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

Bose has released API docs and opened the API for its EoL SoundTouch speakers

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 416 posts

Re: Bose has released API docs and opened the API for its EoL SoundTouch speakers

#231

Post by spencerap »

ahepp wrote: post #106
samrus wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah but writing that backend app will be much much easier now

It’s a very nice thing to do, but from what I have read it is very much not open sourcing anything. Maybe that distinction is too arcane for general technology audiences, but I don’t really think it is?

The Verge's headline is misleading

> Bose is open-sourcing its old smart speakers

Bose, though, makes a more nuanced distinction in their announcement, which is linked to in the article

> Open-source options for the community | We’re making our technical specifications available so that independent developers can create their own SoundTouch-compatible tools and features.

Bose never claims they're making the speakers open-source, it's lazy reporting by The Verge. They're just making it a little easier for the community to build stuff if they want.

While actually releasing the source code for the speakers would be best, there might be some legitimate business concerns. To me this is a step in the right direction, and their official announcement accurately represented that.

Re: Bose has released API docs and opened the API for its EoL SoundTouch speakers

#232

Post by mike50 »

PaulHoule wrote: post #158
filoleg wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "Bose blows" is a popular comment amongst the audiophile community but, to me, it seems like they don't blow at all[0] That comment is not wrong, you are imo just not making an important distinction that the criteria on which audiophiles judge Bose as “blowing” (which is almost purely the sound profile + a few other smaller things like physical comfort/connectivity/price/etc.) vs. what you judge it on (which is mor…

Build quality of Bose products is good in my opinion. The headphones are alright but so are Sony, Plantronics and Apple. I love the sound of Airpods Pro in particular even if they don't want to stay in my ears [1] and the pairing experience even with the iPhone isn't what I expect of >$100 headphones in 2016. If you want really good stereo or 5.1 sound there is no substitute for big speakers that can move a lot of ai…

Build quality is trash consumer with a hefty markup. The older CD player era equipment has the cheapest CD mechanisms I've ever seen for the era. The audio pathway is the same hybrids that everyone else uses. Bose is 100% mass marketing. I'm old enough to remember the endless ads in the back of magazines.

Re: Bose has released API docs and opened the API for its EoL SoundTouch speakers

#233

Post by big-and-small »

layer8 wrote: post #197
big-and-small wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not like consumer electronics contain top secret tech like EUV machines. All supply chain for firmware / software of 99.99% devices is very boring, contains absolutely nothing secret and the only reason why it's "difficult" is because IP owners was not bothered. Once single EU / US legislation introduced that force manufacturers into opening end-of-life products all IP right owners will either immediately make i…

I’m more thinking of patents and licensed third-party technology and firmware. There are standard tech stacks controlled by industry associations that you simply can’t open source because the association would sue you and kick you out.

These associations do not just exist in vacuum. They have licenses like this because law allow it and it's beneficial to them. Once there are regulation that demand something else they'll just follow the law.

Also it's not like every single bit of firmware / software must be open sourced - it's could very much be trade off where devices just need to be unlocked for modification and documentation made available.

Re: Bose has released API docs and opened the API for its EoL SoundTouch speakers

#235

Post by fortran77 »

Wafje wrote: post #225
ktg0215 wrote: post #8

This is how "end of support" should be handled. Instead of turning devices into e-waste, open-source them and let the community extend their life. Kudos to Bose for setting a good example. More companies should follow this approach - especially as right-to-repair becomes a bigger issue.

Bose should not receive praise for this move. Bose only took this action after community backlash. In an older version of their end-of-life announcement, most functionality of the speaker systems would have removed and transformed the devices into dumb-speakers/amps. Good that they changed their statement and took the right action. Even better for the community for stepping up and 'forcing' Bose to do so. Sources: ht…

I believe that if someone (or some company) changes their ways we should accept that and not condemn them forever.

Re: Bose has released API docs and opened the API for its EoL SoundTouch speakers

#236

Post by ebiester »

scrlk wrote: post #64
ebiester wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If only their sound signature was a bit better... they went all in on engineering tricks to make things small and cheap to produce, but it shows in their sound quality. Their QC headphones are the best in noise cancellation, and the sound quality is good enough that they're my pair of wireless headphones.

I know sound signature is a matter of personal taste, but FWIW, Bose QCs track the Harman curve pretty well. E.g.: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/b...

Yep, their QCs are good enough and the rest of the package makes up for it. It's their speakers of which I am still not impressed.

Re: Bose has released API docs and opened the API for its EoL SoundTouch speakers

#237

Post by filoleg »

Wafje wrote: post #225
ktg0215 wrote: post #8

This is how "end of support" should be handled. Instead of turning devices into e-waste, open-source them and let the community extend their life. Kudos to Bose for setting a good example. More companies should follow this approach - especially as right-to-repair becomes a bigger issue.

Bose should not receive praise for this move. Bose only took this action after community backlash. In an older version of their end-of-life announcement, most functionality of the speaker systems would have removed and transformed the devices into dumb-speakers/amps. Good that they changed their statement and took the right action. Even better for the community for stepping up and 'forcing' Bose to do so. Sources: ht…

> Bose should not receive praise for this move. Bose only took this action after community backlash.

They received the backlash, they responded to it by properly addressing the criticism and doing the right thing. It should be praised. Especially since it wasn't some PR-centric damage control, but an actual direct address of the specific points their original approach was criticized for.

Compare Bose's response to that of Sonos (another large techy audio brand). Sonos had an absolutely massive backlash recently (within the past few years iirc) in regards to deprecating software support for their older speakers that I'd read about everywhere (including HN) for months and months.

Afaik, it didn't lead to Sonos doing the right thing in the end (unlike the scenario at hand here), despite the online outrage being way more widespread than in the Bose's case.

Re: Bose has released API docs and opened the API for its EoL SoundTouch speakers

#238

Post by utopiah »

walterbell wrote: post #70

Thanks Bose for opencycling Bose hardware into OSS audio ecosystems that could support multiple vendors. https://github.com/captivus/bose-soundtouch This library provides a clean, Pythonic interface to control SoundTouch speakers over your local network, ensuring your speakers remain fully functional even after cloud services end. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyrion_Music_Server Lyrion Music Server (LMS) is a stream…

> opencycling

Is that a word? Seems interesting but never read it before.

Re: Bose has released API docs and opened the API for its EoL SoundTouch speakers

#239

Post by InitialLastName »

freedomben wrote: post #148
castillar76 wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many companies miss how important this is, too: they get caught up in "but if they buy it second-hand, they're not buying our new stuff!". When people buy the stuff second-hand, though, they become Bose fans — that means when the second-hand Bose stuff dies, they're more likely to replace it with new Bose stuff. That's particularly true with audio equipment, where people become attached not only to how something work…

Indeed, and also people buying second-hand are pretty unlikely to buy brand new if they aren't able to find the second-hand item (or use it). It's similar to piracy in that respect, that some people who pirate might have actually bought it, but the majority likely would not have anyway so can't just say "1,000 people pirated our thing, therefore we lost 1,000 sales". The cynic in me thinks they know that and just use…

On the other hand, lots of people buying audio gear new DO take the second-hand market into account, and will spend more on the initial purchase if they think the product will retain its value.

Re: Bose has released API docs and opened the API for its EoL SoundTouch speakers

#240

Post by dijit »

Wafje wrote: post #225
ktg0215 wrote: post #8

This is how "end of support" should be handled. Instead of turning devices into e-waste, open-source them and let the community extend their life. Kudos to Bose for setting a good example. More companies should follow this approach - especially as right-to-repair becomes a bigger issue.

Bose should not receive praise for this move. Bose only took this action after community backlash. In an older version of their end-of-life announcement, most functionality of the speaker systems would have removed and transformed the devices into dumb-speakers/amps. Good that they changed their statement and took the right action. Even better for the community for stepping up and 'forcing' Bose to do so. Sources: ht…

And?

When presented with information that you're acting in bad faith, if you choose to change: that is praiseworthy.

It's very brave to take that in, and not worry about "brand damage" or "appearing weak". It's brave to even challenge yourself when someone tells you you're wrong. It's entirely admirable.

It's the default human behaviour to double-down.

Post reply on HN