5 ms·

US jury says Google owes Sonos $32.5M in smart-speaker patent case

99 points by fidotron 3y ago

thehappypm 3y ago
Google probably can pay that in Venmo
Spivak 3y ago
Such a dumb lawsuit for stupid patents that should never have been granted in the first place awarding money of literally no consequence to either company and taking away features from users along the way. This lawsuit could be the spokesperson for the worst of tech patents.
- ethanbond 3y ago
  What changes would you propose to the system, or do you think we don’t need it at all to help reward development (and in this case, collaboration with a quasi-competitor)?
  - onos 3y ago
    In fact the winner take all / must become a unicorn approach to startups here is probably driven in large part by our inability to block competition from copying ideas. A good thing?
    - hgsgm 3y ago
      No one getting anything good because one company patented an obvious idea and then AT&T'ed it would be even worse. The solution to monopoly is antitrust law not patent law making more monopolies.
      - onos 3y ago
        Good point. But still room for improvement on other end imho. Only way to succeed in some of these spaces is rapid growth at loss via massive venture funding. Doesn’t seem healthy.
  - asmithmd1 3y ago
    Do you know why musicians are allowed to "cover" any song they like? It is because Congress decided music is so important no one artists should be able to lock it up for themselves so they passed a law for "compulsory licensing" of copyrighted music. We need to do the same for patents. The compulsory license for a recorded song is 9.1 cents per song, Set some fee per patent claim.
    - ethanbond 3y ago
      I didn’t know this was a thing! Fascinating. It doesn’t seem like the economics always work similarly though. It’s fairly easy for millions of dollars of R&D to be put into a single invention, for it to be worth millions/billions on the market, and for someone else to copy it identically. I.e. presumably Congress wouldn’t protect someone literally stripping the name off someone else’s song and publishing it and earning money from it? Fee per patent claim is definitely interesting, just pricing it seems harder than in the song case.
      - asmithmd1 3y ago
        No, I can't republish a song and call it mine, and I can't use someone else's recording of a song without their permission. What I can do is record my version of their song and sell it and I can publicly play their song and charge people - but I have to cut them author of the song in for 9.1 cents for each instance. Yeah, devil is in the details. Currently a patent gives exclusive use for 20 years and music copyright gives control for 100 years, but anyone can license it. The trick is to strike a balance that gets the most economic benefit. Set the claim fee high at first and tinker with it. I would think companies that innovate would be happy to know there is a ceiling to their liabilities instead of being at the mercy of a jury. And do we really want an inventor to be able to lock up any use of a technology for 20 years. Imagine a solo inventor cracks low-temperature fusion and sells their patent to Saudi Arabia for $1B - who sits on it for 20 years and sues anyone who tries to use it. Here is the public framing: "We need to pass the 'Freedom to Innovate' act passed to stop evil foreign companies from locking up American inventions that would benefit all hard-working Americans!" Music is not as easy as it seems. How much should an artist get for a ring tone? For a stream? How much should artists get paid for longer songs? There is a 3 judge panel that adjudicates all these things: https://www.crb.gov/index.html https://www.crb.gov/index.html
JoeAltmaier 3y ago
There's a threshold for large companies where they just settle and pay. Because the lawyers would be more expensive!
binkHN 3y ago
Unfortunately the article provides no detail on what's infringing.
- eitally 3y ago
  Google had a feature within the Home app that allowed users to change the volume of groups of speakers simultaneously, which infringed on a Sonos patent.
  - throwaway2990 3y ago
    How is that a patent… wtf… I hope Google appeals and gets the patent thrown out.
    - seanmcdirmid 3y ago
      It might be the mechanism rather than the outcome? It is hard to say anything in these cases without doing patent lawyer work.
      - World177 3y ago
        615, [1] 033, [2] 885, [3] and 966. [4] These were the patents listed in the case [5] if you want to quickly look at them. I am just linking them to save someone else from having to search for how to find them. The jury decided on 885 and 966. [6] The quote below is from the source for [5] > Whereas the '615 and '033 patents cover technology related to transferring playback between devices, i.e., “casting,” the '885 and '966 patents cover technology related to managing groups of smart speakers. > Pursuant to “patent showdown” procedure, each side has already moved for summary judgment on a single claim. Separate orders granted summary judgment in favor of Google on invalidity of claim 13 of the '615 patent and in favor of Sonos on infringement of claim 1 of the '885 patent. Sonos has since withdrawn its remaining claims based on the '615 patent, and Google has since begun developing and deploying a purported design-around for the '885 and '966 patents. Claims and defenses related to the '033, '885, and '966 patents are now set for trial starting May 8, 2023 [1] https://image-ppubs.uspto.gov/dirsearch-public/print/downloadPdf/9967615 https://image-ppubs.uspto.gov/dirsearch-public/print/downloa... [2] https://image-ppubs.uspto.gov/dirsearch-public/print/downloadPdf/10779033 https://image-ppubs.uspto.gov/dirsearch-public/print/downloa... [3] https://image-ppubs.uspto.gov/dirsearch-public/print/downloadPdf/10848885 https://image-ppubs.uspto.gov/dirsearch-public/print/downloa... [4] https://image-ppubs.uspto.gov/dirsearch-public/print/downloadPdf/10469966 https://image-ppubs.uspto.gov/dirsearch-public/print/downloa... [5] https://casetext.com/case/sonos-inc-v-google-llc-7 https://casetext.com/case/sonos-inc-v-google-llc-7 [6] https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/legaldocs/egpbyxmqdvq/GOOGLE%20SONOS%20LAWSUIT%20verdict.pdf https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/legaldocs/egpbyxmqdvq/...
jbverschoor 3y ago
That really is not a lot tbh
- ISL 3y ago
  Both sides may have spent a substantial fraction of that in attorneys' fees.
- sva_ 3y ago
  $2.30 per device.
- amelius 3y ago
  They can make it more if they tell Google to either recall all their patent-infringing devices, or pay them more for a license. Patents allow you to do that. A patent is a temporary monopoly on a technology, after all.
  - frankfrankfrank 3y ago
    It’s not as temporary as one would believe and was intended, especially in today’s environment where for all practical purposes it is irrelevant when a patent runs out when the technology itself is obsolete long before the patent even gets close to expiring, if it’s not effectively extended by several methods. Patent duration today should maybe be measured in a function of the value it has produced measured in something relatively fixed like gold. It would be relative to the impact and would also throttle regulatory and market capture and wealth imbalances. The current parent duration based on the celestial orbits around the closest star is dumb and blunt. My proposal would accelerate technology dissemination and prevent many of the overburden issues.
  - kramerger 3y ago
    Google removed this from their software many years ago. They eventually cancelled chromecast audio altogether, probably at least partly due to this.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
asah 3y ago
For all the haters: actually, it's tricky technology and even Sonos struggles to change volume simultaneously when you have 4+ speakers. WiFi is a big pain. (That said, Sonos UI is unnecessarily bad, they have terrible support for playing local files and as a consumer I want more competition)
- wouldbecouldbe 3y ago
  Google made a workaround that uses a different technology. And Sonos still got it blocked. 'When news of the patent decision broke, Google told The Verge it had gotten non-infringing designs approved by the ITC. Sonos warned, however, that Google might have to “degrade or eliminate product features” to be compliant, and that certainly seems to be what’s happening. ' https://www.theverge.com/2022/1/6/22871304/google-home-speaker-group-volume-control-changes-sonos-patent-decision https://www.theverge.com/2022/1/6/22871304/google-home-speak... They somehow patented a common sense feature of managing the volume multiple speakers at the same time. They probably used some loophole of volume of "smart" speaker or something.
  - ipaddr 3y ago
    If it were common google would have used prior art as a defense.
    - yunohn 3y ago
      They said “common sense” not commonly available. IMO it’s similar to the dot-com boom era of patents that do “normal thing, but on the /web/“.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- mhh__ 3y ago
  I feel like it's just in an unfortunate valley of being slightly too techy, not quite old fashioned enough (e.g. if its that bad I'd add a backup radio), and too expensive (the most prolific user of Sonos products I've met bought probably 15 of them and would've had no qualms spending hundreds on the one that just outputs a signal with no speaker) for there to be much pressure to get it right architecturally.
frankfrankfrank 3y ago
Maybe they can use that money to make basic volume control functionality of their app function correctly.
- wouldbecouldbe 3y ago
  probably the money already went to their lawyers
dcl 3y ago
How does anyone start a company these days and not accidentally infringe on a bunch of nonsense patents?
- Dalewyn 3y ago
  You license the patents as applicable, if that's an option. Otherwise, you go and make+patent your own invention. Maybe have a good legal team to research patents too.
  - asmithmd1 3y ago
    The problem is companies can just ignore your request to license a patent. Did you know the reason any artist can "cover" another artist's song is that Congress added "compulsory licensing" to copyright law? For 9.1 cents per copy of a song, you can record your own version and sell it. We need to do the same thing for patent claims. Set a floor of, IDK, $100 per copy of a patent claim infringement. As it is now, damages are completely, un-capped and you have to pay for a lawsuit to get a jury to decide how much a patent is worth.
    - andromeduck 3y ago
      Cap total proceeds at 20% of final product cost after a few years of exclusivity.
- ocdtrekkie 3y ago
  This is far less than nonsense: Google partnered with Sonos explicitly to get access to their internal designs, and then copied them. This is closer to industrial espionage than inadvertently stumbling across patent infringement.
  - gpm 3y ago
    > Google partnered with Sonos explicitly to get access to their internal designs, and then copied them If anything this ought to be strong evidence that the patents failed to disclose the invention and are invalid. Patents are a deal where you publicly disclose your invention in exchange for a temporary monopoly. If someone has to get access to your internal designs to copy them, they shouldn't be protected by patent. Edit: (Note I'm talking about how the law ought to work, I'm not claiming this is strong evidence under current US law that the patents actually are invalid)
oftenwrong 3y ago
This was (AIUI) the reason that google disabled the ability to adjust cast content volume via the volume rocker from their Android phones. Interestingly, I noticed that this feature had returned recently in at least one non-Google apps.
- oftenwrong 3y ago
  Earlier, when I made the comment above, I tried it with YouTube, and it did not work. Now it works. This could be a bug rather than a change in policy.
ttul 3y ago
I am rooting for Sonos. They paved the way for Wi-Fi speakers years ago and built some fantastic products. Their UX can be poor, but they’re getting better with each release. For instance, setting up the latest subwoofer product, the Sub Mini, uses a combination of Bluetooth, WiFi and NFC to make the process fast and easy. A pro tip for making your life so much easier with Sonos: plug one of the speakers in to Ethernet and then the others will use the proprietary Sonos Net wireless protocol instead of WiFi. It’s apparently much more reliable.
- lalaland1125 3y ago
  Why would you root for an anti-competitive company that would rather sue their competition than build a better product?
  - bryanrasmussen 3y ago
    They said something about the company paving the way...
  - ttul 3y ago
    While I understand the perspective on their legal actions, Sonos's commitment to their product and their continued development of the multi-room audio space deserves some credit. Yes, they have had a number of high-profile lawsuits, but this isn't just a move to stifle competition, it's also about protecting their intellectual property. If a company doesn't protect its IP, it essentially undermines the value of their own innovation. Competition can be fierce, and sometimes legal battles are a part of that landscape.
- Larrikin 3y ago
  I'm thousands of dollars into their ecosystem and am looking for the off ramp and will switch if there ever is a viable competitor. Their mobile apps were never great but seem particularly bad lately. My initial setup in 2019 was awful and involved eventually moving my sound bar to a different room to plug into my router directly. Then I discovered that true play, one of their selling features, was an iOS only feature and Android users were just screwed. Luckily, I had an iPad, only to discover they had also disabled the ability on there too and my only course of action was to have a friend come over and use their phone. In 2022 when I was setting up my sub, I found this still to be the case. Once it was all setup however it worked amazingly well. Speaker in the bedroom, in the bathroom, and the living room. All sounded amazing and moving sound around in sync was so good. But it seems like the software just keeps further diving into crap. After changing routers (and going through the hell of setting them up again) and adding a couple more speakers it just seems like a fifty percent chance if the app will show my speakers with a little wrench next to them and not play from my phone. My sub currently has a long ugly Ethernet cable going to my router and it seemed to not have helped at all. The latest forced update this week, showed me no speakers for a day. I currently have a Bluetooth speaker on top of my Sonos speaker in the bathroom because it's just a waste of time in the morning to want to listen to the news or music and the speaker not show up or constantly time out. I'm also tired of having my app choice for podcasts, ebooks, and music completely dictated by whether they have the resources to do a specific integration into Sonos. There's a lot of good open source apps out there for Android, where the authors just don't want to do an implementation because they don't own the speakers and it's actually a pain in the ass to integrate. I've read about esphome and home assistant custom speakers to recreate a Sonos experience, but I'd just like to switch to a competitor if there is a viable alternative.
steveBK123 3y ago
For how long this has played out, and the value of each company, this is not very much money at all. I love how rock solid Sonos is at streaming across multiple speakers at once. I wish they made better software and had a selection of more attractive looking speakers.
AlbertCory 3y ago
I've posted on patents twice, very recently: https://albertcory50.substack.com/p/no-source-code-no-patent https://albertcory50.substack.com/p/no-source-code-no-patent made the front page of HN. https://albertcory50.substack.com/p/lets-vote-on-it https://albertcory50.substack.com/p/lets-vote-on-it Inartfully written, I guess, and did not. The lawyers on Reddit hated it, though, so there's that. Rants on HN change nothing. We have one every month. If you actually want to change the law, court cases will never do it. You need an Act of Congress.
Cosmopolitican 3y ago
Unrelated to the article: has google ever used their smart speaker spy tech to covertly place us citizens into an undisclosed matchmaking algorithm using location derived, e.g. from voice recognition from those smart speakers? Is that legal?

99 points by fidotron 3y ago

Google probably can pay that in Venmo

Such a dumb lawsuit for stupid patents that should never have been granted in the first place awarding money of literally no consequence to either company and taking away features from users along the way. This lawsuit could be the spokesperson for the worst of tech patents.

ethanbond 3y ago
What changes would you propose to the system, or do you think we don’t need it at all to help reward development (and in this case, collaboration with a quasi-competitor)?
- onos 3y ago
  In fact the winner take all / must become a unicorn approach to startups here is probably driven in large part by our inability to block competition from copying ideas. A good thing?
  - hgsgm 3y ago
    No one getting anything good because one company patented an obvious idea and then AT&T'ed it would be even worse. The solution to monopoly is antitrust law not patent law making more monopolies.
    - onos 3y ago
      Good point. But still room for improvement on other end imho. Only way to succeed in some of these spaces is rapid growth at loss via massive venture funding. Doesn’t seem healthy.
- asmithmd1 3y ago
  Do you know why musicians are allowed to "cover" any song they like? It is because Congress decided music is so important no one artists should be able to lock it up for themselves so they passed a law for "compulsory licensing" of copyrighted music. We need to do the same for patents. The compulsory license for a recorded song is 9.1 cents per song, Set some fee per patent claim.
  - ethanbond 3y ago
    I didn’t know this was a thing! Fascinating. It doesn’t seem like the economics always work similarly though. It’s fairly easy for millions of dollars of R&D to be put into a single invention, for it to be worth millions/billions on the market, and for someone else to copy it identically. I.e. presumably Congress wouldn’t protect someone literally stripping the name off someone else’s song and publishing it and earning money from it? Fee per patent claim is definitely interesting, just pricing it seems harder than in the song case.
    - asmithmd1 3y ago
      No, I can't republish a song and call it mine, and I can't use someone else's recording of a song without their permission. What I can do is record my version of their song and sell it and I can publicly play their song and charge people - but I have to cut them author of the song in for 9.1 cents for each instance. Yeah, devil is in the details. Currently a patent gives exclusive use for 20 years and music copyright gives control for 100 years, but anyone can license it. The trick is to strike a balance that gets the most economic benefit. Set the claim fee high at first and tinker with it. I would think companies that innovate would be happy to know there is a ceiling to their liabilities instead of being at the mercy of a jury. And do we really want an inventor to be able to lock up any use of a technology for 20 years. Imagine a solo inventor cracks low-temperature fusion and sells their patent to Saudi Arabia for $1B - who sits on it for 20 years and sues anyone who tries to use it. Here is the public framing: "We need to pass the 'Freedom to Innovate' act passed to stop evil foreign companies from locking up American inventions that would benefit all hard-working Americans!" Music is not as easy as it seems. How much should an artist get for a ring tone? For a stream? How much should artists get paid for longer songs? There is a 3 judge panel that adjudicates all these things: https://www.crb.gov/index.html https://www.crb.gov/index.html

JoeAltmaier 3y ago

There's a threshold for large companies where they just settle and pay. Because the lawyers would be more expensive!

binkHN 3y ago

Unfortunately the article provides no detail on what's infringing.

eitally 3y ago
Google had a feature within the Home app that allowed users to change the volume of groups of speakers simultaneously, which infringed on a Sonos patent.
- throwaway2990 3y ago
  How is that a patent… wtf… I hope Google appeals and gets the patent thrown out.
  - seanmcdirmid 3y ago
    It might be the mechanism rather than the outcome? It is hard to say anything in these cases without doing patent lawyer work.
    - World177 3y ago
      615, [1] 033, [2] 885, [3] and 966. [4] These were the patents listed in the case [5] if you want to quickly look at them. I am just linking them to save someone else from having to search for how to find them. The jury decided on 885 and 966. [6] The quote below is from the source for [5] > Whereas the '615 and '033 patents cover technology related to transferring playback between devices, i.e., “casting,” the '885 and '966 patents cover technology related to managing groups of smart speakers. > Pursuant to “patent showdown” procedure, each side has already moved for summary judgment on a single claim. Separate orders granted summary judgment in favor of Google on invalidity of claim 13 of the '615 patent and in favor of Sonos on infringement of claim 1 of the '885 patent. Sonos has since withdrawn its remaining claims based on the '615 patent, and Google has since begun developing and deploying a purported design-around for the '885 and '966 patents. Claims and defenses related to the '033, '885, and '966 patents are now set for trial starting May 8, 2023 [1] https://image-ppubs.uspto.gov/dirsearch-public/print/downloadPdf/9967615 https://image-ppubs.uspto.gov/dirsearch-public/print/downloa... [2] https://image-ppubs.uspto.gov/dirsearch-public/print/downloadPdf/10779033 https://image-ppubs.uspto.gov/dirsearch-public/print/downloa... [3] https://image-ppubs.uspto.gov/dirsearch-public/print/downloadPdf/10848885 https://image-ppubs.uspto.gov/dirsearch-public/print/downloa... [4] https://image-ppubs.uspto.gov/dirsearch-public/print/downloadPdf/10469966 https://image-ppubs.uspto.gov/dirsearch-public/print/downloa... [5] https://casetext.com/case/sonos-inc-v-google-llc-7 https://casetext.com/case/sonos-inc-v-google-llc-7 [6] https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/legaldocs/egpbyxmqdvq/GOOGLE%20SONOS%20LAWSUIT%20verdict.pdf https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/legaldocs/egpbyxmqdvq/...

jbverschoor 3y ago

That really is not a lot tbh

ISL 3y ago
Both sides may have spent a substantial fraction of that in attorneys' fees.
sva_ 3y ago
$2.30 per device.
amelius 3y ago
They can make it more if they tell Google to either recall all their patent-infringing devices, or pay them more for a license. Patents allow you to do that. A patent is a temporary monopoly on a technology, after all.
- frankfrankfrank 3y ago
  It’s not as temporary as one would believe and was intended, especially in today’s environment where for all practical purposes it is irrelevant when a patent runs out when the technology itself is obsolete long before the patent even gets close to expiring, if it’s not effectively extended by several methods. Patent duration today should maybe be measured in a function of the value it has produced measured in something relatively fixed like gold. It would be relative to the impact and would also throttle regulatory and market capture and wealth imbalances. The current parent duration based on the celestial orbits around the closest star is dumb and blunt. My proposal would accelerate technology dissemination and prevent many of the overburden issues.
- kramerger 3y ago
  Google removed this from their software many years ago. They eventually cancelled chromecast audio altogether, probably at least partly due to this.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]

asah 3y ago

For all the haters: actually, it's tricky technology and even Sonos struggles to change volume simultaneously when you have 4+ speakers. WiFi is a big pain. (That said, Sonos UI is unnecessarily bad, they have terrible support for playing local files and as a consumer I want more competition)

wouldbecouldbe 3y ago
Google made a workaround that uses a different technology. And Sonos still got it blocked. 'When news of the patent decision broke, Google told The Verge it had gotten non-infringing designs approved by the ITC. Sonos warned, however, that Google might have to “degrade or eliminate product features” to be compliant, and that certainly seems to be what’s happening. ' https://www.theverge.com/2022/1/6/22871304/google-home-speaker-group-volume-control-changes-sonos-patent-decision https://www.theverge.com/2022/1/6/22871304/google-home-speak... They somehow patented a common sense feature of managing the volume multiple speakers at the same time. They probably used some loophole of volume of "smart" speaker or something.
- ipaddr 3y ago
  If it were common google would have used prior art as a defense.
  - yunohn 3y ago
    They said “common sense” not commonly available. IMO it’s similar to the dot-com boom era of patents that do “normal thing, but on the /web/“.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
mhh__ 3y ago
I feel like it's just in an unfortunate valley of being slightly too techy, not quite old fashioned enough (e.g. if its that bad I'd add a backup radio), and too expensive (the most prolific user of Sonos products I've met bought probably 15 of them and would've had no qualms spending hundreds on the one that just outputs a signal with no speaker) for there to be much pressure to get it right architecturally.

frankfrankfrank 3y ago

Maybe they can use that money to make basic volume control functionality of their app function correctly.

wouldbecouldbe 3y ago
probably the money already went to their lawyers

dcl 3y ago

How does anyone start a company these days and not accidentally infringe on a bunch of nonsense patents?

Dalewyn 3y ago
You license the patents as applicable, if that's an option. Otherwise, you go and make+patent your own invention. Maybe have a good legal team to research patents too.
- asmithmd1 3y ago
  The problem is companies can just ignore your request to license a patent. Did you know the reason any artist can "cover" another artist's song is that Congress added "compulsory licensing" to copyright law? For 9.1 cents per copy of a song, you can record your own version and sell it. We need to do the same thing for patent claims. Set a floor of, IDK, $100 per copy of a patent claim infringement. As it is now, damages are completely, un-capped and you have to pay for a lawsuit to get a jury to decide how much a patent is worth.
  - andromeduck 3y ago
    Cap total proceeds at 20% of final product cost after a few years of exclusivity.
ocdtrekkie 3y ago
This is far less than nonsense: Google partnered with Sonos explicitly to get access to their internal designs, and then copied them. This is closer to industrial espionage than inadvertently stumbling across patent infringement.
- gpm 3y ago
  > Google partnered with Sonos explicitly to get access to their internal designs, and then copied them If anything this ought to be strong evidence that the patents failed to disclose the invention and are invalid. Patents are a deal where you publicly disclose your invention in exchange for a temporary monopoly. If someone has to get access to your internal designs to copy them, they shouldn't be protected by patent. Edit: (Note I'm talking about how the law ought to work, I'm not claiming this is strong evidence under current US law that the patents actually are invalid)

oftenwrong 3y ago

This was (AIUI) the reason that google disabled the ability to adjust cast content volume via the volume rocker from their Android phones. Interestingly, I noticed that this feature had returned recently in at least one non-Google apps.

oftenwrong 3y ago
Earlier, when I made the comment above, I tried it with YouTube, and it did not work. Now it works. This could be a bug rather than a change in policy.

ttul 3y ago

I am rooting for Sonos. They paved the way for Wi-Fi speakers years ago and built some fantastic products. Their UX can be poor, but they’re getting better with each release. For instance, setting up the latest subwoofer product, the Sub Mini, uses a combination of Bluetooth, WiFi and NFC to make the process fast and easy. A pro tip for making your life so much easier with Sonos: plug one of the speakers in to Ethernet and then the others will use the proprietary Sonos Net wireless protocol instead of WiFi. It’s apparently much more reliable.

lalaland1125 3y ago
Why would you root for an anti-competitive company that would rather sue their competition than build a better product?
- bryanrasmussen 3y ago
  They said something about the company paving the way...
- ttul 3y ago
  While I understand the perspective on their legal actions, Sonos's commitment to their product and their continued development of the multi-room audio space deserves some credit. Yes, they have had a number of high-profile lawsuits, but this isn't just a move to stifle competition, it's also about protecting their intellectual property. If a company doesn't protect its IP, it essentially undermines the value of their own innovation. Competition can be fierce, and sometimes legal battles are a part of that landscape.
Larrikin 3y ago
I'm thousands of dollars into their ecosystem and am looking for the off ramp and will switch if there ever is a viable competitor. Their mobile apps were never great but seem particularly bad lately. My initial setup in 2019 was awful and involved eventually moving my sound bar to a different room to plug into my router directly. Then I discovered that true play, one of their selling features, was an iOS only feature and Android users were just screwed. Luckily, I had an iPad, only to discover they had also disabled the ability on there too and my only course of action was to have a friend come over and use their phone. In 2022 when I was setting up my sub, I found this still to be the case. Once it was all setup however it worked amazingly well. Speaker in the bedroom, in the bathroom, and the living room. All sounded amazing and moving sound around in sync was so good. But it seems like the software just keeps further diving into crap. After changing routers (and going through the hell of setting them up again) and adding a couple more speakers it just seems like a fifty percent chance if the app will show my speakers with a little wrench next to them and not play from my phone. My sub currently has a long ugly Ethernet cable going to my router and it seemed to not have helped at all. The latest forced update this week, showed me no speakers for a day. I currently have a Bluetooth speaker on top of my Sonos speaker in the bathroom because it's just a waste of time in the morning to want to listen to the news or music and the speaker not show up or constantly time out. I'm also tired of having my app choice for podcasts, ebooks, and music completely dictated by whether they have the resources to do a specific integration into Sonos. There's a lot of good open source apps out there for Android, where the authors just don't want to do an implementation because they don't own the speakers and it's actually a pain in the ass to integrate. I've read about esphome and home assistant custom speakers to recreate a Sonos experience, but I'd just like to switch to a competitor if there is a viable alternative.

steveBK123 3y ago

For how long this has played out, and the value of each company, this is not very much money at all. I love how rock solid Sonos is at streaming across multiple speakers at once. I wish they made better software and had a selection of more attractive looking speakers.

AlbertCory 3y ago

I've posted on patents twice, very recently: https://albertcory50.substack.com/p/no-source-code-no-patent https://albertcory50.substack.com/p/no-source-code-no-patent made the front page of HN. https://albertcory50.substack.com/p/lets-vote-on-it https://albertcory50.substack.com/p/lets-vote-on-it Inartfully written, I guess, and did not. The lawyers on Reddit hated it, though, so there's that. Rants on HN change nothing. We have one every month. If you actually want to change the law, court cases will never do it. You need an Act of Congress.

Cosmopolitican 3y ago

Unrelated to the article: has google ever used their smart speaker spy tech to covertly place us citizens into an undisclosed matchmaking algorithm using location derived, e.g. from voice recognition from those smart speakers? Is that legal?