Bose Open-Sources SoundTouch Speakers: A Better Way to Kill Products [2025]

How Bose Is Teaching the Tech Industry a Better Way to Kill Its Products

When Bose announced in October that its SoundTouch Wi-Fi speakers and soundbars would lose cloud connectivity and app functionality on February 18, 2026, it wasn't subtle about what was happening. These devices, some costing between

For a lot of people, this was infuriating. Users who'd invested in these systems had every right to be angry. Their hardware still worked. The speakers still produced sound. The problem wasn't mechanical failure or outdated audio quality. The problem was business logic.

But then something unexpected happened. Instead of simply cutting off the devices and moving customers toward newer, pricier alternatives, Bose did something remarkably different. In a follow-up announcement that came with a silver lining, the company released the full API documentation for SoundTouch speakers to the public, inviting independent developers to build their own tools and features around the platform.

It's a small gesture in the grand scheme of corporate strategy. It's also the best thing a hardware company has done in response to product obsolescence in years.

This isn't about Bose winning a corporate ethics award. It's about recognizing a pattern that's become increasingly common across the tech industry—and understanding why open-sourcing might actually be the compromise we need while we wait for the real solution.

Let's dig into what Bose actually did, why it matters, and what it tells us about the future of smart home devices.

The Problem: How Companies Kill Working Hardware

Smart devices exist in an interesting legal and ethical gray area. When you buy a speaker for $500, you're not just buying the physical hardware. You're buying access to an entire ecosystem: cloud servers, music service integrations, security patches, and ongoing support.

The problem emerges when a company decides that supporting legacy hardware is no longer profitable.

This happens for legitimate technical reasons sometimes. Supporting old devices alongside new ones can introduce security vulnerabilities. It can create compatibility headaches when integrating with third-party services. It requires maintaining older code, paying for server infrastructure, and staffing a team to handle support tickets.

But it also happens for less sympathetic reasons. A company wants to push customers toward newer, more expensive models. A company gets acquired and decides legacy products don't fit the new roadmap. A company files for bankruptcy or pivots entirely. Revenue projections show that supporting old devices pulls resources away from products that generate more profit.

Regardless of the reason, the outcome is the same: a device that works perfectly fine gets slowly strangled. The cloud services it depends on shut down. The app becomes incompatible with newer phones. Security updates stop coming. Users are left with a choice: accept a dramatically reduced feature set or buy a new device.

It's e-waste that didn't have to happen.

The Scale of the Problem

Bose isn't unique here. This is becoming the standard operating procedure across consumer electronics.

Amazon discontinues Alexa-dependent smart home devices regularly. Google shuttered support for first-generation Nest devices, leaving users with limited functionality. Sonos bricked older speakers when it killed legacy support in 2019 (an announcement that backfired so badly the company partially reversed course). Philips Hue has faced criticism for forcing users onto newer ecosystem versions with deprecated features.

Even Apple, which prides itself on support longevity, eventually cuts off older devices. Older AirPods stop receiving firmware updates. HomePod mini eventually becomes incompatible with future Apple platforms.

The scale matters here. This isn't affecting a handful of niche products. This is affecting millions of households with devices they invested serious money into.

Why Companies Actually Do This

It's easy to frame this as pure greed. But the reality is more nuanced, even if the outcome is equally frustrating.

Server infrastructure costs real money. A company operating cloud services for millions of legacy devices has to pay for bandwidth, storage, compute resources, and security monitoring. Even if those costs are declining yearly due to Moore's Law, they're not zero.

Second, older protocols and APIs create security risk surfaces. If Bose had to keep supporting SoundTouch's original architecture alongside newer devices, every new vulnerability discovered in the old system would require remediation, testing, and deployment. That's engineering time that could go toward new products.

Third—and this is the business reality nobody wants to admit—discontinuing old products creates demand for new ones. If your SoundTouch system keeps working perfectly forever, you never have an incentive to buy SoundTouch 2.0. From a purely shareholder perspective, planned obsolescence is a feature, not a bug.

The frustrating part? Most of this is legally defensible. You don't own the cloud services. You own the hardware, but the software that makes it smart is leased. It's a licensing agreement, not a purchase. The company has every legal right to revoke access whenever they want.

Which brings us to why Bose's approach is noteworthy.

Estimated data shows server maintenance and security monitoring as the largest costs in supporting legacy devices. These costs contribute significantly to the decision to discontinue support.

What Bose Actually Did: Open-Source as Compromise

Instead of simply killing SoundTouch, Bose took several steps that matter:

First, it announced that AirPlay and Spotify Connect would continue working after the February deadline. This was significant because it meant users could still stream music wirelessly from their phones and computers, even without the Bose app. The cloud connectivity would disappear, but core functionality remained.

Second, Bose committed to updating the SoundTouch app one final time on May 6, 2026. Instead of killing it entirely, the updated app would retain the functions that work locally without needing the cloud. You'd still be able to control basic playback, adjust volume, and switch between connected Bluetooth and AUX devices.

Third—and this is the critical part—Bose released the SoundTouch API documentation to the public.

This last move is where the story becomes interesting. By open-sourcing the API, Bose essentially said: "We're not going to maintain this forever, but we're also not going to lock down the technology. If developers want to build tools around it, they can."

What does this actually mean in practice?

What Open-Sourcing the API Actually Enables

When a company releases API documentation, it removes the barrier between users and the device. Instead of being dependent on Bose's infrastructure and decisions, developers can now create alternative control systems.

Someone could build a third-party app that controls SoundTouch speakers using the same commands the official app used. Another developer could create a script that manages multi-room audio. A hobbyist could integrate SoundTouch into a custom home automation system using the published protocols.

This matters because it transforms a dead device into a salvageable one. You can't make it smart in new ways—the hardware limitations are what they are. But you can make it continue being useful within its existing capabilities.

Historically, companies avoided doing this. The concern was always the same: if we open-source the API, someone might hack it. Someone might use it for something controversial. The company's reputation could get tangled up with a malicious implementation.

Bose apparently decided this risk was acceptable.

Why This Matters More Than It Seems

On its surface, releasing API documentation isn't revolutionary. It's a relatively low-cost move for Bose. The company isn't continuing to support the product. It's not extending the lifespan of cloud infrastructure. It's essentially saying, "We're done. Here's the keys. Good luck."

But it matters because it represents a different philosophy about what happens when you discontinue a product.

Without the open API, the device becomes e-waste. It's a

With the open API, the device becomes a platform. It has potential for continued use even after the manufacturer walks away. Maybe it's not optimal. Maybe it's not as convenient as the original experience. But it's not dead. It's salvageable.

For a company that could have just killed the product entirely and forced customers to buy replacements, this is a meaningful difference.

Incentive for upgrades is the most significant reason companies discontinue support, followed by server costs and technical complexity.

The Broader Context: E-Waste and Sustainability

Why should we care about one speaker line continuing to function? Because it's part of a bigger problem that's getting worse every year.

The United Nations estimates that the world generates between 57 and 62 million tons of electronic waste annually. That's roughly equivalent to 350 ships full of waste leaving port every single day. Only about 20% of it gets properly recycled. The rest ends up in landfills, incinerators, or informal recycling operations where workers are exposed to toxic materials and the environmental damage multiplies.

SoundTouch speakers are a drop in that ocean. But they're a visible, tangible example of a pattern.

Each year, consumers buy billions of smart devices: speakers, displays, security cameras, thermostats, doorbells. The hardware itself is designed to last 5-10 years minimum. The components—the physical speaker drivers, the microprocessors, the power supplies—could often work for two decades without degradation.

But the software layer that makes them "smart" has a much shorter lifespan. Companies decide they want to focus on new platforms. They get acquired and the legacy products don't fit the vision. They calculate that the cost of supporting old devices exceeds the revenue they generate.

So the hardware becomes orphaned. It still works. But it doesn't work with the modern app ecosystem. It can't talk to the new smart home platform. It's incompatible with the latest integrations.

What Open-Sourcing Addresses (And Doesn't)

Let's be clear about what open-sourcing the API does and doesn't solve.

It doesn't solve everything. The hardware still has physical limitations. You're not going to get better sound quality from a deprecated SoundTouch speaker than from a newer device. The processor is still the processor. The speaker drivers are still the drivers. You can't upgrade the hardware itself.

It also doesn't guarantee that developers will actually build alternatives. Open-sourcing an API is meaningless if nobody uses it. There's a reason most open-source APIs end up with minimal adoption. Developers are busy. The audience is small. The incentive structure doesn't reward building for legacy hardware when there's more money and more users in building for new platforms.

But what open-sourcing does do is remove the legal and technical barrier to keeping the device useful. If you're willing to do some tinkering—if you're technically skilled enough to build a script or work with a third-party app—you can continue using hardware that the manufacturer has abandoned.

It's not a perfect solution. But it's infinitely better than the alternative.

Comparing Bose's Approach to Industry Standards

To understand why Bose's decision matters, it helps to look at what other companies have done when facing similar situations.

Sonos: The Cautionary Tale

In 2019, Sonos announced that it would be discontinuing support for speakers from 2007-2009. The company was blunt about it: old devices would continue to work as standalone speakers, but they'd lose access to cloud services and multi-room functionality.

The backlash was immediate and intense. Customers felt betrayed. These were expensive speakers. People had built entire home audio systems around Sonos products. The company's response? Essentially, "Upgrade or accept reduced functionality."

Sonos briefly offered a

Fast forward to 2023, and Sonos finally announced a partial reversal. Older speakers would regain access to a limited set of services. The damage to the company's reputation, though, was done. Customers learned that Sonos didn't value loyalty or longevity. That lesson stuck.

Bose's approach—open-source the API, keep partial functionality, give developers a chance to build alternatives—is what Sonos should have done in 2019.

Google's Approach: Quiet Discontinuation

Google has handled product discontinuation differently. When first-generation Nest cameras stopped being supported, the company was less public about it. There was no announcement letter. No clear explanation of what would stop working. Instead, features gradually degraded, and users figured out the device was deprecated when new functionality didn't work anymore.

It's arguably worse than Bose's approach because there's no transparency. Users don't know when to expect problems. There's no documentation of what's being killed and why.

Google also hasn't open-sourced any of its smart home APIs for deprecated products. If you have an older Nest device, you're stuck. The device becomes a brick. There's no developer community that can build alternatives because the API is locked down.

Apple's Path: Long Support, Then a Cliff

Apple takes a different approach altogether. The company supports products for longer than most—often 5-7 years of major OS updates, and longer for basic functionality.

But when Apple decides a product is done, it's done. HomePod mini devices, for example, stop receiving updates once they hit the end of their support window. AirPods eventually become incompatible with new iOS versions. There's no open-source API. There's no community-driven alternative. You either stay on the last supported OS version, or you buy new hardware.

Apple gets away with this partly because users expect it. The company's brand loyalty is strong enough that discontinuation feels like a reasonable transition path. You're not shocked when an iPhone becomes unsupported after 5 years. It's baked into Apple's messaging.

But that's only possible because Apple users often have the disposable income to upgrade regularly. For Bose customers who bought a speaker as an investment in their home theater system, discontinuation feels arbitrary and aggressive.

Amazon: The Wild Card

Amazon has been quietly discontinuing Alexa-dependent devices for years. The company doesn't broadcast it loudly. Devices just gradually stop working as newer API versions roll out and the company stops maintaining backward compatibility.

Because Amazon's smart home ecosystem is fragmented across hundreds of manufacturers (anybody can build an Alexa-compatible device), discontinuation is messier and less visible. You might have a third-party Echo-compatible speaker that stops working because the company that made it went out of business, and Amazon doesn't feel responsible.

It's the least transparent approach, and arguably the most frustrating for users.

Profit motives are estimated to be the most common reason for discontinuing support of smart devices, followed by technical challenges. (Estimated data)

The Economic Reality: Why Companies Discontinue Support

It's easy to call companies greedy and move on. But understanding the economic incentives reveals why this is such a persistent problem.

The Infrastructure Cost Problem

Running cloud services for millions of devices is expensive. A single request to a server costs money in compute resources. Multiply that by millions of daily requests across legacy devices, and the costs add up.

For a company like Bose, every SoundTouch speaker still in use is a device that's eating into infrastructure budgets. The company has to:

• Maintain servers that handle requests from these devices
• Monitor those servers for security vulnerabilities
• Deploy security patches when new threats emerge
• Keep the database of user preferences, playlists, and presets
• Handle customer support for issues related to cloud connectivity

All of this costs money. And as the user base for legacy devices shrinks (people naturally upgrade over time), the cost per device increases. Eventually, the economics don't make sense anymore.

A more cynical view is that Bose could continue supporting SoundTouch speakers indefinitely at minimal cost. The infrastructure is paid for. The code is written. Incremental support is cheap relative to generating new revenue.

But shareholder pressure pushes toward cutting costs and driving new sales. So discontinuation happens.

The Fragmentation Problem

There's also a genuine technical challenge to supporting legacy devices alongside new ones.

When Bose designed SoundTouch speakers in 2013, they used certain protocols, APIs, and integrations that made sense at the time. The speaker might connect to Pandora. It might use a proprietary Bose authentication system. It might rely on firmware versions that are now considered security risks.

Now it's 2026, and Bose wants to integrate new services. Maybe they want to add support for lossless audio streaming (which requires different APIs). Maybe they want to add AI voice control (which requires newer processors and different firmware structures). Maybe they want to integrate with new music services that didn't exist in 2013.

Supporting all of this alongside devices that literally can't support it due to hardware limitations creates a mess. You're maintaining two different code bases. You're testing new features against both architectures. You're dealing with integration partners who only want to support the latest version.

It's genuinely more complex to support legacy devices alongside new ones. That doesn't excuse discontinuation, but it does explain why companies resist it.

The Market Pressure Problem

Here's the uncomfortable part: continued support for old products actually depresses sales of new products.

If your SoundTouch system keeps working perfectly forever, you have no reason to buy SoundTouch 2.0. From an economic perspective, you're a customer who made a purchase and then gave no additional revenue to the company for the next decade.

But if you're forced to upgrade because the old product becomes obsolete, now you're a repeat customer. You're a revenue stream. You're a justification for the company's growth targets.

This is the core tension at the heart of product discontinuation. Shareholders want growth. Customers want longevity. These goals are fundamentally at odds in a capitalist system.

Companies could choose to prioritize longevity. They could commit to 10-year support cycles. They could open-source their products when discontinuation comes. But that would mean accepting slower growth rates and accepting that some customers will make a single large purchase and never buy again.

Most companies—and most shareholders—aren't willing to make that trade-off.

What Open-Sourcing Actually Solves (And Doesn't)

Let's dig into the practical reality of what Bose's open-sourcing decision actually accomplishes.

What It Does Enable

By releasing the API documentation, Bose removes the legal barrier to third-party development. In theory, this means:

Alternative Control Interfaces: Developers can build new apps that control SoundTouch speakers using the open API. These don't have to be as pretty or feature-rich as Bose's official app, but they would exist. A developer could build a web-based control panel. Another could build a command-line tool. A third could integrate SoundTouch into Home Assistant, Hubitat, or other open-source home automation platforms.

Extended Integration: Developers could build bridges between SoundTouch speakers and other systems. Want your speaker to react to events in your automation system? A developer could create that integration. Want to control your speaker via your smart thermostat? Same principle applies.

Preservation: The open API means the technology is documented and preserved. Even if every Bose server shuts down tomorrow, the API specification still exists. Future developers could theoretically build compatible systems that don't require Bose's infrastructure at all.

Hacking and Customization: With the API published, enthusiasts can tinker. Maybe someone discovers a way to improve the audio processing. Maybe someone builds a custom firmware that enables new features. The ceiling is removed from what's possible.

Historically, none of this was possible. Without the API, reverse-engineering the protocol was technically possible but legally questionable. Publishing the API gives it a green light.

What It Doesn't Enable

But let's also be realistic about the limitations.

No Magical Longevity: Open-sourcing the API doesn't make the speaker younger or more powerful. The hardware is still the hardware. A 2013-era processor running a 2013-era audio codec will always have 2013-era performance characteristics. You're not going to get high-resolution audio streaming on ancient hardware.

Ecosystem Dependency: The open API assumes you're comfortable building or adopting third-party tools. If you want something that "just works," the open API doesn't help you. You need developers to actually build the tools. And you need to be willing to use non-official software.

No Service Restoration: The API enables local control, but it doesn't restore cloud-based features. You can't get back your saved presets that were stored on Bose's servers (unless the API includes a way to export them, which is unclear). You can't get back features that relied on cloud processing or third-party service integrations.

Developer Adoption Uncertainty: Releasing an API doesn't guarantee developers will use it. The SoundTouch user base is no longer growing. There's no money in building tools for legacy devices. Will anyone actually create the alternative apps? Maybe. Maybe not. The developer community for abandoned hardware is typically small.

Still E-Waste Eventually: Even with the open API, these speakers will eventually become e-waste. The physical hardware degrades. The electrolytic capacitors dry out. The speaker cones decay. Open-sourcing buys time, but it doesn't solve the fundamental problem.

Estimated data suggests a gradual increase in open-sourcing practices due to regulatory and public pressure. By 2031, it's projected that 50% of companies may adopt open-sourcing upon product discontinuation.

The Open-Source Smart Home Movement

Bose's decision exists in the context of a larger movement: open-source smart home platforms that are designed to never become obsolete.

Platforms Like Home Assistant and Hubitat

Instead of relying on a single manufacturer's cloud infrastructure, open-source smart home platforms like Home Assistant and Hubitat Elevation give you control over the entire system.

With Home Assistant, you download the software, run it on your own hardware (a Raspberry Pi, a small server, whatever), and then connect all your smart devices to that hub. The system doesn't depend on any company's cloud services. If Bose discontinues SoundTouch, you can still control it through Home Assistant using the open API.

The advantage is profound: you own your smart home. No company can discontinue it. No manufacturer can brick your devices. As long as you maintain the server running Home Assistant, your devices keep working.

The disadvantage is equally real: you have to run and maintain the server yourself. You need technical skills. You need to understand networking, security, and basic sysadmin work. It's not "plug and play."

Why This Matters for SoundTouch

If Bose had open-sourced the SoundTouch API five years ago, the smart home community would have already built Home Assistant integrations. Users would have already migrated to an open ecosystem. The discontinuation announcement wouldn't have been nearly as painful because customers would have already built their smart home around open-source platforms.

Instead, Bose waited until the discontinuation was imminent to open-source the API. It's better than nothing, but it's reactive rather than proactive.

That's the broader lesson here. If tech companies want to avoid this problem entirely, they should embrace open standards and open-source integrations from day one. Instead of building proprietary ecosystems that lock customers in, they should build bridges to open platforms.

Some companies are getting this right. Philips Hue supports both its proprietary ecosystem and integration with open platforms like Home Assistant. LIFX (a rival smart bulb manufacturer) has leaned harder into open support.

But most companies—especially the ones with large installed bases they want to protect—resist this approach.

What Should Happen: A Better Framework

Ideal world? Bose would never have discontinued SoundTouch support in the first place. The company would commit to 10-15 year support cycles. It would continue maintaining cloud services indefinitely for devices that still work.

But we don't live in that world. Shareholders demand growth. Companies demand quarterly revenue increases. The economics of legacy support don't work in a capitalist framework.

So what's the pragmatic alternative?

Mandatory Open-Source Before Discontinuation

One solution would be regulatory. Companies could be required by law to open-source the APIs and firmware of discontinued products. This would be a condition of selling smart devices in certain jurisdictions.

The EU is actually moving in this direction. Right-to-repair regulations are getting stronger. The proposed Digital Products Act would require companies to provide spare parts and security updates for longer periods.

It's not hard to imagine a future law that says: "If you discontinue support for a smart device, you must release the API documentation and firmware source code within 90 days."

This wouldn't be unprecedented. France passed a law in 2020 requiring that software updates be provided for a "reasonable" period. Other EU countries are following suit.

The problem is that no country has actually mandated open-sourcing of discontinued products yet. So Bose's decision to do it voluntarily is noteworthy not because it's common, but because it's rare.

Industry Standards and Self-Regulation

In the absence of regulation, could the industry self-regulate?

Probably not. The incentive structure doesn't reward longevity. A company that commits to long support cycles looks like a company that's less focused on innovation and growth. Its stock price would suffer. Its shareholders would revolt.

What could work is an industry standard that becomes a selling point. Imagine a certification that says: "This smart home device comes with a 10-year support commitment. At discontinuation, the company will open-source the API."

If enough companies adopted this standard, it could become a competitive advantage. Consumers would prefer devices from manufacturers that commit to longevity. The market would reward responsibility.

But this requires collective action, and collective action is hard without regulatory enforcement.

Better Default Architecture

The real solution is architectural rather than regulatory. Smart devices shouldn't depend on cloud services for basic functionality.

A speaker should work over Wi-Fi without needing to talk to a company's servers. It should respond to commands from your phone via local network. Advanced features—recommendations, analysis, integration with online services—can depend on cloud connectivity. But core functionality should work locally.

This is actually possible with modern hardware. A smart speaker doesn't need to send your voice to a distant server to control your music. Local processing is becoming cheaper and faster.

Companies resist this because cloud dependency creates vendor lock-in. If your speaker depends on Bose's cloud services, you're stuck with Bose. But if your speaker can operate independently, you're free to switch.

The future of smart homes probably looks like a mix of both: local-first devices that work without the internet, with optional cloud integration for advanced features. That architecture would make discontinuation far less painful. Even if Bose stopped supporting SoundTouch, the speakers would keep working locally.

The current average support duration for smart devices is around 3 years. Proposed EU regulations aim for approximately 7 years, while an ideal scenario suggests 15 years of support. Estimated data based on industry trends.

The Customer Perspective: What Users Actually Want

All of this policy and architecture discussion is interesting, but what do users actually want?

The answer is simpler than you'd think: they want products that keep working.

When someone buys a $500 speaker, they're not thinking about software discontinuation. They're not considering the economic challenges of supporting legacy hardware. They're thinking: "This speaker will work in my house for as long as I want it to work."

It's a reasonable expectation. A car doesn't stop working because the manufacturer stopped making that model. An air conditioner doesn't become a brick because the company invented a new model. A dishwasher doesn't lose functionality because the manufacturer wants you to buy a new one.

But smart devices are different. The software layer adds a layer of abstraction that makes discontinuation possible without the device actually failing.

Users resent this. And they should.

What users want is one of the following:

1. Permanent Support: The manufacturer commits to supporting the device for as long as it's physically functional. Security updates continue. Cloud services remain available. New features might not come, but nothing is taken away.

2. Open-Source at Discontinuation: When the manufacturer decides to stop supporting the device, they open-source the API, firmware, and any other proprietary components. Users can maintain the device themselves or adopt community-built alternatives.

3. Local-First Design: Devices work fine without cloud services. Cloud is optional enhancement, not a requirement. Discontinuation doesn't break the device because the device never depended on ongoing manufacturer support.

4. Transparent Timelines: If discontinuation is inevitable, the company tells you upfront. "This device has a 5-year support guarantee" is better than surprise discontinuation. Users can plan accordingly.

Bose did #2 partially (open-source API but not firmware). It did #4 moderately (announced discontinuation, but only after the device was already old). It didn't do #1 or #3.

It's not perfect. But it's more than most companies do.

Looking Forward: Will This Become the Standard?

The real question isn't whether Bose did the right thing. It's whether other companies will follow.

There are some reasons to be optimistic.

Regulatory pressure is increasing. The EU is serious about right-to-repair. Japan is considering similar legislation. Even in the US, there's growing momentum for laws that would require manufacturers to support products or face penalties.

Public pressure matters too. Bose's decision to open-source SoundTouch will be noted by customers evaluating other manufacturers. A company that commits to open-sourcing at discontinuation has a marketing angle. "We're committed to not bricking your devices."

The open-source smart home movement is growing. Home Assistant now has millions of users. Homeowners are increasingly aware that they can build smart homes that don't depend on any single manufacturer. This creates competitive pressure for manufacturers to offer better integrations and more transparent support timelines.

But there are also reasons to be pessimistic.

Most companies still treat product discontinuation as an opportunity to drive upgrades. The economics incentivize it. The regulatory environment in most places permits it. There's no legal requirement for companies to open-source their products when they discontinue support.

Bose's decision is remarkable precisely because it's rare. If it were common, it wouldn't be noteworthy.

So the more realistic prediction is that open-sourcing will become gradually more common as a response to regulatory pressure and public criticism. But it won't be the standard practice for years.

Meanwhile, customers should operate under the assumption that any smart device could become unsupported tomorrow. Buy accordingly. Avoid vendor lock-in. Prefer devices that work locally. And support companies that commit to longevity.

Bose's SoundTouch decision is a step in the right direction. But it's a step, not the destination. The destination would be a world where devices don't need to be discontinued in the first place.

Estimated data shows a decline in functionality due to software obsolescence, not hardware failure, with a complete loss by 2026.

The Broader Implications: Right to Repair and Right to Own

Bose's open-sourcing decision touches on a larger movement: the right to own what you buy and repair what you own.

Right to Repair

The right to repair movement argues that when you buy something—a phone, a laptop, a car, a speaker—you should be able to fix it without manufacturer permission.

Apple has fought this hard. The company uses proprietary screws, proprietary parts, and legal threats to prevent third-party repairs. When a right to repair law passed in New York (requiring Apple to provide repair manuals and parts), the company opposed it fiercely.

But the movement is growing. Farmers are jailbreaking tractors to repair them. Consumers are fighting for the right to repair smartphones. The EU has mandated right to repair for certain products.

Open-sourcing software is related but different. You can't really "repair" software the way you repair hardware. But you can modify it. You can maintain it. You can prevent it from becoming obsolete.

Bose's decision to open-source SoundTouch is consistent with right to repair philosophy: giving customers the ability to maintain products themselves.

Right to Own

There's also an emerging principle: right to own. When you buy something, you own it. Full stop. Not "license it." Not "get temporary access to." Own it.

This is increasingly at odds with modern software business models. Most people don't own their software anymore. They license it. You can't resell your Spotify account. You can't give your Netflix subscription to someone else. You can't modify your iPhone's operating system.

Companies prefer this because it creates recurring revenue and prevents secondary markets. But it creates problems when discontinuation happens.

If you actually owned SoundTouch's software, the company couldn't discontinue it. They could stop developing new features, but they couldn't take away what you already had.

This is a broader economic and legal battle that extends far beyond Bose and smart speakers. It's about whether software and digital products are truly owned or merely licensed.

Bose's open-sourcing decision is a small compromise in this larger war. Instead of insisting that you don't own the software (and therefore they can discontinue it), Bose said: "Okay, you can have the source code. Now you can maintain it yourself."

It's not the same as actual ownership. But it's closer than the alternatives.

Practical Guide: What SoundTouch Owners Should Actually Do

If you own SoundTouch speakers, what's your actual strategy here?

First, understand the timeline. Official cloud support ends February 18, 2026. The app gets updated to local-only mode on May 6, 2026. You have roughly a year to figure out what you're doing.

Second, understand what keeps working. AirPlay and Spotify Connect will continue working indefinitely. If you're using these streaming methods, you barely notice a difference. You can still stream music from your iPhone over AirPlay. Spotify will still work on the speaker directly.

The functionality you lose is cloud-dependent features: the Bose app control, multi-room coordination through Bose's system, integration with other services through the Bose ecosystem.

Your options:

Option 1: Accept Reduced Functionality If you use the speaker primarily as an AirPlay or Spotify Connect device, the discontinuation barely affects you. You keep using the speaker exactly as you have been. The UI changes (you use Spotify's app instead of Bose's app), but functionality remains.

Option 2: Wait for Developer Tools Wait 6-12 months after May 2026 to see if the open-source community creates replacement tools. If the Home Assistant community builds a SoundTouch integration that lets you control the speaker via your home automation system, that extends functionality significantly. But this is speculative. It might not happen.

Option 3: Migrate to Open Platforms Start using a platform like Home Assistant now. Connect your SoundTouch speaker to it (if possible). When cloud support ends, your speaker continues working through the open platform. The speaker becomes a dumb player, but a dumb player you can control.

Option 4: Replace the Speaker If losing cloud functionality is unacceptable, and you don't want to tinker with open-source alternatives, the straightforward solution is to buy a new speaker. There are better options in the market now anyway (Sonos has improved since their discontinuation controversy, Apple's HomePod has new models, Amazon Alexa devices are now more mature).

Which option is "right" depends on your technical skills, your tolerance for tinkering, and how much you value the speaker itself. A

Bose's job was to give you options. That's what open-sourcing the API does. Now the choice is yours.

The Bigger Picture: Where Smart Home Devices Are Heading

Bose's SoundTouch discontinuation and open-sourcing decision is a moment in a larger arc. Where is smart home technology heading?

Fragmentation Is Increasing

There used to be hope for unified smart home standards. Everyone would use Z-Wave. Everyone would use Zigbee. There would be one central protocol that all devices followed.

That hasn't happened. Instead, the market is fragmenting. You have Amazon Alexa devices, Google Home devices, Apple HomeKit devices, Samsung SmartThings devices, plus proprietary systems like Sonos and Philips Hue.

Each ecosystem is trying to lock you in. Buy an Amazon Echo, and suddenly all your smart home is Amazon devices. Buy Philips Hue, and you're partially locked into Philips.

This fragmentation actually makes open platforms like Home Assistant more valuable. Instead of choosing a manufacturer and committing to their ecosystem, you choose an open platform and then buy devices from whoever makes the best hardware.

But fragmentation also accelerates discontinuation. Each company wants to migrate users to their newest platform. Keeping old ecosystems alive slows that migration.

Local Processing Is Becoming Feasible

For years, smart device manufacturers claimed they needed cloud processing. Your voice needs to go to the internet to be processed. Your video needs to go to servers for analysis.

That was partially true. Processing power was expensive and limited.

But it's increasingly not true. Modern processors are fast enough to do voice processing locally. Video analysis can happen on-device. You don't need the cloud for core functionality.

Companies have been reluctant to adopt this because cloud dependency is strategically valuable. It locks users in. It creates data collection opportunities. It enables discontinuation.

But privacy concerns and reliability concerns are pushing toward local processing. A smart speaker that works without internet is more valuable to users than one that depends on constant cloud connectivity.

Long-term, expect more devices designed for local-first operation, with cloud as an optional feature.

Open Ecosystems Will Compete

As long as companies keep discontinuing products, open ecosystems like Home Assistant will keep growing. Users are voting with their wallets: they prefer platforms they can control.

This creates a long-term competitive pressure. Companies that open-source their devices, commit to long support, and integrate with open standards will develop brand loyalty. Companies that discontinue products and brick devices will face customer backlash.

Bose's decision to open-source SoundTouch is a signal that the company understands this pressure. If other manufacturers don't follow, they risk losing customers to competitors who do.

Lessons for Consumers: How to Avoid This Problem

Since we can't change how manufacturers behave (not yet, anyway), what can you do as a consumer?

Buy with Skepticism

Don't assume a smart device will be supported forever. Assume it will be discontinued at some point. Buy with that in mind.

This means:

• Prefer devices that work locally without requiring cloud services
• Choose manufacturers with good track records on support (check their history)
• Avoid expensive proprietary ecosystems where the manufacturer is the only vendor
• Look for devices that integrate with open standards (Matter, for example)

Prefer Open Standards

When you have a choice between a device that uses proprietary protocols and one that uses open standards, choose the open one. This gives you future flexibility.

Matter is an emerging open standard for smart home devices. It's backed by Apple, Google, Amazon, and others (though adoption is still incomplete). Devices that support Matter are less likely to become fully useless if the manufacturer discontinues support.

Plan for Redundancy

Don't build a smart home that depends entirely on one manufacturer or one ecosystem. Have backups. If you use Alexa as your primary hub, also have a HomePod mini or a Hubitat Elevation as a backup.

If one ecosystem gets discontinued, you can migrate to the other.

Stay Involved in Open Source

If you care about device longevity, support the projects working on it. Home Assistant is free, but it relies on community volunteers and donations. Contributing time or money to these projects directly extends the lifespan of thousands of devices.

Vote With Your Wallet

When companies do the right thing (like Bose open-sourcing SoundTouch), reward them with your purchases and your word-of-mouth recommendations.

When companies do the wrong thing (discontinuing products without open-sourcing), avoid them. Tell your friends about your experience. Write reviews explaining why you're switching.

Manufacturers respond to market signals. If it becomes clear that discontinuation without open-sourcing hurts your bottom line, companies will change their behavior.

Lessons for Manufacturers: A Better Path Forward

To Bose and every other smart device manufacturer: you don't have to do this the hard way.

You don't have to wait until you're about to discontinue a product to open-source it. You could open-source from day one. You could build products designed to be maintained by the community after you stop actively developing them.

You could commit to 10-year support cycles for hardware. You could guarantee that even if you stop developing new features, you'll continue patching security vulnerabilities.

You could design devices to work locally first, with cloud as an optional enhancement.

You could integrate with open standards like Matter instead of building proprietary ecosystems.

Would you make less money in the short term? Probably. Would you have to explain to shareholders why you're prioritizing customer loyalty over quarterly revenue growth? Yes.

But you'd build brand loyalty that would last decades. You'd differentiate from competitors focused only on short-term profits. You'd create a company that customers actually trust.

Bose's decision to open-source SoundTouch is a small step in that direction. Other manufacturers should take bigger steps.

Conclusion: The Least They Can Do

Here's what Bose did with SoundTouch: After years of selling expensive smart speakers with the implicit promise that they'd work indefinitely, the company announced discontinuation. Then, facing criticism, the company softened the blow by keeping some functionality (AirPlay, Spotify Connect) and promising app updates (local-only mode). And finally, the company open-sourced the API so developers could build alternatives.

It's not a perfect solution. It doesn't solve the underlying problem of planned obsolescence. It doesn't extend the speaker's lifespan to what it could theoretically be. It doesn't compensate customers for the lost functionality.

But it's something. And in an industry where nothing is usually the response, something matters.

More importantly, Bose's move sets a precedent. The company is saying: "If we're going to discontinue a product, we're going to give you the tools to keep using it."

If this becomes standard practice—if every company that discontinues a product automatically open-sources it—the e-waste problem shrinks. The customer frustration decreases. The brand loyalty increases.

It's the least that smart device manufacturers can do while we wait for the real solutions (right-to-repair legislation, local-first device architecture, long-term support commitments) to become industry standard.

Bose didn't save SoundTouch. The speakers are still being discontinued. The devices are still becoming less useful over time. But Bose gave SoundTouch owners a fighting chance.

That's more than most companies do. Maybe that's enough to call it progress.

FAQ

What does open-sourcing an API actually mean for consumers?

Open-sourcing an API means the company publishes the technical documentation showing how their device communicates, allowing independent developers to build alternative software to control it. For SoundTouch speakers specifically, this means developers can create third-party apps, integrate speakers with home automation systems, and maintain compatibility even after Bose stops supporting them. It doesn't magically make the speaker work forever, but it removes the legal barriers preventing developers from building tools to keep the device useful.

Why do smart device companies discontinue support for products that still work?

Companies discontinue support for multiple reasons: server infrastructure costs money to maintain, supporting old devices alongside new ones creates technical complexity, and—most importantly—if your old device keeps working perfectly, you have less incentive to buy a new one. From a business perspective, discontinuation creates demand for upgrades. From a customer perspective, it's frustrating and wasteful. Both perspectives are reasonable; they're just fundamentally misaligned.

Will open-sourcing the SoundTouch API actually result in useful tools for consumers?

That's uncertain. Open-sourcing an API means permission exists for developers to build tools, but it doesn't guarantee they will. The SoundTouch user base is aging and shrinking. There's no money in building tools for discontinued hardware. It's possible the developer community will create useful alternatives, but it's also possible that nothing emerges. Users should wait 6-12 months after May 2026 to see what actually gets built before deciding how to handle their speakers.

What's the difference between what Bose did and what other companies like Sonos or Google did?

Sonos discontinued support for older speakers and initially offered minimal recourse until customer backlash forced a partial reversal. Google quietly discontinued Nest devices without transparency or community involvement. Bose, meanwhile, announced the discontinuation transparently, preserved partial functionality (AirPlay, Spotify Connect), updated the app to work locally, and then open-sourced the API. Bose's approach isn't perfect, but it's significantly more considerate than industry precedent.

Is there any way to prevent this problem from happening with future smart devices?

Long-term solutions include regulatory requirements (like the EU's right-to-repair laws), industry commitments to longer support cycles, and designing devices to work locally without requiring manufacturer cloud services. Short-term, consumers should prefer devices that support open standards like Matter, avoid vendor lock-in to single manufacturers, and support open-source smart home platforms like Home Assistant that can keep devices working even if manufacturers abandon them.

What should someone do if they own a SoundTouch speaker?

First, understand what keeps working: AirPlay and Spotify Connect will continue indefinitely, so if you primarily use those methods, the impact is minimal. Second, wait to see if the developer community builds replacement tools after May 2026. Third, if you need more functionality, consider migrating to an open-source platform like Home Assistant. Finally, if losing cloud functionality is unacceptable, evaluate newer alternatives in the market. Bose essentially gave you time and options; how you use them depends on your technical comfort and willingness to adapt.

Could Bose have prevented this entire situation?

Yes. Bose could have designed SoundTouch speakers to work primarily over local networks with cloud services as an optional enhancement. The company could have committed to longer support cycles. The company could have integrated with open standards from the beginning. Or the company could have open-sourced the API years ago instead of waiting until discontinuation was imminent. Bose chose to do the minimum required to mitigate backlash, not the optimal path to avoid the problem.

Why is e-waste from discontinued electronics such a big problem?

Approximately 57-62 million tons of electronic waste is generated globally every year. Only about 20% gets properly recycled. The rest ends up in landfills or informal recycling operations where toxic materials contaminate soil and water. When a $500 smart speaker becomes unusable because of software discontinuation rather than hardware failure, it represents waste that could have been prevented. Across millions of devices, this adds up to environmental damage, resource waste, and humanitarian concerns in areas where e-waste is dismantled.

Should I avoid buying from Bose in the future because of the SoundTouch discontinuation?

That depends on whether you value Bose's approach (discontinue the product but open-source it) relative to competitors' approaches (discontinue with no alternatives). Bose did more than Sonos, Google, or Amazon typically do. However, the ideal company doesn't discontinue products at all; it designs for longevity and supports devices for their full lifespan. There's no perfect option in the current market, so your choice should be based on which company's approach aligns with your values and which products best support open standards and local-first operation.

Looking Ahead: What Comes Next

The real test of Bose's open-sourcing decision will be whether it meaningfully extends the lifespan of SoundTouch speakers. Will developers actually build tools? Will the community maintain those tools over time? Will average users find the alternatives accessible?

In a year, we'll have answers. And those answers will determine whether other manufacturers follow Bose's lead or stick with the traditional "discontinue and move on" approach.

The stakes are higher than one product line. They're about establishing norms around corporate responsibility, environmental sustainability, and consumer rights in an increasingly digital world.

Bose's move won't solve everything. But it's a signal that maybe—just maybe—companies are starting to understand that there's value in doing right by customers, even when it's not the most profitable path.

That's not enough. But it's not nothing.

And right now, in an industry that usually does nothing, not nothing might actually be progress.

Key Takeaways

• Bose released SoundTouch API documentation before discontinuation, enabling independent developers to maintain the devices
• Open-sourcing is a partial solution—it prevents total bricking but doesn't restore all lost functionality
• Smart device discontinuation creates massive e-waste problems, with 57-62 million tons generated globally annually
• Cloud-dependent architecture is the core problem; local-first design would prevent obsolescence by design
• Regulatory pressure (EU right-to-repair laws) and consumer demand are pushing manufacturers toward longer support commitments
• Consumers should prefer devices with open standards, avoid vendor lock-in, and support open-source smart home platforms

Related Articles

• Wearable Health Devices & E-Waste Crisis by 2050 [2025]
• IKEA's Smart Home Revolution: $6 Matter Bulbs & Affordable Connected Living [2025]
• Philips Hue SpatialAware: Complete Guide to Smart Lighting [2025]
• Nosh AI Cooking Robot: The Future of Meal Prep [2025]
• Switchbot's Onero H1 Laundry Robot: The Future of Home Automation [2025]
• CES 2026 Surprises: Unexpected Tech Trends That Changed Everything [2026]