SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the planned^Wscheduled-obsolescence dept.
Sonos, the consumer electronics company known for audio streaming and "smart" speakers, has decided that the music controller device, the "CR100", has reached end of life. By which they mean they will be pushing a software upgrade that will kill it.
... the next Sonos update in early April will turn off the CR100 connection -- unless you decide you don't want any updates at all. (Make sure you set that up in advance -- if you accept the update, you can't undo it and go back to using the old controller.)
That means if you want to keep on using a device you're happy with, you have to give up all the new features on all your Sonos speakers.
The company says its primary concern is the age of the lithium ion batteries in the controllers; although in that case an official device recall would be better than an update that stops them working - and a battery replacement scheme would handle the problem just as well.
Although the controller is old (Sonos stopped selling the CR100 in 2009) it is still perfectly functional for many users. However, according to a forum posting explaining the options these users will have to choose between the CR100 and the functionality of the rest of their system:
... opting not to update means you will not receive any new features or future security patches for your entire system – not just the CR100. For example, being on an unsupported version means that you might lose connectivity to music services, as is already the case for Google Play Music on the CR100. It is necessary to configure your system in advance to avoid future updates. Any update applied to the firmware and/or to the app, even unintentionally, is irreversible.
Originally spotted on The EEV Blog Youtube channel.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 12 2018, @12:39PM (4 children)
That's not an excuse to release the source code. If there are patents, remove the tainted code and provide a link to the patent description (so others can write/host an implementation in a country that does not do in these kinds of silliness).
(Score: 5, Insightful) by fustakrakich on Monday February 12 2018, @03:18PM (3 children)
Nobody should be allowed to keep patents and copyrights on things they refuse to sell or service. If you want respect for patent and copyright laws, there must be compulsory licensing. Can't have one without the other.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 12 2018, @09:29PM (2 children)
The copyrights would be solved by open sourcing it (putting it under a FOSS license). Patents could be held by some other party, where the manufacturer of the device only has a license to use it, and can't give it away, even if they wanted to.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by fustakrakich on Monday February 12 2018, @09:53PM (1 child)
No, wrong, The idea of compulsory licensing is to fill a demand. The owners of the copyrights/patents are entitled to a royalty, not control. The shortages and crippled technology we suffer are because of present day law allowing control of use and distribution.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 1) by anubi on Tuesday February 13 2018, @07:17AM
My feeling is if they do not disclose how it works, it not patentable. Its a "trade secret".
My own take on it ( IANAL!!!) is that a condition of patent should be a disclosure of how it works. No disclosure - no patent. Simple as that.
Should I patent putting ink on paper? Now show me the exact pattern of ink on paper, and copyright THAT. But you have to show me the book in print first. And grant you the copyright on that particular pattern of ink on paper.
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]