I mean, he’s not wrong that the app wasn’t ready. Which begs the question why they didn’t un-roll-it-out. >.>

  • kibiz0r@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    4 months ago

    It’s not that simple. They sold new hardware that claimed app support, and the app support was only in the new codebase.

      • kibiz0r@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        4 months ago

        Having been in this position, I’m sure having two apps is hell for them and increasingly complicated the more the features and back-end services overlap. And there would probably have been drastically more overlap between v2 and v3 than v1 and v2.

        Ultimately, you just wanna be on one codebase.

        I’m not saying this is a good or okay move by Sonos as a company to their consumers. But the die was cast when the product roadmap was established, and the short-sighted technical solutions people are throwing out in the comments are far worse options for the company (and consumers, in the long run) than just accepting the current problem and moving on.

        • fartsparkles@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          4 months ago

          I’m in leadership at a place where we ship software to hundreds of millions of devices every other week and sure, it sucks to maintain legacy products, but you never sunset something without one hell of a grace period and plenty of warning. And not without feature parity if you’re rewriting to escape tech debt.

          There isn’t a valid excuse. They brought this upon themselves and their users knowingly and if they did it without knowing the consequences, that’s even more alarming.