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

Save the CR100

en.community.sonos.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 67 posts

Re: Save the CR100

#31

Post by bambax »

I bought my first Sonos elements in 2006, and used to love them.

I still use Sonos, for lack of a better option (?) but have come to hate it, the devices, the company, the whole "ecosystem", with the heat of a thousand suns.

It updates constantly, you can't ever refuse an update, updates stop the system just when you need to use it, change the UI for no reason, and every update breaks something. Every single iteration is a little slower; I used to keep an oldish ipod touch just to manage Sonos but now it's so slow it's almost unusable.

Since 2006 my use of Sonos HAS NOT CHANGED AT ALL: mp3s are stored on a Nas and they're played in various "rooms"; and sometimes I listen to radios; and THAT'S IT.

Of course Sonos as a company has to support new streaming services and whatnot, but why does it have to break everything in the process, or force all users to upgrade? Why can't it leave us alone??

Every 6 months I try to look for an open source alternative, maybe based on a Pi (+ relay to power up amps on demand) but have not been very lucky so far. Am very interested in any pointers to something simple to implement and that I would completely control.

Re: Save the CR100

#32

Post by filmgirlcw »

TheSpiceIsLife wrote: post #26
filmgirlcw wrote: post #15

I’m against bricking devices arbitrarily, but this product was more than 12 years old and hadn’t been sold since 2009 (I had one in 2006 when I was still in college and Sonos’s killer feature for me was that it worked with the original streaming music service, Rhapsody). Frankly, giving customers $100 credit seems kind to me. Plus the CR200 still works and they don’t have plans to brick it, so there is that. I feel f…

I think what we're trying to rail against here is that why should 13, or whatever, years be an acceptable figure. My car is older than that. My toaster over is old, I've had CRT TVs that were much older before they died. I'm gonna go with a big fat juicy 'No!' here. We ought to be building for longevity and serviceability. Don't end support, just open it up. Publish the relevant source code, documentation etc. We sho…

It’s an accessory. If we were talking about the speakers themselves, I wouldn be more sympathetic, but in this case I’m just not.

The reality is that the nature of connected devices makes things different. This isn’t the same as a CRT TV (but also, look at how much it costs and how difficult it is get parts for a CRT in 2018). And like it or not, your next car won’t be as repairable as your current 15 year old car, because it will require custom software and bench access and updates that most mechanics will not pay for or maintain.

At least these Sonos users have the option of not installing an update. This isn’t like Revolv where it just stopped working.

The CR100 uses Flash IIRC...it is absolutely ancient. I’m not sure we should be realistically asking development teams to maintain separate code bases for old, obsolete software. Google and Amazon changed backends that made the CR100 stop working. Are you saying that that’s a travesty too?

Legit question: how long should any company/service be required to add backward compatibility to old, obsolete products?

I fundamentally agree that we should be building for longevity and serviceability, but that isn’t always possible. The platform and stack the CR100 was built on is not modern and cannot be easily maintained. And even if the software was open source (which would be great), that doesn’t change the fact that if the endpoints on the services it relies on change, nothing can be done.

The only reasonable compromise I can see would be an update that would allow the CR100 to continue to work only with local files. Otherwise, at least users can opt not to update if they rely so heavily on a 13 year old controller.

Re: Save the CR100

#33

Post by bambax »

> due the age of the battery in the controller, it has the potential to overheat when left charging for extended periods of time

This is some argument on Sonos' part! The reason why the battery in the CR100 is "old" is because Sonos chose to build a device with a non-replaceable battery!!

If they're so concerned about safety why don't they offer to replace the batteries (for a reasonable fee)??

Re: Save the CR100

#34

Post by TheSpiceIsLife »

filmgirlcw wrote: post #32
TheSpiceIsLife wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think what we're trying to rail against here is that why should 13, or whatever, years be an acceptable figure. My car is older than that. My toaster over is old, I've had CRT TVs that were much older before they died. I'm gonna go with a big fat juicy 'No!' here. We ought to be building for longevity and serviceability. Don't end support, just open it up. Publish the relevant source code, documentation etc. We sho…

It’s an accessory. If we were talking about the speakers themselves, I wouldn be more sympathetic, but in this case I’m just not. The reality is that the nature of connected devices makes things different. This isn’t the same as a CRT TV (but also, look at how much it costs and how difficult it is get parts for a CRT in 2018). And like it or not, your next car won’t be as repairable as your current 15 year old car, b…

Hmmm, yeah, it's tricky. And you're probably going to be right about the cars too.

Re: Save the CR100

#35

Post by filmgirlcw »

bambax wrote: post #30
filmgirlcw wrote: post #15

I’m against bricking devices arbitrarily, but this product was more than 12 years old and hadn’t been sold since 2009 (I had one in 2006 when I was still in college and Sonos’s killer feature for me was that it worked with the original streaming music service, Rhapsody). Frankly, giving customers $100 credit seems kind to me. Plus the CR200 still works and they don’t have plans to brick it, so there is that. I feel f…

I use audio devices (amps, etc.) that are over 30 years old and work flawlessly. Why should "connected" systems be any different??

Because they rely on a network of connected services to function and those services can’t be expected to maintain endpoints and compatibility with old, insecure, technology.

Re: Save the CR100

#36

Post by makomk »

filmgirlcw wrote: post #15

I’m against bricking devices arbitrarily, but this product was more than 12 years old and hadn’t been sold since 2009 (I had one in 2006 when I was still in college and Sonos’s killer feature for me was that it worked with the original streaming music service, Rhapsody). Frankly, giving customers $100 credit seems kind to me. Plus the CR200 still works and they don’t have plans to brick it, so there is that. I feel f…

Giving customers $100 of credit that can only be used to buy your products because you've disabled something they've bought that you don't sell any kind of meaningful replacement for anymore doesn't sound that generous. Especially since CR200s sell for closer to $150 on eBay, a figure that may well go up now that everyone with a CR100 needs to replace it, and there's no guarantee that won't be discontinued too.

Re: Save the CR100

#37

Post by bambax »

filmgirlcw wrote: post #35
bambax wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I use audio devices (amps, etc.) that are over 30 years old and work flawlessly. Why should "connected" systems be any different??

Because they rely on a network of connected services to function and those services can’t be expected to maintain endpoints and compatibility with old, insecure, technology.

Sonos is a closed system; AFAIK CR100s don't connect directly to the outside world; all Sonos has to do in order to support CR100s is to not actively disable them.

Re: Save the CR100

#38

Post by Doctor_Fegg »

pedrocr wrote: post #16
mnm1 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As long as it still plays shit off my NAS, I don't care. And I don't see why it wouldn't, whether the company exists or not. That's what I was trying to convey above.

>And I don't see why it wouldn't Because your new NAS no longer supports the old protocol. Because there was a security issue that's too serious to allow you to keep it on without a fix. Because...

If I own the hardware, I decide whether the security issue is “too serious”. Not them.

Re: Save the CR100

#39

Post by sjclemmy »

eecc wrote: post #3

The first effects of a world of end-to-end encrypted media streaming. You don’t own the content, you don’t own the hardware, you can’t play whatever you want, you just pay and go with whatever happens to be there. You can change channels like a Radio, that’s about it

Precisely the reason I never invested in the Sonos. I looked into it a few years ago and I just thought they were overpriced and inflexible.

I have Bluetooth speakers in my rooms and Spotify and Radio apps on my phone / tablet. Cheap and easy.

Re: Save the CR100

#40

Post by berryg »

amiga-workbench wrote: post #21

I'm getting really sick of appliances depending on smartphone apps, they're brittle as hell and have no longevity as OS updates kill them off (and eventually as mobile OS's die completely). I had a right faff on finding a IP security cam that didn't use the bloody awful onVIF protocol and would connect to a network without a mobile app to configure it. I take care of remote access myself, so I don't need the "feature…

Do you mean something like https://home-assistant.io?
Post reply on HN