Comment by wayoutthere
6 years ago
Then they would have to continue supporting those devices, which isn’t part of the planned obsolescence business model. It would also dilute the luxury brand halo that Sonos has tried to cultivate.
It’s more like Louis Vuitton getting into the secondhand market. They too would (and do) destroy merchandise rather than let it get sold at a discount and dilute the brand value.
They’ve actually done a pretty good job of being backwards-compatible and even enabling features on older speakers if they’re grouped with newer ones. For example, having an AirPlay 2 speaker in a group means that all speakers in the group will receive sound through AirPlay 2, even if they didn’t support AirPlay in the first place.
That makes this even more puzzling.
Didn't they face huge backlash a few years back when they EOLed still functional kit people owned and used?
* It was the CR100 Controller they updated to no longer be able to control devices it previously could.
Sonos EOLed their hardware controllers, since they'd moved over to their phone-based controllers almost exclusively several years before (it had been a while since you could buy the hardware controllers).
AFAIK they've never EOLed any speakers. Older speakers sometimes don't get newer features (like AirPlay 2), but they still work and can even play back AirPlay 2 audio if grouped with a newer speaker.
Not really, if older hardware doesn't support newer features, you'll think about switching ecosystems when you need more speakers. This approach justifies more Sonos gear.
You can already buy louis vuitton at the nordstrom rack.
The model for highly disposable luxury technology is Apple. Apple is also the model for refurbished goods. These things aren't mutually exclusive. You can tuck away a refurbished part of the site just out of the eyes of the majority just like Apple does.
"highly disposable"? I think if you consider the average useable lifetime of an Apple product they aren't as expensive as they may seem.
Of course there are people who want a new model phone every year but that is their choice, certainly not something forced by the nature of the product.
How does that viewpoint square with 1) Deliberately slowed-down hardware (claimed concern about "older device batteries" don't wash with reality either...)
2) Planned obsolescence in the forms of A) Removing/altering physical ports, preferring proprietary "standards" to actual standards B) Irreversible OS upgrades, Internet Recovery Mode notwithstanding, and the deliberately hobbled functionality "older" hardware endures, see leaked employee info on deliberate unnecessary version flags purpose built into software, etc.
1 reply →
but yes, bad Sonos. (to bring it back on topic)
It's worth noting that other than the physical controller devices (which were discontinued in favor of mobile apps but still given a generous lifetime), Sonos still supports all of their hardware from the very first speakers / amps that they released.
Not that this makes their current actions ok, but at least they had been trying until now. I think they are now realizing that having a product that doesn't have built-in planned obsolescence may be hurting their profits
For a physical device (ie featured-locked upon shipping), “support” amounts to paying the server bill, which is likely negligible.
That's the problem right there, for a hardware manufacturer post shipping there shouldn't be a server.
They run a routing/cross-auth system so you can stream from other IP-based audio services directly to your speakers. They aren’t entirely a hardware company and those integrations are a value-add for a lot of consumers. I think you should be able to run them in some kind of offline mode, though.
4 replies →
They at least need an update server so they can receive security patches. Once you need that, it's a slippery slope to depending on lots of things in the cloud.
5 replies →
Not true, Sonos works in a mesh, so all Sonos devices need to talk to each other, and to the controller app on phone or PC.
Absolutely doable over local network only.
1 reply →
Would be great if you could use your own server, and that the server code was open.
That's why I stick with the squeezebox ecosystem.
Open source server which runs locally. The hardware is long since discontinued (but plentiful and easily available on craigslist etc) and it can never be obsoleted as everything runs locally.
1 reply →
It would be great if they gave the hardware away for free too. But alas, the evil company wanted to make money. Those pirates.
And that's how it should have been.
5 replies →
But still, why not say so directly? Why lie about sustainability? It seems extremely dishonest.
Because they’re an “old” Silicon Valley company still sticking to the rhetoric of “technology always makes the world a better place!!!”