5 ms·
Good design is long-lasting. It’s one of the Dieter Rams design principles. Short lifespan’s for technology that often gets thrown into dumps in the ground is
by mfer 7y ago
Good design is long-lasting. It’s one of the Dieter Rams design principles.
Short lifespan’s for technology that often gets thrown into dumps in the ground isn’t good for the environment
- Infinitesimus 7y agoTight hardware software integration is tough to support as hardware evolves though
- YawningAngel 7y agoI don't follow this claim. I don't think anyone expects new features to make it to old Sonos devices. What's so hard about running a version of your v1 API indefinitely and occasionally backporting a bugfix or security patch?
- londons_explore 7y agoI think the issue is not the server API, but the app to hardware and p2p comms between different bits of hardware in the same house. Assuming every different version has a few quirks and bugs, maintaining compatibility between every version and every other soon becomes impractical, especially since you probably want to build some kind of integration test that checks this all works as it should, and that probably involves a lab with all the old hardware and a human running hundreds of tests by hand because it's hard to automate tests on embedded stuff that you can no longer compile software for.
- mumblemumble 7y agoThis might be an argument for open standards being better for consumers. I don't want to say that vendors shouldn't implement custom protocols for an enhanced experience. But, as a consumer, I'd be a lot more likely to shell out for a product like this if I knew that there were a wifi speaker equivalent of PostScript, and that the speaker supported it. That gives me confidence that there will be some least-common-denominator level of functionality that I'll be able to get out of it for as long as the hardware itself lasts. As it stands, my impression is that these limited-lifespan IoT products are mostly for people whose disposable income is rather more disposable than mine is.
- tracker1 7y agoProbably the closest to what you are looking for would be a bluetooth audio interface... then using your phone or other device to do the actual playback. Chromecast devices aren't too far off themselves, I wish Google was more open with them though, per another comment learned they don't even make the audio version anymore.
- ajford 7y agoIdeal solution would be to make the control system a separate user serviceable module. For example, a smallish cartridge with perhaps a board-edge connector that can be swapped out from underneath/rear with all "digital" connectors. Then build the high-end audio gear into the chassis, such as a solid quality amp and speaker pair. That way only the the electronics needs to be swapped should the audio quality still be sufficient. I'm not an audiophile by any stretch, but I appreciate a decent speaker. That being said, solid audio equipment can last much longer than digital tech can. A system like above could even bring about a new sub-market around swappable chassis. Allow a customer to purchase a chassis in multiple styles and colors for less than a full module. That might mean people would be more willing to buy a "fashion swap" should they redecorate.
- tracker1 7y agoFor that matter, a usb3 power + standard audio interface to the speaker + amp... then you can use a pi board or any future device with single usb3 connection. It's already relatively ubiquitous.
- mfer 7y agoI can get a basic toilet. I can get fancy toilets (heated seats and more). All of them hook to the same connectors in my home. Different brands. I can hook them into pipes and connectors that are decades old. It works. This is just hardware integration. It's due to standard interfaces and being designed to last. What we build with technology now isn't designed to last. It's an intentional part of what we build even if we don't think about it much. It has an impact on end users (and even the environment... think of all the trash). The rate of interface change is intentional on some levels. And, it's something we can control.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- JohnFen 7y agoAnd yet, it certainly can (and should) be done. Many of the places that I've worked for (including my current employer) manage to do exactly that. What it requires is a well-engineered protocol (which is what Sonos apparently lacks) that allows for feature additions while maintaining backward compatibility for old hardware and software. The old hardware and software often can't use the new features, but it can continue to work as it always had before.
- givinguflac 7y agoI don’t disagree but we’re talking about some products with 2005 cpu and 32mb of ram. Big for 2005, nothing today.
- ivanfon 7y agoSounds like plenty for a speaker.
- wvenable 7y agoOld sonos users don't want new features -- they just want their existing features to keep working. That should not require more resources.
- mixmastamyk 7y agoI got a lot of real work done on a 486, and it already could calculate faster than I could read the results.
- jhallenworld 7y agoI doubt RAM is any issue, but I'm also fairly sure that they went cheap on flash memory and there is no setting higher than -9 for compression :-)
- AdamJacobMuller 7y agoTheir hardware isn't that short-lived, especially not in comparison to others. I've had some of this hardware they are discontinuing for over a decade.
- dangus 7y agoThey’re speakers, they should last longer. My decade-old desktop PC would still work fine with Windows 10, and it’s far more complex than a speaker.