Comment by kristianc
6 years ago
> You buy a product, but still don't own it, and have to keep your subscription going so the seller don't remotely brick your device.
That’s absolutely not what’s happening here. I paid £169 for my Play:1 five years ago, and it’s still working as well as the day I bought it. I haven’t paid them a penny since.
This eco trade in may be a bit sketchy but absolutely no one’s device is being bricked without their consent.
Sure, today. But what happens when Sonos decides they "don't want to support your Play:1"? Maybe because it's a "security issue" and they place your Play:1 in "recycle" mode for you and give you so many months to replace it? Think about this from a longer term point of view - this is just an A/B test by Sonos. They can brick your device from remote, so there's no guarantee that at some point they won't.
yah, i had to stop updating the sonos app on my phone so i wouldn't be forced to create a sonos account to use my play:1. i mistakenly updated the app on my ipad, so my ipad can no longer control the play:1.
i won't ever buy another sonos device (even the ikea speakers, which i like otherwise) because of that.
Sonos has never EOL'ed or feature handicapped a speaker yet. It doesn't seem like something they're keen to do.
While your argument may be technically true with regard to speakers Sonos has EoL'd product [0]. It's only a matter of time. The problem with SaaS reliant hardware is very few vendors make the effort to support products long term (>7 years).
[0] https://www.techradar.com/news/sonos-finally-kills-off-cr100...
1 reply →
Worse. If Sonos can do it, eventually so can a hacker. Nothing is unhackable. Sooner or later a consumer(s) or Sonos will be taken hostage.
Did you read the twitter thread? Recycle mode bricks the device without communicating clearly to customer it's a kill switch for perfectly functioning hardware.