Google is killing software support for early Nest Thermostats

The Verge - Apr 25th, 2025

Google has announced that it will cease software updates for the first-generation Nest Learning Thermostat and its successors, impacting models released between 2011 and 2014, including those sold in Europe. These thermostats will lose remote control functionality via phones and Google Assistant starting October 25th, although manual adjustments will remain possible. This move marks a significant shift for long-time users who rely on the convenience of smart home control. However, the basic local functions of the thermostats will still be available, highlighting the balance between technological advancement and product obsolescence.

Adding to the development, Google has stated it has no plans to release new Nest thermostats in Europe due to the complexity of regional heating systems. The decision underscores the challenges faced by tech companies in catering to diverse international markets. In an effort to mitigate customer dissatisfaction, Google is offering substantial discounts on newer thermostat models, including a $130 discount in the US and a 50% reduction on the Tado Smart Thermostat X in Europe. This move reflects broader concerns about the longevity of smart home devices and the potential obsolescence users face as technology evolves.

Google Smart Home Devices Product Discontinuation Nest Learning Thermostat Software Updates Customer Impact

Story submitted by Fairstory

RATING

7.6

Fair Story

Consider it well-founded

The article provides a clear and accurate account of Google's decision to end support for certain Nest thermostats. It effectively communicates the immediate impact on users and Google's rationale behind the decision. However, it could benefit from more diverse perspectives, particularly from affected users or industry experts, to provide a fuller picture of the implications. The article is timely and of public interest, addressing broader themes of technology lifecycle and consumer rights. While it has potential to influence public opinion and spark discussion, a deeper exploration of the controversial aspects could enhance its impact.

Accuracy

The article accurately reports Google's decision to end software updates for the first and second-generation Nest Learning Thermostats, as well as the European model from 2014. It correctly states the cutoff for updates is October 25th, and that these devices will lose remote control capabilities via phone or Google Assistant, but will still function locally. The claim about Google's decision not to release new Nest thermostats in Europe is also accurate and well-supported by Google's official statements. However, the article's assertion about the impact on customer satisfaction, while plausible, is more speculative and lacks direct evidence or customer testimonials.

Balance

The article presents a balanced view of the situation by outlining both the negative impact of losing remote functionality and the mitigation measures Google is offering, such as discounts on newer models. However, it could have been more balanced by including perspectives from affected users or industry experts to provide a more comprehensive view of the implications of Google's decision.

Clarity

The article is clear and well-structured, making it easy for readers to follow the main points. It effectively communicates the implications of Google's decision on Nest thermostats. The language is straightforward, though the article could benefit from a more detailed explanation of technical terms for readers unfamiliar with smart home technology.

Source quality

The article appears to rely on credible sources, including Google's official statements and blog posts. These sources are authoritative regarding Google's product decisions. However, the article does not cite any independent experts or consumer advocacy groups, which could have added depth and additional perspectives to the report.

Transparency

The article does a good job of transparently presenting Google's statements about the discontinuation of support and the reasons behind it. However, it lacks transparency regarding the methodology of assessing customer impact and satisfaction. Providing more context or background on how these conclusions were drawn would enhance the article's transparency.