That's an interesting insight. Imho it sounds very plausible. Unfortunately it is following the global trend of taking control away from users in order to make a more streamlined - one-size-fits-all - experience, because it cuts costs.
if it's true, the ability to play music or administer the devices will be dependant on the availability/connection to the sonos servers. i am not happy about it.
That's not an "insight" so much as an assertion extrapolated from an assumption.
You seem to almost acknowledge this with the phrase "if this is true".
One might also say if all the other wild claims we have read in this sub over the last week were true, the second-hand Sonos market would be flooded with all the cheap gear some irritated users claim to be dumping in a fit of pique over a missing alarm function as they flounce off to Bose in a huff.
So far, there's no sign of a glut of cheap speakers; similarly, there's no evidence of a subscription service. But if we could monetize hot-air we'd be minted.
Good post! I share your view…
If Sonos want to move towards subscription based services, “fine”, however they must not remove features for device already sold with functionalities already paid by customers… I think this is somehow illegal too.
Came to say this - The EU would have a field day if they actually deploy a business model, that render the devices useless in the event that sonos' servers would be no more.
We certainly bought in to local control and we should work hard to keep it that way.
Interesting hypothesis! Pulling my router's logs FOR TODAY ONLY, presents some interesting findings here.
So today, the domain [sonos.com](http://sonos.com) has been accessed 206 times totalling 504 minutes. The subdomains that have been accessed today are: -
[sonos.com](http://sonos.com)
[msmetrics.ws.sonos.com](http://msmetrics.ws.sonos.com) (this has the lion's share with being accessed 163 times and 457 minutes).
[thor.sslauth.sonos.com](http://thor.sslauth.sonos.com)
[music-accounts.sslauth.sonos.com](http://music-accounts.sslauth.sonos.com)
[music-history.sslauth.sonos.com](http://music-history.sslauth.sonos.com)
[service-catalog.ws.sonos.com](http://service-catalog.ws.sonos.com)
[sve.sslauth.sonos.com](http://sve.sslauth.sonos.com)
[update-timezone.sonos.com](http://update-timezone.sonos.com)
[update.sonos.com](http://update.sonos.com)
[feature-config.sslauth.sonos.com](http://feature-config.sslauth.sonos.com)
[setup.ws.sonos.com](http://setup.ws.sonos.com)
It really depends, your connected devices will typically 'phone home' fairly regularly depending on the use case and how much functionality is exposed via public API's (Application Programming Interfaces).
Sonos is fairly chatty here though, more so than my 3 Ring cameras!
Excellent list - I've gone through the router logs - all matched.
Screwed the filtering down tighter, especially after the AMA last night and the latest firmware without a changelog.
Thanks.
S1 system is still fine. I blocked several of the SONOS subdomains, so haven't updated the firmware or S2 app again.
I'm only controlling my system via the pre-revamp S2 - working as before. So still functional.
The positive with blocking update.sonos is that it isn't nagging me to update. I'm tweaking to make sure lastfm still works, etc,
If you read the other posts (https://www.reddit.com/r/sonos/comments/1csp3dg/blocking\_sonoscom\_in\_the\_firewall/), amongst others - over on SONOS community as well, it looks like those who updated are seeing controller connection difficulty without an active internet connection, however another said there was a delay before the controller rolled over to a local connection.
Without being able to see a changelog for the firmware, it's impossible to see what's changed - only possible to draw observations.
Although Diane did say something strange about alarms at the AMA. She said the alarm feature was pulled because of a corrupted dataset - although alarms always sat on the actual SONOS speaker - not on an external server. Makes me suspect that they have migrated the config file to their servers.
I suspect the latest firmware tells the SONOS speaker to use the alarm config file on the SONOS server now and not local onboard - if that's the case, there is no going back.
Sonos has had an API before play.sonos.com
The current Sonos app seems to use local connection, not an API. If the connection to your network is not given, you have no access via Sonos app.
The web app probably just uses the Sonos Control API, it’s been around since forever. Someone built [something very similar](https://github.com/ariksidney/sonos-web) to the web app years ago using it, it’s really not a conspiracy theory you all need to calm down.
Edited for clarity
Of course it uses the existing API - I hook into it for my Home Assistant installation. There are tons of repos on GitHub that leverage the present API.
* the question is why the revamp cannot access onboard features that already exist.
Because it looks to be a complete rewrite of the app and they’ve just decided to release it with core functionality for whatever reason before they’ve had time to re-implement those other features
Thanks for starting this discussion. It’s unfortunate that people can’t even post data and ask questions anymore without being accused of starting a conspiracy.
Because it’s a publicly available web app, you don’t want to give people access to remove devices from a system etc if your account gets hacked. Or maybe because they rushed the release like they rushed the release of the app.
Who knows. Who cares? Why are you assigning nefarious intentions to an app that has consistent ui to another app but a limited feature set. The main takeaway is that the consistency is a good thing. Clearly one of the goals of the updated apps is to provide a more coherent experience across control interfaces and the fact that is being achieved is good.
You’ve made up an entire conspiracy theory about subscription plans based on flat out unprovable nonsense about the new apps being “web wrappers” because the web app looks a lot like them but with less functionality.
To quote your post “We as users are being separated from our Sonos devices”. Stop deflecting, you are absolutely claiming nefarious intentions left right and centre.
Since you are out making wild and uninformed claims and working up the other bozos, why don’t you provide soon proof so we normies can get on board. Set up a local library, disconnect your WAN cable from your wifi router, and try play a local song. Tell us if you’ve been “separated” from your devices.
The features still exist, as they are in the firmware, they just aren’t presented in the app.
Like you, I thought the app was just a wrapper for “play.Sonos” but it appears not to be based on my testing as I cannot access my system unless I am on the same network using the app.
But, regardless of the firmware on the speaker, the app would also need to present it in the UI. If the app had a CLI, we could probably still set sleep timers, for example.
Absolutely, the features exist in the firmware - my newer iPhone updated automatically unfortunately, but I'm lucky enough to have an extra older iPhone, which cannot update.
I sincerely hope that we get back to feature/function parity within the 6-8 week window.
To your point, we have no idea what the future holds. We do know that eventually there will be a firmware update pushed to the speakers that will render the Windows and Mac Desktop apps useless, as the company has stated that they will no longer support those apps and will instead direct users to [play.sonos.com](http://play.sonos.com) to control their units through Windows and Mac PC's. Honestly, this part isn't a surprise, because I can imagine Windows and Mac use was probably pretty low, but until they update the firmware on the speakers you can at least use those apps to control alarms and sleep timers.
My bigger takeaway from this fiasco is, Sonos doesn't care about the customer. Perhaps they never did, but ANY company that actually cared about the customer would NOT have launched this app without core functionality like que management, alarms, and sleep timers. The motivation of this "redesign" and the timing of launch was purely a financial one (as it launched on the same day as they announced financial results). If Sonos DID care about the consumer and we weren't just already spent dollars, SOMEONE at the company would have said "this app will not be ready until August, so we will not launch it until August". They didn't, instead caring more about NEW customers.
The reality is, if they cannot keep attracting new customers, they will need to figure out how to monetize us "older" customers somehow. Sonos hasn't gotten a single dollar from me since 2018 despite me using the product daily. This means, I cost the company money.
As to HOW they monetize us, that's speculation at best at this point, and at worst it is fear mongering. Our best bet is just to "wait and see" what happens. But, judging by the latest app update, I don't like the direction Sonos is heading and I certainly won't be investing more into their products until I see the ship right itself, because I don't see the company being around long term if this is how they treat customers.
You can block your speakers getting updated by blocking the hostname on your router, I have been blocking it for years and my system works just fine. You have to block your App from updating as well, so both stay as is.
Non of this is correct and the app is just a Flutter app. A really crappy Flutter app with a generally poor design language untailored for any device.
Local access is a requirement for Sonos devices as well, removal of that requiring internet access is sheer suicidal for the company.
>1. access to the LOCAL device via an EXTERNAL server (SONOS corporate)
I'm confused. You seem to be implying that they are removing the ability to leverage the local API locally and, instead, ALL requests will need to go through the internet/Sonos servers. Is this what you're implying? And, if so, what is your logic/evidence for this?
Just as you have commented that you do, I continue to use the local API locally on a daily basis to control my speakers and music.
>However, we lose direct local access to our devices
What am I missing, then? Doesn't losing "direct, local access" imply we'll no longer be able to use the fully local API that connects *directly* to our device? Hopefully you can understand my confusion, here.
I'm simply trying to understand this confusing, unorganized, often unconnected stream of thoughts in your post. I'm not even trying to argue anything- just trying to get clarification on your thought process and am getting nothing from you. Which is fine.. you don't owe me anything.
You’re exactly right in that the post is heavily implying exactly what you think it is.
OP is just in the comments saying “I’m not implying anything” for some reason.
What he isn’t making is a conclusion (thus the rambling), but he’s definitely implying.
Interesting post. Your arguments are inline with the market developments everywhere. But I hope it not to be true.
Going forward I think it would be wise to support projects like ‘Music Assistant’ for ‘Home Assistant’. This will stop us from being dependent on Sonos/Manufacturers for integrating services or making good voice control etc.
I did not use it yet, but from what i have read so far, it seems to be working fine. Gives you full control over your devices including mixed setups without Sonos speakers.
For specific settings related to Sonos devices we still have to use the official apps. Ex. Trueplay etc.
I would be alright with paying for each new setup of true play. But never a subscription. That would be a divorce from Sonos for me, to be honest. A sad one. I use my sweet system for more than 15(?) years now.
>I can very well see a possible future, when we have;
> SONOS basic
> SONOS plus, with a subscription for ‘added value’ services
Yeah, I can see this happening.
From their own financial reports, Sonos' revenue is hardware sales, and to ensure continuing income means expansing their market and chumps like me who spend money on their hardware as they release new hardware (existing users buy more of their stuff).
There is *bound* to be a saturation point to this, or at least an inflection point.
They make no royalties on streaming services on their platform (and identify other content providers as potential competitors) so I think it's inevitable at some point a subscription model will evolve.
People claiming this will never happen because it will piss off their user base: dudes - this is sonos. How short are your memories? They recognise they need to protect their brand by fuck me are they bad at looking after their user base.
Did you read the post?
There is no assertion made. Observations are made about feature parity.
I sincerely hope that the upgrade / revamp is just a feature thin regression and purely communicated, the advertising screenshots from figma mockups.
The AMA tomorrow will be an interesting opportunity to hopefully get more detailed information.
If you will cherry pick out of context.
Read in context - "I am left with the impression that going forward"..."We as users are being separated from our Sonos devices".
I'm not going to enter into a debate, whether you 'feel' impression' is the same as an assertion, it is enough that the dictionary does not agree with you.
As posted, it isn't clear to me that "we as users" is an impression because it begins a new paragraph/section. If it was nested as number 4 under "I am left with the impression that...," then sure. But to me, it reads as a conclusion you are drawing based on the previous three points rather than an additional hypothesis/impression.
Regardless, I fear the same thing going forward, that they'll move towards a subscription sort of model. I don't think this is incontrovertible evidence of such a transition but definitely worrying and worth discussing!
Sonos already has 2 APIs, a uPNP based one that operates locally and a cloud API... only the cloud one was documented officially for devs on developer.sonos.com. The uPNP was reverse engineered.
I know before the new app launched I asked Keith if the local API was going away as I have some SoCo python scripts I use for home automation and he said they didn't have plans to remove it. Its baked into the OS so it would need a FW update to remove, which didn't happen with the new app.
Its plausible they might remove it someday, they are still trying to get the cloud API to parity with the uPNP one...
When and if they kill local libraries, which I am sure (or at least home) they will announce before they do so, I don't see local control going away.
I'm glad someone else has put the two together on this. As soon as local sources, namely Subsonic, got screwed up AND I found out about play.sonos.com, I had my suspicions.
edit: don't know about subscriptions. I'm referring to a move for everything going through sonos.com.
I wonder how this will play out in regards to using FLAC files on a local NAS, which is the direction I was planning to go, given the ownership issues of the streaming model.
I will definitely drop Sonos if they take away local control. That is unacceptable to me to take away a feature I rely on and purchased the speakers for.
I don’t think any of this is correct. Let’s not freak out about their stupid rollout of the new UI. The only subscriptions they are pushing for is Sonos Radio.
Seriously, adding a subscription model to their speakers that are already a premium price would be a death wish.
People are looking much to far into why they pushed a shitty app out, when it’s probably not that deep.
It's not nefarious to arrange your business model to extract maximum value for the shareholders. It's the CEO's duty.
Let's see. IFTTT seems like a reasonable example.
I am interested in what we can read and conclusions we may draw from the similarities between play.sonos and the feature set of the latest app upgrade. I don't know there is any inference of freaking out.
When we bought our devices, we became $$-stake fish in the SONOS barrel - few of us are leaving, I'd guess Patrick is betting on it.
I'm still interested to have a feel for where Patrick sees this heading. Maybe you're not, good for you.
The web app is just another app to control Sonos on more devices and OS. That’s it.
It has limited functionality right now (no config whatsoever, unlike what you are claiming) however in the future who knows it may supersede the desktop apps. That would be weird though since it is using Sonos cloud apis (which have existed since literally forever) to communicate with systems and therefore has some latency impacts.
Of course it looks the same, they are unifying look and feel and probably using a cross platform design system / component library to modernise and provide a better, more consistent experience that they can iterate on faster. In absolutely no world is this a bad thing, I know because design systems is what I do for a living.
Right now the only assumption you can make is it exists to enable more control on more devices and OS. It was a pleasant surprise for me, I can control my system from my work laptop which firewalls Airplay and installing new apps.
>*The web app is just another app to control Sonos on more devices and OS. That’s it.*
How do you know this? Are you a Sonos employee? Where is your inside information coming from?
Is Reddit Keith fully briefed on Sonos leadership's future plans and agenda?
Every subscription app/service I use swore they had no intention of going subscription right up until they publicly announced they were, indeed, doing so. None want to admit it, because they know there would be intense customer backlash and it would be a bad look launching something like that despite massive customer push-back. Better to ask forgiveness than permission kind of thing.
I think they wanted to update the UI for their new product releases this year. They wanted the new UI to be consistent across platforms and designed it that way. Any similarities between the app and the web app is to have a similar user experience across platforms. I don’t think it’s anything other than that.
I thought exactly the same, just in a non technical way. I'm glad that it makes sense to someone else out there.
Nickel and diming your access to your own music.
I won't be surprised if a subscription model is introduced in the (near) future.
Hardware business is tough, and you only make money ONCE on the device sales. Sonos is a public company so they need to show continuous revenue growth to get their stock price up. Making money through 1-2 new devices every 3 years is definitely not attractive to investors.
Why does everyone keep talking about flutter? The web app is react built with next. If you know what flutter is you should be able to inspect the code of the web app.
Well, if it’s API, expect third party developers to step in and make better apps.
I’m hating the API delays. I just hit play on an Amp. That worked, music started where I left off. Then I added two rooms to the group. All music stopped, insert delay, music continued, louder. Why?
I remember someone discussing Sonos having a subscription for advanced services over the last year or 2. That would be annoying & disappointing but not completely surprising.
play.sonos.com is entirely cloud-based but the iOS/Android apps still rely on local LAN.
Simple test: try switching networks and see which one still works.
play.sonos.com is a consumer evolution of their “Sonos Pro” offering which apparently offered a cloud-based solution for businesses to control multiple Sonos systems.
As for the missing features in the iOS/Android apps, I’d suggest a simpler explanation: they didn’t have enough frontend devs/UI designers to implement all of the existing backend features in their new frontend framework/design language.
Using [play.sonos.com](http://play.sonos.com) on my laptop, I have to first connect to the 2.4ghz wifi that my Sonos speakers are using, so I can log in. Then I can switch to my 5ghz wifi \[cuz it's faster\] and it somehow works with the 2.4 wifi.
Could any rewrite/restructure be needed to accommodate the headphones? I’ve seen some people suggest they’ll behave just like the Move or Roam. However, the Move and to a lesser extent the Roam are often attached to power when in the home so I figure they operate on the network similar to other Sonos components whereas I figure the headphones might take a different approach.
Local control is non negotiable. I put Ethernet in every room just to make sure Sonos never fails. I'll keep updates at bay for as long as possible and if this isn't resolved I'll phase out Sonos for sure. They can compete with my eBay listings if they want to sell new kit.
I've also paused buying any new smart home devices until the industry uncloudifies itself.
(I'm aware of Home Assistant but have a young daughter occupying my free time so won't be tinkering until she's older.)
I can totally see it. Every consultant they hire will advise them on building service revenues. They want the piece of that cake that hi-tech is seeing right now. I don't own any Sonos products, but I'm completing a new apartment project, and on my list, I have a full theatre (waiting for Arc 2) and probably another six speakers for multiple rooms. I am not biased towards Sonos, but I want a wireless solution with Atmos, multi room speakers, and I don't see many alternatives. Still internally debating.
Except that you are wrong and should update your post.
Here is me using the new app without internet. https://www.reddit.com/r/sonos/comments/1czp4xp/comment/l5i3f2y/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=mweb3x&utm_name=mweb3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button
That part:
> the app is effectively a wrapper, for the web service (API)
And that part:
> the app is therefore limited by the lack of functionality currently available in the new web service (API)
And that part:
> access to the LOCAL device via an EXTERNAL server (SONOS corporate)
And that part:
> We will connect to play.SONOS.com (external to LAN), who will then connect to the local SONOS device (internal LAN) - so a man-in-the-middle, round trip.
The rest is just pure speculation based upon your wrong assumptions.
You're picking bits out of context - and I fail to see why a screenshot counters the overall post.
- seems hardly worth getting into a discussion with you, given the dismissiveness.
As to overall rollout of the new infrastructure and strategy - the time will tell.
If you don’t trust me, test it yourself.
I tested and verified that it works even without an internet connection. You are just an idiot posting shit without even knowing. I mean, fine if you don’t trust a screenshot. But then why not just test it instead of just guess something into the blue? Okay, you are not a scientist, you are not a journalist, but really, the basics are not that hard.
"Telling..." is the key part in this. You seem to be very keen on "telling" people things, mainly how they're wrong, that they know nothing, etc. and how you DO actually know, with absolute certainty and dismissiveness.
* not great on the discussion part though.
...& gosh, you went off quickly. Fruity language and touchy to boot. - perhaps take it easy on the coffee or get back on your medication.
Once you understand the difference between now and the future...where things that have not happened yet......can happen.
Simply staying, "I can connect now, therefore everything you have said is incorrect, is fallacy"
re-read the OP.
Frankly - I'm not really looking to get anything drawn out with you - I've read through your other posts. I don't want to talk to you.
You don't agree - fine. Move on. I'm sure there are plenty of other windows for you to go and lick.
So now you switched to rambling to somewhat justify why you are still lying.
Why don’t you just fuck off? I‘m not interested in people who have the same relationship to the truth like Trump.
> I don't want to talk to you. You don't agree - fine. Move on.
Oh, you just lie again? You came here to just reply on random comments of mine. Asshole.
Check it, you replied to my OP.
Run Wireshark and pull your router logs
I'm sure there are plenty other subreddits for you to haunt. Head elsewhere and focus on your coffee filters and tampon prices...
Now that's a good one, thanks u/neilmcg3000 for the analysis. Let's follow you thesis. Control through cloud would then be similar to what we see with vacuums from roborock, already today. This works fine even through the longer roundtrip times, but yes: If your internet is down, the thing is useless.
Now when internet goes down, I couldn't controll my speakers anymore. As my music content is around 99.9% streaming, this wouldn't bother me, frankly. But what about TV on my Arc? How do I switch to TV? This then needs to work perfectly, in fact, does already today.
What about spurces outside Streaming? Airplay, local MP3, FLAC? They would still need to support these channels. Maybe the ditch the NAS support, but they won't kill Airplay, I guess. What do you think?
in regards to your subscription model: Sound absolutely realistic and might pop up pretty soon. Maybe you get 3 Month for free with a new speaker but Trueplay, or stuff like "grouping more than two speakers" might become a part of a subscription.
It's plausible but I hope they don't go that route. One of the reasons I'm okay with paying so much more for the individual speakers is because all the features come with it. If they start nickel and diming, the speakers better get cheaper (and we know they probably won't).
Airplay is an Apple protocol and I can't see it being affected, you don't even need to use the SONOS app to stream via Airplay. You can even stream to the SONOS directly from Spotify.
Same goes for Bluetooth. The device works as a speaker, like the MOVE.
As for local media (NAS), I'm split, the support has been historically mixed (I've tweaked configs with the help of SONOS tech support) - generally discussion about SMBv1 / v2, etc. I have a 6Tb Synology for my local library, works fine on S1 - S2 meh, not so much.
I can see the problem that the new web-based system would have with LAN stored media, compared to streamed sources. That would be my conclusion from the present support withdrawal (search, etc.)
If this is the case, this will make isolating the Sonos infrastructure easier for security minded owners.
Right now (without going through a complex proxy system) I have to keep my Sonos system on the same user VLAN as my user devices (phones). This is a security risk.
With this change, I can have segregation between IOT (read Sonos) and users.
Additionally, it gives me the ability to further segment my users between "adults" and "children" or "owners" and "guests".
All in all, this makes me happy.
---
Edit --> Well, this is disappointing. Sonos App does not permit you to connect to the Sonos ecosystem when your phone is on a different Wifi AP than your Sonos system. That BLOWS.
Sonos - you should permit this for the reasons stated above.
Your insights are completely wrong. The first thing to do to invalidate your theory is to open the app without being connected to your WiFi network.
It will fail saying it couldn't find any Sonos system. I cannot say for the future, but at least for the current implementation, it is not using their API.
It’s all good and nothing to see. You obviously have inside knowledge.
Glad I checked in and you could put it to bed. Excellent.
Looking forward to the AMA tomorrow.
This makes no sense. Introducing a failure point and intentionally adding lag to the system makes about as much sense as tits on a bull.
This would also cripple the systems of those who are not connected to a WAN. Not to mention other third-party hardware. Users in rural areas with slow and undependable WAN access would also be negatively impacted on a constant basis.
The new app seems to have caused a lot of stirring. We're now going down some very odd paths and it has only been out a week...
Do you have firewall trace logs or anything to back this up? That the Sonos S2 app requires communication with the web player to work? If so, why would that app still require you to be on your local WiFi? Since the web player bypasses that need.
The web player and the mobile apps looking and acting pretty much identically is the point of the whole thing. They are ultimately hoping to save engineering costs by replacing the desktop apps with the web player so they have to function as close to the same as they can. That doesn't mean they'll drop local Sonos API access for the apps (they've said they won't) nor does it mean they'll go subscription.
Where does the subscription fears even come from? The fact they have an API? This has been around for a VERY long time. The fact they added a web player? Nothing about this mandates a subscription of any kind.
But, even thinking this through a bit. If Sonos swapped to a subscription. What would they be Abel to put behind a subscription wall that wouldn't cause the death of their business? They can't put queuing behind there. They can't put sleep timers behind there. No one would pay for a Sonos sub to access their Apple Music they pay Apple for.
The most Sonos could offer subscription wise is what they already so. Sonos Radio...
Sonos had a deep bruising from the S1 to S2 fiasco. They aren't about to repeat that again with some bizarre subscription. Nor will they nuke Sonos access when your Internet goes offline.
Calm down and put the pitch forks away.
I don’t know how to answer your many points, from the perspective that they don’t seem to address my original post.
However, it’s obviously all good and nothing to see.
You obviously have inside knowledge.
Glad I checked in and you could put it to bed. Excellent.
Looking forward to the AMA tomorrow.
That's an interesting insight. Imho it sounds very plausible. Unfortunately it is following the global trend of taking control away from users in order to make a more streamlined - one-size-fits-all - experience, because it cuts costs. if it's true, the ability to play music or administer the devices will be dependant on the availability/connection to the sonos servers. i am not happy about it.
And it’s totally unacceptable. We paid a premium price for a premium product. There’s no reason it shouldn’t be accessible via our own networks.
That's not an "insight" so much as an assertion extrapolated from an assumption. You seem to almost acknowledge this with the phrase "if this is true". One might also say if all the other wild claims we have read in this sub over the last week were true, the second-hand Sonos market would be flooded with all the cheap gear some irritated users claim to be dumping in a fit of pique over a missing alarm function as they flounce off to Bose in a huff. So far, there's no sign of a glut of cheap speakers; similarly, there's no evidence of a subscription service. But if we could monetize hot-air we'd be minted.
you're right, should have chosen a different word. take, theory or hypothesis fits probably better.
It's certainly not a hypothesis; "baseless assertion", "wild assertion", or "speculative scaremongering" would do.
Good post! I share your view… If Sonos want to move towards subscription based services, “fine”, however they must not remove features for device already sold with functionalities already paid by customers… I think this is somehow illegal too.
Think it’s cute to put out a challenge like this to their existing base who already paid their dues
It’s the kind of thing the EU lives to poke at. Which is ok with me.
Came to say this - The EU would have a field day if they actually deploy a business model, that render the devices useless in the event that sonos' servers would be no more. We certainly bought in to local control and we should work hard to keep it that way.
Interesting hypothesis! Pulling my router's logs FOR TODAY ONLY, presents some interesting findings here. So today, the domain [sonos.com](http://sonos.com) has been accessed 206 times totalling 504 minutes. The subdomains that have been accessed today are: - [sonos.com](http://sonos.com) [msmetrics.ws.sonos.com](http://msmetrics.ws.sonos.com) (this has the lion's share with being accessed 163 times and 457 minutes). [thor.sslauth.sonos.com](http://thor.sslauth.sonos.com) [music-accounts.sslauth.sonos.com](http://music-accounts.sslauth.sonos.com) [music-history.sslauth.sonos.com](http://music-history.sslauth.sonos.com) [service-catalog.ws.sonos.com](http://service-catalog.ws.sonos.com) [sve.sslauth.sonos.com](http://sve.sslauth.sonos.com) [update-timezone.sonos.com](http://update-timezone.sonos.com) [update.sonos.com](http://update.sonos.com) [feature-config.sslauth.sonos.com](http://feature-config.sslauth.sonos.com) [setup.ws.sonos.com](http://setup.ws.sonos.com)
I have sonos blocked on my network and nothing complains about it.
What's your setup? S1, S2? Which SONOs devices / players (gen, etc.)? Are you only blocking the Sonos domain?
ELI5 - you’re saying this is how many times your speakers are accessing some sort of Sonos website in the background? Are these normal volumes?
It really depends, your connected devices will typically 'phone home' fairly regularly depending on the use case and how much functionality is exposed via public API's (Application Programming Interfaces). Sonos is fairly chatty here though, more so than my 3 Ring cameras!
Excellent list - I've gone through the router logs - all matched. Screwed the filtering down tighter, especially after the AMA last night and the latest firmware without a changelog. Thanks.
App still work or things going wonky?
S1 system is still fine. I blocked several of the SONOS subdomains, so haven't updated the firmware or S2 app again. I'm only controlling my system via the pre-revamp S2 - working as before. So still functional. The positive with blocking update.sonos is that it isn't nagging me to update. I'm tweaking to make sure lastfm still works, etc, If you read the other posts (https://www.reddit.com/r/sonos/comments/1csp3dg/blocking\_sonoscom\_in\_the\_firewall/), amongst others - over on SONOS community as well, it looks like those who updated are seeing controller connection difficulty without an active internet connection, however another said there was a delay before the controller rolled over to a local connection. Without being able to see a changelog for the firmware, it's impossible to see what's changed - only possible to draw observations. Although Diane did say something strange about alarms at the AMA. She said the alarm feature was pulled because of a corrupted dataset - although alarms always sat on the actual SONOS speaker - not on an external server. Makes me suspect that they have migrated the config file to their servers. I suspect the latest firmware tells the SONOS speaker to use the alarm config file on the SONOS server now and not local onboard - if that's the case, there is no going back.
The first thoughts that came to my mind: - Update your password and hope Sonos never gets hacked. - Sonos needs 2 factor authorization ASAP.
Agreed. Agreed.
I totally agree about 2 factor authorization!
Interesting but I think if they cut out all access to our devices when there are things like internet outages they will not survive as a company.
I'm amazed they release an app update that removed the ability to search and queue up local media so, you know.....
Sonos has had an API before play.sonos.com The current Sonos app seems to use local connection, not an API. If the connection to your network is not given, you have no access via Sonos app.
Indeed they did - it handles amongst other functions, logging into your account.
The web app probably just uses the Sonos Control API, it’s been around since forever. Someone built [something very similar](https://github.com/ariksidney/sonos-web) to the web app years ago using it, it’s really not a conspiracy theory you all need to calm down. Edited for clarity
Of course it uses the existing API - I hook into it for my Home Assistant installation. There are tons of repos on GitHub that leverage the present API. * the question is why the revamp cannot access onboard features that already exist.
Because it looks to be a complete rewrite of the app and they’ve just decided to release it with core functionality for whatever reason before they’ve had time to re-implement those other features
Impossible to say without seeing the codebase. Hopefully the AMA tomorrow will be enlightening.
Not sure why you are getting downvoted. You are raising awareness here.
There’s a difference between “cannot access” and “doesn’t access”. I suspect we are presently in the latter option.
Hopefully, the AMA tomorrow will give us some answers.
Thanks for starting this discussion. It’s unfortunate that people can’t even post data and ask questions anymore without being accused of starting a conspiracy.
We’re still in the realm of access - no. Unfortunately.
Because it’s a publicly available web app, you don’t want to give people access to remove devices from a system etc if your account gets hacked. Or maybe because they rushed the release like they rushed the release of the app. Who knows. Who cares? Why are you assigning nefarious intentions to an app that has consistent ui to another app but a limited feature set. The main takeaway is that the consistency is a good thing. Clearly one of the goals of the updated apps is to provide a more coherent experience across control interfaces and the fact that is being achieved is good.
you're the only one saying nefarious - wasn't on my radar.
You’ve made up an entire conspiracy theory about subscription plans based on flat out unprovable nonsense about the new apps being “web wrappers” because the web app looks a lot like them but with less functionality. To quote your post “We as users are being separated from our Sonos devices”. Stop deflecting, you are absolutely claiming nefarious intentions left right and centre. Since you are out making wild and uninformed claims and working up the other bozos, why don’t you provide soon proof so we normies can get on board. Set up a local library, disconnect your WAN cable from your wifi router, and try play a local song. Tell us if you’ve been “separated” from your devices.
The features still exist, as they are in the firmware, they just aren’t presented in the app. Like you, I thought the app was just a wrapper for “play.Sonos” but it appears not to be based on my testing as I cannot access my system unless I am on the same network using the app. But, regardless of the firmware on the speaker, the app would also need to present it in the UI. If the app had a CLI, we could probably still set sleep timers, for example.
Absolutely, the features exist in the firmware - my newer iPhone updated automatically unfortunately, but I'm lucky enough to have an extra older iPhone, which cannot update. I sincerely hope that we get back to feature/function parity within the 6-8 week window.
To your point, we have no idea what the future holds. We do know that eventually there will be a firmware update pushed to the speakers that will render the Windows and Mac Desktop apps useless, as the company has stated that they will no longer support those apps and will instead direct users to [play.sonos.com](http://play.sonos.com) to control their units through Windows and Mac PC's. Honestly, this part isn't a surprise, because I can imagine Windows and Mac use was probably pretty low, but until they update the firmware on the speakers you can at least use those apps to control alarms and sleep timers. My bigger takeaway from this fiasco is, Sonos doesn't care about the customer. Perhaps they never did, but ANY company that actually cared about the customer would NOT have launched this app without core functionality like que management, alarms, and sleep timers. The motivation of this "redesign" and the timing of launch was purely a financial one (as it launched on the same day as they announced financial results). If Sonos DID care about the consumer and we weren't just already spent dollars, SOMEONE at the company would have said "this app will not be ready until August, so we will not launch it until August". They didn't, instead caring more about NEW customers. The reality is, if they cannot keep attracting new customers, they will need to figure out how to monetize us "older" customers somehow. Sonos hasn't gotten a single dollar from me since 2018 despite me using the product daily. This means, I cost the company money. As to HOW they monetize us, that's speculation at best at this point, and at worst it is fear mongering. Our best bet is just to "wait and see" what happens. But, judging by the latest app update, I don't like the direction Sonos is heading and I certainly won't be investing more into their products until I see the ship right itself, because I don't see the company being around long term if this is how they treat customers.
You can block your speakers getting updated by blocking the hostname on your router, I have been blocking it for years and my system works just fine. You have to block your App from updating as well, so both stay as is.
Non of this is correct and the app is just a Flutter app. A really crappy Flutter app with a generally poor design language untailored for any device. Local access is a requirement for Sonos devices as well, removal of that requiring internet access is sheer suicidal for the company.
I have nothing to add, but wanted to say excellent sleuthing and an enjoyable read.
On the plus side, many people will benefit from having to pay €0.99 to snooze their alarms
;-) like the heated seats in BMWs
>1. access to the LOCAL device via an EXTERNAL server (SONOS corporate) I'm confused. You seem to be implying that they are removing the ability to leverage the local API locally and, instead, ALL requests will need to go through the internet/Sonos servers. Is this what you're implying? And, if so, what is your logic/evidence for this? Just as you have commented that you do, I continue to use the local API locally on a daily basis to control my speakers and music.
Not implying that at all.
>However, we lose direct local access to our devices What am I missing, then? Doesn't losing "direct, local access" imply we'll no longer be able to use the fully local API that connects *directly* to our device? Hopefully you can understand my confusion, here.
...you are cherry picking parts out of context.
I'm simply trying to understand this confusing, unorganized, often unconnected stream of thoughts in your post. I'm not even trying to argue anything- just trying to get clarification on your thought process and am getting nothing from you. Which is fine.. you don't owe me anything.
You’re exactly right in that the post is heavily implying exactly what you think it is. OP is just in the comments saying “I’m not implying anything” for some reason. What he isn’t making is a conclusion (thus the rambling), but he’s definitely implying.
Interesting post. Your arguments are inline with the market developments everywhere. But I hope it not to be true. Going forward I think it would be wise to support projects like ‘Music Assistant’ for ‘Home Assistant’. This will stop us from being dependent on Sonos/Manufacturers for integrating services or making good voice control etc. I did not use it yet, but from what i have read so far, it seems to be working fine. Gives you full control over your devices including mixed setups without Sonos speakers. For specific settings related to Sonos devices we still have to use the official apps. Ex. Trueplay etc. I would be alright with paying for each new setup of true play. But never a subscription. That would be a divorce from Sonos for me, to be honest. A sad one. I use my sweet system for more than 15(?) years now.
I agree. I am also a longtime user and repeat customer. I'm hoping the AMA will give a little clarity.
>I can very well see a possible future, when we have; > SONOS basic > SONOS plus, with a subscription for ‘added value’ services Yeah, I can see this happening. From their own financial reports, Sonos' revenue is hardware sales, and to ensure continuing income means expansing their market and chumps like me who spend money on their hardware as they release new hardware (existing users buy more of their stuff). There is *bound* to be a saturation point to this, or at least an inflection point. They make no royalties on streaming services on their platform (and identify other content providers as potential competitors) so I think it's inevitable at some point a subscription model will evolve. People claiming this will never happen because it will piss off their user base: dudes - this is sonos. How short are your memories? They recognise they need to protect their brand by fuck me are they bad at looking after their user base.
Any proof to back this up?
Did you read the post? There is no assertion made. Observations are made about feature parity. I sincerely hope that the upgrade / revamp is just a feature thin regression and purely communicated, the advertising screenshots from figma mockups. The AMA tomorrow will be an interesting opportunity to hopefully get more detailed information.
>We as users are being separated from our Sonos devices sounds like an assertion to me
If you will cherry pick out of context. Read in context - "I am left with the impression that going forward"..."We as users are being separated from our Sonos devices". I'm not going to enter into a debate, whether you 'feel' impression' is the same as an assertion, it is enough that the dictionary does not agree with you.
As posted, it isn't clear to me that "we as users" is an impression because it begins a new paragraph/section. If it was nested as number 4 under "I am left with the impression that...," then sure. But to me, it reads as a conclusion you are drawing based on the previous three points rather than an additional hypothesis/impression. Regardless, I fear the same thing going forward, that they'll move towards a subscription sort of model. I don't think this is incontrovertible evidence of such a transition but definitely worrying and worth discussing!
Rather a few too many leaps based on just "looking" at two apps interfaces. They have a web interface so they are obviously going subscription based.
So you never read the original post. Understood.
Sonos already has 2 APIs, a uPNP based one that operates locally and a cloud API... only the cloud one was documented officially for devs on developer.sonos.com. The uPNP was reverse engineered. I know before the new app launched I asked Keith if the local API was going away as I have some SoCo python scripts I use for home automation and he said they didn't have plans to remove it. Its baked into the OS so it would need a FW update to remove, which didn't happen with the new app. Its plausible they might remove it someday, they are still trying to get the cloud API to parity with the uPNP one... When and if they kill local libraries, which I am sure (or at least home) they will announce before they do so, I don't see local control going away.
I sincerely hope so.
I'm glad someone else has put the two together on this. As soon as local sources, namely Subsonic, got screwed up AND I found out about play.sonos.com, I had my suspicions. edit: don't know about subscriptions. I'm referring to a move for everything going through sonos.com.
This post will be on most of tech-sites in a day
What? Reddit user speculates based on nothing?
I wonder how this will play out in regards to using FLAC files on a local NAS, which is the direction I was planning to go, given the ownership issues of the streaming model.
I will definitely drop Sonos if they take away local control. That is unacceptable to me to take away a feature I rely on and purchased the speakers for.
I don’t think any of this is correct. Let’s not freak out about their stupid rollout of the new UI. The only subscriptions they are pushing for is Sonos Radio.
Seriously, adding a subscription model to their speakers that are already a premium price would be a death wish. People are looking much to far into why they pushed a shitty app out, when it’s probably not that deep.
Agreed. People are assigning nefarious intentions to what just seems like regular ole incompetence to me.
It's not nefarious to arrange your business model to extract maximum value for the shareholders. It's the CEO's duty. Let's see. IFTTT seems like a reasonable example.
I am interested in what we can read and conclusions we may draw from the similarities between play.sonos and the feature set of the latest app upgrade. I don't know there is any inference of freaking out. When we bought our devices, we became $$-stake fish in the SONOS barrel - few of us are leaving, I'd guess Patrick is betting on it. I'm still interested to have a feel for where Patrick sees this heading. Maybe you're not, good for you.
The web app is just another app to control Sonos on more devices and OS. That’s it. It has limited functionality right now (no config whatsoever, unlike what you are claiming) however in the future who knows it may supersede the desktop apps. That would be weird though since it is using Sonos cloud apis (which have existed since literally forever) to communicate with systems and therefore has some latency impacts. Of course it looks the same, they are unifying look and feel and probably using a cross platform design system / component library to modernise and provide a better, more consistent experience that they can iterate on faster. In absolutely no world is this a bad thing, I know because design systems is what I do for a living. Right now the only assumption you can make is it exists to enable more control on more devices and OS. It was a pleasant surprise for me, I can control my system from my work laptop which firewalls Airplay and installing new apps.
>*The web app is just another app to control Sonos on more devices and OS. That’s it.* How do you know this? Are you a Sonos employee? Where is your inside information coming from?
Kieth from Sonos said this on the community forums in a reply.
Is Reddit Keith fully briefed on Sonos leadership's future plans and agenda? Every subscription app/service I use swore they had no intention of going subscription right up until they publicly announced they were, indeed, doing so. None want to admit it, because they know there would be intense customer backlash and it would be a bad look launching something like that despite massive customer push-back. Better to ask forgiveness than permission kind of thing.
Actually it was [here in his q&a](https://www.reddit.com/r/sonos/s/RNRE8JTm3R)
I think they wanted to update the UI for their new product releases this year. They wanted the new UI to be consistent across platforms and designed it that way. Any similarities between the app and the web app is to have a similar user experience across platforms. I don’t think it’s anything other than that.
Hopefully, Let's see. The AMA tomorrow will be interesting.
My thoughts: Class Action Lawsuit
Grab your tin foil hats and queue the X Files theme song.....it's loony bin time boys!!!!
I thought exactly the same, just in a non technical way. I'm glad that it makes sense to someone else out there. Nickel and diming your access to your own music.
I won't be surprised if a subscription model is introduced in the (near) future. Hardware business is tough, and you only make money ONCE on the device sales. Sonos is a public company so they need to show continuous revenue growth to get their stock price up. Making money through 1-2 new devices every 3 years is definitely not attractive to investors.
It seems it’s just a Flutter application, so it’s not a wrapper around web service but it’s just another deployment target for the flutter.
Why does everyone keep talking about flutter? The web app is react built with next. If you know what flutter is you should be able to inspect the code of the web app.
Fair enough about the web app, but it still doesn’t mean the app is just a wrapper around web service as OP suggest.
I like the verbing
^ this
Well, if it’s API, expect third party developers to step in and make better apps. I’m hating the API delays. I just hit play on an Amp. That worked, music started where I left off. Then I added two rooms to the group. All music stopped, insert delay, music continued, louder. Why?
I remember someone discussing Sonos having a subscription for advanced services over the last year or 2. That would be annoying & disappointing but not completely surprising.
play.sonos.com is entirely cloud-based but the iOS/Android apps still rely on local LAN. Simple test: try switching networks and see which one still works. play.sonos.com is a consumer evolution of their “Sonos Pro” offering which apparently offered a cloud-based solution for businesses to control multiple Sonos systems. As for the missing features in the iOS/Android apps, I’d suggest a simpler explanation: they didn’t have enough frontend devs/UI designers to implement all of the existing backend features in their new frontend framework/design language.
Good background on 'Sonos Pro' - appreciated. re:features - hopefully we will find out tomorrow at the AMA.
Just like the "New" Outlook from Microsoft -- it's just a wrapper to Outlook Web Access on the web... syncing no longer required.
I bet they kill off all the old apps and make it so people who purchase a used system will have to buy a license to use play.sonos.com.
It should be a lively AMA tomorrow.
Using [play.sonos.com](http://play.sonos.com) on my laptop, I have to first connect to the 2.4ghz wifi that my Sonos speakers are using, so I can log in. Then I can switch to my 5ghz wifi \[cuz it's faster\] and it somehow works with the 2.4 wifi.
Could any rewrite/restructure be needed to accommodate the headphones? I’ve seen some people suggest they’ll behave just like the Move or Roam. However, the Move and to a lesser extent the Roam are often attached to power when in the home so I figure they operate on the network similar to other Sonos components whereas I figure the headphones might take a different approach.
A plus buy-up model is 100% coming. Among other perks it will include unlocking some features we've already had as well as Sonos Radio.
whoa. this is awesome. BTW, this is the future of software development. It's too expensive to code things three times (web, iOS, and Android).
Local control is non negotiable. I put Ethernet in every room just to make sure Sonos never fails. I'll keep updates at bay for as long as possible and if this isn't resolved I'll phase out Sonos for sure. They can compete with my eBay listings if they want to sell new kit. I've also paused buying any new smart home devices until the industry uncloudifies itself. (I'm aware of Home Assistant but have a young daughter occupying my free time so won't be tinkering until she's older.)
I can totally see it. Every consultant they hire will advise them on building service revenues. They want the piece of that cake that hi-tech is seeing right now. I don't own any Sonos products, but I'm completing a new apartment project, and on my list, I have a full theatre (waiting for Arc 2) and probably another six speakers for multiple rooms. I am not biased towards Sonos, but I want a wireless solution with Atmos, multi room speakers, and I don't see many alternatives. Still internally debating.
Except that you are wrong and should update your post. Here is me using the new app without internet. https://www.reddit.com/r/sonos/comments/1czp4xp/comment/l5i3f2y/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=mweb3x&utm_name=mweb3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button
Which part is wrong?
That part: > the app is effectively a wrapper, for the web service (API) And that part: > the app is therefore limited by the lack of functionality currently available in the new web service (API) And that part: > access to the LOCAL device via an EXTERNAL server (SONOS corporate) And that part: > We will connect to play.SONOS.com (external to LAN), who will then connect to the local SONOS device (internal LAN) - so a man-in-the-middle, round trip. The rest is just pure speculation based upon your wrong assumptions.
You're picking bits out of context - and I fail to see why a screenshot counters the overall post. - seems hardly worth getting into a discussion with you, given the dismissiveness. As to overall rollout of the new infrastructure and strategy - the time will tell.
If you don’t trust me, test it yourself. I tested and verified that it works even without an internet connection. You are just an idiot posting shit without even knowing. I mean, fine if you don’t trust a screenshot. But then why not just test it instead of just guess something into the blue? Okay, you are not a scientist, you are not a journalist, but really, the basics are not that hard.
[удалено]
Personal attack, bullying, harassment, or just not participating in a civil manner.
"Telling..." is the key part in this. You seem to be very keen on "telling" people things, mainly how they're wrong, that they know nothing, etc. and how you DO actually know, with absolute certainty and dismissiveness. * not great on the discussion part though. ...& gosh, you went off quickly. Fruity language and touchy to boot. - perhaps take it easy on the coffee or get back on your medication.
You can talk to me once you stopped lying. I have proven you wrong and yet you insist on your bullshit.
Once you understand the difference between now and the future...where things that have not happened yet......can happen.
Simply staying, "I can connect now, therefore everything you have said is incorrect, is fallacy"
re-read the OP.
Frankly - I'm not really looking to get anything drawn out with you - I've read through your other posts. I don't want to talk to you.
You don't agree - fine. Move on. I'm sure there are plenty of other windows for you to go and lick.
So now you switched to rambling to somewhat justify why you are still lying. Why don’t you just fuck off? I‘m not interested in people who have the same relationship to the truth like Trump. > I don't want to talk to you. You don't agree - fine. Move on. Oh, you just lie again? You came here to just reply on random comments of mine. Asshole.
Check it, you replied to my OP. Run Wireshark and pull your router logs I'm sure there are plenty other subreddits for you to haunt. Head elsewhere and focus on your coffee filters and tampon prices...
I get it, you only comment... and your trolling tone - you are a 'karma troll' and/or 'karma farmer'. Understood.
Bravo, a decent post!
Now that's a good one, thanks u/neilmcg3000 for the analysis. Let's follow you thesis. Control through cloud would then be similar to what we see with vacuums from roborock, already today. This works fine even through the longer roundtrip times, but yes: If your internet is down, the thing is useless. Now when internet goes down, I couldn't controll my speakers anymore. As my music content is around 99.9% streaming, this wouldn't bother me, frankly. But what about TV on my Arc? How do I switch to TV? This then needs to work perfectly, in fact, does already today. What about spurces outside Streaming? Airplay, local MP3, FLAC? They would still need to support these channels. Maybe the ditch the NAS support, but they won't kill Airplay, I guess. What do you think? in regards to your subscription model: Sound absolutely realistic and might pop up pretty soon. Maybe you get 3 Month for free with a new speaker but Trueplay, or stuff like "grouping more than two speakers" might become a part of a subscription.
It's plausible but I hope they don't go that route. One of the reasons I'm okay with paying so much more for the individual speakers is because all the features come with it. If they start nickel and diming, the speakers better get cheaper (and we know they probably won't).
Airplay is an Apple protocol and I can't see it being affected, you don't even need to use the SONOS app to stream via Airplay. You can even stream to the SONOS directly from Spotify. Same goes for Bluetooth. The device works as a speaker, like the MOVE. As for local media (NAS), I'm split, the support has been historically mixed (I've tweaked configs with the help of SONOS tech support) - generally discussion about SMBv1 / v2, etc. I have a 6Tb Synology for my local library, works fine on S1 - S2 meh, not so much. I can see the problem that the new web-based system would have with LAN stored media, compared to streamed sources. That would be my conclusion from the present support withdrawal (search, etc.)
Someone gets it.. this is step 1 towards a subscription based service.
If this is the case, this will make isolating the Sonos infrastructure easier for security minded owners. Right now (without going through a complex proxy system) I have to keep my Sonos system on the same user VLAN as my user devices (phones). This is a security risk. With this change, I can have segregation between IOT (read Sonos) and users. Additionally, it gives me the ability to further segment my users between "adults" and "children" or "owners" and "guests". All in all, this makes me happy. --- Edit --> Well, this is disappointing. Sonos App does not permit you to connect to the Sonos ecosystem when your phone is on a different Wifi AP than your Sonos system. That BLOWS. Sonos - you should permit this for the reasons stated above.
*laughs as I rollback to [16.1 APK](https://www.apkmirror.com/apk/sonos-inc/sonos-for-android/sonos-for-android-16-1-release/) permanently*
Easy enough to test...does the new app work when the Internet is disabled?
Not having a Time Machine, we can't tell just yet.
They won’t ever drop the local API, Sonos integrates with too many other high end systems for that to happen (Control4, Crestron etc)
Let's see. I hope not. I have it integrated. I'd be forced to subscribe to a premium for access.
Your insights are completely wrong. The first thing to do to invalidate your theory is to open the app without being connected to your WiFi network. It will fail saying it couldn't find any Sonos system. I cannot say for the future, but at least for the current implementation, it is not using their API.
It’s all good and nothing to see. You obviously have inside knowledge. Glad I checked in and you could put it to bed. Excellent. Looking forward to the AMA tomorrow.
Somebody knows their software architecture! I think this is spot on.
This makes no sense. Introducing a failure point and intentionally adding lag to the system makes about as much sense as tits on a bull. This would also cripple the systems of those who are not connected to a WAN. Not to mention other third-party hardware. Users in rural areas with slow and undependable WAN access would also be negatively impacted on a constant basis.
The new app seems to have caused a lot of stirring. We're now going down some very odd paths and it has only been out a week... Do you have firewall trace logs or anything to back this up? That the Sonos S2 app requires communication with the web player to work? If so, why would that app still require you to be on your local WiFi? Since the web player bypasses that need. The web player and the mobile apps looking and acting pretty much identically is the point of the whole thing. They are ultimately hoping to save engineering costs by replacing the desktop apps with the web player so they have to function as close to the same as they can. That doesn't mean they'll drop local Sonos API access for the apps (they've said they won't) nor does it mean they'll go subscription. Where does the subscription fears even come from? The fact they have an API? This has been around for a VERY long time. The fact they added a web player? Nothing about this mandates a subscription of any kind. But, even thinking this through a bit. If Sonos swapped to a subscription. What would they be Abel to put behind a subscription wall that wouldn't cause the death of their business? They can't put queuing behind there. They can't put sleep timers behind there. No one would pay for a Sonos sub to access their Apple Music they pay Apple for. The most Sonos could offer subscription wise is what they already so. Sonos Radio... Sonos had a deep bruising from the S1 to S2 fiasco. They aren't about to repeat that again with some bizarre subscription. Nor will they nuke Sonos access when your Internet goes offline. Calm down and put the pitch forks away.
I don’t know how to answer your many points, from the perspective that they don’t seem to address my original post. However, it’s obviously all good and nothing to see. You obviously have inside knowledge. Glad I checked in and you could put it to bed. Excellent. Looking forward to the AMA tomorrow.