I hate all smart devices. The TV should just be a TV, the dishwasher should wash dishes, the refrigerator should keep stuff cold, the washing machine and dryer should clean my clothes, and speakers should just produce sounds. I have yet to hear any compelling reason to make these devices dependent on software.
Sonos: users must accept new privacy policy or devices may “cease to function”
191–200 of 253 posts
Re: Sonos: users must accept new privacy policy or devices may “cease to function”
#192This problem should be solved in a legislative way, similar to Europe's GDPR. There should some minimum privacy rights which can't be opted out of and which are protected by government. That's the only viable solution. Markets don't help here.
Why wouldn't the market help? This is a great opportunity for a competitor to offer privacy features and capture market share with a better offering. Promise privacy in perpetuity or your money back, and if consumers care then they will switch.
Because people already bought the things and it would be profoundly shitty to buy them again? Lock-in is real.
And let's be real: what you've written should be written as "privacy in perpetuity or maybe part of your money back years later after a class-action lawsuit, maybe, if it isn't just store credit." That, as much as anything, is why consumers caring is attenuated.
Re: Sonos: users must accept new privacy policy or devices may “cease to function”
#193This problem should be solved in a legislative way, similar to Europe's GDPR. There should some minimum privacy rights which can't be opted out of and which are protected by government. That's the only viable solution. Markets don't help here.
Why wouldn't the market help? This is a great opportunity for a competitor to offer privacy features and capture market share with a better offering. Promise privacy in perpetuity or your money back, and if consumers care then they will switch.
Because intricate things with downsides that are difficult to understand is exactly where legislation can protect consumers.
The whole 'if consumers care' thing is kinda bullshit. They simply don't have the time or ability to get into the details. It's even more of a problem when companies train users to just accept changes to agreements, so they can keep using a physical device that sits in their home.
Re: Sonos: users must accept new privacy policy or devices may “cease to function”
#194Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why wouldn't the market help? This is a great opportunity for a competitor to offer privacy features and capture market share with a better offering. Promise privacy in perpetuity or your money back, and if consumers care then they will switch.
Because people already bought the things and it would be profoundly shitty to buy them again? Lock-in is real. And let's be real: what you've written should be written as "privacy in perpetuity or maybe part of your money back years later after a class-action lawsuit, maybe, if it isn't just store credit ." That, as much as anything, is why consumers caring is attenuated.
It's a luxury speaker, so not the end of the world. The consumer could sell on eBay, or if it makes sense a competitor could offer incentives like taking trade ins for a discount, etc.
Re: Sonos: users must accept new privacy policy or devices may “cease to function”
#195Anyone 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…
look into the squeezebox ecosystem.
Re: Sonos: users must accept new privacy policy or devices may “cease to function”
#196Earlier quoted context omitted.
>They implicitly agree under duress, because their time is worth far too much to even read 10 pages of fine print for every product they use. I'm not being flippant; it bloody well is. You don't need to read 10 pages of fine print for every product, because it's functionally the same fine print for every product. If you don't like this, don't ever buy smart devices because they /all/ reserve the right to do this kind…
>"If you don't like this, don't ever buy smart devices because they /all/ reserve the right to do this kind of stuff." It seems odd then that you have to actually buy the device before you can even read the terms. I guess the idea is that you can always return it if you don't agree?
I don't know about the US, but in the EU if you don't get to see the terms before buying, the terms are effectively void. (of course most non-trivial EULA-style terms are already void in the EU, since it's well known that nobody reads them)
Re: Sonos: users must accept new privacy policy or devices may “cease to function”
#197Earlier quoted context omitted.
Could you recommend some alternatives?
Run Squeezelite on multiple Raspberry Pis paired with decent USB audio adapters (Berhinger UCA222 - decent analog and also optical out). Music served from a PC using the standard Logitech Media Server software, playback controlled with either the standard web interface or the Squeezer android app. Plug the RPis into decent stereos (not a powered speaker unless you are some kind of rabid animal) and you've got a good…
I second this. I've been using various squeezebox devices (and software players) for years, for both listening to my own music collection as well as streaming (spotify mostly). The squeezebox server (i.e the core software that various clients can connect to) has been open-sourced, and is still actively developed/updated. There are also open-source software clients readily available.
Re: Sonos: users must accept new privacy policy or devices may “cease to function”
#198This problem should be solved in a legislative way, similar to Europe's GDPR. There should some minimum privacy rights which can't be opted out of and which are protected by government. That's the only viable solution. Markets don't help here.
Why wouldn't the market help? This is a great opportunity for a competitor to offer privacy features and capture market share with a better offering. Promise privacy in perpetuity or your money back, and if consumers care then they will switch.
Because most people don't really understand how much information is collected. See, for example this article about browser extensions: https://www.privateinternetaccess.com/blog/2017/08/use-brows...
Re: Sonos: users must accept new privacy policy or devices may “cease to function”
#199Earlier quoted context omitted.
Does Logitech Media Server integrate with all these doodads: http://www.sonos.com/en-us/streaming-music ?
A few of them look familiar, but I don't use that stuff. My advice was given with someone with a digital music collection in mind. Spotify, for example, was available on the Squeezebox Touch (and not the earlier Squeezebox Classic) but I don't know how tricky it would be to make it work with Squeezelite.
There is a new plugin called "spotty" (see here: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?107615-Announce...) that lets you stream spotify to any client.
Re: Sonos: users must accept new privacy policy or devices may “cease to function”
#200mhm, please excuse me all if this is wrong, but isn't this the exact same way it works with pretty much all of the updates from e.g. Apple and co?
Let's say a new Itunes update comes along, this requires the user to opt into a privacy policy, if there happens to have been a change in said policy since the last update, then accepting the new conditions is required in order to install the update? Same for an update in browsers, iOS, Android, ...
I am not in favour, just confused as to why this specific case is singled out? Especially since not updating critical software (Operating systems, browsers, et cetera) seems to have far more serious consequences than w/ a speaker?