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

[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

[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

[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

[green1]

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

Re: Fuckers

[rl117]

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

These are not the terms I agreed to!

[bobbied]

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

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!

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

[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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.