4 ms·

Isn't Sonos just saying, if you don't accept the new privacy policy you won't get updates? I highly doubt they're going to deliberately (somehow) break devices

by crummy 9y ago

Isn't Sonos just saying, if you don't accept the new privacy policy you won't get updates? I highly doubt they're going to deliberately (somehow) break devices for users that refuse to update.

Silhouette 9y ago
The reporting here implies that devices for customers who don't accept the new terms may "cease to function". Does the mechanism for how that happens matter? The bottom line is that either the product continues to provide whatever functionality it was purchased for, or it's now broken. Typically under consumer protection laws in places like Europe, a product that ceases to work properly unreasonably quickly after it is purchased will trigger certain rights for the purchaser, such as getting the device repaired or replaced so it works again, or getting a full or partial refund as compensation. Importantly, there is typically no exception to this principle just because the product in question involves software or depends on remote services. In fact, the EU strengthened consumer protections on digital purchases not so long ago, so the direction of the legal currents is very clear. I suppose you could say there has been some sort of informal understanding that because it's so hard to write software with no bugs or security flaws, it's reasonable for the suppliers of products with software components to supply software updates post-sale to keep things working properly without falling foul of the basic "it no longer works" trap if users don't then apply those updates. But the sorts of shenanigans we've seen recently with software developers bundling unrelated and possibly unwanted changes in with their bug fixes and security patches are stretching good faith here, and at some point I suspect something has got to give. The same principle applies to products with dependencies on remote services that don't necessarily last as long as the product itself, whether that's a server for a multiplayer game, or a DRM scheme with remote authorisation, or a provider of audio data that makes a speaker system useful.
- X86BSD 9y ago
  I think Sonos just lost me to Apple on yet another device. HomePod here I come. Seriously this is just another insane digital slavery drive.
  - stock_toaster 9y ago
    This does seem like a weird move, given: a) the high price of Sonos equipment b) the HomePod coming out sometime in the near future c) other competitors that are starting to be more competitive (eg. "smart speakers", bluetooth speakers, etc)
- givinguflac 9y ago
  You're being alarmist; no one is bricking anything. If you refuse to update and Spotify changes endpoints in five years that's not bricking your device.
  - Silhouette 9y ago
    I think perhaps you're reading more into my comment than was actually there. I didn't say anything about bricking a device. The principle here is whether the customer is getting what they reasonably believed they were paying for, or whether some part of that benefit is being lost prematurely because of the actions (or inactions) of the device manufacturer/vendor. To continue with your own example, whether it matters that Spotify changes an endpoint probably depends on how the product was originally presented. If it was advertised as offering access to a variety of specific services and some or all of those services become unavailable earlier than the customer might reasonably have expected, then clearly part of the value that the customer was paying for has been lost.

by crummy 9y ago

Isn't Sonos just saying, if you don't accept the new privacy policy you won't get updates? I highly doubt they're going to deliberately (somehow) break devices for users that refuse to update.

Silhouette 9y ago

The reporting here implies that devices for customers who don't accept the new terms may "cease to function". Does the mechanism for how that happens matter? The bottom line is that either the product continues to provide whatever functionality it was purchased for, or it's now broken. Typically under consumer protection laws in places like Europe, a product that ceases to work properly unreasonably quickly after it is purchased will trigger certain rights for the purchaser, such as getting the device repaired or replaced so it works again, or getting a full or partial refund as compensation. Importantly, there is typically no exception to this principle just because the product in question involves software or depends on remote services. In fact, the EU strengthened consumer protections on digital purchases not so long ago, so the direction of the legal currents is very clear. I suppose you could say there has been some sort of informal understanding that because it's so hard to write software with no bugs or security flaws, it's reasonable for the suppliers of products with software components to supply software updates post-sale to keep things working properly without falling foul of the basic "it no longer works" trap if users don't then apply those updates. But the sorts of shenanigans we've seen recently with software developers bundling unrelated and possibly unwanted changes in with their bug fixes and security patches are stretching good faith here, and at some point I suspect something has got to give. The same principle applies to products with dependencies on remote services that don't necessarily last as long as the product itself, whether that's a server for a multiplayer game, or a DRM scheme with remote authorisation, or a provider of audio data that makes a speaker system useful.

X86BSD 9y ago
I think Sonos just lost me to Apple on yet another device. HomePod here I come. Seriously this is just another insane digital slavery drive.
- stock_toaster 9y ago
  This does seem like a weird move, given: a) the high price of Sonos equipment b) the HomePod coming out sometime in the near future c) other competitors that are starting to be more competitive (eg. "smart speakers", bluetooth speakers, etc)
givinguflac 9y ago
You're being alarmist; no one is bricking anything. If you refuse to update and Spotify changes endpoints in five years that's not bricking your device.
- Silhouette 9y ago
  I think perhaps you're reading more into my comment than was actually there. I didn't say anything about bricking a device. The principle here is whether the customer is getting what they reasonably believed they were paying for, or whether some part of that benefit is being lost prematurely because of the actions (or inactions) of the device manufacturer/vendor. To continue with your own example, whether it matters that Spotify changes an endpoint probably depends on how the product was originally presented. If it was advertised as offering access to a variety of specific services and some or all of those services become unavailable earlier than the customer might reasonably have expected, then clearly part of the value that the customer was paying for has been lost.