Agreed. When someone does something, hears the complaints, and changes, it's charitable to bin them as someone who made a mistake and wants to improve.

Not every company deserves this charity, but the social media default nowadays is to deny that charity to everyone, and to go scorched-earth.

Sonos gets backlash every few years and they don’t change. It’s almost as if consumers are shit at boycotting companies.

Which does make Boses move even more impressive when you think about how it wouldn’t have affected their business to do nothing.

And some people have been advocating for Apple to do something similar with old iPhones and tablets for a decade, and there’s no sign. Their privilege but not great for the world.

Yeah, it’s good to see a sensible response to community pressure here. While I take the point that they only conceded after pressure, at least they did concede. I’ve upgraded their brand in my mind from “planned obsolescence e-waste villain” to “cares about PR and will do the right thing while being watched”. I think the only truly trustworthy companies regarding end of support handling in consumer tech are those whose brand is explicitly tied to openness / repairablity ala home assistant, framework laptops, etc…

Sadly those tend to be niche companies already focused on power users, but any other firms should be considered guilty until proven innocent of enshittification (forced bricking, closed source, subscription creep, privacy violations and data brokering).

Google refunded all Stadia purchases, both hardware and software, after they discontinued the platform/product. Then they added functionality (the ability to operate the controller as a generic Bluetooth controller) afterward to keep the hardware from becoming e-waste.

Logitech are my go-to example of a company that does the right thing and deserves recognition for it. They kept their squeezebox.com servers going for a decade after they discontinued their Squeezebox hardware audio players. At the same time, they funded a maintainer to keep improving the open source server software that users can self-host on multiple platforms (Linux, Windows, macOS, Raspberry Pi). Two years ago, they finally shut down the squeezebox.com servers that they were running but the server software is still being actively maintained: https://lyrion.org/

Arguably HP open-sourced webOS, but they did also got backlash because they killed that entire product line without warning.

Except the title is wrong; Bose didn't open source anything.

Pebble?

Their financial incentive is negative. They were hoping to force everyone to buy new speakers, driving sales. But if the community is able to get open source firmware to run spotifyd on them, there is a non-zero (not everyone, but it's non-zero) amount of people that will just not buy new speakers from them.

It works on dogs, children, and adults, the inability to praise the good because they did something bad prior feels like more of the online black/white moralism that used to characterise Twitter dogpiles.

Bose's original plan was to remove all WiFi-dependent functionality (no AirPlay and no Spotify Connect)-- while they wouldn't quite be "dumb speakers" at that point (since Bluetooth would've still worked), it would've turned them into pretty much just overcomplicated Bluetooth speakers.

> Isn't that still gonna happen now?

No, if you read farther down the announcement, they also say this:

> 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. The documentation is available here: https://assets.bosecreative.com/m/496577402d128874/original/...

So, they're going to strip the "smart" functionality from the app that Bose provides, but they're letting people continue to use it if they want to.

Honestly. Bro needs to chill. Big companies don't really do anything unless they recieve backlash. That's just how it works.

> "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 more in the long-term technical user/community product support, idk how to describe that area much better) are almost entirely disjoint.

It is perfectly fine and valid for an audio product to “blow” from an opinionated audiophile perspective, while being exceptionally great from the long-term product/user/community product support perspective.

I heavily agree with you btw, Bose should be heavily lauded for making a decision to open-up their speaker firmware after it reaches the official end of support deadline. The fact that this is an exceptional practice is imo, a little bit sad, because I believe that it should be way more common.

In a previous life, I was the platform architect for the Bluetooth headphones at Bowers & Wilkins. We, naturally, did tons of competitive analysis, and I tend to agree Bose blows sound quality-wise, but their active noise cancelling is hands-down the best in the biz, and they have the weight and comfort extremely dialed-in.

Glad to see them setting a great example here instead of letting these speakers become expensive paperweights.

> "Bose blows" is a popular comment amongst the audiophile community

I have a 15 years old Bose system. Is it audio-transparent ? Absolutely not, its frequency response is well documented. But the sound is very pleasing, it's reliable and nearly invisble in my living room.

I'm not an audiophile though, just a music lover.

"Bose blows" is typically in regards to their price/performance, and especially with how they marketed themselves throughout the 90s and early 2000s.

Bose used to advertise that they were the best sounding speaker out there, while also running advertisements that made claims which violated the laws of physics.

For the same price as a Bose system you could get something much higher quality. Bose was selling at luxury prices w/o luxury quality. They got away with it because compared to the cheap garbage most people listened to, Bose's stuff was nicer. Their quality was mid to upper mid tier, and the build quality was generally good.

But people got irritated by a decade ads saying a tiny speaker is more powerful than a proper speaker setup.

Now days Bose makes good quality noise cancelling headphones (and I suspect they made more revenue selling NC headphones during the open office and then COVID era than they ever did selling speakers in the 90s!) and they brand car stereo systems.

Their noise cancelling headphones are good, even if the ear pads wear our way too fast.

Pretty much no one has a home hi-fi setup anymore, everyone just has a sound bar. I do have a hi-fi music setup, people are rather shocked when they come over that I even bothered. I got it for $2k on Craigslist years ago, the setup cost someone a small fortune when they were brand new. IMHO buying new hi-fi gear is pointless, Speakers made in 2005 sound just as good as speakers made in 2025, the laws of physics haven't changed any!

Seems to me like an executive saw klipsch failures and saw an opening to kill two birds with one stone.

One, to show their support for audiophiles who supported them.

Two, make superior products to klipsch that - ummm - actually state the real ranges of the speakers and use real copper windings instead of “painted” copper.

Alternatively: Bose now provides highs! No lows.

Well, Bose has a long history of continually hyping whatever they're selling as the complete & utter pinnacle of sound reproduction technology, whether or not that's actually the case. Before the internet it was through their print media ads, starting with their Direct/Reflecting home speaker tech, continued through the 800 series PA speakers, Acoustic Wave tabletop radio, etc. Not to say there were not benefits, but that the choices they made -- single driver size, requiring certain room boundaries/geometry for optimal sound, need for active EQ/processing to get full-range response before the tech was really there to do so optimally -- did not always equal great trouble-free sound as advertised.

That said their implementation of noise-cancelling headphones/earbuds was a legit game-changer. And good on them for open-sourcing these speakers!

not an audiophile but is it possible to tease out those aspects of sound reproduction if the software is open source?

i always heard "no high, no lows, must be bose"

The audiophile community is so far up it's own ass it doesn't see a distinction between bose and a piezoelectric buzzer.

I bought one just this week because of this. They really went above and beyond:

- mechanical CAD, schematic and PCB files: https://docs.teufel.de/download/MYND/Open_Source_Hardware_Fi...

- firmware: https://github.com/teufelaudio/mynd-firmware

- Bluetooth API documentation: https://cdn.teufelaudio.com/image/upload/v1748589486/product...

- battery repair/replacement guide: https://cdn.teufelaudio.com/products/MYND/pdf/Teufel_MYND_RM...

I believe that they designed the mechanical parts to be 3D-printable as well.

A better way to say that is "This will boost the second-hand value of older Bose speakers".

Budget-aware folks will buy these second-hand, neophiles will buy new, confident that long term solutions will exist even after "long term support" is over.

Heck, even knowing there's a second-hand market makes me more likely to buy Bose new.

It makes me want to buy both! Old to tinker with, new to support the move.

Bose products seem like they are most popular with older, non-technical people who see it as a luxury brand. This is the same reaction that I would have with this news because I like modifying hardware/firmware, but I was never in the market to buy Bose products in the first place. My parents on the other hand have at least 3 wave radios in the house.

Not huge, they didn't open source any code

My experience is the opposite: Bose hardware and sound quality seems excellent to me.

This may be subjective. Bose might sound good to some people's ears and less good to other people's ears.

Typical so called audiophile stance here. I have numerous headphones (including high ends ones) and always been happy with my Bose. Sound is great and gently enhanced for listening enjoyment, whatever snobs could say about it, and the hardware is really nice. My Bose SoundSport earbuds are the best fit I ever had in 30+ years of wearing earbuds and my QC35 never failed on me. That move from them adds to all the great things I can say about this brand.

If you're talking about their headphones, I agree they _feel_ cheaply-made, but they are by no means low-quality. When you make headphones with premium materials, they get heavy, and that makes them uncomfortable/painful to wear. Speaking from prior experience. It's an incredibly delicate balancing act. Bose optimizes for comfort, which is important for e.g. long plane rides.

I'm an audiophile and very happy with one of their portable speakers. I wouldn't buy Bose monitors, though

Please suggest better alternatives

Some of their high priced noise cancelling headphones have excellent quality. I purchased the QC-25 ages ago, and when it stopped working I reached out to support, this was beyond their 3y warranty, provided serial number and they sent me a new QC-35 no questions asked replacement unit.

I am very happy with my QC-35 headphones. They are probably 5y+ now and they go with me everywhere. I think it is unfair to state their hw quality is low. It is much better than low.

If society progresses as envisaged, people will always want newer and better technology. Living standards should improve for all, as the older technology is purchased second-hand by those who cannot afford the latest versions, and/or repaired as desired.

When a businesses chooses to drop support for a product entirely (hardware or spares no longer produced, and software no longer updated), they've presumably already made the business decision to drop the product for sale. If the product were still in demand and the existing devices still function, dropping product support could effectively render the devices useless or destined for landfill.

This often happens when: online services are dropped, devices cannot be repaired, or worse, software cannot be simply updated for security and compatibility reasons etc.

If manufacturers want existing users with working technology to upgrade, they should design compelling improved products, not force a load of e-waste and bricked devices. There's little reason for a manufacturer to quickly drop support without following this model of open sourcing, unless they know they are forcing existing customers to an unnecessary upgrade.

Manufacturers should support their products, innovate, or let them go over time. The "market" (consumer choice) should dictate when a product is obsolete. We own our products and should have the rights to maintain them. They should be paying us and taxed for damaging the environment for dropping support early and/or without open-sourcing.

Those who are willing to move have already moved.

All cars period should have their service software freely available. I shouldn't need to hunt down software on a Russian torrent site to help someone figure out why their ABS light is on.

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.

If the publish the API for the server, as well as allow the device to specify the API hostname to connect to, that's all I need. We can write our own server implementation fairly easily, and this saves us the hassle of having to reverse-engineer the API, plus makes setup much easier if we can just tell the device where to connect.

I wish more manufacturers would unlock their devices for local use when they don't want to support them any more. Or maybe even, hear me out, before support ends! Maybe we could even vote with our wallets and buy open stuff instead of walled gardens.

I’m all for that, but also the product might not exist if they can’t use third-party protected IP for it.

Who is everyone? Are you talking about people with familiarity with tech and hacking? Most people don't know how to write a URL in the browser.

Everyone here thinks that everyone="all hacking-experienced people", where I mean everyone is the whole world. MOST people are not going to hack their device.