Also FWIW first step for QC35 support on https://gadgetbridge.org/gadgets/headphones/bose/?h=bose which is IMHO the way to go.
As far as I know now, things have changed substantially. I would assume this includes engineering quality and honesty.
This bricking avoidance seems like another note in that positive direction.
https://www.core77.com/posts/38311/Teardown-Reveals-Beats-He...
https://www.core77.com/posts/38311/Teardown-Reveals-Beats-He...
I don't own any, I've just read reviews from when I was in the market for new headphones and earbuds.
E.g.: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/b...
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.
More companies should follow this approach - especially as right-to-repair becomes a bigger issue.
- 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.
I'd avoid, even if they happened to do this.
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.
Until quite recently, they were widely one of if not the most recommended wireless headphones. The new Sennheiser's that come with a USB-C dongle might have finally stepped past what Bose has been delivering, but at a higher price.
We also like the Bose soundbar as it has a mode that makes dialogue more intelligible on our TV.
Now if I could change the firmware to turn NC off, that would be something entirely different...
This may be subjective. Bose might sound good to some people's ears and less good to other people's ears.
There's an argument for both, but frankly, if studio monitor setups don't sound "as good" why bother?
Sound quality is not the same as music quality.
To be more specific, Sound Reproduction Fidelity is not the same as Pleasant Music
To be even more specific, Signal Reproduction is not the same as "Pleasant Sounds*
The goal of music is not always high fidelity of reproduction; if it were, over-driven valve amps would never have been a thing.
The only thing objective in this context is signal reproduction, which is not the highest concern for music production.
Hi-fi speakers, tube amps, and other accessories generally "degrade" the sound with added harmonics and natural smile EQs. That's what makes them sound more pleasing.
(I'm not disagreeing with you, just adding more color.)
If a speaker reproduces some music with 100% accuracy and the result is unpleasant, doesn’t that just mean the original music—as created by the artist—is unpleasant?
Where possible, I’d prefer a speaker that respects the artist’s decisions instead of inserting itself into the creative process.
IMHO, people place too much importance on "accuracy". While accuracy might be objectively measured, it means nothing when it comes to individual taste.
A good example of this is a target curve, often used in room calibration. Dirac has a good explanation: https://www.dirac.com/resources/target-curve
(highly recommend Dirac room correction, by the way)
A $40 Bluetooth box from any big name brand is better than the speakers in a smart TV.
I personally prefer corded headphones and mains powered speakers, but if I were to buy a small wireless speaker I would buy a cheaper brand and ideally second hand, because this category of devices are basically consumables.
They are such a standard response that presumably a real audiophile will come along to point out that their favorite model is much better, than a particular well known Sennheiser model, but as far as one can say in brand terms they are solid.
All the Chinese-made Sennheiser stuff has awful QA.
Their build quality is exceptional, and they're built like tanks. The only problem, imo, is the Beyer house sound is very shouty and fatiguing, especially with the "990" versions of the product line over the years.
Disclaimer: I owned a Beyer DT880/600ohm (the neutral one of the 770/880/990 siblings), paired with an amp that could properly handle it. Its one of the few headphones I sold and did not retain in my collection, it deserved someone that could love it. The new Tesla-based drivers are better (such as that 1990), but still retain that Beyer sound.
Where'd you see they're exiting pro/flagship tier stuff? Everything I can find says they're continuing to hand-make their higher-end stuff in Germany. One such source: https://www.whathifi.com/headphones/100-year-old-headphone-b...
I recommend HiFiMan Sundara/Ananda if they fit your head and there aren't any CPU fans in your room.
Hifiman QA is exceptionally bad, and they tend to not stand by their warranty, and their US repair facility is just some dude's house.
The threads on /r/headphones over Hifiman shafting them are numerous.
Disclaimer: I too had a Hifiman pair, they sounded great, but their physical design just didn't hold up to daily use, no matter how much I babied them.
Also, there are multiple forums and subreddits you can ask this question on. You will get more answers than you would from me and the rest of HN.
"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.
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.
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.
I like how they color sound, and how they use psychoacoustics to do what they do.
Audiophiles using music to listen their systems are missing the point.
If you want really good stereo or 5.1 sound there is no substitute for big speakers that can move a lot of air.
[1] maybe it is that gene polymorphism that makes my ears overflow with wax and has my doctor warning they will plug up one of these days
I love the new airpods pro for my daily commute (subway, not a car; just clarifying before I get hammered down in replies for driving and using airpods at the same time), doubly so given their compactness+heavily improved ANC.
For home, I love my open-back Beyerdynamic DT1990Pro pair, due to the audio profile + insanely good physical comfort when worn for prolonged periods of time.
For gatherings with friends for when I need a somewhat-portable bluetooth speaker (that also happen to look good when sitting on a bookshelf outside of active use), I have a TE-OB4.
If I had a larger living space, I would consider getting a pair of high-quality speakers again too.
But there is not a single "this is it" piece of audio equipment that would just replace everything, so you gotta pick and choose your poison.
On the newest ones, the tips have a foam core inside them.
But for awhile Bose's headphones had the best noise cancelling out there.
Their old ads were super irritating though, and many people (such as you and me!) are still irritated about them decades later.
A minor nitpick: while Apple entering the ANC arena certainly set fire under the existing mainstream brands to improve their ANC headphones, imo Bose started facing serious competition on that front even before Apple moved in.
I remember Sony releasing their MDR-1000X par being the first crack in the wall. I specifically remember this, because I picked up those headphones in favor of Bose options at the time.
P.S. Yes, the naming scheme on Sony's side is atrocious, because MDR-1000X is the first gen of their very popular WH-1000XM line of ANC headphones that people treat as a flagship ANC headphone pair (with the most recent one being WH-1000XM6).
I actually had a pair of Sennheiser noise cancelling headphones and they had a really good BT implementation, super low latency and the ANC was really good. Sadly they developed a persistent hiss in one earpiece.
If we gave tax breaks for open sourcing EOL products, we'd see a lot more of it. Code escrow companies might not like it, though.
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.
And I'm couching this all in very neutral terms, not because I have an axe to grind with them, but because I don't want to get into a flame war with the kind of audiophiles who hate Bose.
FWIW the Bose products I've heard and used all sounded pretty good. At the end of the day they're designed for people to enjoy music within a particular target context, not necessarily to be the most accurate at reproducing the recording exactly.
(I'll say this as well: reproducing the recording exactly isn't necessarily what you want to get something to sound good. A lot of albums from the loudness war era benefit significantly from rolling off some of the higher frequencies, where clipping occurs, for example. So I have one amplifier that includes - gasp, shock, horror - tone controls that I sometimes use and, on another system where the amp doesn't have tone controls, I've hooked up a [true] stereo graphic equalizer. You also have to take the listening environment into account and when you do that some element of processing the sound before it comes out of the speakers can also prove to be beneficial. Anyway, I shall now go and brace myself for some righteous abuse from the purists.)
Glad to see them setting a great example here instead of letting these speakers become expensive paperweights.
That said their implementation of noise-cancelling headphones/earbuds was a legit game-changer. And good on them for open-sourcing these speakers!
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!
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.
Between that and the good-will they're getting from this move, this is making a ton of life-long Bose fans out of a lot of audio geeks. And if there's a community well-known for creating religions out of their hardware preferences...
The most amusing anti-example of this was the Switch generation: $60 for a cartridge, or $60 for a digital license. Guess which is actually more valuable? Guess which you were more likely to find discounted, even if only by a marginal amount, by some store desperate to move stock out of the way?
By contrast, I'm not worried about the fact I can't resell my copy of Game X I got on Steam when I only paid $5 for it in the first place.
At least people can create their own implementation of the API tho.
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.
The open source community will happily reverse-engineer the protocol and clean-room develop their own server code.
The same can be said about a lot of games, and should be the case with them as well. Big MMOs for example. See the plethora of WoW private servers as an example of how it can be done.
I think the stop killing games initiative in the EU was pushing for it but not sure how far they've gotten, but like with hardware, once a game studio no longer wants to run the servers for their game, they should be forced to turn it over to the community so the players can continue playing long after the studio is gone.
Bose's brand is built on audio quality. There is close to little negative impact open sourcing the API (server) in this case will bring to their brand.
For a game, open sourcing the server generally means anyone can basically mess it up and with the internet make it available to everyone to see. Then the responsibility is on the developer to protect their "brand".
The plethora of WoW private servers is not a good example. These are from individuals, or groups of people who willfully reverse engineered it on their own. This is different from a company expressly permissing and implicitly giving a grant on allowing a similar product to exist - the difference is that one gives credibility, which the other does not.
[0] discussed https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45813343
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2026/01/bose-open-sources-it...
Or across the board, since they are absurdly powerful right now. Nintendo could not legally keep you from hacking a console before the DMCA.
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.
Also it's not like every single bit of firmware / software must be open sourced - it's could very much be trade off where devices just need to be unlocked for modification and documentation made available.
...
Planet is burning and the zillionaires have enough zillions already so I vouch for the Mando too.
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.
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 loved their camera tracking and picture frame along with their speaker quality.
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.
Most newer technology hasn't seemed better in a while. It's almost impossible to find a phone with a removable battery, or one that's easily fixable, and has a headphone jack. My galaxy S3 was all of those things. USB3 is good though.
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.
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.
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).
It's not a security problem, since they don't support it anylonger anyways!
They could even make it so, that iOS itself refuses to boot if the device is unlocked. That way you can't accidentally have an iOS running that's compromised in some way.
But you can still boot Linux or Android or whatever you want to do to it.
Access to new features is not available, and app developers may no longer support updates to their applications.
But AFAIK, Apple apps (maps, music, phone, iMessage etc) on iPhones no longer receiving iOS updates continue to work.
You won't get updates to the trusted root CAs, which means you won't be able to visit sites with certificates signed by CAs created or renewed after support is dropped. And your browser will continue trusting CAs that have had their trust revoked.
And as web standards evolve there will be websites that use features and APIs that your browser doesn't support and may break in subtle, or not so subtle ways. And there is no way for you to install a more up to date browser.
And then of course, you won't fixes for any new security vulnerabilities that are found.
So yeah, it's not as bad as getting bricked, but it as also worse than continuing to work as it always has, but with no new features.
So, at best the device can just be used with the latest version of the software Apple allows until it's a security nightmare and better off no longer used.
Instead, if Apple gave people the ability to load something (prob a Linux) onto those old devices, then those old devices could be used usefully for quite a few more years.
Did they gave instructions on how to unblock bootloaders. released the source code and drivers under an open source license?
Which does make Boses move even more impressive when you think about how it wouldn’t have affected their business to do nothing.
However, I wouldn't expect anything from Sonos at this point in time.
Sonos did revert that decision after mounting public pressure too. However they keep pull these kinds of stunts and then later apologising for it.
My point is: are you actually changing if you keep making the same mistakes and then only saying “sorry” after you get caught?
If Bose shows the same pattern of behaviour the I’d lump them into the same category as Sonos. But thus far they do seem slightly more ethical.
Personally though, I think the whole “smart speaker” industry is crooked. But some are definitely more crooked than others.
Every company that makes smart speakers is crooked? Or, the making and selling of smart speakers is inherently unethical?
Sometimes making a decent product is part of making money, but that's never a motivation in itself. We have enough examples showing that if it makes more money to enshittify (and usually it does), then they will gladly enshittify.
I wouldn't say it's just the smart speaker industry.
Not every company deserves this charity, but the social media default nowadays is to deny that charity to everyone, and to go scorched-earth.
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.
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?
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.
It was a real shitty move.
https://www.theverge.com/2012/6/5/3062611/palm-webos-hp-insi...
https://www.philmckinney.com/i-convinced-hps-board-to-buy-pa...
My impression just from that training is that WebOs was extremely mismanaged. The training was billed as a "how to write apps for WebOs" and it instead was an hour long meander by the Palm employee about how different the company culture is and how hard it became to do anything.
I had the distinct impression they didn't even know that the training was supposed to be before being assigned to do it.
I think that's indicative of everything. HP had this product that they were trying to shoehorn into the most bizarre places. At it's core it was a mobile Linux os which used html/css/JavaScript as the main user experience engine. And HP was trying to put that on printers and rack mount displays. The one place they didn't seem to care putting it was the mobile devices it was designed to target. They simply half assed the launch of a product.
Maybe?
People stuck with Bose bricks might show a preference for non-Bose replacements.
People who thought Bose speakers would stay useful longer might prefer Bose, or be willing to pay for a more expensive Bose speaker model.
(Yes, I agree that some PHB's at Bose were almost certainly imagining that their customers would be forced to re-purchase Bose speakers. I'm questioning the validity of their initial assumptions.)
Could easily be net positive.
Certainly goodwill is harder to quantify.
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.
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'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.
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.
I noticed Sonos speakers are featured in some upscale cars now, Audi for example.
Unless you want to actually develop ON the device (and build binaries etc...), this completely allows you to use the device and connect it to whatever, so I don't know what more we should expect.
No one else is doing this, so yeay applause
Evolution v. Revolution. I'd prefer the latter, but realistically the former is the more likely to succeed short of people like us getting control of regulatory bodies and forcing it.
It sounds like there are two main pieces to me:
1. Removal of cloud dependency
2. Making usable the API (and providing documentation)
With a minor 3rd piece:
3. The official app will be updated to support the "offline" mode without losing as many features as possible now that the cloud service is going away.
All very laudable things IMHO. I'm actually going to buy one of these
Sanitizing an existing documentation for public release might take notable time and effort if there are 100s of endpoints. But I would assume that is not the case with an API for a speaker.
This is making them controllable.
The headline may be inaccurate, but I'm not clear on what source code you'd even want. To the firmware do you mean?
A documented API seems like the most useful option here.
I assumed they meant the firmware, and was quite surprised they would do that...
Secondly, these devices are basically one step above embedded. It's highly unlikely you can load and run anything custom on them.
Since they are opening up the API, you can keep using them for what they were made for, which is at least a solid basic liberty
Seeing that, I expected the ability to build and run a custom firmware, like with an Android device with its bootloader unlocked. But it is not that, and they didn't open source their app either.
What they did is that they removed dependence on their servers, and opened their device to be controlled by third party apps. That is, they let users use their device past its end of life, including when the first party app will stop being maintained, but not to the point of letting user add features.
In understand why they would do that, they don't want users to backport features only available on their latest models that are sold at a premium, therefore competing against themselves. After all, the value in smart speakers is not the sound producing device, which I think is a problem that has been solved more than a decade ago at the consumer level, it is all about software features.
Why would I buy something that a vendor intends to kill off in an attempt to make me buy again?
One time I got a free Harman Kardon bluetooth speaker from Microsoft (the Invoke from 2017). They were $100* but went on sale for $50 and I snagged one.
Then Microsoft discontinued Cortana for it, but they didn't kill the speaker. They released firmware that turned it into a perfectly good bluetooth speaker (which I still use today.) And they sent me a $50 gift card* to buy something else from Microsoft. Good will! I was a big fan of Microsoft hardware. Shame about the software...
* Apparently $200 initially but they had some steep sales because Cortana as a voice assistant wasn't reviewing well. Reviews are a bit negative on the sound quality. Probably true enough at $200, but for $0-50, I think it's actually really good sound quality.
I was the engineering lead on that product, and built a SW platform from scratch for it (Microsoft provided an SDK to Cortana which they developed in parallel.)
The internal build could actually run Cortana, Alexa and Google Assistant simultaneously and you could e.g. set an alarm with one of them and query it with another, and they could interrupt each other based on priority. Obviously nobody wanted that feature, but it was hella cool that it worked. Oh, and you could make Skype calls from across the room, and the microphone array lived up to Skype's tough certification requirements which took weeks of testing in Microsoft's anechoic chamber for the DSP/algorithm team to fine tune.
I tried to push for open-sourcing the platform but it was tricky because 1) the director of engineering in Harman didn't know what open source meant and for a hardware focused business to understand the value was a hard sell, 2) it used a HW module that came with a SW stack I mostly got rid off but a few parts were remaining that would need to be replaced which would require additional resources, 3) I was burned out at that point and had limited energy left to fight the good fight. Really too bad, it could have been a cool voice agent development platform, and I honestly think it would have sold in large volumes as a developer-friendly device.
Glad you like it, sorry about the remaining Bluetooth bugs nobody got around to fix, since it basically flopped instantly.
When my kid was born, I bought a brand-new Snoo. After six months, I wanted to sell it since we no longer needed it. That's when I discovered stories of people whose used Snoos had been bricked by the company. For such an expensive product, that is such a waste. If I'd known about this beforehand, I never would have made the purchase in the first place.
https://assets.bosecreative.com/m/496577402d128874/original/...
From a quick glance it looks like you are just able to do high level playback controls, similar to what you'd do using their on-device UI. Perhaps that's enough?
Now users like me can't configure their devices (because the login is mandatory for using anything in the app). Some users report they aren't even able to use it with a VPN.
The over-reliance on closed source apps with mandatory logins for configuring devices you own must come to an end.
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.
I hope Bose continues to do this for future products and is rewarded financially for it.
Still a fantastic multi-room setup to this day... I run a server as well as a client from a Raspberry Pi.
With this, they just became the best value proposition on the used market. Flashing these with a minimal distro running snapclient (for multiroom audio) and shairport-sync (AirPlay 2) makes them infinitely better than they were on stock firmware. eBay prices are probably going to double by tomorrow morning.
Still, props to Bose for actively helping to keep their old devices usable.
> 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.
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:
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.Maybe that distinction is too arcane for general technology audiences, but I don’t really think it is?
> Bose is open-sourcing its old smart speakers
Bose, though, makes a more nuanced distinction in their announcement, which is linked to in the article
> 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.
Bose never claims they're making the speakers open-source, it's lazy reporting by The Verge. They're just making it a little easier for the community to build stuff if they want.
While actually releasing the source code for the speakers would be best, there might be some legitimate business concerns. To me this is a step in the right direction, and their official announcement accurately represented that.
( 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.
But it was not libre, they held the copyright to the source code. So to get around this, competing companies wrote a spec from the source code and then had another team which never saw the code implement a new BIOS from the spec.
Reality: users are still getting a feature cut with an update.
[1]https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2026/01/bose-open-sources-it...
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...
Sometimes companies fuck up, what's really refreshing is to see a company backpedal on a shit choice, and decide to do better. Nicely done Bose!
https://github.com/captivus/bose-soundtouch
This library provides a clean, Pythonic interface to control SoundTouch speakers over your local network, ensuring your speakers remain fully functional even after cloud services end.
Lyrion Music Server (LMS) is a streaming audio server supported by the LMS community and formerly supported by Logitech, developed in particular to support their Squeezebox [discontinued in 2012] range of digital audio receivers.. [LMS] also works with networked music players, such as the Roku SoundBridge M1001, Chumby, O2 Joggler, RPi and the SqueezeAMP open source hardware player.Is that a word? Seems interesting but never read it before.
I think I bought one of these ten years ago.
My parents' sound system is from the mid 90s
I've loved their product and support ever since. Glad to see this happening as well. Kudos.
Has anyone found or started related github repos?
* 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.
Shame on you, Google. You disabled my Nest thermostat and Nest Secure alarm — I will never buy your products again.
> 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: SoundTouch API Documentation (https://assets.bosecreative.com/m/496577402d128874/original/...).
AFAIK, the soundtouch web API was already accessible via some bose developer portal. It doesn't seem like they are open sourcing anything. This API just allows you to make basic requests to do things like change volume on the speaker.
To support the smart features of the SoundTouch speakers, we would the soundtouch user management service. Speakers connect to this very frequently and its where refresh tokens for music services and presets are stored. The speaker firmware itself has lots of source code, including the bit to handle music services and playback. There is an abstraction layer for music service APIs. There is a process on the speaker that reaches out to a music service registry, which is an index of bose music service adapters. Each of these adapters essentially proxies a music service like tunein, spotify, and even the "stream a custom station" feature.
If bose open-sourced the speaker firmware, we could make a firmware build which talks to a 3rd party user management service, and reaches out to a 3rd party music service registry. Then we could add and maintain music service playback for the community. But there is no open sourcing of any actual code here and this soundtouch web api cannot change the URLs on the existing firmware of the user management service or the music service registry.
So to my eye this story seems misleading and just some PR nonsense. It's a little frustrating reading all of the "great job, Bose!" comments here like anything was actually done... Disclaimer: I used to work at Bose.
In fact, given the full-throated open source nature of that platform (you can even build your own player with a raspberry pi[1]), I doubt I'll ever need to use anything else for the rest of my life for playing music in my home, even as my devices die and need replacement over time.
... which does make me wonder: that's great for me, but I can definitely see it as a deterrent for companies to do similar. If they want to make a competing future product, they'll be competing against an open-sourced version of their past selves, too.
https://www.bose.com/soundtouch-end-of-life
SoundTouch API Documentation (pdf) linked from the announcement:
https://assets.bosecreative.com/m/496577402d128874/original/...
Now will need to fiddle with your phone to connect with bluetooth or something.
Has anyone read the API documentation EULA and can comment on if it really meets some recognizable standard for "open source?"
I don't understand why so many comments here are negative. This is a nice move, and Bose should be thanked and encouraged to do similar moves again. It's a step in the right direction!
What usually gets missed is that end-of-life is still part of the project, even if it sits years downstream. When software support is withdrawn without a transition path, the hardware doesn’t just lose features — it loses trust. That’s not a technical failure, it’s a lifecycle planning failure.
Open-sourcing at sunset is interesting because it’s one of the few mechanisms that acknowledges this gap. It doesn’t help most users directly, but it at least hands control back instead of silently bricking capability.
I’m curious whether we’ll start seeing project managers and product teams treat “exit conditions” as a first-class deliverable — with explicit decisions about data, firmware, APIs, and ownership once commercial support ends — rather than treating end-of-life as someone else’s problem.
- Python: https://github.com/captivus/bose-soundtouch - TypeScript: https://github.com/cssinate/bose-soundtouch
Maybe in an era where software can be carefully engineered to a point of actual completion it will make sense, but for now it’s mostly stupid.
Open sourcing potential ongoing support and tinkering is good, but it doesn’t get the core problem that it wad probably never the right thing to put the smarts in the speakers in the first place.
Bose official announcement https://www.bose.com/soundtouch-end-of-life
I'll admit, I don't want or use 'smart' anything, and am currently trying to disable smart devices that were already present in my home from the previous owner.
Being able to say “play this stream in room 1,3,6 and this in room 4 and nothing in room 2,5,7” is a valuable feature for people who don’t live alone in a studio flat.
The trends decide the standard. Many EVs use 18650 but I can see that for competition and weight reduction they may switch to a more proprietary standard like blade batteries in BYD for competition. It all depends on where the competition is going with it.
For earwear, I would say that portability and weight is a big area for competition.
I assumed it was probably discarded due to the frequent situation here, of student who is moving away, and who doesn't want the hassle or expense of moving things that don't fit in their luggage.
Now I wonder whether it was discarded because the owner heard it was being bricked, so not worth moving with them.
(Don't worry, I'm a curb Jawa master. I carried it home, realized it was IoT that required an icky closed app thing to use it, and so gave it to an MIT student. I just emailed them the URL of this good news. Possible bummer for the previous owner, though.)
MSFT_Edging•19h ago