4 ms·

Came here to say the same thing. I'm the last fan of Google but "the ability to connect speakers in groups and control their volume" is obvious to conceive of a

by nailer 5y ago

Came here to say the same thing. I'm the last fan of Google but "the ability to connect speakers in groups and control their volume" is obvious to conceive of and implement to any engineer with sufficient expertise in the field.

jdavis703 5y ago
Sound engineers and technicians have been controlling speaker group volume for probably a century now. The Sonos patent is more than just an obvious invention. Otherwise the courts would’ve tossed it out.
- Workaccount2 5y ago
  I have zero faith in court's ability to see through techno-babble.
Bud 5y ago
It's not obvious at all, for wireless speakers, especially in complex multi-room setups. If it were obvious and easy, then everyone's wireless audio products would handle this as well as Sonos does. But they don't. I bought two Sonos One SLs and had them set up as a stereo pair that my Apple TV could talk to almost instantly. Then recently I got a Sonos Beam soundbar and wanted to use my One SLs as surround speakers. I expected a long, painful setup similar to what I've experienced with competing products. Instead it was seamless, easy, and delightful, and I haven't had to touch or mess with the setup at all since. There are also a lot of details like how to handle time delays with a large set of wireless speakers so that sound is synced with a TV picture, comparative volume adjustments for a given acoustic, etc. Did you read the patents or any other reporting on the patents or this case? For instance: https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2020/01/in-a-flashpoint-for-the-rebellion-against-big-tech-sonos-sues-google-for-patent-infringement/?itm_source=parsely-api https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2020/01/in-a-flashpoint-for-... https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2022/01/google-loses-sonos-patent-case-starts-stripping-functionality-from-speakers/ https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2022/01/google-loses-sonos-p...
- mattmcknight 5y ago
  While the implementation of synchronization is not obvious, the concept of doing it is. They shouldn't be able to patent the entire concept of allowing multiple speaker volumes to be adjusted with a single slider (which is what everyone is complaining about), as the implementation of that is trivial. Maybe that isn't what they've actually done though...maybe Google is keeping their synchronization stuff, but breaking the volume change since Sonos made the mistake of combining them in a single claim. That way Google can avoid violating that claim by not doing the volume part.
- nailer 5y ago
  Latency was literally the first thing I considered and I haven’t done any audio work since the nineties.
smichel17 5y ago
Or to anyone who uses an old-fashioned audio receiver ("amp") with wired speakers. Turn the dial, both speakers change volume. Obviously what I want. I have not read anything besides this article, though, so it's possible the patent is being misinterpreted here.

by nailer 5y ago

jdavis703 5y ago

Sound engineers and technicians have been controlling speaker group volume for probably a century now. The Sonos patent is more than just an obvious invention. Otherwise the courts would’ve tossed it out.

Workaccount2 5y ago
I have zero faith in court's ability to see through techno-babble.

Bud 5y ago

It's not obvious at all, for wireless speakers, especially in complex multi-room setups. If it were obvious and easy, then everyone's wireless audio products would handle this as well as Sonos does. But they don't. I bought two Sonos One SLs and had them set up as a stereo pair that my Apple TV could talk to almost instantly. Then recently I got a Sonos Beam soundbar and wanted to use my One SLs as surround speakers. I expected a long, painful setup similar to what I've experienced with competing products. Instead it was seamless, easy, and delightful, and I haven't had to touch or mess with the setup at all since. There are also a lot of details like how to handle time delays with a large set of wireless speakers so that sound is synced with a TV picture, comparative volume adjustments for a given acoustic, etc. Did you read the patents or any other reporting on the patents or this case? For instance: https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2020/01/in-a-flashpoint-for-the-rebellion-against-big-tech-sonos-sues-google-for-patent-infringement/?itm_source=parsely-api https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2020/01/in-a-flashpoint-for-... https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2022/01/google-loses-sonos-patent-case-starts-stripping-functionality-from-speakers/ https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2022/01/google-loses-sonos-p...

mattmcknight 5y ago
While the implementation of synchronization is not obvious, the concept of doing it is. They shouldn't be able to patent the entire concept of allowing multiple speaker volumes to be adjusted with a single slider (which is what everyone is complaining about), as the implementation of that is trivial. Maybe that isn't what they've actually done though...maybe Google is keeping their synchronization stuff, but breaking the volume change since Sonos made the mistake of combining them in a single claim. That way Google can avoid violating that claim by not doing the volume part.
nailer 5y ago
Latency was literally the first thing I considered and I haven’t done any audio work since the nineties.

smichel17 5y ago

Or to anyone who uses an old-fashioned audio receiver ("amp") with wired speakers. Turn the dial, both speakers change volume. Obviously what I want. I have not read anything besides this article, though, so it's possible the patent is being misinterpreted here.