8 ms·

Google home speakers are about to get slightly worse because Sonos sued and won

82 points by turtlegrids 5y ago

andrewclunn 5y ago
One more reason to never buy a product requiring persistent internet connectivity with automatic updates. When physical products are treated the same as software as a service, you don't own a damn thing.
nynx 5y ago
Software and interactions should not be patentable.
diebeforei485 5y ago
Did Apple license Sonos patents for multi-room HomePod audio?
lostcolony 5y ago
Ah, yes. The non-obvious ability for a volume control to control more than one speaker at a time. Our patent system is so broken.
- bighi 5y ago
  And it used to be so good. Not being ironic. For example, coca-cola patented their formula. It didn't prevent other companies from making their own "colas", like Pepsi. They just couldn't make it using the exact coca-cola formula. Which is fair, I'd say. You have to create your own way to achieve that result. The equivalent in software should be "you can replicate the idea, but not the code behind it". But somehow that became "you can't replicate the idea at all", which is super broken.
  - blibble 5y ago
    coca cola never patented their formula, it's still a secret same with WD40/KFC/...
    - kingcharles 5y ago
      And Coca-Cola has an ingredient benefit - the fact they have a license to put coca into the drinks is completely unique in the industry AFAIK. It might be troublesome for a competitor to get that same license.
      - jaywalk 5y ago
        Technically, Coca-Cola puts in a coca leaf extract that is produced by Stepan Company. They are the ones who have the only license to import coca leaves in the US and they use them to make medical cocaine. The extract they sell to Coca-Cola comes after all the good stuff is gone. Coca-Cola never touches the leaves.
        kingcharles 5y ago
        Thank you for the details. I guess in that case Pepsi could buy them from the same place, although I suspect there is an exclusivity agreement there!
      - JaimeThompson 5y ago
        Coca-Cola buys the extract from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stepan_Company https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stepan_Company which, IIRC, is the only one with a license to import the leaves.
        kingcharles 5y ago
        Thank you for the details. I guess in that case Pepsi could buy them from the same place, although I suspect there is an exclusivity agreement there!
    - EntropyDenied 5y ago
      That's exactly how it should be. Intellectual "Property" is only property so long as it's kept secret. Once the secret is out it's just information. IMHO Patents are unethical. Patents for IP are an atrocity and Software Patents are a crime against humanity.
throwhauser 5y ago
I was mentally preparing myself to agree with Sonos on something, but apparently the patent in question is for being able to adjust the volume on a group of speakers instead of having to adjust each speaker individually. It seems ridiculous that this is patentable at all. It seems like the sort of usability feature that would take five minutes to design and perhaps get implemented before lunch. Am I missing something here?
- yumraj 5y ago
  > Am I missing something here? It seems there are total 5 parents. The multi zone speaker volume one is just one of them. https://www.theverge.com/2022/1/6/22871121/sonos-google-patent-itc-ruling-decision-import-ban https://www.theverge.com/2022/1/6/22871121/sonos-google-pate...
  - tssva 5y ago
    And all 5 of them are about as horrible as the speaker volume patent. For instance one covers the common iot task of joining a device to a wifi network by identifying the device initially via Bluetooth, sending the device the wifi credentials and then verifying it has joined the wifi network. The difference being the device is a speaker.
    - yumraj 5y ago
      > And all 5 of them are about as horrible as the speaker volume patent. I'm not defending any of these, but in general all Software patents are like that. Most of them are obvious solutions to the problem one is working on. It's just that one person/team works on a problem before another, comes at one of the obvious solutions and gets to file the patent. Due to this a large number of software engineers hate software patents. Edit: having said that, I will also refer to @samwillis's comment in this thread, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29841653 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29841653, as to why some of this may not be as obvious as it seems on first look. And, the fact that Google had partnered with Sonos (again per that comments).
samwillis 5y ago
This comment thread is very quickly going to become a discussion about software patents in general, however in this case it worth also looking at the history of the case. My understanding is that Google partnered with Sonos back in 2013 to bring Google Play to Sonos speakers, during that partnership Google basically milked Sonos for info on how their platform worked in order to compete with them. I suspect that the outcome of this where Google devices have to have volume controlled individually isn't due to a patent on that specific functionality, but due to something with the inter-speaker communication system that Sonos pioneered (multiple wireless speakers playing sound in sync with each other, with no audible delay). Google will have had to change how they have speakers talk to each other and the side effect is the lack of group volume control. A patent on "speaker group volume control" I agree would be silly, but a parent on a wireless control system and protocol for multiple speakers that can be grouped together is far less so.
- beambot 5y ago
  I wouldn't classify myself as someone particularly "skilled in the art", though I've definitely built audio DSP solutions. I can think of 2-3 ways to achieve "wireless control system and protocol for multiple speakers that can be grouped" while just sitting here. In classic infringement avoidance ridiculousness, I have no desire to dig into the details... but this superficially feels like it would fail the obviousness test for patentability.
  - samwillis 5y ago
    Everything seems obvious in hindsight. I think the true innovation and problem that Sonos solved when they started was to have synchronised compressed audio streams play on multiple speakers with do audible delay between them. That is not a partially "easy" problem to solve, and bear in mind that when they started they had to implement their own wifi network for the speakers as the wifi standards of the time (from memory) both wouldn't provide the necessary bandwidth but also few people had wifi at the time. The were no smart phones when they stated, they had their own "smart" remotes even.
    - 5y ago
MattGaiser 5y ago
What am I doing with my life working for pay? I should patent some one to many interactions and become a patent troll.
kayodelycaon 5y ago
I love the person telling people to use Home Assistant to replace this functionality. I use Home Assistant a lot and I basically had to learn yet another shitty programming language implemented in yaml.
- entropie 5y ago
  > I use Home Assistant a lot and I basically had to learn yet another shitty programming language implemented in yaml. You can use node-red for automation. Frontend stuff is still yaml but thats not rocket science.
  - lostlogin 5y ago
    You can also use it whilst avoiding the yaml, but it’s easier to get in there. The great advantage of HA is that it can be made to work. This sounds sarcastic but is a huge advantage compared to other systems, apps and devices
- psyclobe 5y ago
  Yes its hard but it is by far the best solution to date
Someone1234 5y ago
> Google home speakers are about to get slightly worse Google are well ahead of this lawsuit, the home speakers have been getting slightly worse since Google lost interest and moved on a couple of years ago. Say what you will about Alexa, but it is the only voice assistant that seemingly keeps improving, Siri is statically-terrible and while Google Assistant was once good, it is worse now than then somehow (although functionality/integrations hasn't evolved). My favorite thing right now is that a room can have multiple devices (e.g. screens, speakers, etc) but timers don't belong to a room, they belong to an individual Home device, so your screens don't show your timers if your speaker "eats" them. Makes zero sense. Been like that for over a year. In general Google as an organization is going downhill fast. Google Search is legitimately bad now, I turn on Verbatim Mode and quote everything just to get a so-so experience (still mostly spam though).
- shiftpgdn 5y ago
  I threw all my google home devices into the recycling bin a year ago. They had become comically bad. The only thing I haven't replaced are the nest thermostats but I'd like to get rid of them as well.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- evercast 5y ago
  Just casually wondering here... how do you evaluate the voice assistants to claim that Alexa is improving, Google Assistant is getting worse and Siri is terrible? I used all three and honestly I don't feel a whole lot of difference between them. They all control the lights and set the timers/alarms just alright, with similar "error rates".
  - pzo 5y ago
    In my experience they are only good for settings timers/alarms, that's it (though I believe can be good for controlling lights as well). Few years ago I was in indonesia, Bali and asked google 'navigate to ubud' and it showed me how to navigate to some cities in USA. Same with translation when you want to have simple conversation with locals - each time ends up with embarrassment.
shoulderfake 5y ago
you gotta be out of your mind to bug your own house with these devices
- hottesttake 5y ago
  Hot take. Any thoughts on the US International Trade Commission's ruling that Google was infringing on Sonos’ patents?
- jankyxenon 5y ago
  I hear this sentiment a fair bit - but what is the actual risk here?
  - zdragnar 5y ago
    - company builds a profile on your likes and dislikes based on commands you give - company surreptitiously builds a profile on everything it hears, ostensibly for "training" their ML / AI - data is viewed by snoopers within the company - data on public figures is leaked to media / public - data is sold to other companies you do business with - data is used to build a "social credit" profile. Say something casuallu offensive? Forget getting that loan! - data is accidentally leaked. Organized theft rings now know your routine, and the routines of everyone in your city all at once. Then there are the odd stories of people who are expecting a baby suddenly getting ads for parenting supplies, or gift surprises being spoiled by recommendations, etc. At the end of the day, FAANG are not my friends. They don't get to know things about me for free, and rarely are the goods they offer worth what they get in exchange. I make some exceptions, but voice assistants aren't one of them.
    - secabeen 5y ago
      > - company surreptitiously builds a profile on everything it hears, ostensibly for "training" their ML / AI I have yet to see any evidence that any voice-command device is transmitting everything it hears. The data sent by the device is too small to contain audio beyond what was said after the wake word was detected. The hardware does not have the necessary chips to do 24x7 voice to text. You're totally right that they can do a lot with what they do get, from the audio around when you say the wake word, and from other data that you give them through web surfing, location data, etc., and that's totally a legitimate reason to not have one or to limit one's interaction.
1MachineElf 5y ago
Will Google take it to the Supreme Court as they did with the Oracle vs. Google case over the Java API?
- 10987654321 5y ago
  I would hope so. These patents are ridiculous. Not that I'm a fan of putting a surveillance device into my house.
jasonpeacock 5y ago
This article title is mis-leading. More like: "Google Home speakers are about to get slightly worse because Google infringed on existing patents and was caught."
369548684892826 5y ago
Anyone looking to work around this by building their own multi-room speaker system should take a look at snapcast https://github.com/badaix/snapcast https://github.com/badaix/snapcast
- EntropyDenied 5y ago
  Looks interesting. The server would need to support receiving audio as a Chromecast device to effectively replace Google Home Speaker Groups.
fxtentacle 5y ago
I feel like the title is misleading. The speakers are getting worse because Google is too greedy to pay for the patent that they have been using without paying until now. Whether that patent is useful is a different question, but the headline makes it sound like Sonos is the aggressor here. But Google chose to do things this way, and Sonos then reacted.
paxys 5y ago
Reminder that we can't have Alexa and Google Assistant operating simultaneously on Sonos speakers only because Google won't allow it.
- EntropyDenied 5y ago
  Sounds like they should make a trade, Assistant for Speaker Group volume adjustments.

82 points by turtlegrids 5y ago

One more reason to never buy a product requiring persistent internet connectivity with automatic updates. When physical products are treated the same as software as a service, you don't own a damn thing.

nynx 5y ago

Software and interactions should not be patentable.

diebeforei485 5y ago

Did Apple license Sonos patents for multi-room HomePod audio?

lostcolony 5y ago

Ah, yes. The non-obvious ability for a volume control to control more than one speaker at a time. Our patent system is so broken.

bighi 5y ago
And it used to be so good. Not being ironic. For example, coca-cola patented their formula. It didn't prevent other companies from making their own "colas", like Pepsi. They just couldn't make it using the exact coca-cola formula. Which is fair, I'd say. You have to create your own way to achieve that result. The equivalent in software should be "you can replicate the idea, but not the code behind it". But somehow that became "you can't replicate the idea at all", which is super broken.
- blibble 5y ago
  coca cola never patented their formula, it's still a secret same with WD40/KFC/...
  - kingcharles 5y ago
    And Coca-Cola has an ingredient benefit - the fact they have a license to put coca into the drinks is completely unique in the industry AFAIK. It might be troublesome for a competitor to get that same license.
    - jaywalk 5y ago
      Technically, Coca-Cola puts in a coca leaf extract that is produced by Stepan Company. They are the ones who have the only license to import coca leaves in the US and they use them to make medical cocaine. The extract they sell to Coca-Cola comes after all the good stuff is gone. Coca-Cola never touches the leaves.
      - kingcharles 5y ago
        Thank you for the details. I guess in that case Pepsi could buy them from the same place, although I suspect there is an exclusivity agreement there!
    - JaimeThompson 5y ago
      Coca-Cola buys the extract from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stepan_Company https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stepan_Company which, IIRC, is the only one with a license to import the leaves.
      - kingcharles 5y ago
        Thank you for the details. I guess in that case Pepsi could buy them from the same place, although I suspect there is an exclusivity agreement there!
  - EntropyDenied 5y ago
    That's exactly how it should be. Intellectual "Property" is only property so long as it's kept secret. Once the secret is out it's just information. IMHO Patents are unethical. Patents for IP are an atrocity and Software Patents are a crime against humanity.

throwhauser 5y ago

I was mentally preparing myself to agree with Sonos on something, but apparently the patent in question is for being able to adjust the volume on a group of speakers instead of having to adjust each speaker individually. It seems ridiculous that this is patentable at all. It seems like the sort of usability feature that would take five minutes to design and perhaps get implemented before lunch. Am I missing something here?

yumraj 5y ago
> Am I missing something here? It seems there are total 5 parents. The multi zone speaker volume one is just one of them. https://www.theverge.com/2022/1/6/22871121/sonos-google-patent-itc-ruling-decision-import-ban https://www.theverge.com/2022/1/6/22871121/sonos-google-pate...
- tssva 5y ago
  And all 5 of them are about as horrible as the speaker volume patent. For instance one covers the common iot task of joining a device to a wifi network by identifying the device initially via Bluetooth, sending the device the wifi credentials and then verifying it has joined the wifi network. The difference being the device is a speaker.
  - yumraj 5y ago
    > And all 5 of them are about as horrible as the speaker volume patent. I'm not defending any of these, but in general all Software patents are like that. Most of them are obvious solutions to the problem one is working on. It's just that one person/team works on a problem before another, comes at one of the obvious solutions and gets to file the patent. Due to this a large number of software engineers hate software patents. Edit: having said that, I will also refer to @samwillis's comment in this thread, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29841653 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29841653, as to why some of this may not be as obvious as it seems on first look. And, the fact that Google had partnered with Sonos (again per that comments).

samwillis 5y ago

This comment thread is very quickly going to become a discussion about software patents in general, however in this case it worth also looking at the history of the case. My understanding is that Google partnered with Sonos back in 2013 to bring Google Play to Sonos speakers, during that partnership Google basically milked Sonos for info on how their platform worked in order to compete with them. I suspect that the outcome of this where Google devices have to have volume controlled individually isn't due to a patent on that specific functionality, but due to something with the inter-speaker communication system that Sonos pioneered (multiple wireless speakers playing sound in sync with each other, with no audible delay). Google will have had to change how they have speakers talk to each other and the side effect is the lack of group volume control. A patent on "speaker group volume control" I agree would be silly, but a parent on a wireless control system and protocol for multiple speakers that can be grouped together is far less so.

beambot 5y ago
I wouldn't classify myself as someone particularly "skilled in the art", though I've definitely built audio DSP solutions. I can think of 2-3 ways to achieve "wireless control system and protocol for multiple speakers that can be grouped" while just sitting here. In classic infringement avoidance ridiculousness, I have no desire to dig into the details... but this superficially feels like it would fail the obviousness test for patentability.
- samwillis 5y ago
  Everything seems obvious in hindsight. I think the true innovation and problem that Sonos solved when they started was to have synchronised compressed audio streams play on multiple speakers with do audible delay between them. That is not a partially "easy" problem to solve, and bear in mind that when they started they had to implement their own wifi network for the speakers as the wifi standards of the time (from memory) both wouldn't provide the necessary bandwidth but also few people had wifi at the time. The were no smart phones when they stated, they had their own "smart" remotes even.
  - 5y ago

MattGaiser 5y ago

What am I doing with my life working for pay? I should patent some one to many interactions and become a patent troll.

kayodelycaon 5y ago

I love the person telling people to use Home Assistant to replace this functionality. I use Home Assistant a lot and I basically had to learn yet another shitty programming language implemented in yaml.

entropie 5y ago
> I use Home Assistant a lot and I basically had to learn yet another shitty programming language implemented in yaml. You can use node-red for automation. Frontend stuff is still yaml but thats not rocket science.
- lostlogin 5y ago
  You can also use it whilst avoiding the yaml, but it’s easier to get in there. The great advantage of HA is that it can be made to work. This sounds sarcastic but is a huge advantage compared to other systems, apps and devices
psyclobe 5y ago
Yes its hard but it is by far the best solution to date

Someone1234 5y ago

> Google home speakers are about to get slightly worse Google are well ahead of this lawsuit, the home speakers have been getting slightly worse since Google lost interest and moved on a couple of years ago. Say what you will about Alexa, but it is the only voice assistant that seemingly keeps improving, Siri is statically-terrible and while Google Assistant was once good, it is worse now than then somehow (although functionality/integrations hasn't evolved). My favorite thing right now is that a room can have multiple devices (e.g. screens, speakers, etc) but timers don't belong to a room, they belong to an individual Home device, so your screens don't show your timers if your speaker "eats" them. Makes zero sense. Been like that for over a year. In general Google as an organization is going downhill fast. Google Search is legitimately bad now, I turn on Verbatim Mode and quote everything just to get a so-so experience (still mostly spam though).

shiftpgdn 5y ago
I threw all my google home devices into the recycling bin a year ago. They had become comically bad. The only thing I haven't replaced are the nest thermostats but I'd like to get rid of them as well.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
evercast 5y ago
Just casually wondering here... how do you evaluate the voice assistants to claim that Alexa is improving, Google Assistant is getting worse and Siri is terrible? I used all three and honestly I don't feel a whole lot of difference between them. They all control the lights and set the timers/alarms just alright, with similar "error rates".
- pzo 5y ago
  In my experience they are only good for settings timers/alarms, that's it (though I believe can be good for controlling lights as well). Few years ago I was in indonesia, Bali and asked google 'navigate to ubud' and it showed me how to navigate to some cities in USA. Same with translation when you want to have simple conversation with locals - each time ends up with embarrassment.

shoulderfake 5y ago

you gotta be out of your mind to bug your own house with these devices

hottesttake 5y ago
Hot take. Any thoughts on the US International Trade Commission's ruling that Google was infringing on Sonos’ patents?
jankyxenon 5y ago
I hear this sentiment a fair bit - but what is the actual risk here?
- zdragnar 5y ago
  - company builds a profile on your likes and dislikes based on commands you give - company surreptitiously builds a profile on everything it hears, ostensibly for "training" their ML / AI - data is viewed by snoopers within the company - data on public figures is leaked to media / public - data is sold to other companies you do business with - data is used to build a "social credit" profile. Say something casuallu offensive? Forget getting that loan! - data is accidentally leaked. Organized theft rings now know your routine, and the routines of everyone in your city all at once. Then there are the odd stories of people who are expecting a baby suddenly getting ads for parenting supplies, or gift surprises being spoiled by recommendations, etc. At the end of the day, FAANG are not my friends. They don't get to know things about me for free, and rarely are the goods they offer worth what they get in exchange. I make some exceptions, but voice assistants aren't one of them.
  - secabeen 5y ago
    > - company surreptitiously builds a profile on everything it hears, ostensibly for "training" their ML / AI I have yet to see any evidence that any voice-command device is transmitting everything it hears. The data sent by the device is too small to contain audio beyond what was said after the wake word was detected. The hardware does not have the necessary chips to do 24x7 voice to text. You're totally right that they can do a lot with what they do get, from the audio around when you say the wake word, and from other data that you give them through web surfing, location data, etc., and that's totally a legitimate reason to not have one or to limit one's interaction.

1MachineElf 5y ago

Will Google take it to the Supreme Court as they did with the Oracle vs. Google case over the Java API?

10987654321 5y ago
I would hope so. These patents are ridiculous. Not that I'm a fan of putting a surveillance device into my house.

jasonpeacock 5y ago

This article title is mis-leading. More like: "Google Home speakers are about to get slightly worse because Google infringed on existing patents and was caught."

369548684892826 5y ago

Anyone looking to work around this by building their own multi-room speaker system should take a look at snapcast https://github.com/badaix/snapcast https://github.com/badaix/snapcast

EntropyDenied 5y ago
Looks interesting. The server would need to support receiving audio as a Chromecast device to effectively replace Google Home Speaker Groups.

fxtentacle 5y ago

I feel like the title is misleading. The speakers are getting worse because Google is too greedy to pay for the patent that they have been using without paying until now. Whether that patent is useful is a different question, but the headline makes it sound like Sonos is the aggressor here. But Google chose to do things this way, and Sonos then reacted.

paxys 5y ago

Reminder that we can't have Alexa and Google Assistant operating simultaneously on Sonos speakers only because Google won't allow it.

EntropyDenied 5y ago
Sounds like they should make a trade, Assistant for Speaker Group volume adjustments.