What are my consumer rights when a smart appliance is remotely downgraded?

cx6

For me, the question is this - are the speakers performing to advertised specification?

if (despite the update) they are performing to spec then you probably have no case

if the spec, on the other hand, included the grouped volume control then you have a case.

Sandtree

Grumpy_chap said:

Is this similar to the Apple thing where they were restricting older phones in some way?  Not quite sure the detail of that or how the issue ended.

Apple introduced a throttle that applied when the battery started to degrade such that it could cause crashes because the battery could no longer provide peak performance requirements.

It was resolved in a soon after upgrade to iOS where the throttling became a toggle switch so you could choose lower peak performance and stability or maintain peak performance but accept crashes may happen. 

A similar solution isnt going to work here unless Google either develop their own solution that doesnt infringe on Sono's patent or agree to pay licensing fees. 

speaker_guy said:

Thanks for everyone's thoughts on this today.

Moral of the story: when buying smart appliances, you really need to be sure you trust the seller and the longevity of their offered services. Think carefully when buying smart appliances, particularly if they are expensive or essential services (such as a fridge).

For my "problem" I suspect I will either:

1. Sell the speakers second hand and use the proceeds to buy the speakers from Sonos (who would appear to own what they are selling...)
2. Get over it (the more likely outcome)

Question is: if I go with (1), am I any better than Google? Mmmm. (I don't need an answer to that question, btw!).

This is exceptionally true, especially as most service rely on communication to remote servers (Apple is one slight exception) which could be pulled if the company becomes insolvent or moves on to new technology etc that older kit cannot work with.

I am in a similar boat with a Logitec Harmony remote, its fantastic and does everything we need with controlling TV, amp, lights, projector, curtains etc etc but Logitec have now said its discontinued but they are "committed" to maintaining the existing services... that commitment is going to wane over time so ultimately on borrowed time now.

Almost no one owns everything that they sell, licensing of technology is everywhere, almost certainly Sonos will be licensing solutions from others. There is always the risk you can independently invent something that someone else has already created and patented but it takes time for those sorts of issues to come to light... have to remember companies like Apple own thousands of patents, many of which will never make it into any product... even Sonos have 1,500 (inc patent pending)

custardy

prowla said:

bris said:

It.s not really a downgrade though as you can still do what you need by touching the speakers or using an app. You may have a point if it took away the ability but such a minor change would be hard pushed to be a breach of contract.

It is most certainly a downgrade, because part of the attraction of these kinds of kit is ease of use; thereby removing a facility is a downgrade.

Its not really removed given the option is in the Google home app

Ectophile

Welcome to a world where you don't really own anything any more.  OK, you may own the hardware.  But without the software, it's useless.  And you don't own the software.  You licence it.  To use the product, you have to agree to the terms of that licence, and one of those terms is that they may replace the software whenever they like.

Think yourself lucky they haven't switched the service off entirely.

MobileSaver

speaker_guy said:

Moral of the story: when buying smart appliances, you really need to be sure you trust the seller and the longevity of their offered services.

While at first glance that appears to be sensible advice, the seller in your case was one of the biggest and richest companies in the world so if you can't trust them and their longevity then who can you trust?

Sandtree

MobileSaver said:

speaker_guy said:

Moral of the story: when buying smart appliances, you really need to be sure you trust the seller and the longevity of their offered services.

While at first glance that appears to be sensible advice, the seller in your case was one of the biggest and richest companies in the world so if you can't trust them and their longevity then who can you trust?

Not sure that company size is a good yardstick for either morality or customer focus... some would argue the relationship is inverse. 

born_again

MobileSaver said:

speaker_guy said:

Moral of the story: when buying smart appliances, you really need to be sure you trust the seller and the longevity of their offered services.

While at first glance that appears to be sensible advice, the seller in your case was one of the biggest and richest companies in the world so if you can't trust them and their longevity then who can you trust?

Just look at the number of times Apple & Samsung have ended up in court over perceived infringements.

biscan25

This is an interesting question. A couple of relevant precedents that have indirectly affected me in the past.
Sony's decision to remove the ability to install third party OS on the PS3. This went to a class action which was successful, but the payout was insignificant compared to how much it cost Sony in legal fees.
Nordictracks removal of 'God mode' on its treadmills, allowing third party software e.g Zwift and web browsers to be used, as it competed against its own subscription software. Users are considering taking action. 

Basically I don't think you will win this one, unless the issue annoys enough people sufficiently to justify a class action. Good luck if this is the case though!

Grumpy_chap

Does the OP have any smart home hub, for example Alexa or Google Home (Nest)?  Can the smart speakers be controlled from the smart hub, in which case a routine could be set to achieve the functionality, so "Alexa, turn the volume down" and the result is
speaker one, reduce volume
speaker two, reduce volume
speaker three, reduce volume 
etc.

There might be a momentary time as the smart hub follows the sequence, but I suspect that will be unnoticeable.

RogerBareford

Grumpy_chap said:

Does the OP have any smart home hub, for example Alexa or Google Home (Nest)?  Can the smart speakers be controlled from the smart hub, in which case a routine could be set to achieve the functionality, so "Alexa, turn the volume down" and the result is
speaker one, reduce volume
speaker two, reduce volume
speaker three, reduce volume 
etc.

There might be a momentary time as the smart hub follows the sequence, but I suspect that will be unnoticeable.

Looking at the patent it appears to cover any method which involves in a user interacting with one device to adjust the volume which then susequently adjusts the volume on other devices on a local area network. So any work around like you suggested will also be a breach of the patent unfortunetly.

But personally i think this is a stupid patent as it seems an obvious feature that most people would want any group of speakers in the same room to be the same volume so it's not exactly a unique idea that should be protected.