I remember iPhone 4s (s is for speed). You'd buy one, and then Apple would "upgrade it" via software update removing the s. Which was the thing you bought it for.
I wonder what that was about.
Google doesn't want to pay Sonos for technology it copied
121–130 of 302 posts
Re: Google doesn't want to pay Sonos for technology it copied
#122Earlier quoted context omitted.
From my reading of the patent, it's not that the concept of speaker groupings was patented. Rather, a specific UI for showing and modifying the groupings and adjusting the volume. Unfortunately, there aren't many different ways to represent groupings in a UI.
Doesn't regular volume slider controls multiple remote speakers in case of connected Bluetooth headphones?
Depends on whether you consider a pair of bluetooth headphones as a single device or multiple devices.
I'm unaware of many devices that output audio to multiple distinct bluetooth targets simultaneously. Bose have that feature as part of their app, but I don't think it's a standard thing as a rule.
Re: Google doesn't want to pay Sonos for technology it copied
#123For example, these changes mean you'll no longer be able to control the volume of a group of speakers. Instead, you'll have to change the volume on each individually. It also means you'll no longer be able to use the volume buttons on your phone to control a speaker group. Not here to defend Google, but how can something trivial like that even be patentable?
The patent office hands them out like candy... "Rounded corners" anyone?
Wasn't that a design patent, which is closer to a trademark than an actual patent? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_patent
Re: Google doesn't want to pay Sonos for technology it copied
#124Earlier quoted context omitted.
What if examining the thing you own endangers somebody (including yourself?) should you be allowed to change its behaviors (consider as an example altering your car in an unsafe way)? As computers are now everywhere and have to do with everything, it is becoming a real political issue to decide if people should be allowed to really modify their computers. Smartphones most certainly do not allow it. PCs do, but they'r…
> What if examining the thing you own endangers somebody (including yourself?) should you be allowed to change its behaviors (consider as an example altering your car in an unsafe way)? Distinguish "allowed" from "able". It's unsafe to drive around with the brake light bulbs removed, but this doesn't mean that auto manufacturers shouldn't let you change your own brake lights.
Distinguish "allowed" from "able". It's unsafe to drive around with the brake light bulbs removed, but this doesn't mean that auto manufacturers shouldn't let you change your own brake lights.
Right. And maybe even more key is that the manufacturer "allowing" that does not alleviate you from liability for any bad thing that happens as a result of you choosing to drive around without brake lights.
There are other ways to cultivate safety, besides manufacturers locking things down and making them an unmodifiable black-box.
Re: Google doesn't want to pay Sonos for technology it copied
#125Sonos thought they just got a sweet revenue stream on a BS patent. Such a mediocre company (Sonos). I'm not saying they are a patent troll company but they aren't too far. As a user with lots of their tech in my house I'm very unimpressed with their offering - this patent defense seems inline with their mediocre tech. Far from a Google Booster here but just funny to watch their revenue stream go up in flames - probab…
In my experience, Sonos hardware is great but their software is woefully bad: slow, buggy junk. But then, the same is true of Apple's stuff: HomePod hardware is very impressive, but Siri and Apple Music are crap.
To be fair to Sonos if I want to use their app (that has terrible user experience) I think it would work 99% of the time. I didn't buy Sonos for their music software - I bought it to use Spotify over my speaker system. I don't use Sonos for music (and never will) I use Spotify (Not Spotify embedded in Sonos app) and its a constant cluster of a time to get it working on more than one speaker. Core functionality to their arguably largest user base.
Re: Google doesn't want to pay Sonos for technology it copied
#126For example, these changes mean you'll no longer be able to control the volume of a group of speakers. Instead, you'll have to change the volume on each individually. It also means you'll no longer be able to use the volume buttons on your phone to control a speaker group. Not here to defend Google, but how can something trivial like that even be patentable?
I've had BlueSound wireless hifi speakers for some time. Originally the control app was also capable of adjusting speaker volume with the volume buttons on your phone, which I quite enjoyed. It was deprecated (along with the ability to play your iPhone's music library over wifi.. à la airplay) several years ago, presumably due to patent/licensing issues.
Re: Google doesn't want to pay Sonos for technology it copied
#127Earlier quoted context omitted.
The patent office hands them out like candy... "Rounded corners" anyone?
Wasn't that a design patent, which is closer to a trademark than an actual patent? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_patent
Well it obviously didn't hold up.
IMO Apple had a copyright, maybe, it shouldn't have been patentable though. Design != technology so shouldn't be patentable.
Re: Google doesn't want to pay Sonos for technology it copied
#128I hope there's no patents for EQ settings. It took Sonos 3 years to finally add EQ to the play screen in the app. I'd hate for that to disappear because someone had the idea for: "group of sliders that cut a specific range of frequencies to improve sound quality".
Re: Google doesn't want to pay Sonos for technology it copied
#129For example, these changes mean you'll no longer be able to control the volume of a group of speakers. Instead, you'll have to change the volume on each individually. It also means you'll no longer be able to use the volume buttons on your phone to control a speaker group. Not here to defend Google, but how can something trivial like that even be patentable?
I bet there’s even a patent for “adjust volumes dynamically per speaker based on real-time positional data to increase volume in a balanced way when possible”. If not, I claim this post demonstrates it’s an obvious thing to implement, so long as the user has their phone or another device equipped with mics on them.
Sonos does part of this: when you set up the speaker it sends out pings that are picked up by your phone which you have to wave around like you're doing a cleansing ceremony. To my knowledge it doesn't do this dynamically.
Re: Google doesn't want to pay Sonos for technology it copied
#130Sonos thought they just got a sweet revenue stream on a BS patent. Such a mediocre company (Sonos). I'm not saying they are a patent troll company but they aren't too far. As a user with lots of their tech in my house I'm very unimpressed with their offering - this patent defense seems inline with their mediocre tech. Far from a Google Booster here but just funny to watch their revenue stream go up in flames - probab…
Well because of this I’ll never buy another Sonos product, and recommend everyone I know to something else. I wonder if lost revenue from people like me will make up for any gains here.
Conversely, I’d rather buy (and intend to) from Sonos versus Google considering Google’s product track record (killing everything in short order).
Using patents to defend yourself from a Big Tech company is the unfortunate reality.