[iomotoko]

mhm, 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?

[sowbug]

Hardware vs. software.

Declining update and choosing to live without new features vs. ceasing to function.

[iomotoko]

"[...] the customer will not be able to update the software on their Sonos system, and over time the functionality of the product will decrease."

Sounds to me like maybe the bluetooth syncing with a recent smartphone or something of that nature might not work if the speaker didn't receive a certain update, which I consider a possibility. The "cease to function" seems like a nightmarish-description of such. It's not like "not updating" will magically brick the device.

Edit: my point being that not updating software is not about not enjoying certain features, it's in many cases being incredibly vulnerable to certain types of exploits, in the case of an OS or browser a far more serious consequence, is it not?

[sowbug]

That point is a bit of a red herring. The question isn't the value of the update; it's whether existing customers should have to accept inferior terms of service to get it.

The right path for Sonos would be to open-source the kernel and hardware drivers, then either keep it up to date with a base feature set or budget $100K or so a year to run a bounty-based community contribution program. That will end the complaints that Sonos risked bricking hundreds of millions of dollars' worth of consumer hardware so its marketing department could harvest email addresses. Not everyone would like that choice, but it would be a better choice than the gradual decay of perfectly fine (and expensive) hardware that should otherwise last for decades.

Unfortunately the economics of service-oriented consumer hardware is all screwed up these days. Should buying a proprietary connected geegaw for a single up-front fee entitle me to eternal updates? In what non-pyramid-scheme economic model does that work? Yet in our world where we're still weaning ourselves from the dot-com years, that's typically the expectation.