Yeah seriously! Why did they? I was thinking the same thing. 

They didn’t get rid of it.    If you’ve just joined the forums at least take a few minutes to look around.  That way you’d find the facts of the matter.

the app is a rewrite from the ground up.  As such, nothing was removed.  Rather the queue functionality has not yet been rewritten back i to the new code.  Yes, it is not there — but knowing this gives you some background to the facts, that it - that it wasn’t removed.

also if you’d taken just a few minutes to look around you would know that an update is due around mid-June with the queue functionality reinstated.

The thread about this is even pinned on the first page of the community: 

“The functionality has been removed.”

“No it hasn't. They rewrote the app but didn't include that functionality.”

This is rather a weak semantic argument.

Sonos replaced the original app with a new one, but didn't flag that they hadn't included all the functionality of the original app.

The end users were updated to an app that looked different, behaved differently, had reduced functionality, but was nevertheless advertised to them as the same S2 app. They don't care whether technically it has been completely rewritten.

The Future Feature updates statement was only added after end users complained that functionality was missing. Before that they made no mention, probably because they originally had no intention of including it (the “new” search has been around long enough for Sonos to have included local libraries but they never did - until the people complained when the classic search enabling this was removed.)

Having read a few of andrew_s comments, they seem to be rather supercilious, condescending and dismissive. A Lot of people do not like the change to the app and pretty much force updating users to a new app with reduced functionality is the same as removing functionality.

Defend Sonos if you wish, but using such condescending straw man arguments won't win you any friends.

im not defending Sonos — the whole point is it is not semantics.  The whole point is that the question  behind ‘why have you removed xyz’ is a flawed one.  I got that to the end user there is very little difference if the specific functionality is not there.  But when you look a bit deeper and find that there is a reason why the functionality isn’t there and that said functionality has already has been flagged for return,  it gives you a better understanding of the facts behind was has happened and that a remedy is due. If you care to think about it just for the briefest of time that very  clearly is not semantics.   I don’t defend Sonos for releasing the app without the missing functionality or with the bugs.  But I do try to correct people’s misunderstanding of the reality of the situation.  I’m sorry you find that condescending.  As you are super-sensitive to facts, I think you would find it condescending were I to suggest you find out the meaning of semantics.  Just saying ….. 

@Andrew-s

Like any forum, it’s binary. If you’re not on the side of the complainant, you must be on the other side (a defender, a fan boy, a shill…). People don’t want to hear they’re being irrational or unreasonable, and certainly don’t want measured explanations because that neutralises the comment. They want their view validated, echoed, and amplified by others. Anything else is an affront.