I work for an integration company in Illinois, we are a control4 and Sonos dealer. This has directly affected our system designs to the point that we have decided to move another direction(DENON HEOS). With the official DENON C4 driver we can maintain search across streaming services. This is a huge deal to our clients and is the sole reason we have moved toward HEOS. We love your products and personally I will continue to use them at home but will have to reluctantly spec HEOS on all future designs unless this gets resolved very soon. The extra vegetables driver, although somewhat of a hack, worked great for us for a long time and sadly over night it's as useless as your endorsed driver. Although custom integrators may be a small segment of your market, we have a very strong influence on the end user and are often the introduction to your product. I can also say that many other control4 integrators in our region have expressed similar concern. Hopefully there can be a solution soon. Thanks

---

Just a quick update for you all, Control4 recently made a post about the situation here with some more details.

---

Its simple - Sell Sonos and buy HEOS.



Already purchase my Dennon AV.



Please let us be able to search from our Control4 Touchscreens, Allow us to play announcements though our Sonos speakers.



Backwards Step big time

---

Yes Denon, but can you count the number of Denon apps in the play Store?

Every time they refresh a product they build a new app that is not retrocompatible.

They always change api.

Support for old models is crap too.

This is something which is keeping me from buying heos products.

I have got a Denon avr x2100w.

Camillo

---

Cam, understand your comments, I love sonos, but it needs to work with my house. HEOS as many faults, but at the moment if sonos break my control of

Sonos with my control 4 system, I will need to look elsewhere, hence the reason I bought the amp.



The amp is brilliant

---

sonos why did you have to change the api it was a great one this has costed me a lot of money this past week take your product out and putting in Denon

---

It is concerning not just that Sonos put out an API that drastically reduced functionality but also that they don't seem to get why that is not OK. The universally negative reaction was easy to predict so how did they not know this change was a bad idea?

---

They Don't care I'm going to have my client call

---

It is concerning not just that Sonos put out an API that drastically reduced functionality but also that they don't seem to get why that is not OK. The universally negative reaction was easy to predict so how did they not know this change was a bad idea?



Probably because the integration of Control4 was not an official one? Why should Sonos care about that?They have to make progress and that might cause other integrations to fail as a consequence.

---

They should care because we spend money on (Big Money) on equipment that works with C4

---

Probably because the integration of Control4 was not an official one? Why should Sonos care about that?They have to make progress and that might cause other integrations to fail as a consequence.



Thanks for the clarification. I was probably confused by the August 16th article in CEPro that announced: "Control4, Crestron, Deutsche Telekom’s QIVICON, iPort, Lutron and Savant are Sonos’s first sanctioned partners." I didn't understand the distinction that sanctioned integrations were not necessarily official ones.

---

Thanks for the clarification. I was probably confused by the August 16th article in CEPro that announced: "Control4, Crestron, Deutsche Telekom’s QIVICON, iPort, Lutron and Savant are Sonos’s first sanctioned partners." I didn't understand the distinction that sanctioned integrations were not necessarily official ones.



Good lord you cant be this obtuse! :?



The old interface, which is now broken, was unsanctioned. The new API, which seems to be working just fine for 5 out of 6 recently announced sanctioned partners, is the one causing trouble for Control4. Now where do you get off making definitive statements blaming Sonos for an API that works great for 5 out of 6 sanctioned partners, instead of pointing fingers at the outlier company who seems more concerned with their old, outdated interface than developing for the new one?



At the very least you should preface your "facts" with the statement that you have no idea if they are true, and very well may be made up out of whole cloth.

---

Control4 was a bit of a special case. As far as I know, there were two integrations. The official Sonos one (with limited capabilities) and the unofficial one that Control4 was using (the one people are complaining about now). While I can understand that people are not happy with this situation, I can totally undertand Sonos position. To make progress, you have to do changes and these changes might effect other stuff, but if that stuff is not supported in the first place, why should they care about that?

---

Well I guess I am as thick as you say because I am not following you here. I have never seen where anybody complained about the old interface being broken, only that it was withdrawn and is no longer available. It continues to work just fine in old installations that have not upgraded. The complaint comes from customers who were upgraded from the old driver to the new one and lost functionality or from new installations where full functionality can no longer be offered because they have to use the new driver.



So in a nutshell it is not a matter of people being upset that the old driver was somehow broken, because in most situations it continues to work just fine, but rather that the new driver, the only one currently available, has to have so much less functionality, the reason for which has not been explained well enough to satisfy these unhappy customers.



The customers do not care if the issue is with the Control4 driver or with the API but they are upset, which means the dealers are upset. It will be interesting to see how this gets addressed within the new sanctioned partner environment.

---

I understand why customers are upset, and they have every right to be. That even means they have a right to be upset regardless if it is the API at fault or the implementation.



Still doesn't let you off the hook for definitively leveling blame at Sonos, in this and any other thread you could shoehorn it into, when it is based on nothing but rampant, not to mention incredibly biased, speculation.



And yet again you set up the idea that Sonos could somehow explain where the blame lies without betraying its partner, a scenario you know is impossible, yet you keep suggesting it. You also refuse to address the likelihood that the blame lies with the implementation, when 5 out of the 6 partnerships have no complaints about the exact same API.



The transparency of your agenda would be laughable, if it weren't so sad. :8

---

I understand why customers are upset, and they have every right to be. That even means they have a right to be upset regardless if it is the API at fault or the implementation.



Still doesn't let you off the hook for definitively leveling blame at Sonos, in this and any other thread you could shoehorn it into, when it is based on nothing but rampant, not to mention incredibly biased, speculation.



And yet again you set up the idea that Sonos could somehow explain where the blame lies without betraying its partner, a scenario you know is impossible, yet you keep suggesting it. You also refuse to address the likelihood that the blame lies with the implementation, when 5 out of the 6 partnerships have no complaints about the exact same API.



The transparency of your agenda would be laughable, if it weren't so sad. :8



I don't know if the other 5 partners are even using the new API yet so I don't know if they will have any complaint or not. It is Control4 who implied the problem is with the API so I'm not clear why they can say something but somehow Sonos cannot without "betraying it's partner". And finally I would certainly be interested in learning what my "sad agenda" is. You don't know who I am, what I am trying to accomplish, or why, but if my agenda is so transparent should explain it so everyone can be on their guard against my evil plot.

---

Your longstanding complaint that Sonos wouldn't let you stay at version 4.X has had you jumping on every seeming Sonos mistake, real or imagined, for years now. You never consider any alternative explanation for why Sonos would need to move forward without being able to support every legacy version of their software at the same time. You are peeved that you couldn't add new Sonos devices without upgrading to current software, and you never miss any opportunity to point out where changes may have disrupted other users, no matter how much Sonos is to blame, or how unavoidable the changes are. In doing so, you make assumptions that fly the face of logic, and for which the facts are not in evidence, all to feed your anger over Sonos not allowing you to stay at a long dead software version.



So, how'd I do?

---

Your longstanding complaint that Sonos wouldn't let you stay at version 4.X has had you jumping on every seeming Sonos mistake, real or imagined, for years now. You never consider any alternative explanation for why Sonos would need to move forward without being able to support every legacy version of their software at the same time.



I haven't yet seen a credible reason why they cannot make old software versions available with the caveat that they are not supported. Most of the other connected home technologies I work with do allow you to downgrade with the understanding that you must upgrade to the current version before you can get support. if you then downgrade back to an older version that is on you. No credible alternative explanation has ever been offered for why Sonos cannot embrace this common practice.



You are peeved that you couldn't add new Sonos devices without upgrading to current software,





I have never ever, ever suggested that Sonos should allow you to add new products without upgrading firmware. Only that they should allow you t expand your system with products that are supported by your current firmware version without requiring an update. I have explained this distinction to you many times in the past but for some reason you just don't want to hear it. Again there has yet to be any credible "alternative explanation" for why Sonos could not do this.





...and you never miss any opportunity to point out where changes may have disrupted other users, no matter how much Sonos is to blame, or how unavoidable the changes are...



As I have pointed out many, many, times in the past, the situations where Sonos changes have been disruptive to connected home users are generally NOT accompanied by explanations as to why they were "unavoidable". In most cases the appearance is that Sonos just focused on some specific goal without making any effort to evaluate the unintended consequences. If those consequences were truly unavoidable it is up to Sonos to explain why so that users who are adversely affected at least understand why they have to tolerate a problem they did not have prior to the last update. [/quote]



In doing so, you make assumptions that fly the face of logic, and for which the facts are not in evidence, all to feed your anger over Sonos not allowing you to stay at a long dead software version.



I don't have any anger towards Sonos and am only interested in the future of the connected home space (whether that ultimately includes Sonos or not). If Sonos is going to play in this space they need to be more sensitive towards those who have to support the entire integrated environments and not just look at Sonos as a stand alone product. I will make assumptions, speculate on the implication of things for the future of connected homes, share rumors in attempt to surface additional information, and poke at various parties (Sonos, Control4, or whoever) to better explain what they are doing in order to better predict where things are headed.

[/quote]



So, how'd I do?



As usual you focused on a few phrases that bugged you without taking time to understand the point under discussion. That's fine. It's a free country so post whatever you want.

---

So you admit you do this to poke at Sonos (among others), speculate, and deal in rumors. You also admit that you've yet to hear an explanation you are willing to accept for the things I mentioned.



Thanks for the clarification, not that I needed it. Looks like I was spot on!



Oh and by the way, you most certainly called for Sonos to allow you to add newer model Sonos units to a system with a years old software version. You just changed your tune when you realized how silly it was to expect that.

---

So you admit you do this to poke at Sonos (among others), speculate, and deal in rumors. You also admit that you've yet to hear an explanation you are willing to accept for the things I mentioned. .



Yes I have never denied this. I seek information via many mechanisms including introducing provocative topics of discussion and I do not accept explanations that do not actually explain anything.



Oh and by the way, you most certainly called for Sonos to allow you to add newer model Sonos units to a system with a years old software version. You just changed your tune when you realized how silly it was to expect that.

No you just failed to actually read what I was saying in those posts and then claimed I was "moving the goal post" when I attempted to correct you. Go back and actually read all of the words in those posts, not just the phrases you want to rant about.

---

I've read them. I also read your original lament about not being able to add to your system and keep it at 4.X. You most certainly thought you should be able to add more modern units until you were informed that the newest models weren't even sold when 4.X was out. You then proceeded to backtrack.



But hey, at least there is some amount of technical logic you will accept. Baby steps. Baby steps.



But seriously (and to get this back on topic), you were asked in another thread to supply hard evidence that the Sonos API was lacking the features you accused it of, and you gave nothing. Yet, here you are again with the exact same accusation, and aside from rumors, you again have no facts to back you up. No API specs, no literature, no official statements, nothing. It's time you put up some evidence, or start posting disclaimers. This "I'm going to post assumptions/innuendo/rumors as fact in order to force a statement from Sonos" shtick just isn't cutting it

---

I haven't yet seen a credible reason why they cannot make old software versions available with the caveat that they are not supported. Most of the other connected home technologies I work with do allow you to downgrade with the understanding that you must upgrade to the current version before you can get support. if you then downgrade back to an older version that is on you. No credible alternative explanation has ever been offered for why Sonos cannot embrace this common practice.





Common practice? Examples? Certainly not offered by companies providing free lifetime support that Sonos is famous for doing so well. Allowing multiple firmware versions would be a support nightmare, increasing costs dramatically, to the point where Sonos would be forced to charge for it, like everyone else. No thanks!

---

I've read them. I also read your original lament about not being able to add to your system and keep it at 4.X. You most certainly thought you should be able to add more modern units until you were informed that the newest models weren't even sold when 4.X was out. You then proceeded to backtrack.



But hey, at least there is some amount of technical logic you will accept. Baby steps. Baby steps.



But seriously (and to get this back on topic), you were asked in another thread to supply hard evidence that the Sonos API was lacking the features you accused it of, and you gave nothing. Yet, here you are again with the exact same accusation, and aside from rumors, you again have no facts to back you up. No API specs, no literature, no official statements, nothing. It's time you put up some evidence, or start posting disclaimers. This "I'm going to post assumptions/innuendo/rumors as fact in order to force a statement from Sonos" shtick just isn't cutting it



I am not going to falsely present myself as a technically savvy person who can discuss API specs. People on other forums have reported that their customers are unhappy about the new Control4 driver and stated it was because of the Sonos provided API. I have repeated those concerns here so Sonos can explain why they are unfounded both for Control4 and anyone else who depends on the new API for integration. Anything that the user community is unhappy about is considered a "fact" until there is a good explanation they can accept to say otherwise.

---

As I stated, you are posting speculation, rumor, and innuendo as "fact", in multiple on and off topic threads, in an attempt to "poke" Sonos into making a statement.



How's that working out for you? 😃

---

Common practice? Examples? Certainly not offered by companies providing free lifetime support that Sonos is famous for doing so well. Allowing multiple firmware versions would be a support nightmare, increasing costs dramatically, to the point where Sonos would be forced to charge for it, like everyone else. No thanks!



Don't even bother chicks. mike has had this explained ad infinitum, and while he relies heavily on the "I am not going to falsely present myself as a technically savvy person" excuse to self-exempt from providing proof of his "facts", he suddenly becomes an IT expert when evaluating the technical aspects of software version control and the ROI therein.



He's got a shtick, and he never wavers from it. Better just to call him on his lies.

---