Sonos Says Users Must Accept New Privacy Policy Or Devices May Cease To Function (zdnet.com)

An anonymous reader writes: Sonos has confirmed that existing customers will not be given an option to opt out of its new privacy policy, leaving customers with sound systems that may eventually "cease to function". It comes as the home sound system maker prepares to begin collecting audio settings, error data, and other account data before the launch of its smart speaker integration in the near future. A spokesperson for the home sound system maker told ZDNet that, "if a customer chooses not to acknowledge the privacy statement, the customer will not be able to update the software on their Sonos system, and over time the functionality of the product will decrease. The customer can choose to acknowledge the policy, or can accept that over time their product may cease to function."

Comments

Fuckers

[DontBeAMoran]

Is there any law to take companies that pull this kind of stunt to court and sue the pants of them?

Re:Fuckers

[Mashiki]

Depends on the country. In Canada, this is right up illegal under privacy laws(federal and provincial), and modifying a product to degrade it after purchase(consumer protection laws), or changing/modifying a product that doesn't represent actual advertised claims(consumer protection laws).

Re:Fuckers

[Nidi62]

When people keep altering the terms of an agreement you only have 2 options: pray they don't alter them further, or blow up their death star.

Re:Fuckers

[William Baric]

It depends on the country where you live, but the vast majority of people do not care anyway. For example, Steam does the exact same thing. If they change their EULA and you refuse to accept it, you lose all your games, with no possibility of a refund. It doesn't stop the vast majority of people from buying games from Steam.

Re:Fuckers

[jonnyj]

In the UK, there almost certainly is a law to protect consumers. Under the Consumer Rights Act, consumers have a legal right to reject goods that are of unsatisfactory quality, unfit for purpose or not as described, and get a full refund.

If the manufacturer of a sound system has stated that its devices may eventually cease to function, I find it hard to imagine that a court would find that it was as described when sold.

Re:Fuckers

[Anonymous Coward]

Is there any law to take companies that pull this kind of stunt to court and sue the pants of them?

Ahahahahaahahah ... not in the Corporate States of America where corporations are people with more rights than living breathing humans!

That's why I don't abide by EULA's - fuck'em. AND I give them false shit information whenever I can. Fuck'em again. If they want a credit card, fuck'em. "Need" a credit card for the "free trial"? Fuck you! I DO NOT need your stupid service! And if it's a piece of hardware, I bring it back to the retailer and tell them that it's defective - reason: it just doesn't work (a shitty EULA that is MUST agree to for a device to work means the device is defective). Fuck'em.

If they want to pull this bullshit, then I'm gonna be the consumer from Hell.

Re:Fuckers

[AutodidactLabrat]

Yes, it's called "Fraud" when you change the terms of a Contract after the fact.

Re:Fuckers

[erapert]

You don't even have to do that. There's a very simple solution to these kinds of problems: don't buy their product.
Don't buy products from crappy companies, don't buy products that limit your freedom.

Take this particular case for example.
These speakers are collecting data on me? That should be a show stopper right there.
These speakers require software updates and an internet connection to run? Another show stopper.
You, as the owner, do not have access to the software being run on these speakers? Don't you understand that puts you at the mercy of whoever does control the software?

Anyone buying these kinds of products (*ahem!* somethingsomethingmicrosoft) really have nobody to blame but themselves.
If you want this kind of behavior to stop then stop buying these kinds of products.

Re: Fuckers

[BronsCon]

The irony of your username...

Re:Fuckers

[epyT-R]

Sure, you can try civil court. I agree, though, it was a purchase, not a lease, and I think it is immoral to pass leasing terms off as sales. I can understand not adding new functionality, especially if the telemetry is required for it to work, but removing existing functionality is not ok.

Re:Fuckers

[JohnFen]

Not if the contract allows the terms to be changed at any time, which most consumer contracts (in the US, anyway) do.

Re:Fuckers

[Anonymous Coward]

I think this would be more extortion. They force you to accept their new term under threat of no longer being able to use the equipment you bought.

Re: Fuckers

[tsa]

Haha, you're not the first one to comment on that. I got it in 1995 at work, liked it, and got an account on /. in 1996 or 1997, so way before the TSA was conceived.

Re:Fuckers

[bradley13]

This. IANAL, but I doubt that this would be allowed in any European country either.

Still, it's an a$$hole move, and there's no reason for it. Make it an opt-in for existing systems and opt-out for new ones, and they would avoid all this negative publicity.

Re:Fuckers

[TWX]

The difference may be that Sonos is intentionally making a change that breaks functionality.

I am not terribly versed in their products, do they work locally or were they specifically designed to work in-concert with a remote system?

Re:Fuckers

[Penguinisto]

These speakers require software updates and an internet connection to run? Another show stopper.

That one item alone should be sufficient to kill the deal, all by itself. Very few physical things should require an internet connection to operate... and they had damned well better be things like routers and sat/DSL/Cable modems (and maybe the DVR, but only maybe).

Do I need an Internet connection to run your television? Yeah no, fuck you, I refuse to buy it. There's always TV makers out there who don't require that - and failing such, my house is small enough to press a large-enough desktop monitor into service.

Re:Fuckers

[bluefoxlucid]

Each release of firmware is a new software, which means new licensing. They never contracted to keep services up and support old devices in perpetuity, thus you must agree to new software or lose access.

We don't have laws to control this because such laws are... dangerous. Look at what happened with the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, wherein violating the MySpace ToS became a criminal offence for a little while. Everyone wants legislative action, and nobody thinks too hard about the unintended consequences of such action.

If you want laws to control this, they have to start leaky and become water-tight. You want air-tight laws, you're either going to prevent some consumer-desired products from existing, criminalize consumer and researcher actions, or otherwise find yourself unhappy with the result. Look at the DMCA, and then imagine that you asked for it and got exactly what you asked for.

We need to curb privacy concerns; we can't eliminate them completely, but we can get some control and accountability. This isn't as much of a problem as you might think: at some point, you just need to accept you leak information, because you leak a hell of a lot of information even without an external actor trying to pry it out of your hands. Just touching the Internet sends packets moving along which a Government entity could observe, and creates handy debugging logs which can reveal tons of information; not to mention whatever you say online--as much as you might want to believe you're anonymous on Slashdot, there's plenty of information connected to your ID here to link you to other IDs, which ultimately link to you.

A competent PI might be able to track you down and identify all your public faces, as anonymous as you think you are; a Government entity can do so readily. You say things that expose your position, your thinking, your hobbies, your social contacts, your sympathies. The information is frequently non-explicit: the way you move through various topics leaves a void, and that void is shaped like a secret, and now I know something about you that nobody knows. You leak that much.

We might be able to safely deploy legislation to stop corporate sale of identity, exposure of private individual information, and deanonymization. We can't protect you from yourself, and shouldn't try, although if someone uses big-data forensics to go PI and publish your secret life maybe we should have something to say about that--right up until everyone has their hands on that technology and can tell it to look for you and report back to them, and then anonymity is truly dead, and perhaps privacy.

Re: Fuckers

[BronsCon]

Yes, the 5 digit UID dates the name. It's just amusing to see "tsa" calling for actions which would surely see the TSA disbanded. You, sir, made my day and I thank you for that.

Re:Fuckers

[green1]

Having been the victim of a company (Tesla) modifying a product after purchase to remove functionality that I specifically paid for, I have discovered that while it may be illegal, you'll need major $$$ to do anything about it. Not a single consumer protection agency in the country will do any more than forward your complaint to the manufacturer who can then feel free to ignore it completely.

So unless you can afford a long drawn out legal battle with a company that is guaranteed to have a lot more money to throw at lawyers than you do, good luck.

Re:Fuckers

[rl117]

You can't waive statutory rights; you have them irrespective of any contract, and it's illegal for a company to ignore them.

Re: Fuckers

[negRo_slim]

Do terms of service agreements stand up in court?

Re:Fuckers

[green1]

That's somewhat unhelpful advice for people who owned the product before the company became evil and retroactively changed the contract.

People paid quite a bit of money for a product, and then the company turns around and destroys it after the fact, now the solution is to go back in time, and not buy the product?

A better answer would be to make it illegal to make the continuing functioning of the features you paid for contingent on you agreeing to a change in terms of the contract.

Re:Fuckers

[Athanasius]

The real problem here is that the design of the item in question is not for it to be enhanced by things such as internet connectivity, but instead to rely on it (I'm making some assumptions here about Sonos devices specifically as I've never owned one, nor seen one in person).

This is connected to the huge issue with Internet Of Things devices. Far too many manufacturers are designing and building them to rely on functionality, like an internet connection, that should instead only be used to enhance their functionality if it's available.

In both cases the basic functionality should continue even if it's on a desert island powered by a solar panel, far from any network connectivity. If there's a mobile/whatever app to control it then this should continue to support older versions of the API for basic control, even if in the future you can't use such to connect it to a different device, start using it to receive podcasts, or whatever other enhanced functionality a company like Sonos might come up with.

Of course it might be the case that un-supported devices then have security holes and other bugs that were fixed in later revisions of the software/firmware that the owner opted out of. The owner made that choice, so they get to live with the consequences.

And ideally all devices would be using open APIs, if not source, so that third parties could provide the support if the original manufacturer chose to no longer do so.

Re:Fuckers

[PCM2]

I've long wondered if there is any similar law in the U.S. I have a "smart TV" that came with logos for Facebook and YouTube on the box. Both apps have since been retired. I imagine there will be a day when my so-called smart TV is nothing more than a CRT screen. It seems like consumers should be protected against this sort of thing.

Then again, the U.S. government forced broadcasters to switch from analog to digital transmissions, making all old TVs nonfunctional without additional hardware. So I guess we should just expect this sort of thing?

Re: Fuckers

[Aethedor]

Almost. It's called GDPR and it will be in effect in may 2018. Article 6 of that law defines the justified ways to collect personal information. The collecting of personal formation by Sonos doesn't match with any of the items in that article and is therefor unlawful. New purchasers of Sonos devices can use article 7 item 4. Obliging the collecting of personal information when purchasing a device when that collectionf is not necessary for the functioning of that device is not lawful.

Re:Fuckers

[bluefoxlucid]

That's a problem, but not a legal problem. The issue at large isn't Sonos, but the fact that anyone could do this--which is a legal policy problem. A lot of people want to make such things illegal, but that's an engineering problem--building a law that doesn't do terrible things as a side-effect is hard.

Re:Fuckers

[Baloroth]

Based on the article and the summary, they're not modifying it to degrade functionality, they're just not offering software upgrades, and saying that without upgrades, the devices might not work properly in the future (the headline makes it seem like they're going to disable devices of people who don't accept the terms, which AFAICT is absolutely not true).

Re: Fuckers

[BellyJelly]

"I have a "smart TV" that came with logos for Facebook and YouTube on the box. Both apps have since been retired. I imagine there will be a day when my so-called smart TV is nothing more than a CRT screen" Sounds good to me - where can I buy one?

Re:Fuckers

[arth1]

Yes, but for how long?

It's unfortunately little known to Europeans in general, and the UK in particular, but there are redress rights that exceed any warranty, which kick in for anything sold that is either marketed with a lifespan, or where there's reasonable expectation that it should last longer. A house roof, for example, should reasonably be expected to last a long time, so even if they set the warranty at two years, you can likely demand that they fix it if it breaks after five years. What changes is that after the warranty, the onus is on the buyer to show that the product is defective by design and/or manufacturing.

IANAL, but I would expect that 4+ years would be a reasonable expectation for home stereo goods.

Re:Fuckers

[ewibble]

Although you are right most terms and conditions have a clause that allows themselves to be changed, I don't know if a clause like that is legal (should definitely not be).

IANAL but by my understanding for a contract to be valid there has to be "a meeting of minds" that is: both parties have to understand what they are getting into. How can that be true if the contract states one party can change it any time.

The practicality is however, you have to take the company to court to prove that, and that will be expensive and not guaranteed. It is just more pragmatic to by a new speaker.

I personally will not buy anything that needs to connect to an external server, unless it it absolutely necessary, There is not need for a speaker to connect to a the manufacture to work.

Re: Fuckers

[Grishnakh]

Sounds good to me - where can I buy one?

You misunderstand. These are still, and will remain "smart TVs". While they may not have many apps that you find really useful, they will continue to spy on you using the built-in camera and microphone and report detailed information about you to the company, and whoever that company chooses to share the info with. If you're OK with that, more power to you, but I suspect you might not be.

It's very simple when you think about this from a cost/benefit point-of-view. These apps like Facebook etc. cost the company money to produce or acquire, and to maintain on all the deployed devices, so they need to make up for that and more by increasing sales. The company has decided apparently that some of these apps are costing more than they're worth in increased sales, so they've axed them. However, spying on users has very low cost (mainly just the added hardware, which is really cheap these days, and hardware is a one-time cost that doesn't require continual support), and some amount of profit from selling the data, so it'd be stupid to eliminate that feature. There is the element of lost sales, but so few Americans actually care about being spied on that it's negligible.

Re:Fuckers

[JohnFen]

In a comment below, someone claiming to be a lawyer says this would be an unenforceable term. I am also not a lawyer, so I'll defer to that.

Re:Fuckers

[thegarbz]

Having been the victim of a company (Tesla) modifying a product after purchase to remove functionality that I specifically paid for

What functionality did you specifically pay for, and did they advertise that functionality as working exactly as you thought it did at the time. If you're talking about the restrictions they placed on autopilot, then you paid for something that was not advertised in the way you thought you remember it.

Re:Fuckers

[TheFakeTimCook]

You can't waive statutory rights; you have them irrespective of any contract, and it's illegal for a company to ignore them.

I believe you can actually waive ANY rights, including Constitutional Rights; but the waiver must be "knowing and specific", Just clicking "I Agree" in a Click-through EULA likely isn't going to stand up as a "knowing and specific" waiver of rights.

Re: Fuckers

[TheFakeTimCook]

Do terms of service agreements stand up in court?

Depends. But generally no; but you spend your life and fortune proving that point,

Re:Fuckers

[green1]

Hands free on-ramp to off-ramp driving, ability to use autopilot at any speed on any roadway.

Re:Fuckers

[TheFakeTimCook]

I've long wondered if there is any similar law in the U.S. I have a "smart TV" that came with logos for Facebook and YouTube on the box. Both apps have since been retired. I imagine there will be a day when my so-called smart TV is nothing more than a CRT screen. It seems like consumers should be protected against this sort of thing.

Then again, the U.S. government forced broadcasters to switch from analog to digital transmissions, making all old TVs nonfunctional without additional hardware. So I guess we should just expect this sort of thing?

But that same Gummint also created a service that provided up to two ATSC converter-boxes for FREE; so that's kind of how they got around that "obsoleting" thing.

Re:Fuckers

[green1]

I specifically paid for "hands free on-ramp to off-ramp driving" per Tesla. They never delivered on that functionality, but they did remove much of the parts they had delivered after purchase. I've included a small sample of the lies Tesla made to make the sale, along with proof of the claims, and a description of what they've actually delivered:

Claim #1: Tesla claimed that an alert driver could use the “Autopilot” feature to drive along a highway without touching any controls, as long as the driver was paying attention and ready to take over at any time.
Examples of claim:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v... Elon Musk (CEO Tesla Motors) demonstrates the feature to a journalist in October 2014
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v... A Tesla employee demonstrates the feature to attendees at the Tesla “D” event in October 2014
http://www.stuff.tv/in/feature... Elon Musk (CEO Tesla Motors) in an interview in March 2015 states “We want you to go from highway on-ramp to highway off-ramp, without touching the controls, in the next 12 months”
What Tesla has delivered: In October 2015 Tesla released a software update that enabled “Autopilot”. This included a feature called “Autosteer” which came with a disclaimer that you must keep your hands on the steering wheel at all times. If your hands were not detected exerting torque on the steering wheel at road curves, the vehicle would pop up a warning asking you to place your hands on the wheel. This warning would intensify until either you applied torque to the steering wheel, or Autopilot would be disabled. In subsequent software updates the frequency, and intensity of the popup message was increased, and if the message occurs a certain number of times per drive the feature is completely disabled for the remainder of the drive. Additionally restrictions have been placed on it such that on some roadways the speed you can travel while on autosteer is limited to what the vehicle believes the speed limit to be.

Claim #2: Tesla claimed that drivers could use the “Summon” feature (part of the “Autopilot” suite) to call the vehicle and it would drive to them wherever they were on private property. Additionally Tesla claimed that the vehicle would check your schedule and pull out of your garage and meet you at your front door on private property.
Examples of claim:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... Recording of the Tesla Motors “D” event where the “AutoPilot” functionality was initially revealed. Elon musk (CEO Tesla Motors) states at 9:55 “You’ll be able to summon the car, if you’re on private property, you have to be on private property to do it, you can actually summon the car and the car will come to wherever you are and, it will use the ultrasonic sensors kind of like an insect antenna, because it can detect even small soft objects with the ultrasonics, and it will just sort of slowly make it’s way to you and then stop and be ready to go. It can go even a step beyond that, if you have your calendar turned on, it will meet you there. So if you’re getting ready to go to work or something and it knows you’re going to need to leave half an hour before work and you say ok I’d like to just come out and have the air conditioning done and everything done, your music playing, everything just ready to go and it will just come and be there.”
http://web.archive.org/web/201... Snapshot of the Tesla Motors website from July 16 2015, in the “Autopilot” section states “With calendar syncing enabled, Model S checks current traffic conditions to determine how muc

Re:Fuckers

[mrbester]

Well, if we can't get them under the Consumer Protection Act, we'll get them under the Data Protection Act (or its successor, coming soon) because they'll be in breach of that as well.

Re: Fuckers

[rl117]

Maybe in the USA. I was referring to UK law, where statutory rights can not be removed by contract law.

Re:Fuckers

[The Grim Reefer]

I imagine there will be a day when my so-called smart TV is nothing more than a CRT screen.

I'm sure there are some smart TV's out that are/were CRT, but I don't recall any. I think you may be confusing CRT(cathode ray tube), with monitor.

Re:Fuckers

[aaarrrgggh]

I am miffed by this, but we are talking about a system designed around streaming audio that houses your phone for control. It also adds support for new services as they arrive. Yes, they need to connect to the internet and yes they need to update firmware.

I am guessing my Sonos systems will get firewalled like my other IoT devices, although it will be more complicated if I still want Amazon Prime Music. Their diagnostic page has a lot of information I really don't want them to have automatically and continuously.

Re:Fuckers

[Grishnakh]

The negative publicity will probably result in more sales.

While this won't fly legally in Europe, it will fly here in the US, and since Americans are more than happy to buy devices that require constant cloud connectivity to work, and in fact are quite happy to purchase products that spy on them, this is a case where the laws are a good reflection of the attitudes of society.

Re:Fuckers

[tattood]

"Over time, Sonos sales will begin to disappear." FTFY

Re:Fuckers

[Grishnakh]

So you spent tens of thousands of dollars on a product based on its marketing claims, and were disappointed when they didn't deliver.

I hope this is a good lesson to you and others about purchasing products in America. Marketing claims are just that: claims, and companies are not required to live up to those claims. There's no law that will punish a company if they outright lie to you. If you feel you've been wronged, your redress is that you can sue, but that's not going to be cheap. Hiring an attorney on retainer will cost you thousands of dollars, and their time is worth hundreds of dollars per hour. The prudent course of action is to stick to less-expensive mass-market stuff where you can go by numerous owner reviews to guide your purchase decision. Leave the risky high-end purchases to rich people who don't care too much if a $100k purchase doesn't live up to its claims, or to people in other countries where they have laws protecting them.

While Tesla does not provide any information to allow visualizing the size of the battery pack in the vehicle, the best evidence presented is that the car contains an 80.7 kWh battery pack, with only 77 kWh usable.

Actually for this point, I thought that Tesla intentionally limited how much you could use out of the pack, because Lithium-ion cells suffer significant degradation when they're completely run down. So just like a hard drive will advertise a certain capacity, but after formatting will only have a certain percentage of that capacity available for your files, the same goes here.

Also, for your claims 3 and 4, close-to-economy level Mazdas now have speed limit sign recognition (not all traffic signs; it sees the speed limit signs and shows you on the nav screen), and ones with radar cruise control will come to a full stop if you're using cruise. The newest ones will also come to a full stop (regardless of cruise) if you're driving 49mph or less and a collision is imminent (called "smart city braking"; pre-'17 models could only do this at 19mph or less using Lidar; note this option is only available on some trim levels). I'm sure a lots of other inexpensive mass-market cars now have this stuff as standard or optional. So the lesson here is: don't be the first adopter. Let other people try out the initial versions and pay through the nose, and wait a bit until it filters down to the mid-level or lower.

Finally, for your claim 1, you have a lot of complaints about Autopilot and how it's basically not working the way *you* think it should (won't go over the speed limit on some roads, nags you to have your hands on the wheel and apply torque, disables if you're not obedient enough, and subsequent updates have made it even worse, etc.). This is a good lesson on why closed-source software is bad, and you shouldn't spend more money on it than you absolutely have to. It will not work the way you want, and you can't modify it to do so, and worse, these days, they can reduce or remove functionality with an automatic update. The best way to win this game is to not play at all, or stick with cheaper options so you don't feel quite so shafted when this happens to you. (i.e., If you spend $10 for something with closed-source software and it sucks, you're only out $10, and if it at least does some of what you want, it's not that bad. But if you spend $100k for something with closed-source software and it sucks, now you're really mad unless you're a billionaire because that's a very large amount of money to you and for such a princely sum you expected all your expectations to be met and then some.)

So I guess in summary, stick with cheap stuff so you don't get mad when it doesn't live up to your expectations, plus you can more easily resell it.

Re:Fuckers

[ganjadude]

remember the other os fiasco with the PS3? this reminds me of that (and makes me happy i havent invested in sonos)

Re: Fuckers

[Grishnakh]

These speakers were internet-connected devices before they were purchased. As the parent said, that's a show-stopper. Don't buy this crap and you won't have this problem.

Re: Fuckers

[LynnwoodRooster]

How many votes do you think are actually cast for the President? Trump won the majority vote. Provably so...

Re:Fuckers

[AmiMoJo]

Reminds me of that guy who got a partial refund from Amazon when Sony removed the Other OS (Linux) feature from his PS3.

In the UK you would be entitled a refund proportional to the loss of functionality and the time that the device had been functional for vs. its expected lifetime. Something like this you could reasonable expect at least a decade out of, so say you had it for two years and the lost functionality made it useless to you, that would be an 80% refund. From the seller, not the manufacturer.

Hopefully shops will stop selling stuff from companies that do this, because they are the ones who have to issue the refunds.

Re:Fuckers

[AmiMoJo]

Once again, RMS is proven right. Unless you have the source code to the firmware and the ability to load your own versions, you don't own that thing and the real owner will eventually screw you.

Re:Fuckers

[Anonymous Coward]

So I guess in summary, you're a dick.

Re:Fuckers

[Grishnakh]

You're not going to get that law in the US, so you might as well just get used to it, and realize that any time you buy something internet-connected that uses software that updates over the internet, they can change anything they want at any time, and you have no recourse. The only answer is top stop buying this crap. If you already bought one, consider it an expensive lesson-learned.

Re:Fuckers

[green1]

So in other words, false advertising is fine, they should be allowed to do it.

Removing functionality from a product after purchase is also fine, they should definitely be allowed to remove any functionality they want after purchase. If I wake up tomorrow and the car is incapable of being put in to drive, that's fine too, after all, I must have just misunderstood their advertising that said it could drive.

I've provided proof of their lies. I've documented what the vehicle could do when I bought it that it can no longer do. The former is FRAUD, the latter is THEFT of functionality.

I own the car, they don't. They're not allowed to remove functionality after purchase.
They took money based on specific promises, they are not allowed to take that money without providing what they promised in their contract.

But of course none of that matters, because I can't afford tens of thousands of dollars in lawyer fees, plus many many hours of my life to sue them.

All I can do is warn other people not to do business with this super slimy company, and make sure that I never give them another penny as long as I live.

Re:Fuckers

[green1]

It's a common affliction in the rabid Tesla fan community. People seem to forget that companies aren't their friends, and are loyal to a specific brand no matter what evidence is out there proving that the company is actively out to get them.

Re:Fuckers

[Z00L00K]

If everyone starts to return their stuff to Sonos then they will be overwhelmed by trying to figure out how to handle it. Add some added junk and make things miserable for them in general.

Re:Fuckers

[Z00L00K]

A home stereo is expected to be working for at least 10 years. It's not unusual to find stuff made in the 70's that's still working fine.

Re:Fuckers

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

I think Tesla can make an argument about safety that Sonos can't make here.

Re:Fuckers

[Swistak]

You are right. In some countries (like USA) you can waive your rights. In most civilised countries however you cannot be forced to waive your rights.

Re:Fuckers

[green1]

It doesn't matter what argument Tesla decides to make, they still break the law by stealing functionality after delivery. The only organization that is allowed to steal property from me is the government, and they specifically have not done so in this case. There has been no recall, no government mandated changes, and only a company who has zero ownership of the vehicle involved.

I can argue that you'd be safer without your car, that doesn't give me the right to take it from you without your permission, I have no claim to it because I don't own it.

Re: Fuckers

[green1]

I didn't watch harry potter, and I didn't get killed. So obviously you're not referring to me.

I use the feature responsibly, and fully understand that it's just slightly improved cruise control. Unfortunately it's much LESS improved cruise control now than it was when I bought the car because a company with no legal authority over me decided to STEAL functionality from a vehicle that they don't own.

Why don't I go and steal your car from you right now? you'd be statistically safer without it, and I have just as much legal right to do so as Tesla did to take functionality away from me after purchase.

Re:Fuckers

[emodgod]

I own 4 Play:1 and a play boost and I'll be dammed if I give these cock suckers any more of my information.

Also, it appears that they, Sonos, have gotten to Slashdot since I was forced to login to actually post a comment! I'm guessing they want to know who is calling them cock suckers?

Re: Fuckers

[Dog-Cow]

It's a shame you have not yet been one of those morons who gets himself killed. Oh well. There's still time.

Re:Fuckers

[Dog-Cow]

It's also a common affliction of shits to not even read the comment before replying. You are one of those shits. In fact, you're one of the smellier ones.

Re:Fuckers

[stealth_finger]

If the manufacturer of a sound system has stated that its devices may eventually cease to function, I find it hard to imagine that a court would find that it was as described when sold.

Kind of goes without saying really. My sound system is a mini-amp and a couple of floor standers. Not connected to anything but each other but it's inevitable they will eventually cease to function.

This is what the future looks like in the IoT, oh brave new world.

Re:Fuckers

[muffen]

1: Sonos works
2: User does not accept privacy policy change, which user is not required to do
3: Sonos no longer works
4: Profit?

Re:Fuckers

[The123king]

Yup, and after my dad forked out an insane quantity of money for a SONOS sound system a few weeks ago, i'm going to hunt down some vintage stuff and show him where he's going wrong.

Plus, it's just nicer not to have your stereo connected to the internet IMHO. Also, analogue or bust.

Re:Fuckers

[stealth_finger]

So in other words, false advertising is fine, they should be allowed to do it.

Removing functionality from a product after purchase is also fine, they should definitely be allowed to remove any functionality they want after purchase. If I wake up tomorrow and the car is incapable of being put in to drive, that's fine too, after all, I must have just misunderstood their advertising that said it could drive.

I've provided proof of their lies. I've documented what the vehicle could do when I bought it that it can no longer do. The former is FRAUD, the latter is THEFT of functionality.

I own the car, they don't. They're not allowed to remove functionality after purchase. They took money based on specific promises, they are not allowed to take that money without providing what they promised in their contract.

But of course none of that matters, because I can't afford tens of thousands of dollars in lawyer fees, plus many many hours of my life to sue them.

All I can do is warn other people not to do business with this super slimy company, and make sure that I never give them another penny as long as I live.

False advertising is an oxymoron. All advertising is false, an honest ad is a rare beast indeed. If it's so bad why don't you go get a refund or sell it on to some other sucker and you can be the one bigging up what it can actually do.

Re:Fuckers

[stealth_finger]

I imagine there will be a day when my so-called smart TV is nothing more than a CRT screen.

Your so called smart TV will never be a CRT screen and by the sounds of it, is smarter than you.

Re: Fuckers

[stealth_finger]

How many votes do you think are actually cast for the President? Trump won the majority vote. Provably so...

To be honest, going against Hillary Clinton, fucking Charles Manson probably could've won it.

Re: Fuckers

[tsa]

He didn't get the majority of the votes. And I can't help it if you don't see that USA politics is an irrepairable mess.

Re:Fuckers

[Cederic]

Hmm. GDPR could become a lot of fun.

Agree to data sharing. Update firmware. Write to withdraw consent and demand deletion of data.
Repeat until the company stops slurping data in the first place.

I'm looking forward to this :)

Re:Fuckers

[Cederic]

Additionally restrictions have been placed on it such that on some roadways the speed you can travel while on autosteer is limited to what the vehicle believes the speed limit to be.

That doesn't sound terribly unreasonable to me. You're complaining that your car wont break the law?

Re:Fuckers

[courteaudotbiz]

and makes me happy i havent invested in sonos

How are Sonos products an investment? I'd says that happily you didn't SPEND on Sonos stuff.

Anyway, for people who like listening to quality music, Sonos are just a plain marketing scam. It sounds like shit.

Re:Fuckers

[Big Hairy Ian]

Maybe a job for Super EFF

Re:Fuckers

[green1]

It didn't break the law before, the manufacturer however now has by stealing functionality that they already sold.

Re:Fuckers

[green1]

They flat out lie in all their public statements, and they steal functionality after the sale without permission. I'm not sure how that didn't come through in my statements.

Re: Fuckers

[green1]

So you wish me harm because I use a product safely and as advertised and refuse to let a company reach in to a product after purchase and remove functionality?

Wow...

And why do you think I would get myself killed while driving responsibly and paying attention to the traffic around me?

Re:Fuckers

[Opportunist]

Talk for your country. In my country some laws have a provision that you "cannot waive this right contractually".

Yes, there are rights that you have, even if you explicitly say you don't want to have them.

Re:Fuckers

[Opportunist]

You know, in the good ol' days, you'd gather your friends, grab some lead pipes and tell the shady salesman in no uncertain terms that his change of heart isn't in his best interest. Most learn after a broken shin or two.

Re:Fuckers

[Cederic]

No.

If it didn't speed before, then you can't claim 'not speeding' as a new restriction.
If it did speed before then you're complaining that it wont break the law.

Either way you should've left that particular complaint out of your rant.

Re:Fuckers

[Shirley Marquez]

Although it's a nuisance when the smart features of your smart TV stop working, the Sonos case is potentially much worse.

The primary function of your TV is to accept video signals, either from an antenna or through its inputs such as the HDMI port, and display video content and its associated audio. There is no reason to believe that it will stop doing that until the hardware fails, likely 10 or 20 years down the road. The smart features are a secondary capability, and can easily be added back by adding any of a number of video devices to your setup (Roku, Chromecast, Fire TV, etc). None of the smart TVs that have been sold (to my knowledge) require a network connection for basic TV functionality, so once you have done that you can unplug the network cable from the smart TV or have it forget its wireless connection (if need be, put its MAC address in your router's blacklist), eliminating any fear that it will spy on you.

The primary function of a Sonos system is wireless networked audio - being able to play music all over your house. That's what they sold it to you to do. The user has a reasonable expectation that it will continue to do that for its hardware lifetime, which for home audio equipment is at least 10 years and perhaps 20 years or more. Because of the nature of computer networking, software updates are sometimes required to keep that functionality working, and again the user has a reasonable expectation that the company will provide them, not to mention the fact that Sonos has promised to do just that.

Imposing an additional requirement that was not part of the original sale agreement to get access to those updates may or may not be legal, but is certainly a violation of the trust of their customers. And it's not even necessary; 90% of their users will probably agree to the change if they're simply asked nicely.

Arguments along the lines of "you can still use it as a dumb speaker" won't wash. That's not what you bought or what they sold you. You paid extra to get the network capabilities. Nor is there any straightforward way to add network capabilities to dumb speakers; nobody is selling that product. (The Chromecast Audio is close but not quite there.)

Re: Fuckers

[KGIII]

Probably because the word invest has multiple definitions.

Re:Fuckers

[TheFakeTimCook]

You are right. In some countries (like USA) you can waive your rights. In most civilised countries however you cannot be forced to waive your rights.

You (theoretically) can't be FORCED to waive your rights in the USA, either. That's the "Voluntary" part of the requirement, which I now notice I forgot to mention...

The requirements in the USA are:

1. Knowing

2. Voluntary

3. Specifically and Affirmatively stated (an "express" waiver).

Here's a contract case in the USA that has some good "waiver" cites in it:

https://supreme.justia.com/cas...

Re:Fuckers

[TheFakeTimCook]

Talk for your country. In my country some laws have a provision that you "cannot waive this right contractually".

Yes, there are rights that you have, even if you explicitly say you don't want to have them.

So, you are actually LESS free; in that the STATE decides for you, that you can't be trusted to make your own decision as to waiver of rights on a "case-by-case" basis, right?

BTW, waivers in my country are generally disfavored by the courts, and the courts always examine any waiver proffered to make sure it was Knowing, Voluntary, and Express (specific).

Re: Fuckers

[Anonymous Coward]

Bingo. Any legal question, civil or criminal, can be reduced to this. We in the USA live under a multi-tiered "justice" system. If you are rich oldmoneywhitey you can get your refund plus "damages". If you appear poor (especially black or brown or immigrant) you can go to jail just for demanding a refund. If you haven't noticed, the middle tier is disappearing, and the loudest critics blame the poor.

Re: Fuckers

[LynnwoodRooster]

He earned 304 of 538 total votes. Apparently you are confused about who elects the President? There are 538 total electors who cast votes for Presidents, one per Senator, one per Representative, and 3 for DC. States tend to hold popular elections to tell the electors what to do, but that is simply at the convenience of the State. States could hold a dueling match, rock/paper/scissors, or flip a coin in they chose. Some States break them up, some don't. But in the end, there are only 538 votes actually cast for the President, and President Trump won 57% of the vote. There is no "popular vote" or "popular election".

Re:Fuckers

[eric_harris_76]

Every one of those Confederacy memorial statues I've seen in the news has not been shiny, so I don't get the remark.

Or did I misunderstand again?

Re:Fuckers

[pots]

The argument does matter when the argument is: "That functionality wasn't really there in the first place." The feature that they advertised was not to do a thing, it was to do a thing safely. Something which they were apparently unable to deliver.

So your complaint isn't degradation of a product, it's false advertising.

Re: Fuckers

[EphemeralChocolate]

Wow, only an idiot would reach the conclusion that you are less free because you can't give away your rights! Remember, you still have to claim them. You are not forced by the government to exercise your rights. By your logic people would be more free if they could sell themselves into slavery.

Re:Fuckers

[Grishnakh]

But of course none of that matters, because I can't afford tens of thousands of dollars in lawyer fees, plus many many hours of my life to sue them.
All I can do is warn other people not to do business with this super slimy company, and make sure that I never give them another penny as long as I live.

So in other words, false advertising is fine, they should be allowed to do it.

Exactly. That's just how it is: the American people want it that way, because that's how we vote. We don't have strong consumer-protection laws, because we won't vote for candidates who do that. It's "socialism". Fighting against this is futile, because 100+ million other Americans are dead-set against you, so the only thing you can do is work around the problem.

Re:Fuckers

[AutodidactLabrat]

Medicare.
Proof of contrary

Re:Fuckers

[AutodidactLabrat]

I remind you of "Suitability of purpose" in Uniform Product Code
If it won't do what it was intended to do (lawn mower must cut grass) then selling to that purpose is a fraud.

Re:Fuckers

[bluefoxlucid]

Medicare, by law, is the lowest rate you can charge. As a result, the list price of services is always high: it's set a step above the Medicare rate schedule.

Because of this, when you have insurance, your insurer negotiates a discount rate. You may get a $2,000 service with a $1,200 discount, and so your insurer is billed at $800--the rate is $2,000, and so more than Medicare, but there's a nice $1,200 discount that doesn't violate the law.

Fascinating, right?

If you don't have insurance, you pay $2,000 out-of-pocket.

If you have really, really shitty insurance and have to pay 100% out-of-pocket, you only pay $800.

HR 676 takes this out even further. 676 aims to expand Medicare to everyone and prohibit private insurance overlapping medicare. That's a single-payer system. Krugman and other proponents claim HR 676 will save 40% in billing, administration, and other overhead.

A public option would have a mainly free-market insurance system, and then we could use the discount rates to benchmark those fair-market prices. You simply mandate that all employers must supply a described basic healthcare tier (or tiers), which the ACA does today, and then you use the discount rate schedules negotiated for each network provider to benchmark a fair-market price. This price is specific to each individual provider in each market.

With a public option, prices go up because the cost of employment incorporates the cost of health insurance, which incorporates the pricing of healthcare. Business owners shop around for an insurer, and so insurers want low premiums; insurers have HMOs and PPOs, and businesses have large groups, and so insurers can negotiate with those networks and with the groups to pressure healthcare providers into lower prices. Healthcare providers, on the other hand, must maintain a certain price structure or else they will fall below their costs in labor plus cost-of-risk, becoming unstable and eventually bankrupt: they can't lower prices below long-term profitability, and so have a solid basis from which to push back. These market pressures thus drive the discount prices down toward healthcare costs.

Proponents of HR 676 don't say how they'll identify the correct price structure in each market. A public option can give you a price structure sample in a market, from a provider, across a region, really at any level, just by peeking into the insurers's negotiated rates. That number comes from an enormous system of wetware processing billions of constantly-changing inputs through a genetics algorithm, selecting for the most-fit outcomes among competing businesses who need low pricing, bounded by the pricing needs of care providers. At first glance, it seems expensive to do this with big data; the truth is it's actually impossible.

Those inputs are constantly changing, and are a result of things like transportation costs, which result from things like location and thus access to suppliers. Some providers reject low-cost supplies because their metrics show a significant increase in complications (patient maiming and death) due to the low quality of such supplies, and so their prices are a little different--all we can see out here is price and performance, and thus need a manual investigation into whether they can and should switch suppliers to accurately gauge if their price is fair and acceptable. In short: the inputs are unknown and unknowable as a whole.

So medicare is the cause of excessively-high healthcare costs in the United States, and new proposals for a single-payer system have likely consequences of extreme costs. We won't be able to control costs well under a single-payer system because we'll have to blindly negotiate, trying to crudely guess at the fair-market price of services.

What about the public option route, with a mandate for employer-provided insurance?

The ACA mandates employers provide healthcare to full-time employees. We all remember when

Re:Fuckers

[Opportunist]

The alternative is that corporations can use their bargaining position to make you waive your rights. Especially if they have a monopoly position.

Re: Fuckers

[TheFakeTimCook]

Wow, only an idiot would reach the conclusion that you are less free because you can't give away your rights! Remember, you still have to claim them. You are not forced by the government to exercise your rights.

By your logic people would be more free if they could sell themselves into slavery.

Now you're getting it!

Re:Fuckers

[AutodidactLabrat]

Medicare, by law, is the lowest rate you can charge. As a result, the list price of services is always high: it's set a step above the Medicare rate schedule.

Wrong. By law, Medicare must pay a fixed proportion of USUAL AND CUSTOMARY charges

Medicare and every permutation of what Medicare may become in the near future have terrible consequences.

Which terrible consequences? Profitability of Lilly, et al will not be as HIGH as desired?
Don't play the "we need more income to develop new drugs" card since 4x more is spent on advertising than on research!

Re:Fuckers

[bluefoxlucid]

No, medicare is the reason the usual and customary price tag is $2,000, and thus a person without insurance pays $2,000, while a person paying 100% out-of-pocket is getting $2,000 minus the insurer-negotiated discount. That $2,000 sets the price, and medicare is legally below that.

That price, by the way, isn't the "usual and customary" market price; it's the "usual and customary" price your provider charges. We also have non-discrimination laws about pricing, so the practice must charge the same price to all customers--meaning that "usual and customary" price is the price, and what Medicare pays is below the price. This is, again, why the insurer is billed $2,000, but has a negotiated discount: it's not legal to bill the insurer a straight $800, but it is legal to bill them $2,000 and discount a contract-negotiated $1,200.

Which produces the terrible consequence that the uninsured and those with weak group insurance face high medical prices.

A public option isn't likely to resolve this, although I've designed policies that probably would--those policies might also have a negative consequence somewhere about non-discriminatory pricing, but I don't think repealing that rule is actually necessary. We can just benchmark the public option price to the actual market discount rates negotiated by insurers. Without pulling the non-discriminatory pricing law, however, medicare is still driving the base price up (not sure how much it matters with a public option that's using the insurer-negotiated rates, and with no outright-uninsured; people with less-prestigious insurers and HDHPs might not get a great discount off that really-high base price, but the public option should cover that gap or why would you buy into a catastrophic plan?). I think it'd at least be better.

A single-payer means that "usual and customary" rate is the rate they'd benchmark to--as evidenced by it being the rate they benchmark to now--and it's a lot higher than what insurance pays now. That's a lot of economic rent and a huge amount of tax costs to the consumer to have government healthcare.

LLY's profit margin seems to be about 14% 5-year average, which is a touch high, but par for the course in the healthcare industry (10-15%). Consumer-level automobiles are generally 12% NOP long-term average; Wendy's has an 8% NOP long-term average; and New Balance shoe company was maintaining just over 5% over 5 years last time I looked. Comcast is usually in the 8%-11% range.

Strattera was, what, $1100 for a 3-month supply, one pill dose? The insurance-negotiated price was $382, or $4.25/pill. Using that as a benchmark, LLY could have 0% profit average at $3.72/pill or a price of $335/6mo.

LLY spent $824.5 million on advertising in 2016; they spent $5,243.9 million on research in the same year. As your master's degree in mathematics surely will attest, 825 / 5,244 = 4.

Here's a tip: don't play emotional appeals and fake facts at me, because I have real facts and I can do first-grade math on a pocket calculator.

Re:Fuckers

[AutodidactLabrat]

Wrong
See "private insurance" for maximizing prices

Re:Fuckers

[bluefoxlucid]

How does private insurance drive prices up when it's in the interest of the insurer's maximized profits to get the prices down as low as possible?

How does private insurance drive prices up when the insurer's rate after remittance is often (well) below half the list price?

How is it Medicare will never pay above the listed usual and customary price an individual practice charges even if the medicare rate for the area is higher, yet doesn't push prices upwards? A practice charging below that rate won't get as much Medicare money; a practice charging above that rate gets more Medicare money and, as well, can negotiate a higher rate from insurers--because of course the insurer isn't going to pay more than the patient would pay out-of-pocket, either.

Medicare does a lot of great things. Driving prices downward is not one of them.

Re:Fuckers

[AutodidactLabrat]

So, you admit you were wrong (false deliberately, or ignorant) in your claim Medicare is BY LAW the lowest price paid.
Thanks

These are not the terms I agreed to!

[bobbied]

I am altering the deal, pray I don't alter it further!

Re:These are not the terms I agreed to!

[green1]

The new corporate creed.

Re:These are not the terms I agreed to!

[grep -v '.*' *]

THIS. I was just about to submit it but figured someone else already had. Linkie

Why is this all so hard to understand?
Old stuff vs new stuff. You bought a rock. You can do anything with it at any time. If you got a warranty you can have the company fix it, if still unaltered. If you break it, you get smaller rocks and break the warranty as well. If you give it away it's now the new person's problem. If it breaks out of warranty you now have a nice boat anchor. The End.

The New And Improved Internet Connected Rock. You just bought a rock.
Thank you for activating your account via GPS, internet, and audible and optical recognition. No, you actually just bought a usage license with localized implementation hardware.

You can do anything with it at any time.
As long as the company's computers allow you to. If they deny or are somehow unavailable, that requested function will be disabled until connectivity is fully restored and your account balance brought up to date. Current fees will be made available to you on your monthly credit card statement.

If you got a warranty you can have the company fix it, if still unaltered.
If you local implementation hardware is malfunctioning, you can call a helpful not-your-language speaking tech who will happily ignore you comments while reading from a partially prepared script. If it is found that your local device actually IS malfunctioning, you can ship it back to the vendor who will gleefully return to you a refurbished unit. Eventually. While you are waiting, for your convenience you can purchase a brand new still-in-warranty unit from any available store!

If you break it, you get smaller rocks and break the warranty as well.
If you accidentally break the "No User Serviceable Parts Inside" label the Company's Physical User Interface Employees will be automatically called to investigate the matter. if it turned out you broke the label or disassembled the unit on purpose, the aforementioned Physical User Interface Employees will reclaim the physically damaged unit and happily physically service you with a smile. If not, please call our customer support hot-line for additional attention.

If you give it away it's now the new person's problem.
The unit's permanent memory will record every command ever issued. if provided with a microphone or camera it will notice and record everything in proximity. Loaning it to a new owner does NOT absolve you of any past or future offenses. Better make sure the new owner is a good friend! Also, this unit is completely impervious to hacking -- everything is completely under control.

If it breaks out of warranty you now have a nice boat anchor.
If it breaks the company's servers will soon notice the missing requests and automatically issue a new one. Your credit card number is already on file; you will also be provided with the current legal contracts and your obligations that we might change at any time, even while you're reading the current set. The old unit will still make a great gift!

The End.
YOU WISH.

Internet of Legally Screwed

[sinij]

Internet of Things moved to Internet of Insecure Things and now to Internet of Legally Screwed Things.

Why would anyone buy IoT after this is a mystery.

Re:Internet of Legally Screwed

[JohnFen]

Why anyone ever bought IoT devices that talk to servers they don't control has always been a mystery to me.

Re:Internet of Legally Screwed

[David_Hart]

Why anyone ever bought IoT devices that talk to servers they don't control has always been a mystery to me.

Because Alexa* turns on my TV with a voice command.... (grin)

*Alexa Dot using the Logitech Harmony skill

Re:Internet of Legally Screwed

[93 Escort Wagon]

It's faster to press a button a remote.

Re:Internet of Legally Screwed

[93 Escort Wagon]

I'm a guy. I always have the remote in my hand. Can't let the wife have it, after all.

Re:Internet of Legally Screwed

[Opportunist]

Why anyone buys anything where you hand over total control over a portion of your home including its security is beyond me. This is about some crappy stereo system, but people are buying LOCKS for their homes that are controlled by someone else.

Talk about creepy.

Re:Internet of Legally Screwed

[Opportunist]

Buy a couple spares and distribute them strategically across your home.

Still cheaper than Alexa.

Dodged a bullet, there

[JohnFen]

I recently updated my audio system and looked seriously at some Sonos hardware. I decided against it because it appeared that internet connectivity or a smartphone app was required to use (or at the very least, configure) it.

I clearly made an excellent decision!

Re:Dodged a bullet, there

[drinkypoo]

For the educated, this kind of decision is easy. Is it standards-based, or do I need some proprietary garbage to manage it? To the general public, this stuff is confusing.

Re:Dodged a bullet, there

[JohnFen]

Yes, uPnP (formerly DLNA).

But beware: when I updated my sound system, I bought a wireless streaming receiver with the intention of using it to connect speakers wirelessly. I selected the hardware because it claimed to use uPnP.

I suppose, maybe, technically, it does. But it still requires the use of a proprietary smartphone app to make it work. Which means that what I really bought was worthless garbage.

Lesson learned: don't buy any such equipment unless you can verify (personally or through someone you trust) that it is really what it claims to be.

Re:Dodged a bullet, there

[green1]

I returned 3 different NAS devices to the store before finding a NAS device that didn't require custom proprietary (windows only) software to be installed on every device accessing them. I ended up having to pay double to get one that would support standards vs the proprietary ones.

I looked at a dozen portable USB powered monitors before finding one that supported HDMI and therefore didn't need custom (windows only) drivers installed on every device using it. I ended up having to pay more than triple to get one that would support standards vs the proprietary ones.

And that's the big problem, standards compliant hardware usually costs double or more what the proprietary stuff does, despite the fact that it should actually be easier/cheaper to produce.

Re:Dodged a bullet, there

[4pins]

What did you choose, I tried to avoid Sonos and didn't find anything else appropriate for my needs.

Re:Dodged a bullet, there

[networkBoy]

Nas4Free and a relatively low power i5 ECC system with drive bays turned out *cheaper* than a small standards compliant NAS.
sad but true.

Re:Dodged a bullet, there

[ag0ny]

You made the right choice.

I made the mistake of buying a few Sonos speakers last year, and they gave a bad impression even before taking them out of the box. I tweeted Sonos about it with this photo.

Re:Dodged a bullet, there

[green1]

But is it as fast and as power efficient?

Re:Dodged a bullet, there

[green1]

Significantly faster??? ummmm... you just lost all credibility.

A proper dedicated NAS device is as fast as the drive can read/write (maybe faster for commonly accessed data due to caching) and as fast as the network can transfer data. Your cobbled together solution can be as fast, but it can not be faster.

As for power efficiency, you claim if using a proper embedded solution it can be more power efficient than the proper dedicated NAS, but again, a proper dedicated NAS is already doing that, so at most you can strive to be as power efficient, but not more so.

So what you're telling me is that your cobbled together solution will be a lot more work, probably cost as much, and if you're lucky, might perform as well. Hardly a glowing endorsement.

Re:Dodged a bullet, there

[green1]

If you care about these things and care about proprietary software why are you not rolling your own? I assume you have the skills if you know enough to have those concerns.

And this is my biggest issue with the open source community in general, "if you know there's a problem you must also know enough to fix it". No, just no.

NAS is just another way of saying "low-performance dedicated file server" after all

No, NAS is a way of saying HIGH performance dedicated file server. if you want low performance use whatever garbage you have lying around.

I have made one that is also a media server, seedbox, and a half dozen other things with 9TB of raid and 2GBps of bandwidth for $300

and probably uses 10 times as much power as a box designed for that purpose.

and have been thinking about installing a solar setup for it with 3 days of backup power. Would cost about $550 and pay itself off during the device lifetime.

Which proves that it uses too much power. a dedicated NAS box shouldn't be using $550 worth of power (especially if you add in the value of your time to build) in it's lifetime.

I bet building your own would have taken less time than what you did looking for a "cheap, fast, power efficient, non-proprietary" unicorn.

And would have been guaranteed to miss at least one of those criteria, if not more than one. (yours missed on both price and power usage)

Re:Dodged a bullet, there

[JohnFen]

It took me a long time, but I couldn't find anything fancy that didn't come with onerous restrictions like that. So I fell back on tried-and-true old tech: I wired old-school, high quality speakers to old-school good quality amplifiers. The amps are connected to some brick-style fanless computers that I put Linux on, and am using standard software to make everything talk.

I was genuinely surprised that it was so difficult to find acceptable equipment. I'm not even convinced that it exists as a single solution.

Re:Dodged a bullet, there

[networkBoy]

Dunno what that AC was thinking...
My real world experience: It is fast enough that I have not had any issues, I run two pools, one for bulk storage, one for multiple stream access.
Bulk storage is on 6TB NAS drives in mirror sets, one WD one ST and one ANY per set. Two such sets in one Zpool (so 6 drives for 12 TB of storage) high reliability, high enough access as any set can effectively dedicate a drive per read stream. Obviously serving a 4th read stream would possibly cause issues quickly, and for sure a 7th stream would; depending on file location.
For the pool that actually is expected to be serving multiple streams it's SSD based (pair of refurb FusionIO 640G PCIe SSDs in single 1.2TB pool) These are backed up to the other larger pool regularly (as part of the scrub cronjob).

Use case:
Host for two iSCSI targets for VMWare ESXi system
Streaming server for PLEX front-end (mounted as NFS)
host for minecraft server (mounted as NFS)
general filer for my home network.
At any point the system may be serving one plex stream and two iSCSI endpoints (PLEX is on the shared GigE, iSCSI each have their own) from the 12TB pool and serving file requests for all NFS mounts other than PLEX from the SSD.

Now power: Excellent, likely close to what the integrated systems use... about 250w under load/150W idle.
(6 drives, 2 Fusion IO, one onboard lan, one x4 2 port GigE) onboard SATA, integrated GFX, 16 gig ECC ram, i5 2 core cpu).

My solution was born from not finding anything commercial that was even close to the featureset I wanted at a price that was palatable. I'm sure it's not as perfect as a high end commercial system that's been properly tuned, but it meets my needs for about 1/4 the cost.

Re:Dodged a bullet, there

[networkBoy]

I bet building your own would have taken less time than what you did looking for a "cheap, fast, power efficient, non-proprietary" unicorn.

Unicorn is right, and you left out "configurable".

I do understand his desire for the unicorn solution though. I rebuilt my NAS *three* times while learning all the ins and outs of what I wanted and how best to accomplish it.
Upside, those 6x6TB drives got a thorough burn-in test!

Re:Dodged a bullet, there

[green1]

Your under load power use sounds fine, but your idle power use sounds extremely high.

Re:Dodged a bullet, there

[networkBoy]

Drives don't spin down, and I have CPU currently set to no C sleep states, so NOPs don't cause core frequency to drop.
I shot for absolutely most stable config, and am changing one thing at a time per month as I work on lowering power.

Also, the FusionIOs have a funky power configuration, I think that they are doing a lot of background stuff that I could configure more conservatively... but honestly getting them up and running was enough of a pain that I'm afraid to touch them. I definitely would advise against using them in future builds, and just using the newer Intel cards and paying the price premium if you really want that kind of speed. I mean I got the pair for $340, so killer deal, but... *pain*

Re:Dodged a bullet, there

[green1]

Or you can buy a dedicated NAS device for under $500, under $300 if you'll put up with proprietary stuff.

Re:Dodged a bullet, there

[aaarrrgggh]

Surely you jest!? Most of them are just Linux boxes, and all the ones I have used were easy enough to ssh into if you want. Never an issue with Buffalo, WD, Synology, or off-brand units with a Mac or Linux workstation.

Re:Dodged a bullet, there

[networkBoy]

nothing I've seen in that price range had the features I wanted like iSCSI target, multiple LAN, etc.

I realise I wanted more a "baby SAN" than a home NAS, but hey. I also got to learn a ton and increase my skill base for prospective employers.

Re:Dodged a bullet, there

[green1]

I wish I were joking, the vast majority of the cheaper ones require proprietary windows only drivers. It's harder for a company to build them that way, but they do it anyway.

Re:Dodged a bullet, there

[JohnFen]

But can the system be configured and work without having access to the internet? As near as I can tell, it can't.

Re:Dodged a bullet, there

[green1]

Learning is a great goal on it's own, and I frequently do things for that purpose. But you can't equate that to buying off the shelf components, and frequently if you look at your actual total cost it's a lot higher than buying off the shelf.

Re:Dodged a bullet, there

[JohnFen]

This was one of the reasons why, when I bought my NAS, I specifically looked for one that was running a standard Linux distro.

Re:Dodged a bullet, there

[green1]

Hence the 2-3 times the price part. That's how you get one that's standards compliant.

Re:Dodged a bullet, there

[Opportunist]

For the educated the decision is already decided at "Is there a local server or do I get to send my command to some server outside my control that in turn controls my (insert gadget name here)?"

Who with an IQ above room temperature makes himself and the insanely expensive piece of bullshit he bought 100% absolutely dependent on a third party's ability and willingness to continue the service?

Re:Dodged a bullet, there

[aaarrrgggh]

It can, but it is a very painful process. Operating it without internet access though isn't an issue.

Unfettered capitalism at work

[Baron_Yam]

Unfettered capitalism is ultimately only slightly better for society than unfettered communism. Large corporations can act as a single entity, while consumers are sufficiently segmented that in most cases coordination is unlikely.

The response is to change the market via legislation, and let the companies adapt to the new reality, rather than attempt boycotting them. A boycott - even if successful - only ensures they get sneakier about future attempts at the same goal.

Re:Unfettered capitalism at work

[OhPlz]

Your approach would only work if the government was for the people. It isn't. Good luck getting the feds to enforce the type of laws you seek.

Re:Unfettered capitalism at work

[bobbied]

You want to regulate this junk how?

The problem with having the legislature cough up some law is the same problem you have when you are trying to drive a finishing nail with a sledge hammer. You want the finished product to be nice looking so you are driving small nails, but all you have is a sledge hammer so you beat the stuffing out of what you are driving the nail into and what you get looks like junk, because it is junk.

Personally, I believe that capitalism already has a solution to this kind of thing, two actually. As a consumer, aware of this situation, you can choose another product... Or, if you have already purchased a product that is now known to be flawed and the manufacturer refuses to fix it because you don't like the new license terms, you can file a civil suit.

I don't believe that we need a law in this case, except perhaps one that requires full disclosure of such license terms with rights to return the device for a full refund should such terms be changed and support withdrawn w/o accepting the new terms within the warranty period.

Re:Unfettered capitalism at work

[Type44Q]

Unfettered capitalism is ultimately only slightly better for society than unfettered communism.

I'd argue that ultimately they amount to the same thing.

Re:Unfettered capitalism at work

[Baron_Yam]

> I believe that capitalism already has a solution to this kind of thing, two actually. As a consumer, aware of this situation, you can choose another product... Or, if you have already purchased a product that is now known to be flawed and the manufacturer refuses to fix it because you don't like the new license terms, you can file a civil suit.

The first requires that enough consumers are aware of the problem and willing to purchase selectively to result in products with the intentional flaws being unprofitable to produce.

The second requires being willing to set your life aside to fight a corporation. You may win a small settlement up front, you may win a big one in 20 years... or you could ruin your life in the attempt.

There's a shift in the marketplace happening, and consumers are being pushed back into a feudal system except that instead of land its consumer products and instead of lords its corporations. Same end result - you're not allowed to actually own anything and what you do have in your possession is only so at the whim of your 'lord'.

That's something to be resisted, and it's better organized at the legislative level than continual boycotts and the occasional civil suit.

Re:Unfettered capitalism at work

[Baron_Yam]

>I'd argue that ultimately they amount to the same thing.

Both end up as utterly corrupt with a small ruling elite oppressing the masses?

Re:Unfettered capitalism at work

[erapert]

Unfettered capitalism is ultimately only slightly better for society than unfettered communism. Large corporations can act as a single entity, while consumers are sufficiently segmented that in most cases coordination is unlikely.

I have mixed feelings about this.
I want to agree with you, especially the part about consumers being sufficiently segmented and thus uncoordinated.
But then, if most of the people are acting in their own self interests, and the market goes in some given direction... then isn't that basically the same as saying that the maximum amount of people have had their needs satisfied even if it's not my own preference? The only thing left to do is to try and argue the masses out of it and perhaps they'll all agree that some change is needed.

The response is to change the market via legislation, and let the companies adapt to the new reality, rather than attempt boycotting them. A boycott - even if successful - only ensures they get sneakier about future attempts at the same goal.

This is not good.
This is worse than a corporation sneakily abusing their customers.
If you don't like a company's products then don't buy them. You can make your own or buy from a competitor or modify the product or something.
You can't opt out of government having power over you and forcing you to behave according to its often capricious laws.
Furthermore, what if your political opponents take power in the government and then turn those same laws against you?

So I must disagree with you. You want to get the government to force others to behave according to your wishes.
That's not better than a company releasing products that abuse you only if you buy them.
Consent. It's a thing. And it makes a difference.

Re:Unfettered capitalism at work

[JohnFen]

The second requires being willing to set your life aside to fight a corporation.

I'm with you in that, generally speaking, the court system in the US is not a viable alternative unless you're wealthy or willing to take on a mind-altering amount of debt.

However, there is an often-overlooked aspect of the court system that can still be of use to normal people: small claims. In small claims, you don't use lawyers, the filing fees are (relatively) small, and lots of large companies won't even bother to fight there, since they'll spend less just accepting the default judgement.

The downside is that there is a monetary limit of what you can be awarded (varies from state to state), and all a judgement in your favor gives you is the legal right to collect. It's still up to you to actually do so, which -- if the other party refuses to pay -- means that you'll have to spend more time and money doing things like getting liens.

Re:Unfettered capitalism at work

[Baron_Yam]

> You want to get the government to force others to behave according to your wishes

Actually, what I want is the government to represent the best interests of the population. In this case, by providing a single focus where change can be enacted.

It's a lot easier to have people send a letter to their representative saying they don't want companies to be able to sell products and then alter them after the purchase without recourse than it is to get everyone to shop the same way when it seems all the major choices are going in the same undesirable (and not immediately obvious to the average shopper) direction.

It's coordination, not coercion.

Re:Unfettered capitalism at work

[Penguinisto]

The second requires being willing to set your life aside to fight a corporation.

Actually, thanks to greed-driven lawyers who love the phrase "class action", you can set them after the offending corporation.

You won't make jack (at most a refund of the purchase price), but usually in such cases you caveat emptor , do a bit of research next time, and go buy something that doesn't suck.

I mean, unless you laid out over $7.5k for the damned thing (above small-claims court costs in most US states), you consider it a hard lesson, but be asshole enough to sic the class-action legal crowd after it. At most you just have to give a deposition and maybe testify to the assholery of (in this case) Sonos.

Re:Unfettered capitalism at work

[bluefoxlucid]

Incompetence is why I'd never want to be a dictator. I can fix some shit in this country, but I can't fix everything; having to battle with hundreds of other people who may or may not share my vision is a small price to pay for having thousands of congressmen, Congressional staff, independent Government organizations (CBO, etc.), committee staff, and others to back me up if I try to destroy this country with an ill-conceived idea beyond my own capacity. As a dictator, I wouldn't have anyone around to take my hand away from the big red button when I waved it around blindly.

Party politics, however, is bullshit. I want to develop legislation making it easier to run as independent--and defining "independent" so as to prevent the formation of unnamed political parties. Let's give people a better way in, and threaten to dilute the GOP and DNC if they don't shape up.

Re:Unfettered capitalism at work

[bluefoxlucid]

If a business own the means to production at large, then the megacorporation can utterly-destroy your country. Thus your government must bow to its whims for the sake of national security. This is no different from a government owning the means to production (socialism, not communism).

Re:Unfettered capitalism at work

[_Sharp'r_]

Based on actual history, the most likely result of your desired regulation of the market would be that they require everyone to buy only Sonos-style equipment and no longer allow any alternatives.

Because the large corporation has real money on the line and "can act as a single entity, while consumers are sufficiently segmented that in most cases coordination is unlikely." (To quote you.)

So yeah, instead of giving the government the power to decide based on the self-interest of politicians and bureaucrats what type of sound system I am allowed to purchase, I'd just as soon make my own decisions about what I want. The difference is that no one is forcing you to buy something from Sonos right now. They have to earn your business, right up until the government gets involved in it.

Re:Unfettered capitalism at work

[erapert]

Actually, what I want is the government to represent the best interests of the population.

1. Who decides what the best interests are? According to what standards?
2. Aren't people already deciding what's in their best interests by either buying or ignoring this product?

It's coordination, not coercion.

What if I don't want to coordinate or I want to opt-out in a way that doesn't disturb those who do want to coordinate? Am I allowed to do that? If no then isn't it coercion?

What if the law was simply that a company cannot alter EULAs or such agreements unilaterally?
Would that be a reasonable compromise between our positions?

Re:Unfettered capitalism at work

[suutar]

Remember, for people to act in their self interest they have to have information, and enough understanding to interpret it. The latter is not common these days, and as a result the former is also being allowed to slip by the wayside.

Re:Unfettered capitalism at work

[Baron_Yam]

>Incompetence is why I'd never want to be a dictator

When I was young I used to dream of world domination. As I got older I just kept thinking, "Why would I ever want that?"

I just want to go about my business without having to worry about much that isn't directly affecting me, and I certainly don't want to deal with the masses questioning my every move.

I really don't think anyone who wants to be head of state of a nation can be completely sane.

Re:Unfettered capitalism at work

[OhPlz]

Neither extreme is good for the people. The answer is somewhere in between. But since politicians rarely serve the people, regulation doesn't tend to get us where we want to be. The question is how do we make politicians answer for what they do while in office? Guillotine might be too severe. Voting them out is too weak because you just get another one.

Re:Unfettered capitalism at work

[Sloppy]

A boycott - even if successful - only ensures they get sneakier about future attempts at the same goal

Even the click-through-EULA apologists haven't yet gotten rid of the click-through. While they've shown plenty of criminal intent by moving the "agreement" to after the sale, they still haven't yet gotten rid of the pretense of "agreement" altogether. As warped as our law is, there really are limits to contracts of adhesion: if they try to hide the existence of the contract completely, any court will say there's no contract at all.

What I'm getting at is: when they attack you, they're always going to show you a EULA. There might be a lot of fraud about what, exactly, you "agreed" to but the attack will be visible even if you don't know exactly what the attacker is trying to pull.

They simply can't be sneaky enough, if you adopt the best practices of rejecting all EULAs. Any time you see a EULA, decline. You know it's an attack, and there's virtually no chance that it's not an attack. It's just a question of details and severity.

If you want to change the law, ok. But don't focus on this one little example niche problem. Solve the general case. Make it a federal offense to manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in software intended to make hardware work against the interests of its owner.

You'll be solving lots of problems by doing that. The only downside is that it'll make us run out of things to whine about on Slashdot.

Re:Unfettered capitalism at work

[tepples]

If you don't like a company's products then don't buy them. You can make your own

Until the company that makes them sues you for copyright or patent infringement.
Or unless the government requires use of the company's products, such as business tax preparation and filing software in a country that has phased out paper forms.
Or unless it's a natural monopoly, such as electric power, water, or heating gas.
Or unless all grocery stores near you play the company's product over the speaker system when not making an announcement and put a fraction of your grocery bill toward royalties.
Or unless essentially all employers in your (field, area) require you to use a particular product as a condition of becoming or remaining employed. (See Facebook abstainers being called "suspicious" in background checks.)

My point is that for some products (though I concede not this Sonos product), only the Amish have a reasonable chance of avoiding buying them.

Re:Unfettered capitalism at work

[Bert64]

You can only choose another product if such products exist, so this only works in a competitive market not one that's been sewn up by a single vendor. And this also assumes users are sufficiently aware of the details before they make a purchase. In any case, changing the terms after someone has made a purchase is extremely underhanded.

Filing a civil suit is expensive, the company will have far more money than the end user and can afford to tie them up for years even if their case has no merit, all the while incurring lawyer fees until they run out of money.

Re:Unfettered capitalism at work

[bobbied]

If another product doesn't exist, capitalism provides a solution. Competition. Create your own product and sell it for profit.

Our civil courts are far from perfect, but as a system they are the best in the world for what they do. Yes, it can be expensive to use them, Yes, lawyers are usually the only people that make money from this process, but you CAN take on the "evil corporations" and win if your cause is just. Which is my point. IF you care enough about the principles of the matter and you have the law on your side, you will win... Eventually....

Re:Unfettered capitalism at work

[houghi]

You know that in the Feudal system what the Kings did was completely legal, right? So fighting it at that level will hardly solve anything.

Re:Unfettered capitalism at work

[Bert64]

No..
If you care enough about the principles of the matter *AND* you can afford to carry through with the case. If you can't afford the fees it doesn't matter how much you care or wether you're right or not.

Re:Unfettered capitalism at work

[bobbied]

IF you care about it enough, you can afford it. Trust me.. ;)

Where it is an advantage to have lots of resources for crafty lawyers when you go to civil court, the fact remains that you still *can* prevail when the law is on your side. Our courts ARE fair, regardless of what people like to say. If there is enough money at stake, you can even get a good lawyer to take the case on commission and not have to worry about paying them until you collect.

Bullet...

[Type44Q]

Bullet, meet foot.

Cease tio function?

[ve3oat]

Why would the device cease to function over time? It might just not accomodate any new formats or provide new features which would otherwise be available from the firmware updates. But it shouldn't the device still work with formats and features available at the time of manufacture? Is the Sonos really threatening to shut it down if you don't agree to their policy???

Re:Cease tio function?

[jareth-0205]

Why would the device cease to function over time? It might just not accomodate any new formats or provide new features which would otherwise be available from the firmware updates. But it shouldn't the device still work with formats and features available at the time of manufacture? Is the Sonos really threatening to shut it down if you don't agree to their policy???

Probably they mean that the devices are no longer supported so when bugs get introduced, APIs change, get deprecated, etc, they will then start to fail. The devices themselves might not change but the servers that they have to communicate with probably will, and if Sonos stop testing with the old client firmware, or want to change something the over time that client won't be able to work with the server when the old API is switched off.

BOYCOTT bully brands...

[Zurkeyon3733]

DJI, Sonos, and Others think that FORCING you to comply with TOS and Privacy Terms, is a license to abuse customers and brick devices. VOTE WITH YOUR DOLLARS PEOPLE. Do NOT continue to buy from companies who do this. If you OWN a device, it should mean corporate suicide to "Threaten to Brick" those devices. Enough of this nonsense! If I truly own it, it should work until the materials fail from that use... Period!

Re:BOYCOTT bully brands...

[BronsCon]

It works quite well, actually. Make others aware of the issue and they won't buy. And yes, eventually, I'm sure they'll want to upgrade, and will buy someone else's product when they do.

Or do you really only ever buy one of something for your entire life?

You see, while people who already bought it are either stuck with the inferior product, or stuck replacing it with something else (making two purchases instead of one), they can still strike a blow to the company that made the product defective in the first place. That works out for all of us, but only if we actually commit to doing it. If we keep bending over and taking it, more and more companies will learn that they can get away with it and every product will eventual be inferior, relative to our current technological capabilities... and overpriced, to boot. Why compete on price and quality when your target market has proven themselves to be wasteful idiots who know no better?

Re:BOYCOTT bully brands...

[Gr8Apes]

If you want a case study of how well this works, check Sony out. There's a largish contingent who won't buy any Sony product, period, thanks to their anti-consumerism stances, bait and switch tactics with their name branded devices, and blatantly illegal practices (for me, the CD rootkit they put on their audio CDs blacklisted them). They have not improved since then. Sony may survive, they may not. But 15 years on, they're a shell of the company they used to be, and I'm merely waiting for the shoe to drop and they become a pure holding company merely licensing their name or disappear altogether (the preferred solution)

Is it irrational animosity towards a corporate entity? You can argue that, but if that entity shits on its customers repeatedly, perhaps its time to avoid being crapped on, especially with other choices out there. And making all your friends aware of these superior alternatives, well, that's just "viral marketing" of the kind a brand just can't buy. To couch it in positive terms, for other brands.

Re:BOYCOTT bully brands...

[BronsCon]

Bingo. I blacklisted them for the same reason! Sad, too, because they were a great company putting out great quality and innovative (even if not always successful) products until they let their media division start calling the shots.

In my entire adult life, there have been two "must have Sony products; both were portable computers in unique form factors, both bought used (Sony didn't see a penny from me), and both regretted. Just further confirmation that Sony has perfected the art of polishing a turd. Their media and gaming divisions will keep them alive, though, because people need those distractions lest they have to actually think for a moment. Apparently, that's painful for a large portion of the population.

Re:BOYCOTT bully brands...

[BronsCon]

The timing of this story...

Re:BOYCOTT bully brands...

[Gr8Apes]

That is most assuredly correct. They were a great company. In the 80s. In the 90s they started doing this stupid crap because they thought they could get away with it. As they milked their brand for all it was worth, they cut all spending on anything innovative, and promptly fell off the cliff even if their stock price rose to ridiculous heights due to the MBA "value" of the company. Like all things MBA, it vanished as soon as they milked their customer good will dry and their well of IP hit bottom, and there was nothing to replace it. I can only explain it as the MBA pyramid scheme played out to the end, because anything else would state that all these folks that ran a multi-national conglomerate all got hit with a case of zombie idiocy virus all at the same time in the early 90s and just happened to accidentally make bad business decisions from the perspective of the future of the company for short-term market benefits.

They should be paying you for the new data

[Anonymous Coward]

Can't opt out, you should get a payment for the new data they are selling that they didn't do before.

They make money for this data, don't let you out of collection then you should be paid for the data.

Not gonna happen unless they get sued for change in privacy and they have to refund some of those profits back but seems fair to me.

That'll teach you, won't it?

[Rick Schumann]

Don't buy things that can be leveraged this way, not ever.

Be sure to enjoy your class-action lawsuit, everyone.
Also, enjoy potentially going bankrupt, Sonos. That's the kharma you get for being pricks and forcefully invading people's privacy.

I think eventually the needle is going to swing back the other way, people are going to get sick and tired of shit like this, and there'll be a revolt, resulting in legislation prohibiting this sort of crap. Or at least I can hope.

Misread of the outcome?

[jeffy210]

I think the poster is looking at that statement wrong. " and over time the functionality of the product will decrease".

Anytime I have not done updates on Sonos it just prevents *new* features, but it does not take away old ones. As long as you leave the controller and units on the same version you'll have the same level of functionality you always did unless a 3rd party changes their integration method. In which case you could lose access to that service, but that is because the Sonos would have required an update to fix integration anyway.

If you use it for things like local music on a NAS or PC, you'll be fine if you stop where you are, but the product will not "cease to function".

Re:Misread of the outcome?

[Calydor]

Or because Sonos 'required' an update of integration to get rid of all the leeches that won't give them data access.

Re:Misread of the outcome?

[JohnFen]

This.

Sonos wants in on the whole "big data" gold rush. The advent of Big Data has been a huge step backward for us all.

Re:Misread of the outcome?

[riffraff]

It is always possible for them to have built in code that checks the servers, and if it can't reach the servers after 90 days (or whatever), then start decreasing/removing functionality, until finally it doesn't work. Kind of like a deadman switch.

Plug the digital hole.

[Anonymous Coward]

Go back to pseudo-analog systems without network access.

90s-early 00s era recievers are still probably the best, unless you need more than 5.1 or 7.1 sound.

The only solution to the current sickness is to start supporting companies that don't provide/require network connected devices. Or, in the best case scenario, device manufacturers that provide open and documented firmware, so you can modify it as you see fit.

Re:Plug the digital hole.

[ctilsie242]

This. A speaker really doesn't do much that requires "smart" crap. All one really needs is the ability to pair via Bluetooth, A2DP compatibility, a good DAC, and a solid physical speaker (or speakers.) Add a good power supply that is isolated to prevent ground loops, and that's that.

Re:Plug the digital hole.

[TWX]

All that the amplifier needs is the right inputs. I tend to use digital over coax or digital over optical where I can, and good old fashioned line-level on RCA connectors, hopefully with some kind of surround sound encoding for the amplifier to make use of.

My current amplifier for my big multimedia setup doesn't even have HDMI or DVI, and I don't use it to switch video signal even though it can theoretically do S-video, Component, and Composite. The projector switches video sources and the amp/receiver handles audio.

Re:Plug the digital hole.

[JaredOfEuropa]

Sonos is a bit more than a wireless speaker, it provides whole house audio streamed from your music collection (on a NAS or whatever) instead on from your phone over sucktastic Bluetooth. I like the quality of their stuff but after this I might get rid of the lot on the second hand market.

Squeezebox could be a decent replacement for that, extensive functionality and loads of open(ish) client and server implementations. Run a client on an RPi and hook up a quality speaker with amp and aux in. I currently have a couple of Squeezebox clients on Windows & Linux, with the server running on a Synology NAS and so far I am pretty happy with it.

Re: Plug the digital hole.

[Miamicanes]

> 90s-early 00s era recievers are still probably the best,
> unless you need more than 5.1 or 7.1 sound.

Actually, their ability to do even 5.1 surround is likely to diminish over time:

* Dolby designed DD+7.1 to be easy to downconvert to 5.1, but few/no receivers that ONLY know how to handle DD5.1 can do it.

* Few AVRs made prior to ~2012 (and basically NONE prior to ~2009) can do 5.1 PCM, let alone 7.1 PCM.

* Toslink & coaxial SPDIF can't do PCM 5.1 on consumer gear (there IS a way to kludge it with pro audio mixing gear, but it's either forbidden by licence terms or too expensive/niche for AVR manufacturers to use in consumer gear.

* The only real way to get PCM 5.1/7.1 into your AVR is via HDMI... but there's lots of gear made prior to ~2014 that can SWITCH HDMI, but can't actually decode 5.1 or 7.1 AUDIO from HDMI. And plenty that are supposed to, but fucked up their implementation or firmware (e.g, EDID spofing of downstream sinks to keep the source from seeing a PCM2.0(stereo) sink & falling back to PCM2.0 for EVERYTHING (HDMI makes no provision for sending multiple audio streams, so it's up to the AVR to hide the PCM2.0-ness of downstream TVs from upstream sources).

I'm aware of EXACTLY ONE box that can successfully extract 5.1 or 7.1 PCM from HDMI and output it as analog 5.1 or 5.7... and it costs almost as much as a cheap DD+ capable AVR (it's basically a 1-watt amp with a single HDMI input & four 1/8" stereo jack outputs they pretend are 'for headphones' to dance around DRM restrictions... and I'm not 100% confident it can downmix 7.1 to 5.1, so if you're watching a source that supports ONLY DD+7.1 (like Netflix on Roku) & have a 5.1 amp, you're still fucked.

So... you can forget about having surround sound from most HDMI-only streaming clients (like Roku), any recent Nintendo gear (Wii-u & Switch), and probably MOST post-2009 & future Blu-Ray & DVD players and cable boxes (even if the player has SPDIF outputs, if the studio masters the disc with ONLY PCM 7.1, no post-2009 player I'm aware of can/will re-encode it as DD5.1 or DD+7.1 and output it via SPDIF... all you'll get is flat 2.0 stereo).

The thing that sucks the worst is that the lack of PCM5.1/7.1-via-HDMI to analog or re-encoded DD-via-SPDIF is entirely due to DRM. As if being able to record the analog 5.1 surround sound from a movie whose video I can't capture is going to make even the SLIGHTEST fucking difference to studios' bottom lines.

Re:Plug the digital hole.

[networkBoy]

I have optical/rca to the pre-amp, but the pre-am to amp connections are all over balanced lines, specifically, XLR.

Re:Plug the digital hole.

[TheFakeTimCook]

I have optical/rca to the pre-amp, but the pre-am to amp connections are all over balanced lines, specifically, XLR.

That's because you actually have a PA amp as your home-stereo power amp, I assume.

Re: Plug the digital hole.

[Ted Cabeen]

One of the big factors here is the licensing costs for DD and DTS. The terms for licensing those codecs are pretty harsh and can apply to a per device cost to all devices a manufacturer sells.

Re:Plug the digital hole.

[BlueStrat]

I stopped using/buying 'home audio' equipment many years ago in favor of a small 'budget' music/live-performance/small-band-type PA/speaker system. I have an extremely flexible system that even includes basic audio mixing/EQ functionality and multiple input channels for a fraction of the cost of a 'home audio/entertainment' system that only provides a fraction of the audio functionality.

You also get a lot more bang for your buck when the manufacturer isn't spending a significant portion of the money to produce it on cosmetics and 'me too!' online functionality that adds little real value to the customer but provides an ongoing data-sales income stream for the manufacturer. Check out systems at musiciansfriend.com or sweetwatermusic.com for yourself.

Strat

Re:Plug the digital hole.

[BlueStrat]

Gah!

Second URL should be 'sweetwater.com'

Apologies!

Strat

Re:Plug the digital hole.

[postglock]

Yes, I can also recommend Squeezebox aka Logitech Media Server. I also have a few Raspberry Pis running it. The other advantage over Sonos (apart from being cheaper and libre) is that you supply your own sound system, so you are not tied into their hardware, and you can use a cheap but quality old amp.

Re:Plug the digital hole.

[stealth_finger]

Strat

It's a good job you put that last bit on so people know who posted......

Re:Plug the digital hole.

[TheFakeTimCook]

I stopped using/buying 'home audio' equipment many years ago in favor of a small 'budget' music/live-performance/small-band-type PA/speaker system. I have an extremely flexible system that even includes basic audio mixing/EQ functionality and multiple input channels for a fraction of the cost of a 'home audio/entertainment' system that only provides a fraction of the audio functionality.

You also get a lot more bang for your buck when the manufacturer isn't spending a significant portion of the money to produce it on cosmetics and 'me too!' online functionality that adds little real value to the customer but provides an ongoing data-sales income stream for the manufacturer. Check out systems at musiciansfriend.com or sweetwatermusic.com for yourself.

Strat

Except for the fact that almost all Pro-Audio speaker cabs are EXTREMELY non-flat, frequency-response-wise.

The other gear is pretty much fine these days; but PA speakers are, well, PA speakers. Most have at least one or two parts that are horn-loaded, and the horn designs are generally designed for aesthetics rather than optimal audio specs (other than SPL ;-) ). For example, almost everyone... no, everyone, that puts a midrange or high-end exponential horn in a cabinet design puts it in 90 degrees from the way it SHOULD be for optimal HORIZONTAL dispersion. No fooling, look it up in something like the venerable "Sound System Engineering" textbook, and you will find that a rectangular horn ACTUALLY disperses along the NARROW dimension. Weird, I know; but it has to do with phase cancellations, and if you start ganging-together horns next to each other, they actually get NARROWER in their dispersion-patterns. Again, due to phase-cancellations. But that's ok, most PA horns have HIDEOUS amounts of 2nd-harmonic distortion (which you really can't hear, per se; but it's there, swamping-out the higher-harmonics, and making everything sound "harsh"). That's one of the reasons why horns sound, er, "horn-y".

You CAN design PA cabs to avoid these effects somewhat (I believe the Dead did it in the late 1960s); but then, you end up with a whole bunch of essentially high-powered three-way "home speaker cabinets" (generally direct-radiating, ported Theile designs) flown overhead, with some subs on the floor. And since they don't have the efficiency of horn-loaded cabs, you better bring an extra truck for the additional power amp rack(s) you'll need to get the same SPL to each audience member. Some pro audio contractors, such as Claire Brothers, take this exact approach of "aiming a full-range cabinet at each audience member" (or small group of audience members); but it's an expensive way to go!

But if you are talking about club-sized PA stuff, you can actually get some fairly nice-sounding stuff these days from the likes of Mackie and JBL. In fact, some of the newish JBL/Crown's powered cabinets (can't remember model nos. off hand) can sound QUITE nice, even though they have a short-throat horn midrange, and even though I'm much more of an EV man when it comes to speakers. But the advantage of engineering a matched speaker cabinet and poweramp combo (especially for floor monitors, like some of the Mackie powered monitors) in a small PA is fairly obvious.

But I digress...

Still doesn't hold a candle to even a slightly better than mediocre home audio system, though; other than when it comes to LOUD...

I predict lawsuits

[QuietLagoon]

It seems that Sonos is intentionally disabling a device after the sale. Sadly, I expect to see more of this type of ransom demands from manufacturers, not less.

Re:I predict lawsuits

[phorm]

I don't believe they're actually disabling the device, but rather that they aren't actively maintaining it. In the end though it may amount to the same thing, similar to blu-ray players where if you don't get the code updates you are unable to play or use the functionality of newer discs.

Re:I predict lawsuits

[rholtzjr]

That is why there existed applications that allowed the user to STRIP out that "added functionality" for people who just want to watch the movie that they purchased. This happened to me when I noticed new DVD's would not longer play on my several year old player that did not connect to the internet. This was my decision to no longer purchase appliances or any of the media that required periodic updates via internet connection

I have a feeling that this will probably follow suit in pretty much the same manner. Someone will find a means to get the now defunct versions of the devices back into a working state. At least until someone screams "Copyright Infringement" a couple of times. Then it is down-hill from there

Good information out of the gate

[sarbonn]

I love it when a company gives me all the information I need before I decide to buy one of their products. Knowing they're a "do things our way, or take the highway" kind of company allows me to switch to a higher gear and continue on down the highway.

Re:Good information out of the gate

[JohnFen]

Yes, I have to admit, I did appreciate this. Sonos' statement made it very clear what sort of company they are: they view their customers with a measure of contempt.

I very much thank them for making their stance clear, and I wish the other companies who feel the same would be equally upfront about it.

Re:Good information out of the gate

[bluefoxlucid]

Check out Flair. Not because you should buy one, but just look at their pitch. APIs, works with any system, integrate with other vendors's products... for a while, they had up on the main page that you could replace their firmware with your own custom firmware, but that seems to have not had much marketing impact and been removed as a statement.

I still say we need an OpenIoT standard, and I'm not the only one who's tried to come up with such a thing.

My big focus is security: I want every IoT device and control application to connect to an IoT hub and exchange certificates for identification and encryption (Curve 22519). Your entire attack surface from the outside is the part of the Web server that accepts connections; the part of your SSL library that validates a certificate; and any libraries and system functions used in the process.

It's a short enough path that you could quite possibly make it absolutely, provably secure by creating a specialized listener up front to do the TLS handshake, thus minimizing the active body of code and allowing you to audit the few tens of thousands of lines vigorously. Your back-end (e.g. nginx) would simply need to accept a proxy from this listener and trust the connection details (IP, etc.) it gives; the listener could even hand off the connection fd to the Web server (sendmsg()) and details on the TLS tunnel, thus allowing nginx etc. to take over an already-negotiated connection.

If the connection isn't from a client device which has at some point physically been in the presence of the IoT hub, then it won't have exchanged a trusted client certificate, and the connection is rejected. Your shitty back-end IoT software doesn't matter--no attack surface. Have the IoT device also only accept connections from the hub to seal the deal.

I have, however, also considered describing the packaging of Docker-based services to run on or behind the Hub. Instead of Nest talking to Google, you could have Nest talk to your IoT hub, which talks to a Nest server box or a generalized server box, if the IoT hub isn't beefy enough to self-host services. Thus you can either use Nest's servers or you can have your IoT hub give the Nest app its current public IPv6. Nest Cam could then be made to store its videos locally, without ever talking to the Nest service in the cloud.

Removal of cloud dependence means a compromised Cloud provider can't hack your device, either.

These days, I'd suggest as well allowing authentication by U2F, rather than only by client certificate. That would let you use a PC, or have your phone only capable of connecting to your IoT when you plugged a device into the bottom (or paired a bluetooth device). The certificate or the U2F would be your first factor; once you've connected, there's a log-on page--which you can't attempt to hack unless you have a first factor. As well, the first logic is "do I have any registered U2F keys?", so you're making that decision before processing user-supplied data, and thus a person not using U2F doesn't face a larger attack surface.

I've thought a lot about how to make IoT some kind of harmonious utopia where we have the same shitty or not-shitty products as today, but with network connectivity--rather than network connectivity being a dangerous beast that could destroy our lives.

Bi-directional?

[Luthair]

I always wonder when I see these sort of changes, or billing changes whether the user can send their own terms to the company and if they don't respond assume the terms are accepted.

Proprietary crap is proprietary crap

[medoc]

Why do people buy this stuff when it's so easy to set up an UPnP home audio system based on open source components ?

Re:Proprietary crap is proprietary crap

[JohnFen]

Because lots of people want things they can just plug in and make work, and they're willing to give up a ludicrous amount of freedom and money in order to avoid even the small amount of effort needed to install and configure their own systems.

Re: Proprietary crap is proprietary crap

[thomst]

JohnFen sneered:,/p>

Because lots of people want things they can just plug in and make work, and they're willing to give up a ludicrous amount of freedom and money in order to avoid even the small amount of effort needed to install and configure their own systems.

Yeesh.

Look, the vast majority of the population doesn't have the knowledge or technical chops even to begin to install and configure systems that integrate streaming technology with home audio systems. Full stop. And to insist that they are somehow morons or fools because that's true is incredibly elitist and short-sighted.

It's not just Cleetus the Slack-jawed Yokel or great-grandma in that number. Most medical doctors, for instance, simply don't have the time even to learn the terminology, much less the tech, because the technical reading their own field requires consumes seriously non-trivial amounts of their "free" time - which is further limited by the mountains of paperwork and email they have to wade through at the end of each workday. So, they can choose to spend their weekends playing golf, or they can spend it familiarizing themselves with streaming technology. Likewise, millenials tend to be severely underemployed, which means that, in order to escape from their parents' basements, they're forced to work multiple gigs. Add in the endless time sink of social media, and you're basically asking them to choose between becoming geeks or Snapchatting with their buds.

I could easily go on, but I shouldn't have to. The plain fact is, Slashdotters tend to be geeks to begin with. And, because they also tend to hang around geek social circles, it's easy for them to assume that all the really intelligent folks in the world automatically make those same choices. They don't. And they shouldn't have to.

Tech should serve people, rather than the other way around - and tech geeks are in the distinct minority wrt the population at large. THEY are normal - WE are not. The fact that Sonos and its ilk exploit their ignorance of - and, quite frankly, their profound lack of interest in - independence from vendors, privacy tradeoffs, and tech geekiness in general can't be held against them. If you don't understand that a problem even exists, and have no strong motivation to find out that it does, that's not a moral failing. It's a fact of life.

It's been a long, LONG time since it was possible for a single human to know everything there is to know. Even being a broadly-informed generalist is becoming more and more difficult by the day, simply because there's so freakin' MUCH to learn. And whole new fields of knowledge come into existence on a regular basis, so we all have to choose what we'll focus on and what we straight out don't have time for.

Personally, I make a lot of room for other subjects simply by having less than zero interest in sportsball ...

Re: Proprietary crap is proprietary crap

[JohnFen]

My comment was not intended to be sneering, and I apologize that it came off that way. I agree with your comment here, by the way.

Tech should serve people, rather than the other way around

I particularly agree with this. Perhaps where we disagree is what counts as "serving people".

Re:Proprietary crap is proprietary crap

[aaarrrgggh]

For me, it is because it was an order of magnitude easier to do it when I started, and most functionality is dealt with centrally. At home, it is awesome-- I have 5 units in one place and 8 in the other and I generally consider it money well spent.

Using a single unit in my office is a pain in the ass though, and I really should be firewalling it from the corporate network but making the controller work is too much of a pain.

Re: Proprietary crap is proprietary crap

[thomst]

JohnFen explained:

My comment was not intended to be sneering, and I apologize that it came off that way. I agree with your comment here, by the way.

Tech should serve people, rather than the other way around

I particularly agree with this. Perhaps where we disagree is what counts as "serving people".

I suspect we don't - disagree, that is.

I hold no brief for Sonos (although I'm pretty sure that the OP twisted the thrust of its announcement to suit /.'s current, clickbait agenda). I take fairly aggressive measures to protect my own privacy online. And I am anything but blind to the dangers that big datamining poses to mine, yours, and everyone else's. Nor do I in any way endorse planned obsolescense and/or forced upgrades - especially when those "upgrades" benefit only the dataminers, not the consumer (I'm looking at YOU here, Microsoft).

But, as a former sysadmin and onetime tech journalist, I feel the pain of the common user. It's simply wrong to expect people to have to be computer experts merely to be able to USE computers. Given how often I find myself grinding my teeth over application incompatibilites, driver issues, and the like, I have to wonder how in the name of all that's sensical regular users manage to cope ...

Re: Proprietary crap is proprietary crap

[medoc]

Actually I should not have mixed proprietary and open-source in the original comment.

The important point is the proprietary and closed nature of the Sonos system. You can buy commercial standards-based UPnP/DLNA elements (media servers, receivers, remotes), which will interoperate independant of their vendor (there are many). Standards ensure competition, so no vendor can be too evil. Such a system is only very marginally harder to put together than buying Sonos.

I agree that going full open-source requires more effort and is not for everybody (otoh, most people have a geek friend). But the important aspect is open standards vs proprietary protocols.

The cloud is shit

[pablo_max]

And this is a prime example of why cloud based services are a shit idea. Personally, I think that it is foolish to rely on any cloud based service where other options exist.

Look at all those stupid nest smoke alarms going off after a FW update was pushed.
Or this recent fiasco with all the people using an internet connected door lock and having a bricked unit thanks to an update.
Or photobucket decided that it's no longer OK to link to your photos from other sites after you were doing it for years and was literally the only reason to use that stupid site.
What happens when you cloud storage company closes up shop and you lose your data? Maybe you are outside of the US, but the company is a US based company and the feds decide to raid the data center and take the drives?
I don't even recall what the company or product was, but last year one of these device companies closed up shop which made all the hardware useless.
Something which ONLY works when connected to the internet is just stupid.

Re:The cloud is shit

[JohnFen]

Exactly.

There are certain terms that strongly hint that you probably don't want to buy the product or service. "Cloud" or "internet connected" is among them.

Re:The cloud is shit

[Bert64]

Unfortunately virtually all the devices available today work that way, tied in to someone else's service...
I too would prefer devices which are entirely under my control, but for anything remotely accessible this is difficult. There aren't enough ipv4 addresses to make everyone's home devices directly addressable, and ipv6 isnt widespread enough yet (i have yet to visit a hotel or public wifi hotspot that gave me ipv6 connectivity).
Users could set up a vpn, assuming they have their own single ipv4 address and aren't stuck behind nat but then users would need to know how to configure a vpn.

Re:Breach of contract?

[JohnFen]

I don't know the terms of the contract, but I seriously doubt they are in breach of it.

First, it appears that Sonos is not taking functionality away if you don't agree to the new terms. They're just withholding updates. I'll bet that nothing in the contract commits them to providing those updates, so no breach.

Second, most of these sorts of contracts contain specific wording to the effect of: the terms can change at any time. So, changing them is not a breach.

The real takeaway here is something that has been true for a long, long time: these contracts are worthless to customers. They allow the company to pretty much do anything they like.

Dream on.

[Anonymous Coward]

That's capitalism, no one is forcing you to buy it, and these guys will be appropriately "selected out" soon enough.

So, pray tell, tell us how Microsoft was "selected out"?
Oops, it wasn't was it?

Free Market Capitalism where consumers vote with their dollars and all ends up well is just a fairy tale we were told.

Re:Dream on.

[suutar]

it works great if you have Educated Consumers. You can find them at the same shop with the frictionless paint and the spherical chickens.

Seriously?

[dfenstrate]

What a load of crap. You're comparing the possible loss of a speaker system to the starvation and murder of millions.

Maybe just to use the speakers as microphones?

[Swave An deBwoner]

This need not be viewed as some dastardly plot by an evil corporation.

Maybe they just want to be able to use the speakers as microphones once in a while to catch up on what you've been talking about lately.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

I was about to choose a new sound system...

[grumpy-cowboy]

Sonos is now removed from my list of potential sound system.

Sounds like....

[Ferretman]

....it's time for new control software....

Ferret

This is FUD. I couldn't be happier with Sonos...

[KingOfBLASH]

This is FUD. Sonos has been working on allowing voice assistant (Siri / Alexa) integration with their speakers, and it's a well known fact they're going to start releasing speakers with microphones. The fact that this is now covered in their privacy policy is not surprising. Other changes include sending error information to Sonos, and sharing data about your usage with tie in services (as in, use your spotify account with your sonos, and sonos will need to talk to spotify).

While it would be great if Sonos could invent a way to stream subscription services without actually talking to them, or a voice assistant with an AI living in the speaker instead of sending your voice to a server farm for processing, that's not really possible.

You can read about the changes yourself at: http://blog.sonos.com/en/sonos...

From a personal level, I've been a Sonos user for five years now, and couldn't be happier. Their speakers would stand up to much higher end systems, and I can't tell you how many times I hear a song on them for the first time surprised me about some little details in the background you just don't hear on your car radio.

And the fact that you can set up wireless zones that are all magically in sync is amazing.

Seriously, once you try it you'll be hooked...

Fuck Sonos

[CrashNBrn]

Anyone that buys Sonos or other "smart speakers" are unfortunately ignorant. Buy real speakers and add a Bluetooth 4.2 dongle for $20, or a google Chromecast Audio Puck for $35.

My fucking speakers don't need a TOS.

Re:Breach of contract?

[JohnFen]

Yes, I did. Where does it say they're removing functionality?

Re:Breach of contract?

[JohnFen]

That's nice to know!

But... but... cloud!

[ilsaloving]

But the cloud is supposed to make everything awesome and great, right? Right?

*crickets*

Yet another example of why I refuse to indiscriminately jump on the "cloud" bandwagon, no matter how many people (mostly bloggers, it seems) accuse me of being a dinosaur. Regardless of consumer protection laws, I simply don't want to have to put myself in a position where I have to risk dealing with nonsense like this.

Sonos User Here

[xanthos]

WTF people? From the comments, apparently most of you are not Sonos users. I have several grand already invested and love their system because it does sound great and generally just works.

If you were an owner you would already know:
  A) Sonos updates their firmware and and apps all the time (and breaks shit, loses favorites, etc etc)
  B) Once one component is updated EVERYTHING has to be updated so not much chance of delaying accepting the terms.
  C) Whatever streaming service you use is already collecting your usage data. I get monthly emails from Pandora telling me what I listed to the most and for how long. How is this going to be different?

These changes seem to be aimed more at the upcoming Alexa integration and merely clarifies the collecting they are already doing. See the Sonos Blog page for details ( http://blogs.sonos.com/ )

What pisses me off the most about the latest update is that it looks like they are dropping support for older OS platforms. I will no longer be able to use my old Jelly Bean tablet to control the system.

<*sigh*> What good is a landfill anyway if you don't fill it?

Re:Sonos User Here

[rholtzjr]

Your last statement sounds like a bonus, they would not longer push updates that keep breaking things anymore.

Tied to a service

[John.Banister]

is not a selling point for any piece of any kind of hardware. How many tech entrepreneurs structure their companies to prevent investors from leveraging the installed customer base to maximize quarterly profits the moment the founder is no longer there to hold them back?

Oh wow

[Plammox]

I was considering buying one of their speakers. Good to know I can stop doing that.

Piss off, Sonos.

SMART already a toxic term - Sonos makes it worse

[WaffleMonster]

While there will always be a sea of suckers to be exploited I'm not so sure SMART/IoT meme has much of a future. More people seem to be catching on and eventually this will start to hit vendors like Sonos in the only place that matters.

How many now assume any "privacy policy" starting with:

Sonos respects your privacy and your rights to control your personal data

Really means "Sonos will rape you in the ass and steal all of your personal data with impunity"

The overarching purpose of collecting your data is to improve your listening experience

When the reality is failure to accept new privacy policy results in intentional degradation of listening experience.

Once you receive your Sonos Products, you will be required to connect your Product to a network in your home. Each Sonos Product needs to connect to the internet for set-up. As part of the initial setup, you will be asked to download the Sonos controller app from either our website or a third-party website, such as Appleâ(TM)s App Store. The Sonos app allows you to control your Sonos system from the device of your choice (for example your phone or tablet). During the setup process, the Sonos app will ask you to set up an account and register your system with Sonos. In order for your Sonos Products to work, you must register your Sonos Products.

Oh give me a fucking break. Who on earth really believes a speaker MUST be connected to the Internet to work? The real reasons:

1. Sonos respects your privacy and your rights to control your personal data

2. It's SMART

Surveillance
Marketed
As
Revolutionary
Technology

There are three main reasons we collect information from your Sonos Products:
(1) to offer you music service choices

What if we don't want anything to do with YOUR music service choices?

(2) to offer you control over your Sonos system

When the puppet master offers to allow you to control your own shit well that right there is something precious. Do they read what they write before pressing the publish button?

Sonos respects your privacy and your rights to control your personal data.

(3) to make your Sonos Products better over time.

Vendors who care about making shit better would ASK.

This includes duration of music service use, Product or room grouping information; command information such as play, pause, change volume, or skip tracks; information about track, playlist, or station container data; and Sonos playlist or Sonos favorites information; each correlated to individual Sonos Products.

OMFG so literally everything you do is being recorded.

"Sonos respects your privacy and your rights to control your personal data"

We collect this information so that we can help ensure Sonos Products are properly functioning, determine what types of Product or feature improvements would most delight our customers, and help predict and prevent potential problems with Sonos Products.

The clue here is injection of the word "Delight" ... even the PR goon writing this shit couldn't help but let flowing sarcasm get the best of them.

As the world and our customersâ(TM) homes have become more connected, we have realized that our customers might prefer to control their Sonos Products by means other than their Sonos app, for example by using a voice enabled product (for example, Amazon Alexa), through a home control mechanism (for example, a Lutron Pico remote), or through the app offered by their favorite music service.

In order to enable this functionality, you will be prompted to allow such devices to connect with your Sonos system (similar to the process you go through to connect a music service). Once you have enabled this functionality, we collec

Re:This is FUD. I couldn't be happier with Sonos..

[DigitAl56K]

The fact that you are happy with your Sonos does not make this news FUD nor does it take away from forcing updated privacy terms of people after the sale in order that their devices keep working reliably.

as fucking long as they do something to make it wo

[gl4ss]

as fucking long as they do something to make it worse.
it's changing the deal after making the deal.

look, how about ford makes a patch for their old cars that bricks them if you don't sign up for their new "improved" brick-o-protex service? they would get sued, successfully.

anyways - maybe don't buy audio gear that requires the seller of said audio gear to stay in business in order to keep using it? I mean, if they were to go bankrupt or whatever, maybe due to pulling a stupid stunt like this.

lesson is that don't buy sonos shit. if they go belly up you will be just listening to your farts instead of streaming music.

oh and in the eu there is no end limit to the time that if a product has a design/manufacturing deficiency or a flaw when you bought it that they need to fix it back to what it was.

I seriously doubt that the package said that you would need to agree to conditions that they set after you bought the thing. nobody would do that. not even apple, you can still use your old ipod without it getting bricked if you don't upgrade the fw.

Re:Breach of contract?

[JohnFen]

I think their wording was terrible. If you parse out what they actually said, though, it wasn't that they were going to push anything out to existing devices to make them stop working. They were saying that the devices won't get updates required to keep them working as they upgrade the software on their servers.

Re:This is FUD. I couldn't be happier with Sonos..

[JohnFen]

This is FUD.

How so? Your clarification matched what I understood from the article, so I'm not seeing the FUD there...

That you're OK with the data collection is fine, more power to you. But a lot of people aren't OK with it at all, regardless of how nice their system may be.

Re:This is FUD. I couldn't be happier with Sonos..

[aaarrrgggh]

Similar situation, but I don't exactly trust the precision of words used by their "Chief Legal Officer." Seriously, a CLO? That should say enough about the direction they are headed.

Re:Breach of contract?

[JohnFen]

I don't think so. I think they're saying that the upstream servers will be changing how they work, and so over time your equipment will become incompatible with them.

Misleading

[whitlocktj]

This seems to be a case where what was said was not necessarily what was meant. The idea that the spokesperson seemed to be making is that in order to update software, you need to accept the Privacy Agreement. Pretty much every software/service company does this. But if the client never updates their software, then it becomes obsolete and will not work with any external sources that change in a way that prevents legacy communication. That's the nature of legacy products. Not agreeing to the updated terms has unintended, but unavoidable consequences that are inherent in legacy products.

Erm...

[XSportSeeker]

Coincidence that Plex just tried to pull the same crap, or is this a new tendency that's going to spread through the market now?

Lessee, where's my list?

[roc97007]

Ah, there it is. Under "companies I'll never do business with" add Sonos. Write, quit.

Unlike copyrights, patents expire.

[tepples]

How long have DD and DTS been around? DVD came out about 20 years ago and had DD 5.1.

Re:Unlike copyrights, patents expire.

[Ted Cabeen]

Sure, AC-3 alone is patent-free, but each newer version of DD or DTS adds new patents and new licenses.

Re:Unlike copyrights, patents expire.

[Miamicanes]

The main problem is that the PATENTS on Dolby Digital have expired by now, but the TRADEMARKS remain in full force. So, you (as a manufacturer) could DO it (transcoding PCM5.1 to DD5.1 via SPDIF)... but you'd have a feature that cost money to implement, couldn't be advertised (at least, not in any way that wouldn't totally confuse or be overlooked by most consumers), and would leave you at risk of a major lawsuit if an employee with loose lips ever said anything about it in a way that infringed upon Dolby's trademark.

There's even a good example of this... back in the 1980s, I remember seeing low-end cassette decks sold with "Dynamic Noise Reduction" (or just a mysterious feature called "DNR"). It was Dolby-B, and "everybody" knew it was Dolby-B, but nobody could openly ADMIT it. Dolby-B was cheap & easy to implement (even in low-end audio gear) and the patents had all expired by the late 1970s, but Dolby was EXTREMELY aggressive about defending all of their various trademarks related to Dolby-B. I believe Dolby even went so far as to sue magazine publishers who dared to print articles using "Dolby B" in the same sentence as the name of any gear that supported it, but wasn't an official Dolby licensee.

There's also the problem of GETTING the bitstream into something that can transcode it. As of now, there's basically one supported way for consumer devices to output PCM 5.1 or 7.1 audio: over HDMI. Licensing HDMI requires licensing HDCP. HDCP imposes an avalanche of restrictions, #1 of which is "thou shall not output protected audio in digital form, unless it's PCM2.0". Any box from China that can extract DD5.1 from HDMI and output it over SPDIF without first downsampling it to stereo is officially infringing (and I have yet to see a single such box that actually WORKS as advertised... I've owned two... the first couldn't spoof EDID (so the source saw the PCM2.0 TV and killed the surround sound), the second couldn't transcode DD+7.1 to DD5.1 (so I could use it to bitstream DD5.1 from Amazon Instant Video, but Netflix was still a no-go because it could only bitstream DD+7.1... and my 5.1-only amp just gives up when it sees extra data chunks it doesn't understand, instead of ignoring them like it's technically supposed to).

For me, the most frustrating thing is that there's no real way to even know for sure whether the PCM2.0 stereo audio contains Prologic-encoded surround... it's subtle to begin with, and my amp ALWAYS shows its mode as "ProLogic" when it sees SPDIF PCM2.0, so I'm usually annoying my guests cycling through ProLogic, Prologic Movie, Prologic Music, and Simulated Surround for the first half hour of any movie desperately trying to find the one that sounds the least like shit.

Sounds like a class action lawsuit

[BlueCoder]

If existing functionality degrades then there is going to be a slam dunk of a class action lawsuit. Better if they released a version 2 of their product but provided a firmware upgrade for version 1 IF people accepted the product version 2 TOS.

Re:This is FUD. I couldn't be happier with Sonos..

[KingOfBLASH]

The slashdot headline makes it sounds like Sonos is screwing their users over and making changes to a privacy policy that's well known.

Actually, the changes aren't that drastic, and you had to accept a privacy policy to use Sonos anyways.

Not so much screwing with the users as making a reasonable change.

Is there free software for Sonos devices?

[jbn-o]

Software freedom would help liberate users from the untrustworthy control of Sonos here. Even if Sonos backs down and doesn't follow through on this threat of effectively rendering a Sonos device non-functional, the principled objection is that they have the power to do that in the first place.

Free software for the Sonos devices could give users control over their own devices and put them in a position where they don't have to care about Sonos' spyware (data collected "includes email addresses, IP addresses, and account login information -- as well as device data, information about Wi-Fi antennas and other hardware information, room names, and error data") and other forms of malware that effectively constitute a threat to accept any new terms of service post-sale.

Proprietary software is the problem.

[jbn-o]

Your Synology NAS probably has the Synology "Package Center" software. That proprietary software's license has an interesting clause which looks like it has the potential to do what Sonos is claiming:

1.6. When you install or use of any of Third Party Package, you have to keep it in mind that its developer may change its terms and conditions governing the Third Party Package, or modify, suspend, cancel or stop its services thereof at any time; and that Synology is also entitled to change, cancel or stop the Third Party Package and its services, at any time and for any reason. No warranty or commitment is provided therefor by Synology.

So when the Package Center asks you to tick a box confirming that you agree to the software's terms of service (which apparently change over time), this could mean either tick the box or take the consequences which (depending on the software) could mean letting Synology render the software non-functional. And if that software is needed to make the NAS work, that could mean rendering the NAS non-functional. After all, didn't Synology recently change the software in the Package Center so that some of it can't be turned off, can't be uninstalled, and may provide functionality you don't want anyhow? What's to stop them from putting more functionality into packages managed via the Package Center?

Re:Proprietary software is the problem.

[JaredOfEuropa]

Thats a good point. The fact that Squeezebox is open means that there are several ways and platforms to run the server component (LMC). If Synology or whoever created that package pulls the rug from under me, setting up a new server is trivial. These days there's probably a Docker container for it.

I treat proprietary solutions and anything with a SaaS component the way a lot of corporations treat open source software: when you use it, you must have an alternative and an exit strategy. That way I can move if they change terms of service on me.

Baba Booey to you all!

[don_xvi]

You just got Baba Booey'ed. "But I love my Sonos system, Boff!"

Living in Canada?

[MikeBabcock]

If you live in Canada, there's a federal commissioner for privacy you can contact. In Ontario specifically, you should be filling out this form:
https://www.ipc.on.ca/wp-conte...

Details:
https://www.ipc.on.ca/privacy/...