sonos will provide any connection service between legacy and modern systems.  If they do, I expect that it won’t happen at May, but sometimes later when they can establish that there’s a definite need for it.

But sure, maybe you can raise up the noise level to make this a priority for Sonos, beyond what the data shows.

Danny
Ken_Griffiths

At the moment devices on the same subnet (in different households) can be accessed using Spotify connect and the Sonos API .. who needs a line-in? .. you just need the ability to connect to two devices, rather than one.

AirPlay2 will Play to two (or more) separate devices, but that means adding an AIrport Express module (later firmware supports AirPlay v2) to the legacy line-in port.. like in the old days. Some users used chromecast audio, I recall, as their alternative.

i can think of lots of ways to potentially get two Sonos households to play from the same App source, maybe together and in sync, so I don’t think we can rule out that prospect entirely, at this stage.

However there is no point speculating until we see the detail. The simple issue is (I think) Sonos likely want to get away from old 32bit architecture and onto 64bit and speed everything up with improved WiFi, faster processing, more ram and improved security (SMB update etc). The old ‘baggage' needs siphoning off as it’s clearly holding up innovation.

The OP Komobo does keep moving the goalposts and is looking at different Sonos aspects, with his glass still 'half empty'. Personally speaking i think we should all just wait and see what Sonos do in May. I’m not convinced it will turn out to be as negative as people are talking themselves into believing. However only time will tell.

K

We do know that the split system is split: two separate islands with an insurmountable void between them. Sonos may not know the detail, but they do know the outline. Why hurry? Because if we complain now then there’s time for them to change the outline and come up with different details, to invent a way that two pools of devices on different software releases can co-exist AND COMMUNICATE with each other. That’s why this debate matters now. By May it will be too late.

There is also a selfish reason for Sonos to do this. For example: if the above referred split system has line in jacks on the modern side ( on the legacy side today it will for sure have these), the insurmountable void is substantially bridged by setting these jacks to autoplay and wiring two Echo Show 5 like devices to both. The void then gets bridged by the Echo multi room grouping feature. It also provides album art on both devices - and if this isn't needed, one can do this even more cheaply by two Echo Dots. 

If Sonos allows such solutions to get discovered and publicised because of its silence till May, it lets the competition get a toe hold into its installations and exposes itself to the subsequent risk of that toehold displacing Sonos kit over a period of time.

K
Userlevel 3
Badge

It is possible to run two Sonos households (systems) on the same IP subnet. I repeat that we do not know what a split system will look like after May. Maybe Sonos don't know every detail yet. I have no idea.  What's the hurry?

We do know that the split system is split: two separate islands with an insurmountable void between them. Sonos may not know the detail, but they do know the outline. Why hurry? Because if we complain now then there’s time for them to change the outline and come up with different details, to invent a way that two pools of devices on different software releases can co-exist AND COMMUNICATE with each other. That’s why this debate matters now. By May it will be too late.

J

It is possible to run two Sonos households (systems) on the same IP subnet. I repeat that we do not know what a split system will look like after May. Maybe Sonos don't know every detail yet. I have no idea.  What's the hurry?

We all have option to enjoy our systems until May, see the details,  then decide. Then a few months later decide something different if we haven't upgraded.

K
Userlevel 3
Badge

I haven’t noticed a lot of complaints about missing new stuff from the folks that stopped updates to keep their CR-100 or dock working.

If any of the folks with long frozen systems are following this topic, is there anything you miss or that was working but now doesn’t?

My Beam didn’t support Airplay2 when I bought it.  If it had been part of a “frozen” CR-100 Household (let’s not say “network”, others are touchy about that word) then I would have been unable to update and so would be “missing new stuff”. Does that give you a significant enough counter-example?

K
Userlevel 3
Badge

No, Sonos has said more than “no new features”. They also said that legacy speakers must be split onto a separate network in order to allow supported speakers to be updated, so the legacy speakers will become less capable - for example, I would no longer be able to stream Airplay2 music from my Beam to my Play:5, which I can definitely do today.  This would drastically degrade the usefulness of the Play:5.

No..! it’s not a separate network. It’s a separate Sonos household or legacy system. Some users have separate households now, myself included. Not everyone has more than one LAN subnet and so you are still misunderstanding the Sonos announcements yourself. The two will likely run on the same network with a different Household ID.

You may well be able to AirPlay/Cast or use the Sonos API through Apps to both systems but the detail is yet to be published. 

I think you’re splitting hairs into Sonos-specific nomenclature now. “Households” exist on separate IP subnets so, okay, I should have said “separate IP SUBNET” rather than “separate network”, but the effect is the same: today my Play:5 is in one “Room” (another word with special meaning in Sonos-speek) and my Beem is in another but a single Controller (Sonos-speek) lists both Rooms and can Group (Sonos-speek) them together so that audio only discernible by the Beem can be played on the Play:5. Sonos’ “legacy” announcement says this will no longer be possible - the Room-to-Room link that exists today will be broken.  Sonos will brick up the doorway.  I don’t see why that should be necessary.  And, having spent over 30 years working in computer software with a heavy slant on IP networking, routing, bridging, firewalls, you name it, I’ve got a reasonable idea of what’s possible if you just put your mind to it.

Terms & ConditionsCookie settings