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.
> 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.
Remind me of any other vendor in recent history that end of lifed a hardware product and then open sourced it whether they got backlash or not. Because I can’t think of a single one.
Don't punish the behavior you want to see. Would we rather they defaulted there? Sure. But it's arguably an even better signal to see that they're willing to listen to their customers even when there is no direct financial incentive for them.
I've got a simple formula in life for when people do things beneficial to me: I praise them for it and encourage them to keep it going. If someone does things antagonistic to my interests, and then corrects course in reaction to objection, they can be sure they're going to be rewarded. This has worked for me.
If your belief is that some other tactic works, then I can see why you'd do that. For my part, carrot + stick has always worked better than stick + more stick.
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.
Bose: does something bad.
People: complain.
Bose: undoes what they did and does something slightly better.
You: complain.
I'm not sure I get the logic here.
Slowly but steadily I'm comprehending why companies are getting tired of some people. No matter what companies do, people will always complain. Don't get me wrong, there's always room for more improvement, but a slight complement for their slight improvement won't hurt anyone + a change in tone from complaining to suggesting improvements would be a nice bonus.
Why should Bose not get credit for this? If you are saying that people should treat them the same regardless of whether they listen to their consumers or not, then why would they ever bother listening to the consumers?
Also remember that there is no believer like a convert. A community helping guide a company towards open source culture could make for a very strong ally.
Then again I know nothing about Bose’s open source culture so take it with a grain of salt.
I don't understand this attitude. Bose listened to feedback, and responded in a positive way.
That's a good outcome for the community, and refusing to "praise" Bose's actions just because they didn't originally do what you wanted is petty and churlish.
"Bose blows" is a popular comment amongst the audiophile community but, to me, it seems like they don't blow at all[0]. In fact quite the opposite: this is a fantastic example for other companies to follow. Top marks, Bose!
[0] What is actually true is that they are opinionated about sound reproduction in ways that a bunch of people don't agree with but which in the right context are often effective and enjoyable to listen to.
Bose hardware quality is rather low and, and their sound quality is sub-par, while forcing you to pay the Bose brand tax, riding the corpse of Amar around for profit.
This this also good marketing, if other companies I currently buy speakers from follow their footsteps I'll keep supporting them, but I might otherwise just move towards Bose in the future. I wish Apple would do this for their ultra legacy stuff, Microsoft does it for their legacy stuff. Not sure if we'll ever get a fully open sourced legacy version of Windows (ignoring the source code leak) but it would be cool to one day see the Windows XP source code on GitHub.
It would be an unwise business move. The moment that is done, Linux/WINE will be able to run the bulk of the software that keeps a substantial number of people locked into Windows. Most people don't need the newest version of their software to stay productive.
Maybe the general rule should be like, if something isn’t in the users control and the user doesn’t want it anymore or can no longer function despite not being damaged, then the company should take back the hardware and refund the user.
So the company still have two options, either refund or open-source the systems needed for the device so that the user or third-party can continue supporting it.
This should be in the law imho. No hardware or software should have its support abandonned unless the spec / schematics / parts list and/or source code is released in a public repo.
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 it possible or go out of business.
Since everyone will be forced to do the same no one will gain any advantages.
No, the law must mandate that. You either provide active support, or if you end it you must open-source all tools necessary to perform maintenance. It's one of those things that has to be mandated by law to provide a uniform floor on all companies and manufacturers, like food safety laws, fire codes, or accessibility for the physically disabled.
I do not get why not more companies are doing this! Also it pays so much into your brand perception etc.; also you will always have all ecological folks on your side because of "not producing new stuff".
This is the cheapest and best way to get the most out of your investment after it entered end-of-life.
I suspect it's because the technical staff have already been let go or replaced with outsourced maintenance-only staffing firms, which means the non-technical leadership doesn't know whether the source code would contain damaging information.
The reason I've heard for games which I assume is similar here, is that there's licensed code used which the developer can not release because they don't own it (someone else does)
i’d love for this to be required by law. i’m probably not thinking of some great reason why that might be a bad idea, but it seems like an effective way to reduce e-waste.
This could fail if too many players start to abandon/open source their products at the same time. It could lead to an overload.
Plus, I purchased my product thinking it will last forever. Sudden announcements for EOL is a terrible trend. Laws should regulate having proper disclosures that a product is promised to be serviced for x number of years at minimum, and/or mandate manufacturers themselves provide updates to allow the product to work independently of them.
This is not open sourcing any actual software or hardware it is “open-sourcing the API documentation for its SoundTouch smart speakers”. You might be able to point them at an alternative back-end¹ if you want the cloud features, but that will need to be written from scratch rather than being forked from code provided by Sonos.
> When cloud support ends, an update to the SoundTouch app will add local controls to retain as much functionality as possible without cloud services
This is a far bigger move than releasing API information, IMO bigger than if they had actually open sourced the software & hardware, from the point of view of most end users - they can keep using the local features without needing anyone else to maintain a version.
--------
[1] TFA doesn't state that this will be possible, but opening the API makes no sense if it isn't.
According to this comment[1] by an OSS developer working on reverse engineering the device, the documentation released doesn't allow them to implement an alternative backend. If I understand the purpose of the interfaces correctly from skimming the reverse engineering effort github[2], the API released documents the HTTP interface between the phone app and the speakers, which has been available for years, and covers functionality that isn't going away. The interface between the speaker and the cloud services that are shutting down is still undocumented.
Looking over the API docs seems to confirm what the comment you referenced and the poster I linked here is saying. I'm seeing calls to virtually press buttons on the speaker, set the input source, to query the presets, and some zone-relayed calls, but nothing about actually playing audio from network sources.
For the call re: presets I see:
> Description: Presets are a core part of the SoundTouch ecosystem. A preset is used to set and recall a specific music stream supported by the SoundTouch speaker
There's a GET method that returns information about presets. Presumably you'd use a POST or PUT method to manage the presents. To that end, under POST, it says:
> POST: N/A
It looks like this API basically allows you to control it like an dumb speaker. That's not nothing, but it's not much either.
There doesn't seem to be anything in the API about controlling how the speak communicates with a back end service.
Edit:
Having some time to read over your [2] and the link to [0] it looks like getting root on the speaker w/ physical access is ridiculously easy. Booting the unit w/ a FAT32 USB drive attached with a file named "remote_services" in an otherwise empty root directory opens up an ssh server and the root user has no password.
The comments on [0] have some interesting tidbits in them, too.
These speakers look like they might be fun to play with and once Bose kills the back end people may unload them cheap.
Ah, that makes sense as well. Not sure why I fixated on what the speaker might call out to, and didn't think of what might want/need to control the speaker.
One thing nobody is touching on: since it's not actually open source, when this thing is found to have dozens of security holes (or any bugs), they are not going to be patched.
The question on my mind is will the SoundTouch app continue to be supported on new mobile
OS versions ?
Is it the same app that caters for other speakers too ? If it is, and Bose continue to include their old speakers on the functionality of the app, then I can hardly see how this is a true EoL. They’re really continuing to support the speakers in their app, at least.
They're discontinuing support for SoundTouch Speakers. The SoundTouch App controls SoundTouch Speakers. Put two and two together...
From their announcement:
What will no longer work:
• Presets (preset buttons on the product and in the app)
• Browsing or playing music services directly from the SoundTouch app
Important note: Your system will no longer receive security and software updates.
Please make sure to always use your system on a secure, private network.
Considering that new speakers don't use SoundTouch, I wonder too. I hope that they keep the app running for a while. This kit is expensive and it can't have a short life time!
They're not really "open-sourcing" anything in the sense that I would think about it. As far as I can tell they're doing two things:
* Removing cloud-server dependency from the app.
* Publishing API documentation for the speaker.
I actually think this is worth noting not so much in a "well aktshully it's not open source!" kind of way, but as a good lesson for other manufacturers - because this is meaningfully good without needing to do any of the things manufacturers hate:
* They didn't have to publish any Super Secret First or Third Party Proprietary IP.
* They didn't have to release any signing keys or firmware tools.
* They get to remove essentially all maintenance costs and relegate everything to a "community."
But yet people are happy! Manufacturers should take note that they don't have to do much to make customers much happier with their products at end of life.
This might sound crazy to some people, but I think this is much better than ongoing support. Removal of reliance on cloud alone is a massive feature that gets me interested in buying one of these (I don't currently own one). And the fact it has an API I can hit myself? Awesome!!!
Good for them. Makes me more likely to consider buying a Bose in future, not just because I know it won't be bricked, but also for the environmental impact of this. Kudos.
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.
A long while ago i heard something (that might have been a urban myth) about Bose putting useless weight into their headphones to make them appear more "substantially professional". Is that a myth or they have pivoted towards actual quality since early days?
When I bought my Bose QC ten years ago, I tried a lot of brands and found Bose to have the most pleasant sound, very clear/neutral. I guess it’s personal taste.
I used to have an unexplained resistance to buy Bose products. After the hinge of my Sony mx-1000 headphones broke in to two places, I gave in and got a Bose qc. Man, the build quality was insanely good. The sound was really good. And it’s really comfortable to wear. I had changed my view.
This is going to read like I'm shilling but: I was so impressed with Bose QC headphones that i stocked up and gave out 7 pairs to my closest friends and family this year for christmas
Hopefully, someone from Bose sees these comments. There is a serious segment of the pro and prosumer audio market that values open-source, interoperability, long service life, and is willing to pay a bit more for it.
I hope Bose continues to do this for future products and is rewarded financially for it.
I have my fathers Sonos soundbar and a pair of speakers at home that I bought for him as Christmas gifts years ago. I still can't believe they knowingly released an app that bricked older devices.
I have to try and get them working again. The only solution I've heard of is to get an old version of the Sonos app APK, a dedicated old single purpose Android phone to acts as a bridge between your speakers and phone and connect that way.
I have 2012 Sonos hardware. You can still get the original Sonos S1 controller, which works with old stuff. It's pretty annoying that all the new stuff is S2 (and that app is better supported), but it's not as hard as you're describing it. You can get it off Google Play and just use it.
The quality of the software, and the fact that it isn't really updated, is another thing, but the actual software availability is there.
Readit News
https://www.bose.com/soundtouch-end-of-life
SoundTouch API Documentation (pdf) linked from the announcement:
https://assets.bosecreative.com/m/496577402d128874/original/...
More companies should follow this approach - especially as right-to-repair becomes a bigger issue.
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: https://web.archive.org/web/20251201051242/https://www.bose....https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2025/10/bose-soundtouch-home...
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.
Remind me of any other vendor in recent history that end of lifed a hardware product and then open sourced it whether they got backlash or not. Because I can’t think of a single one.
So yes, Bose absolutely deserves praise.
If your belief is that some other tactic works, then I can see why you'd do that. For my part, carrot + stick has always worked better than stick + more stick.
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.
I'm not sure I get the logic here.
Slowly but steadily I'm comprehending why companies are getting tired of some people. No matter what companies do, people will always complain. Don't get me wrong, there's always room for more improvement, but a slight complement for their slight improvement won't hurt anyone + a change in tone from complaining to suggesting improvements would be a nice bonus.
Also remember that there is no believer like a convert. A community helping guide a company towards open source culture could make for a very strong ally.
Then again I know nothing about Bose’s open source culture so take it with a grain of salt.
Isn't that still gonna happen now?
From [1]:
What will no longer work:
• Presets (preset buttons on the product and in the app)
Of course Bluetooth and AirPlay continues to work, but isn't that what a "dumb speaker" is?
[1] https://www.bose.com/soundtouch-end-of-life
That's a good outcome for the community, and refusing to "praise" Bose's actions just because they didn't originally do what you wanted is petty and churlish.
Deleted Comment
"Bose blows" is a popular comment amongst the audiophile community but, to me, it seems like they don't blow at all[0]. In fact quite the opposite: this is a fantastic example for other companies to follow. Top marks, Bose!
[0] What is actually true is that they are opinionated about sound reproduction in ways that a bunch of people don't agree with but which in the right context are often effective and enjoyable to listen to.
[0] https://teufel.de/mynd-107002004
> Uhhh I’m gonna tell all my friends to stop eating there
I have decided to not spit in your food after all. Praise me.
I'd avoid, even if they happened to do this.
Maybe the general rule should be like, if something isn’t in the users control and the user doesn’t want it anymore or can no longer function despite not being damaged, then the company should take back the hardware and refund the user.
So the company still have two options, either refund or open-source the systems needed for the device so that the user or third-party can continue supporting it.
...
Planet is burning and the zillionaires have enough zillions already so I vouch for the Mando too.
Once single EU / US legislation introduced that force manufacturers into opening end-of-life products all IP right owners will either immediately make it possible or go out of business.
Since everyone will be forced to do the same no one will gain any advantages.
Or across the board, since they are absurdly powerful right now. Nintendo could not legally keep you from hacking a console before the DMCA.
At least people can create their own implementation of the API tho.
Deleted Comment
No, the law must mandate that. You either provide active support, or if you end it you must open-source all tools necessary to perform maintenance. It's one of those things that has to be mandated by law to provide a uniform floor on all companies and manufacturers, like food safety laws, fire codes, or accessibility for the physically disabled.
I do not get why not more companies are doing this! Also it pays so much into your brand perception etc.; also you will always have all ecological folks on your side because of "not producing new stuff".
This is the cheapest and best way to get the most out of your investment after it entered end-of-life.
I loved their camera tracking and picture frame along with their speaker quality.
I am no fan of Bose for a lot of reasons, but this is seriously standup behavior for sure.
Dead Comment
Plus, I purchased my product thinking it will last forever. Sudden announcements for EOL is a terrible trend. Laws should regulate having proper disclosures that a product is promised to be serviced for x number of years at minimum, and/or mandate manufacturers themselves provide updates to allow the product to work independently of them.
> When cloud support ends, an update to the SoundTouch app will add local controls to retain as much functionality as possible without cloud services
This is a far bigger move than releasing API information, IMO bigger than if they had actually open sourced the software & hardware, from the point of view of most end users - they can keep using the local features without needing anyone else to maintain a version.
--------
[1] TFA doesn't state that this will be possible, but opening the API makes no sense if it isn't.
[1]https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2026/01/bose-open-sources-it...
[2]https://github.com/deborahgu/soundcork
Looking over the API docs seems to confirm what the comment you referenced and the poster I linked here is saying. I'm seeing calls to virtually press buttons on the speaker, set the input source, to query the presets, and some zone-relayed calls, but nothing about actually playing audio from network sources.
For the call re: presets I see:
> Description: Presets are a core part of the SoundTouch ecosystem. A preset is used to set and recall a specific music stream supported by the SoundTouch speaker
There's a GET method that returns information about presets. Presumably you'd use a POST or PUT method to manage the presents. To that end, under POST, it says:
> POST: N/A
It looks like this API basically allows you to control it like an dumb speaker. That's not nothing, but it's not much either.
There doesn't seem to be anything in the API about controlling how the speak communicates with a back end service.
Edit:
Having some time to read over your [2] and the link to [0] it looks like getting root on the speaker w/ physical access is ridiculously easy. Booting the unit w/ a FAT32 USB drive attached with a file named "remote_services" in an otherwise empty root directory opens up an ssh server and the root user has no password.
The comments on [0] have some interesting tidbits in them, too.
These speakers look like they might be fun to play with and once Bose kills the back end people may unload them cheap.
[0] https://flarn2006.blogspot.com/2014/09/hacking-bose-soundtou...
( Their announcement: https://www.bose.com/soundtouch-end-of-life The API doc: https://assets.bosecreative.com/m/496577402d128874/original/... )
Sometimes, an open API is all you need.
Maybe that distinction is too arcane for general technology audiences, but I don’t really think it is?
Is it the same app that caters for other speakers too ? If it is, and Bose continue to include their old speakers on the functionality of the app, then I can hardly see how this is a true EoL. They’re really continuing to support the speakers in their app, at least.
From their announcement:
Reality: users are still getting a feature cut with an update.
* Removing cloud-server dependency from the app.
* Publishing API documentation for the speaker.
I actually think this is worth noting not so much in a "well aktshully it's not open source!" kind of way, but as a good lesson for other manufacturers - because this is meaningfully good without needing to do any of the things manufacturers hate:
* They didn't have to publish any Super Secret First or Third Party Proprietary IP.
* They didn't have to release any signing keys or firmware tools.
* They get to remove essentially all maintenance costs and relegate everything to a "community."
But yet people are happy! Manufacturers should take note that they don't have to do much to make customers much happier with their products at end of life.
On that case, no, that wouldn't make me consider buying them. Because the one I can buy lacks exactly the feature that would make me consider it.
E.g.: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/b...
I hope Bose continues to do this for future products and is rewarded financially for it.
I have to try and get them working again. The only solution I've heard of is to get an old version of the Sonos app APK, a dedicated old single purpose Android phone to acts as a bridge between your speakers and phone and connect that way.
Stay away from Sonos.
The quality of the software, and the fact that it isn't really updated, is another thing, but the actual software availability is there.