Sonos Version 6.4 Now in Public Beta



Show first post
This topic has been closed for further comments. You can use the search bar to find a similar topic, or create a new one by clicking Create Topic at the top of the page.

290 replies

Userlevel 7
Badge +22
Yea no need for passcode or anything. Just a lock to keep people from doing something unintentional. The lock just effect the election screens not manipulation of the queue screen itself. I guess delete queue should be disabled though on queue screen with lock on.
I would think padlock at top of queue screen. You can do any queue manipulation you want on the queue screen. However if padlock is in place. When you are away from queue screen you can not play all or play now. Just make it so tapping on song does nothing and forces hitting the > or clicking on song behaves same as >. And play now function is disabled in that menu.

+1. No need for passcodes or "Master" controllers, just lock the queue at the song selection level. At least then the annoying Chant/Barney/Weird Al idiots can't claim they were using the defaults. They would have to physically bring up the queue screen and edit it, which at my parties would be grounds for dismissal! 😃
Userlevel 7
Badge +21
I should have said. Slide lock the queue at top of queue and all play all or play now actions give notification to unlock the queue. All problems solved. If you like the new methods don't ever lock the queue. If you are utilizing queue lock it.

A user in the very early stages of the public beta release, suggested a 'padlock' feature to help protect the queue ... I thought that was quite a sensible idea and maybe worthy of some further discussion, for example ....

Should such a queue-padlock, do one of the following actions :

1. Prevent all changes (of any type) to a queue?
2. Allow a queue to be shuffled, reordered or added to... but not allow any tracks to be deleted?

I'm sure there must be other actions, that users may want to see, but those were two options that immediately came to my mind... it is possible some users would want to see a more complex queue locking mechanism, capable of doing EITHER action 1 or 2 above, but that may then just be over-complicating things.


I don't really use the the queue but I suspect one day it will click and then wham bam! Also, I have iTunes but don't really know why I keep it as it isn't needed.

To answer Ken's query about a lockable Q, I suppose what I would expect is that if the Q is locked then it is impregnable! So if I then Click an album it plays the album or if i click play a song it plays that song or if I double click a song from within an album it plays that song and the rest of the album. Once those songs are played they don't appear on the Q (It's impregnable!). I suppose, further, that if the Q-Lock is deployed it would stop any action to remove the Q, like loading another playlist
Userlevel 7
Badge +22
Do that and I think everyone 100% happy and excited for changes.
Userlevel 7
Badge +22
I would think padlock at top of queue screen. You can do any queue manipulation you want on the queue screen. However if padlock is in place. When you are away from queue screen you can not play all or play now. Just make it so tapping on song does nothing and forces hitting the > or clicking on song behaves same as >. And play now function is disabled in that menu.
I should have said. Slide lock the queue at top of queue and all play all or play now actions give notification to unlock the queue. All problems solved. If you like the new methods don't ever lock the queue. If you are utilizing queue lock it.

A user in the very early stages of the public beta release, suggested a 'padlock' feature to help protect the queue ... I thought that was quite a sensible idea and maybe worthy of some further discussion, for example ....

Should such a queue-padlock, do one of the following actions :

1. Prevent all changes (of any type) to a queue?
2. Allow a queue to be shuffled, reordered or added to... but not allow any tracks to be deleted?

I'm sure there must be other actions, that users may want to see, but those were two options that immediately came to my mind... it is possible some users would want to see a more complex queue locking mechanism, capable of doing EITHER action 1 or 2 above, but that may then just be over-complicating things.
I agree the v6.4 beta is nothing at all like any Apple software, iTunes or otherwise.

Ken, you keep saying this, and it is just not true. I own an iPod Classic which I use in my car. The "tap a song and the whole album/playlist plays from that track on" is 100% EXACTLY how it operates. EXACTLY! I also own an iPod Touch that is less than a year old, and when I use that in the car, it is the same thing. Thirdly, when I update my iTunes library via the latest iTunes on my PC, if I click a song in the song listing, it plays the song and album/playlist from that point on. So I don't know where this idea is coming from that the current beta "is nothing at all like any Apple software, iTunes or otherwise" because my experience with iDevices and iTunes is the direct opposite.
Userlevel 7
Badge +22
And a good opinion at that
Regardless of the methodology used, there has long been a use for a "lock queue" function which only allows additions to the end of the queue. As stated earlier, a party which allows everyone to add a song to the end of the queue "jukebox" style without easily interrupting the music or rudely bumping their song choice (never mind their album choice) to the front of the queue would be a useful addition to any update. As it stands, with the "tap the song and it plays to the end of the album/playlist" function, the current beta increases the chance of interrupting the music, regardless of whether the warning screen pops up or not.

Picture this scenario: You are in a bar. Everybody is using the digital jukebox. There is always one annoying idiot who likes to screw up the fun by inserting something like Gregorian chants, The Barney Song, or Weird Al Yankovich into a queue which is mostly dance music or some other genre. The really super annoying jackasses pay extra for the "Play Next" option so they can get almost instantaneous satisfaction for their idiocy. The current Sonos beta not only allows that person to exercise the "Play Next" option, the default is to "Play Now" an entire album of Gregorian chants, The Barney Album, or Weird Al's Greatest hits, while simultaneously wiping out everyone else's selections!. At the very least a "Lock Queue" feature would allow one to spot the idiot's queue additions and edit accordingly to get rid of the junk (and subsequently banning the culprit from adding more songs).

JMHO.
I don't have a clue why buzz is so insistent that the beta appears to be mimicking iDevices or is in any way to appease iTunes users.
I agree the v6.4 beta is nothing at all like any Apple software, iTunes or otherwise.

Similar to Chris, I now find myself using the system less lately as I'm just not sure sometimes which button to press to get the outcome I desire - or even if it possible. I was listening happily to my queue the other day ( a playlist in random mode - but the order was unimportant) and wanted to interrupt it and play a whole album in order. I didn't want to lose the queue but had no visual sign of even knowing if the queue was somehow 'protected' or what would happen if I pressed a particular button - never mind dwelled on one for slightly too long...
This in many respects also just shows that the beta is nothing like any Apple software, otherwise you would not hesitate to know which options to choose.

Because the v6.4 software is so different, I think some Apple iOS users will probably take a little more time to begin to understand the new 'Play from Here' features.

Having said that though, trying to add an album (to play in order) to an already 'shuffled' existing queue is not a simple process, as the user first needs to 'switch off' the shuffle feature in the queue, before adding the album to play in order, otherwise the added album-tracks will also enter the queue shuffled, that's even if you try to add it to the end of the queue. It's just a 'slight' annoyance in the beta, but I can see many similar annoyances in previous versions of the Sonos software and indeed in other commercially available software on the market for that matter.

It seems once you have have chosen to 'shuffle all' ... things stay ... er... all shuffled.
Userlevel 7
Badge +22
If you don't lock the queue and fat finger something and mess up your queue it's your fault then.
Userlevel 7
Badge +22
I should have said. Slide lock the queue at top of queue and all play all or play now actions give notification to unlock the queue. All problems solved. If you like the new methods don't ever lock the queue. If you are utilizing queue lock it.
The comparison to iDevices comes from the very, very long standing, often contentious, "Why can't it play from here to the end of the album/playlists" thread(s). Whereas the posts in these threads almost always included "like my iPod/iPhone/iPad"; iTunes users became synonymous with this type of functionality. This is the origin of the "iUsers vs. Queue Users" references. Now the interface may have evolved since then, but old habits die hard, and regardless of such, the original standoff being used as shorthand for the current battle isn't inaccurate. It's still a battle between the "play from here to the end of the album/playlists" vs. the queue folks, so the original battle lines still apply (even if other apps have joined in the fray by mimicking the original Apple interface in some way).
Wow I was just thinking a lock switch at top of queue screen.
Yes, sounds great, especially with that "Auto-lock queue?" setting that would go in Manage|Settings|MusicLibrary|Advanced 🙂
Userlevel 7
Badge +22
Wow I was just thinking a lock switch at top of queue screen that locks the queue from deletion and adds all new songs to end of queue until unlocked. Man that would be perfect. The message screen when play all or play now side could say it queue is locked. Then you chose when to lock queue vs software trying decide when it thinks it should Protect. That would be incredible option and pretty self explanatory from a support standpoint.
Userlevel 7
Badge +22
It would be nice to have a toggle in the queue to protect it. Like a lock switch.
Userlevel 7
Badge +14
I don't have a clue why buzz is so insistent that the beta appears to be mimicking iDevices or is in any way to appease iTunes users. Unless it's based on assumptions or memories of use from many years ago and none in between? I don't see the similarity to be honest - and the suggestion of 'i' users seeing a different interface by default based on the assumption of one set of users being more open to alternatives is surely baseless - and one that I see as leading to more support issues, not less.
I own no 'i' devices but sometimes some of the things written here/stated as fact about all things Apple are so wrong or misleading it's bizarre. But it appears to be just as cool to 'diss' Apple as those who religiously follow them think it is to do so.

Similar to Chris, I now find myself using the system less lately as I'm just not sure sometimes which button to press to get the outcome I desire - or even if it possible. I was listening happily to my queue the other day ( a playlist in random mode - but the order was unimportant) and wanted to interrupt it and play a whole album in order. I didn't want to lose the queue but had no visual sign of even knowing if the queue was somehow 'protected' or what would happen if I pressed a particular button - never mind dwelled on one for slightly too long...
Userlevel 7
Badge +22
That would be good news. Will report back tonight from my end.
I avoid tapping on anything so much now I haven't checked. I will tonight. Play now track click single track didn't delete queue but interrupted music previously.
oh my bad .... doesn't seem to interrupt the current track now.
Userlevel 7
Badge +22
I avoid tapping on anything so much now I haven't checked. I will tonight. Play now track click single track didn't delete queue but interrupted music previously.
Userlevel 5
Badge +2
That Sonos operates the way it does is because it does. It does not need to emulate other programmes which would only serve to confuse.
I find the Sonos way to be very intuitive and logical. That it requires some user input to master is not a bad thing.
It seems to me that we are debating between operating by classic Sonos rules, which I like, and adopting "iTunes mode" (but it can't be called this without attracting lawyers). .... [snip] ...Why are we doing this? Is the case that support has been flooded by befuddled iTunes users stumbling over the Queue? Or has there been a flood of complaints by iTunes users that the user interface is not working as it should (the iTunes way is the only way)?
Hi Buzz,
just guessing, but I assume that their intention is just to make it easier for people to get music started, and to keep it running.

It is for people who like the way a light switch switch operates; one click and the light goes on, and there is no need to click the button again every four and half minutes (or however long it is that the average track runs for).

I think that the "classic Sonos rules" are to fill every room with aural wallpaper, and sadly not every room contains an actual music lover such as yourself. ... I don't think that it has much to do with imitating Apple.

The sad fact is that Sonos has never been targeted to actual music lovers. Otherwise how could you account for long term omissions like the composer not being displayed on the Now Playing screen. The music browsing experience was surprisingly lame on day one, and 11 or so years later has barely improved, other than the nice (semi)-universal search facility. ... I see these new UI changes as just more of the same.

With the new user interface it is a lot of work to play only one track. And, it is rather easy to lose my Queue.

You can play 1 track with 'Add to end of queue', if you get in quick before the queue is exhausted. ... But the new changes are disappointing in a number of ways if you wait until the queue ends, as I prefer to retain the day's queue, just as I have for the last seven years.

I think that one good thing about the new changes is that when the queue is protected (aka edited), you get a confirmation question to avoid accidental destruction of the queue, unless it is obvious from your menu choice that you want to do so ("Replace queue" for example). ... It is a pity that you have to do something artificial like queue an album, and them re-add the last track, and then delete it just to put the queue into a protected state.


Why are we doing this? Is the case that support has been flooded by befuddled iTunes users stumbling over the Queue?

I think that support may be getting a rude shock if these changes get released as-is. There is nothing too intuitive about them if you ask me. ie. Play Next plays All From Here ... or Play Next, where the queue is exhausted, is pushing the material into queue position #2, so that most of the queue gets repeated ... or that Play Next when the queue is exhausted doesn't cause anything to be played, it just adds the items to the queue (in the wrong place) .... or that the queue is protected only after multiple items have been individually queued

I was going to add "or that Play Now against a track, which has been found via a track search, destroys the queue "without confirmation" ... but this seems to be fixed, so that's progress. ... You seeing this Chris?
I agree with buzz

I don't know where buzz gets the idea that the new Sonos beta software works like iTunes, or iPod, or any Apple software. It most certainly does not operate like the more recent Apple Music App. I have used them all and none of these things load up the complete album, or playlist, when selecting a single track to play. The Apple Music app now on all iOS devices including iPod, has a queue that I would describe as operating similar to v6.3 of the Sonos software, which can be shuffled or edited after the queue has been loaded.

The beta, if anything, is totally different to what iOS users are used to. I say that as a user of iOS and iTunes for over 8 years.

Where I do agree 'slightly' with buzz, is that I think users should have the option to choose how things work, I suspect iOS and iTunes users would actually choose his 'classic'-described mode, but probably avid users of Spotify would select the more recent 'modern' option.

However, I also like to side with Sonos in many respects, who clearly want their all-in-one controller to work in the exact same way on every single mobile and tablet, in every home. The idea being, a Sonos user can then go to anyones audio system, during a party for example, and it will operate the same way for all, just as if it were their own controller and they will immediately be able to take 'control' and play music, without having to think about it and without any adjustment to the software settings.

Once customisation creeps into an app, it can eventually change things beyond recognition, the proof of that is evident in the Windows Operating system and many other Microsoft products.

Sonos are attempting to find the 'common ground' for operation of their devices, but such things will likely never please everyone, but the majority of users should be happy in the end.

It's a difficult task for Sonos and I applaud them for trying and that's despite the beta not being what I am used to. It certainly adds more tracks to my queue than before and I am most certainly listening to more music, but this modern way, may not be for some classic people, who are not prepared to accept change.
Userlevel 7
Badge +22
I agree with buzz
With regard to the Android controller:

It seems to me that we are debating between operating by classic Sonos rules, which I like, and adopting "iTunes mode" (but it can't be called this without attracting lawyers).

Sonos is loath to add any system level options. I think that they see this as complicating support. But, following modern "best practices," there is no hesitation to adding endless drill downs. I'm a track by track person and "play from here" is a complete turn-off for me. This is one major reason why I refused to adopt iPods. Now, I must drill down two or more screens in order to play only one track.

I would appreciate a "Classic" (SONOS) or "Modern" (iTunes) operator mode -- set at the system level. I don't think that this needs to complicate support. There could be a subtle change to the screens such that "Classic" and "Modern" could be quickly determined by asking the user a single question. There is no need to drill down the setup screens.

Why are we doing this? Is the case that support has been flooded by befuddled iTunes users stumbling over the Queue? Or has there been a flood of complaints by iTunes users that the user interface is not working as it should (the iTunes way is the only way)? If it is the latter, then I'm doomed to be trapped in an iTunes world because there are more "Moderns" than "Classics".

With the new user interface it is a lot of work to play only one track. And, it is rather easy to lose my Queue.

Would it be reasonable to use "Modern" mode on iDevices and "Classic" mode on Androids? The assumption being that Android types are more open to alternative user interfaces while iDevice users would prefer to stay with iTunes-like interactions.

I'm OK with the Windows DCR because I can drag and drop a track on the Queue -- at the Queue location of my choice.