41–50 of 253 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because you aren't the only one enjoying the music at your home. The most annoying thing about being at a party where bluetooth audio is being used is when the person paired gets too far away from the speaker.
Configure a tablet in guided / single app mode for music playback. Trivial stuff.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That was my first thought as well. It's clearly not reasonable to assume a customer bought a product without any knowledge of arbitrary future changes in the legal terms but understood that the product could cease to provide the same functionality they bought it for later if they didn't accept those unrelated changes. This ought to be grounds for returning these devices to vendors as unfit for purpose and demanding t…
Isn't Sonos just saying, if you don't accept the new privacy policy you won't get updates? I highly doubt they're going to deliberately (somehow) break devices for users that refuse to update.
Typically under consumer protection laws in places like Europe, a product that ceases to work properly unreasonably quickly after it is purchased will trigger certain rights for the purchaser, such as getting the device repaired or replaced so it works again, or getting a full or partial refund as compensation.
Importantly, there is typically no exception to this principle just because the product in question involves software or depends on remote services. In fact, the EU strengthened consumer protections on digital purchases not so long ago, so the direction of the legal currents is very clear.
I suppose you could say there has been some sort of informal understanding that because it's so hard to write software with no bugs or security flaws, it's reasonable for the suppliers of products with software components to supply software updates post-sale to keep things working properly without falling foul of the basic "it no longer works" trap if users don't then apply those updates. But the sorts of shenanigans we've seen recently with software developers bundling unrelated and possibly unwanted changes in with their bug fixes and security patches are stretching good faith here, and at some point I suspect something has got to give.
The same principle applies to products with dependencies on remote services that don't necessarily last as long as the product itself, whether that's a server for a multiplayer game, or a DRM scheme with remote authorisation, or a provider of audio data that makes a speaker system useful.
It seems like nobody actually owns anything any more - that we're all just digital serfs living on someone else's land. I really don't know why anyone would willingly make such a deal.
It doesn't seem like a terrible deal ( http://www.sonos.com/en-us/legal/privacy ). What part of the privacy policy do you specifically have an issue with?
It seems like nobody actually owns anything any more - that we're all just digital serfs living on someone else's land. I really don't know why anyone would willingly make such a deal.
It doesn't seem like a terrible deal ( http://www.sonos.com/en-us/legal/privacy ). What part of the privacy policy do you specifically have an issue with?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
* Shared playlist/queue between all users of a household. * No need to have a second device present to stream music. That is, I can start up music with the controller on my phone, and go to the store, but the music still plays since all the streaming is handled by the sonos speaker. * No need to pair your phone/computer to the device every time you come home. Just get on the wifi, and you're set. Those are the big on…
Why would you need to play music at home while you're going to a store? Also, activating Bluetooth is as frictionless as activating WiFi.
Not in my experience. Bluetooth is functional, but it's hard to call it better.
* Connecting 2 people (phones) to one device is hardly supported.
* Those 2 people can't really manage a single playlist without special effort.
* Auto connecting to a bluetooth speaker when I walk in the house doesn't happen. It does with wifi.
* Connecting to the bluetooth speaker typically kicks off any other connection
* The issue of walking too far from the bluetooth speaker with the playing device still exists.
* Ever run the microwave while streaming audio over bluetooth? It doesn't work.
In my experience, bluetooth is better at one thing: streaming whatever audio from whatever app I want.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sonos offers synchronization between speakers, better range, music still plays when your phone is off, easier for multiple devices to control the music, plays more music sources (e.g. from a NAS). (Disclaimer: I used to work for Sonos.)
Until they decide to turn any of these features off, right?
It seems like nobody actually owns anything any more - that we're all just digital serfs living on someone else's land. I really don't know why anyone would willingly make such a deal.
Convenience, everybody's favorite little shoulder devil.
Sonos sounds great, has nice features and "just works".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It doesn't seem like a terrible deal ( http://www.sonos.com/en-us/legal/privacy ). What part of the privacy policy do you specifically have an issue with?
The part where playing audio, including that from 3rd party sources, doesn't need Sonos to get any device usage data. However they still want it 'to improve their service', and you can't turn that off. Not accepting terms means that you'll never get firmware updates.
Netflix and all other content providers collect "usage data" too, as does the devices these may run on such as "Roku" and other players.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not that simple if you've already bought the devices and the terms change.
Buy devices that do not come with "backdoors" like this then. Why would these not be autonomous?