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.
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.
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.
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.
It's a problem if users want new OS versions and can't get them, yes. But there are a lot of users (I would even say most of them) who don't really care if they're using the latest version or not, as long as the one they are using is still doing the job.
Oreo, for instance, does not provide anything that I consider compelling enough to make me want to update to it, so I'm very likely not going to.
I use my phone to access the internet, but I don't think I'm using any services that "move on" to the extent that I need to update software or they stop working.
Email, web, VPN, etc... all of these things have remained constant enough that apps that could handle them 10 years ago still can.
If you're talking Facebook, etc., that may be a different matter -- but that stuff is a far cry from being all that is useful on the internet.
The problem here is not in their ability to enforce updates that correct safety shortcomings and allow for changes in legal requirements, no-fly zones, etc.
I disagree. I think that is exactly the problem.
They could also correct the problem by making it clear that you don't actually own the device you're paying money for. You're leasing it.
If you are on Android and want to try there are loads of free firewall apps.
Some are better than others, but yes. This is what I do -- for all apps. By default, every app is firewalled off so that it can't talk through the WiFi or cell network at all. I selectively allow a few specific apps net access, but mostly -- nobody gets to talk.
This is for two reasons: so that I don't have to worry as much about what data apps are sending home, and so I can minimize the number of apps that auto-update.
I don't see why anyone would want to opt out, or why anyone should be allowed to
Why they'd want to is unimportant. The important issue is -- do they own the thing or not? If so, then it makes zero sense to force any change to the product on them, no matter how desirable it may be. If it's that desirable, then people will voluntarily make the change.
Talk to gamers that have been around for more than a decade or so. I think you'll find that companies do actually go out of business, and when that happens, their customers suffer a direct loss.
We are heading for a disaster and nobody even realizes it.
Plenty of us do realize it, but you're right -- plenty don't. Even here, when I express my concern about and mitigation measures against these sorts of things, people sometimes accuse me of paranoia.
The names give users an easy point of reference for people not intimately familiar with the product.
This is actually my complaint -- they don't do this. They obscure the product's place. I understand the desire to be playful, but in this case it comes with a cost that I am annoyed that I have to pay.
Besides, many products with numbers in the title aren't always in order, Windows 7 is newer than Windows 95.
Yes, and I actually blame Microsoft for starting this fad.
it's just as easy to tell which release is before or after another as if they were numbered.
Yes, if that's all you want to know. If, however, you want to know which version a release is in more absolute terms, then you have to count letters. This is less of an issue with Android than other OSes (and applications), but it's still an annoyance.
If I'm looking at software that specifies am OS version, or if I'm reading documentation or instructions specific to an OS version, I don't just want to know which releases the version is between, I want to know its place in the entire run. Alphabetical names do let me do that, but it requires me to translate from letters to numbers to accomplish it. It's a pain.
It's less important (and impressive) to have things like codes memorized than it is to know where to look them up, and to know how to interpret them (that's different from knowing what they mean).
It's good to hear that there are still HR departments who acknowledge the utility of this sort of talent.
Lots of companies value this. I highlight my own cross-competencies on my resume, and in interviews I tend to point out examples of how my knowledge in one area has enhanced my work in different, apparently unrelated areas. It never fails to impress.
Yes, I suppose I should have been more specific. By "generalist", I mean someone who is actually competent in multiple areas. It's not necessary to be an actual expert -- experts fill a different sort of role.
Yes, milk is an exception. That's probably why (in the US, anyway) milk is the only food product that is required to have an expiration date, and the date is standardized.
Slashdot Mirror
Not if the contract allows the terms to be changed at any time, which most consumer contracts (in the US, anyway) do.
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.
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.
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.
Why anyone ever bought IoT devices that talk to servers they don't control has always been a mystery to me.
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!
The real problem with Android is how users aren't using the new releases.
Why is that a problem?
It's a problem if users want new OS versions and can't get them, yes. But there are a lot of users (I would even say most of them) who don't really care if they're using the latest version or not, as long as the one they are using is still doing the job.
Oreo, for instance, does not provide anything that I consider compelling enough to make me want to update to it, so I'm very likely not going to.
This depends on what you're using the phone for.
I use my phone to access the internet, but I don't think I'm using any services that "move on" to the extent that I need to update software or they stop working.
Email, web, VPN, etc... all of these things have remained constant enough that apps that could handle them 10 years ago still can.
If you're talking Facebook, etc., that may be a different matter -- but that stuff is a far cry from being all that is useful on the internet.
Toe-may-toe, toe-mah-toe.
but I want these products to suck less.
Also, it's important to push back against this sort of nonsense even if it involves products that you don't personally use.
If companies get away with this stuff without resistance, more and more companies will start doing it. Eventually, it becomes normal and expected.
That is the end result that I think we need to avoid at all costs.
Only if the damages were a direct result of those updates. That would be true whether or not the updates were forced.
The problem here is not in their ability to enforce updates that correct safety shortcomings and allow for changes in legal requirements, no-fly zones, etc.
I disagree. I think that is exactly the problem.
They could also correct the problem by making it clear that you don't actually own the device you're paying money for. You're leasing it.
If you are on Android and want to try there are loads of free firewall apps.
Some are better than others, but yes. This is what I do -- for all apps. By default, every app is firewalled off so that it can't talk through the WiFi or cell network at all. I selectively allow a few specific apps net access, but mostly -- nobody gets to talk.
This is for two reasons: so that I don't have to worry as much about what data apps are sending home, and so I can minimize the number of apps that auto-update.
Perhaps not. Just worthless.
I don't see why anyone would want to opt out, or why anyone should be allowed to
Why they'd want to is unimportant. The important issue is -- do they own the thing or not? If so, then it makes zero sense to force any change to the product on them, no matter how desirable it may be. If it's that desirable, then people will voluntarily make the change.
Talk to gamers that have been around for more than a decade or so. I think you'll find that companies do actually go out of business, and when that happens, their customers suffer a direct loss.
We are heading for a disaster and nobody even realizes it.
Plenty of us do realize it, but you're right -- plenty don't. Even here, when I express my concern about and mitigation measures against these sorts of things, people sometimes accuse me of paranoia.
The "Kill Switch" option is already causing consternation in user groups.
Who could have expected that people would be upset that it turns out they don't own a device that they thought they owned?
The names give users an easy point of reference for people not intimately familiar with the product.
This is actually my complaint -- they don't do this. They obscure the product's place. I understand the desire to be playful, but in this case it comes with a cost that I am annoyed that I have to pay.
Besides, many products with numbers in the title aren't always in order, Windows 7 is newer than Windows 95.
Yes, and I actually blame Microsoft for starting this fad.
it's just as easy to tell which release is before or after another as if they were numbered.
Yes, if that's all you want to know. If, however, you want to know which version a release is in more absolute terms, then you have to count letters. This is less of an issue with Android than other OSes (and applications), but it's still an annoyance.
If I'm looking at software that specifies am OS version, or if I'm reading documentation or instructions specific to an OS version, I don't just want to know which releases the version is between, I want to know its place in the entire run. Alphabetical names do let me do that, but it requires me to translate from letters to numbers to accomplish it. It's a pain.
It's less important (and impressive) to have things like codes memorized than it is to know where to look them up, and to know how to interpret them (that's different from knowing what they mean).
It's good to hear that there are still HR departments who acknowledge the utility of this sort of talent.
Lots of companies value this. I highlight my own cross-competencies on my resume, and in interviews I tend to point out examples of how my knowledge in one area has enhanced my work in different, apparently unrelated areas. It never fails to impress.
They should put expiration dates on clothing so we men will know when they go out of style.
No need. In my experience, wives and girlfriends are quite good at letting you know when your style has expired.
Yes, I suppose I should have been more specific. By "generalist", I mean someone who is actually competent in multiple areas. It's not necessary to be an actual expert -- experts fill a different sort of role.
Yes, milk is an exception. That's probably why (in the US, anyway) milk is the only food product that is required to have an expiration date, and the date is standardized.