Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Sonos: users must accept new privacy policy or devices may “cease to function”

zdnet.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 253 posts

Re: Sonos: users must accept new privacy policy or devices may “cease to function”

#161

Post by stock_toaster »

auxbuss wrote: post #130
cm2187 wrote: post #102

To be honest I had a pretty average experience with Sonos so far. It is connected with cat6 ethernet, professional switches, with no other connectivity problems on that network (and I tested all cables). I have 3 systems (pay1, play 5 and the sonos amp), and they keep losing track of each others, I have to regroup them regularly. They also struggle with long music tracks (i.e. 1h podcasts off a synology shared drive)…

I bought a LibraTone [0] and love the thing. With its inbuilt battery, it's a portable hifi system. You can take it anywhere. Sound quality is 5*. Integrates seamlessly with all Apple devices. [0] https://www.libratone.com/

I'll definitely check it out. Thanks for the link.

Re: Sonos: users must accept new privacy policy or devices may “cease to function”

#162

Post by stock_toaster »

X86BSD wrote: post #92
Silhouette wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The reporting here implies that devices for customers who don't accept the new terms may "cease to function". Does the mechanism for how that happens matter? The bottom line is that either the product continues to provide whatever functionality it was purchased for, or it's now broken. Typically under consumer protection laws in places like Europe, a product that ceases to work properly unreasonably quickly after it…

I think Sonos just lost me to Apple on yet another device. HomePod here I come. Seriously this is just another insane digital slavery drive.

This does seem like a weird move, given:

a) the high price of Sonos equipment

b) the HomePod coming out sometime in the near future

c) other competitors that are starting to be more competitive (eg. "smart speakers", bluetooth speakers, etc)

Re: Sonos: users must accept new privacy policy or devices may “cease to function”

#164

Post by [deleted] »

ViViDboarder wrote: post #73
pm24601 wrote: post #62

And reason #458 why I am skipping the whole "IoT revolution" in my home. I consider this motivation for DIY.

There are a good amount of IoT devices that work offline and don't use public internet at all. I specifically buy devices that aren't bound to the Internet and I've found a good amount.

[deleted]

Re: Sonos: users must accept new privacy policy or devices may “cease to function”

#165

Post by tjohns »

CaptSpify wrote: post #135
ViViDboarder wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are a good amount of IoT devices that work offline and don't use public internet at all. I specifically buy devices that aren't bound to the Internet and I've found a good amount.

Where do you typically find them? I've had very little luck with that

For one... Philips Hue. The lights connect to a Zigbee base station, which has a local API for controlling the system.

(The base station does connect to a WAN server for remote control, but you could always block that at your firewall. The system works entirely fine in local mode.)

Re: Sonos: users must accept new privacy policy or devices may “cease to function”

#166

Post by voltagex_ »

pedrocr wrote: post #160
pedrocr wrote: post #133

Anyone have another suggestion for a pair of wifi speakers that can be assigned to Left/Right to get stereo and can be network streamed to and have another device on the network with a line-in? I was about to buy 2 Play1's and a Connect to do a stereo install in a room where I don't want to run speaker cable. I had researched wackier home-built solutions and was going to give up and go for the Sonos. Now I'm once aga…

If anyone is on the same boat here's the best non-smart/IoT/lock-in tech I've come up with for a single room setup with wireless speakers: 1) 4 to 1 HDMI splitter with audio out: https://www.aliexpress.com/item/HDSW4-HDMI-Switch-4X1-With-A... 2) Connect all your sources through HDMI (your PC, your TV box, a Chromecast, a raspberry, etc). There are versions with more inputs if you need that. That one has a nice simple…

Just a note - if you move to 4K+HDR you'll probably need to upgrade that splitter.

Re: Sonos: users must accept new privacy policy or devices may “cease to function”

#167

Post by voltagex_ »

inopinatus wrote: post #39
allwein wrote: post #28

I might understand this if it was for new customers going forward. But I don't understand how they can tell their existing customers this and not expect a lawsuit.

I am considering a complaint to the ACCC here in Australia. It's possible this sort of thing violates our consumer protection laws.

I'd be really interested in the outcome of this. You may be better going to your state's Office of Fair Trading first though.

Re: Sonos: users must accept new privacy policy or devices may “cease to function”

#168

Post by voltagex_ »

snthd wrote: post #94
thecopy wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could you recommend some alternatives?

https://github.com/badaix/snapcast/blob/master/README.md Not a solution, but snapcast is a useful part of the puzzle for the actual streaming and multiroom sync.

What's the latency like? I've got some Qualcomm Allcast gear that seems to do sync properly with no perceptible delay, but it's the only one I've heard that does it properly.

Re: Sonos: users must accept new privacy policy or devices may “cease to function”

#169

Post by bogomipz »

justinjlynn wrote: post #2

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.

This is so true. I refused to update a second generation Apple TV when after several updates I realized the "updates" added zero functionality to then end user. They were just occasions to put new paid-placement crapware on the home screen. I kept up this refusal to update partly out of stubbornness and partly as an experiment. Eventually, after a few months Apple just applied the update without asking. It was at this moment that I realized "I may have purchased this device but I certainly don't own it."
Post reply on HN