3 ms·

I’m against bricking devices arbitrarily, but this product was more than 12 years old and hadn’t been sold since 2009 (I had one in 2006 when I was still in col

I’m against bricking devices arbitrarily, but this product was more than 12 years old and hadn’t been sold since 2009 (I had one in 2006 when I was still in college and Sonos’s killer feature for me was that it worked with the original streaming music service, Rhapsody). Frankly, giving customers $100 credit seems kind to me. Plus the CR200 still works and they don’t have plans to brick it, so there is that. I feel for some of the users, but reading some of these complaints makes me roll my eyes. I’ve owned lots and lots of electronic devices over my life — and many audio systems — I can’t recall any other connected system having 13 years of support.

jasonvorhe 9y ago
Thanks for posting this. I fully agree.
TheSpiceIsLife 9y ago
I think what we're trying to rail against here is that why should 13, or whatever, years be an acceptable figure. My car is older than that. My toaster over is old, I've had CRT TVs that were much older before they died. I'm gonna go with a big fat juicy 'No!' here. We ought to be building for longevity and serviceability. Don't end support, just open it up. Publish the relevant source code, documentation etc. We shouldn't accept that it's ok or normal to dispose of a thing just because it is X years old.
- filmgirlcw 9y ago
  It’s an accessory. If we were talking about the speakers themselves, I wouldn be more sympathetic, but in this case I’m just not. The reality is that the nature of connected devices makes things different. This isn’t the same as a CRT TV (but also, look at how much it costs and how difficult it is get parts for a CRT in 2018). And like it or not, your next car won’t be as repairable as your current 15 year old car, because it will require custom software and bench access and updates that most mechanics will not pay for or maintain. At least these Sonos users have the option of not installing an update. This isn’t like Revolv where it just stopped working. The CR100 uses Flash IIRC...it is absolutely ancient. I’m not sure we should be realistically asking development teams to maintain separate code bases for old, obsolete software. Google and Amazon changed backends that made the CR100 stop working. Are you saying that that’s a travesty too? Legit question: how long should any company/service be required to add backward compatibility to old, obsolete products? I fundamentally agree that we should be building for longevity and serviceability, but that isn’t always possible. The platform and stack the CR100 was built on is not modern and cannot be easily maintained. And even if the software was open source (which would be great), that doesn’t change the fact that if the endpoints on the services it relies on change, nothing can be done. The only reasonable compromise I can see would be an update that would allow the CR100 to continue to work only with local files. Otherwise, at least users can opt not to update if they rely so heavily on a 13 year old controller.
  - TheSpiceIsLife 9y ago
    Hmmm, yeah, it's tricky. And you're probably going to be right about the cars too.
  - wwweston 9y ago
    > And like it or not, your next car won’t be as repairable as your current 15 year old car, because it will require custom software and bench access and updates that most mechanics will not pay for or maintain. Noting that the automotive market is increasingly opening itself up to the kind of obsolescence problems the software industry has never bothered to come to grips with (indeed, is to some extent actively against solving, from incentives at the business level to personal disinclination on the part of most programmers) isn't exactly a resounding counterpoint to worries about how software problems are affecting less crucial hardware devices. > Legit question: how long should any company/service be required to add backward compatibility to old, obsolete products? There's a point in here that's legit: perpetuity is a high bar, most products don't last forever. But there's also an extent to which this question is largely a dodge of the real question: what is "old"? Why do we accept or feel forced to accept a decade or shorter timeline? > we should be building for longevity and serviceability, but that isn’t always possible. The platform and stack the CR100 was built on is not modern and cannot be easily maintained. You know how we talk about code smells? (Or maybe we don't anymore, it was always a weird term and maybe it's so early 10s now). Pretty sure the word "modern" when it comes to software should be understood as a "thought smell." Every platform/stack any software is built on will be "not modern" by software standards in well under a decade, and is quite likely to grow more difficult to maintain over time. An acknowledgement of the value of longevity and serviceability doesn't mean much while implicitly accepting software-related value choices that mean longevity and serviceability remain not only difficult to attain but difficult to conceive of. > And even if the software was open source (which would be great), that doesn’t change the fact that if the endpoints on the services it relies on change, nothing can be done. If the software were open source, when endpoints change, the threshold for continuing utility is whether there's a developer out there somewhere who cares enough to work on it. Or could be made to care by consumers bearing cash.
- userbinator 9y ago
  My car is older than that. My toaster over is old, I've had CRT TVs that were much older before they died. Moreover, the audio equipment community that they're clearly targeting these things at definitely loves its old equipment: and for good reason, because good audio equipment lasts a very long time.
bambax 9y ago
I use audio devices (amps, etc.) that are over 30 years old and work flawlessly. Why should "connected" systems be any different??
- filmgirlcw 9y ago
  Because they rely on a network of connected services to function and those services can’t be expected to maintain endpoints and compatibility with old, insecure, technology.
  - bambax 9y ago
    Sonos is a closed system; AFAIK CR100s don't connect directly to the outside world; all Sonos has to do in order to support CR100s is to not actively disable them.
  - kjs3 9y ago
    I have computers built in the mid-80s through 90s that I can connect to securely over an IP network. The idea that it can't be done is the party-line of companies that don't want to invest in doing it. If that's you're business model, fine, but be up front that you're going to screw your customer every couple of years.
makomk 9y ago
Giving customers $100 of credit that can only be used to buy your products because you've disabled something they've bought that you don't sell any kind of meaningful replacement for anymore doesn't sound that generous. Especially since CR200s sell for closer to $150 on eBay, a figure that may well go up now that everyone with a CR100 needs to replace it, and there's no guarantee that won't be discontinued too.
apricot 9y ago
If every tech device over 12 years old I have stopped working tomorrow, I would be in a heap of trouble. That's the thing with streaming devices: they are dependent on external support for basic functionality, and manufacturers can arbitrarily decide (or be forced) to cut that support arbitrarily. Plus the CR200 still works and they don’t have plans to brick it You can't be serious.
- filmgirlcw 9y ago
  It’s a remote. A remote that stopped being sold a decade ago. The speakers still work. There is an app. I would agree if it were the speakers. It’s not. It’s a remote that hasn’t been sold in almost ten years.

jasonvorhe 9y ago

Thanks for posting this. I fully agree.

TheSpiceIsLife 9y ago

I think what we're trying to rail against here is that why should 13, or whatever, years be an acceptable figure. My car is older than that. My toaster over is old, I've had CRT TVs that were much older before they died. I'm gonna go with a big fat juicy 'No!' here. We ought to be building for longevity and serviceability. Don't end support, just open it up. Publish the relevant source code, documentation etc. We shouldn't accept that it's ok or normal to dispose of a thing just because it is X years old.

filmgirlcw 9y ago
It’s an accessory. If we were talking about the speakers themselves, I wouldn be more sympathetic, but in this case I’m just not. The reality is that the nature of connected devices makes things different. This isn’t the same as a CRT TV (but also, look at how much it costs and how difficult it is get parts for a CRT in 2018). And like it or not, your next car won’t be as repairable as your current 15 year old car, because it will require custom software and bench access and updates that most mechanics will not pay for or maintain. At least these Sonos users have the option of not installing an update. This isn’t like Revolv where it just stopped working. The CR100 uses Flash IIRC...it is absolutely ancient. I’m not sure we should be realistically asking development teams to maintain separate code bases for old, obsolete software. Google and Amazon changed backends that made the CR100 stop working. Are you saying that that’s a travesty too? Legit question: how long should any company/service be required to add backward compatibility to old, obsolete products? I fundamentally agree that we should be building for longevity and serviceability, but that isn’t always possible. The platform and stack the CR100 was built on is not modern and cannot be easily maintained. And even if the software was open source (which would be great), that doesn’t change the fact that if the endpoints on the services it relies on change, nothing can be done. The only reasonable compromise I can see would be an update that would allow the CR100 to continue to work only with local files. Otherwise, at least users can opt not to update if they rely so heavily on a 13 year old controller.
- TheSpiceIsLife 9y ago
  Hmmm, yeah, it's tricky. And you're probably going to be right about the cars too.
- wwweston 9y ago
  > And like it or not, your next car won’t be as repairable as your current 15 year old car, because it will require custom software and bench access and updates that most mechanics will not pay for or maintain. Noting that the automotive market is increasingly opening itself up to the kind of obsolescence problems the software industry has never bothered to come to grips with (indeed, is to some extent actively against solving, from incentives at the business level to personal disinclination on the part of most programmers) isn't exactly a resounding counterpoint to worries about how software problems are affecting less crucial hardware devices. > Legit question: how long should any company/service be required to add backward compatibility to old, obsolete products? There's a point in here that's legit: perpetuity is a high bar, most products don't last forever. But there's also an extent to which this question is largely a dodge of the real question: what is "old"? Why do we accept or feel forced to accept a decade or shorter timeline? > we should be building for longevity and serviceability, but that isn’t always possible. The platform and stack the CR100 was built on is not modern and cannot be easily maintained. You know how we talk about code smells? (Or maybe we don't anymore, it was always a weird term and maybe it's so early 10s now). Pretty sure the word "modern" when it comes to software should be understood as a "thought smell." Every platform/stack any software is built on will be "not modern" by software standards in well under a decade, and is quite likely to grow more difficult to maintain over time. An acknowledgement of the value of longevity and serviceability doesn't mean much while implicitly accepting software-related value choices that mean longevity and serviceability remain not only difficult to attain but difficult to conceive of. > And even if the software was open source (which would be great), that doesn’t change the fact that if the endpoints on the services it relies on change, nothing can be done. If the software were open source, when endpoints change, the threshold for continuing utility is whether there's a developer out there somewhere who cares enough to work on it. Or could be made to care by consumers bearing cash.
userbinator 9y ago
My car is older than that. My toaster over is old, I've had CRT TVs that were much older before they died. Moreover, the audio equipment community that they're clearly targeting these things at definitely loves its old equipment: and for good reason, because good audio equipment lasts a very long time.

bambax 9y ago

I use audio devices (amps, etc.) that are over 30 years old and work flawlessly. Why should "connected" systems be any different??

filmgirlcw 9y ago
Because they rely on a network of connected services to function and those services can’t be expected to maintain endpoints and compatibility with old, insecure, technology.
- bambax 9y ago
  Sonos is a closed system; AFAIK CR100s don't connect directly to the outside world; all Sonos has to do in order to support CR100s is to not actively disable them.
- kjs3 9y ago
  I have computers built in the mid-80s through 90s that I can connect to securely over an IP network. The idea that it can't be done is the party-line of companies that don't want to invest in doing it. If that's you're business model, fine, but be up front that you're going to screw your customer every couple of years.

makomk 9y ago

Giving customers $100 of credit that can only be used to buy your products because you've disabled something they've bought that you don't sell any kind of meaningful replacement for anymore doesn't sound that generous. Especially since CR200s sell for closer to $150 on eBay, a figure that may well go up now that everyone with a CR100 needs to replace it, and there's no guarantee that won't be discontinued too.

apricot 9y ago

If every tech device over 12 years old I have stopped working tomorrow, I would be in a heap of trouble. That's the thing with streaming devices: they are dependent on external support for basic functionality, and manufacturers can arbitrarily decide (or be forced) to cut that support arbitrarily. Plus the CR200 still works and they don’t have plans to brick it You can't be serious.

filmgirlcw 9y ago
It’s a remote. A remote that stopped being sold a decade ago. The speakers still work. There is an app. I would agree if it were the speakers. It’s not. It’s a remote that hasn’t been sold in almost ten years.