![]() The following quote regarding the ITC decision, from Sonos Chief Legal Officer Eddie Lazarus, was also provided: Google merely pointed us to the two posts it's made to its product forums, and Sonos didn't have anything new to share, merely reiterating that the ITC has confirmed Google was violating an import ban (probably leading to the recent degradation in the Chromecast setup experience). I've reached out to both Google and Sonos for their take on the ongoing situation, as well as to determine if a licensing arrangement could be made pending the resolution of the conflict. I'm certain that Google could negotiate some kind of licensing terms with Sonos to ensure customers don't lose functionality in the meantime. The motivation behind that action is different, and the circumstances of the lawsuit and disagreement are also fundamentally different, but there's an important (if unintended) connection I see: Google and Match are keeping the customer experience the same while they work out their dispute. ![]() Match will pay what it would normally owe Google directly into an escrow account while the beef is resolved (an "interpleader," as it's called in a civil suit), allowing Match’s various dating apps to stay on the Play Store in the meantime. Google can't follow this specific solution, but I’m reminded of the fact that Google and Match, also embroiled in a lawsuit, came to an agreement that prevented the customer experience from being degraded during their ongoing dispute. But other recent snafus like the YouTube app on older Chromecasts also make it clear to me that Google doesn't really care if or when it breaks things for its users, whether that's the result of a lawsuit or not. Not paying Sonos might be a matter of "cold-blooded calculus" that weighs the advantages of "putting the squeeze" on Sonos (by not funding Sonos's legal efforts against Google through licensing) more highly than the potential liability costs and reduction in brand loyalty resulting from problems with Google's products. Google would prefer to reduce and eliminate functionality by removing marketed features from its products instead.Ĭlearly, I'd rather see Google find a way to maintain functionality in the meantime as the rest of the lawsuit with Sonos is resolved, but I'm told by the attorney that Google's failure to license here might be part of its legal strategy. And even if it refuses to do that, because of how these products work and the fact that they can be tied to a Google account, it's within the company's power to contact the majority of affected customers directly with options now that the performance of their purchased devices had been degraded. The fact of the matter is that Google could agree to license Sonos's patents at any point in time, restoring the originally described functionality. In one of the worst examples above, not being able to connect your Chromecast to Wi-Fi because you’re unfortunate enough to be using a Pixel phone, is pretty inexcusable. ![]() I know that for some of our readers, these might seem like niche problems, but losing functionality you paid for with little to no direct notice isn’t reasonable in any circumstance. We've asked Google to confirm if it's contacted customers directly regarding the changes at all, but the company did not immediately respond. So far as I can tell, these posts constitute all communication Google has made with its customers regarding these issues - I know I haven't received any direct emails regarding lost functionality, even though Google has my contact information and knows that I use features like grouped speakers. I've reached out to Google to see if the company has a complete list of lost or degraded features, but the company only directed me to the two times it pointed out many of these changes in its forums. Google has acknowledged some of these issues, while others have surfaced simply due to customer complaints.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |