EXCELLENT QUESTION! 
In the App user Account settings perhaps look under the ‘Legal & Privacy’ category, there’s lots in there that may shed some light on what you’re perhaps looking for. I don’t think anything in terms of updates to the Sonos hardware changed - I think it was more about changes to the App for a users system which is a ‘remote’ rather than a ‘player’ I didn’t notice much change to the hardware.
Anyhow I hope the suggestion above will assist.
One may be ceding control over one’s speakers to Sonos via a EULA for the app? Unwittingly or otherwise?
One may be ceding control over one’s speakers to Sonos via a EULA for the app? Unwittingly or otherwise?
This is the concern. I bet we have “accepted” what they are doing implicitly but I do not recall being asked for permission explicitly.
In the App user Account settings perhaps look under the ‘Legal & Privacy’ category, there’s lots in there that may shed some light on what you’re perhaps looking for. I don’t think anything in terms of updates to the Sonos hardware changed - I think it was more about changes to the App for a users system which is a ‘remote’ rather than a ‘player’ I didn’t notice much change to the hardware.
Anyhow I hope the suggestion above will assist.
I think that there are a lot of changes being delivered to the speakers. The obvious example is the new API they are so proud of. Whilst they will want to keep the app and speaker updates in synch we should be given specific information on both sets of changes as part of the update process.
This could be done by linking the What’s New for the update but it is worth noting that the What’s New for the 7th May update failed to mention any of the features that were missing.
In the App user Account settings perhaps look under the ‘Legal & Privacy’ category, there’s lots in there that may shed some light on what you’re perhaps looking for. I don’t think anything in terms of updates to the Sonos hardware changed - I think it was more about changes to the App for a users system which is a ‘remote’ rather than a ‘player’ I didn’t notice much change to the hardware.
Anyhow I hope the suggestion above will assist.
I think that there are a lot of changes being delivered to the speakers. The obvious example is the new API they are so proud of. Whilst they will want to keep the app and speaker updates in synch we should be given specific information on both sets of changes as part of the update process.
This could be done by linking the What’s New for the update but it is worth noting that the What’s New for the 7th May update failed to mention any of the features that were missing.
I just assume we do not own these features anyway, but that they are licensed to us (for free) and perhaps subject to change. I may stand corrected but, I don’t think much has actually changed on the speakers themselves, but that the changes mostly apply to just the software ‘remote’ App. The speakers have always been available to the internet using SMAPI and all MSP providers can obviously play to my devices etc.
Just as one quick further example, relating to a so called removal of Alarms in the Sonos App, I was still able to enable/disable a Sonos alarm, post new Sonos App release, simply by using the Soro ‘shortcut’ 3rd party App/controller - which in fact can (still) do some things the Sonos App can’t do, like scheduling ‘Night Sound’ and ‘Speech Enhancement’, clearing room queues etc. I did however pay for that App. I can operate things remotely too and it’s been that way for as long as I can recall.
These licensing agreements are not usually something that overly concern me, like most other App EULA’s I find that if I reject them, then usually the functionality being offerred is taken away.
I’ve even seen some services removed from my TV over the past couple of years and from my Cable TV provider too. At least in this instance, with Sonos, I’m happy to know that Sonos have plans to put many (not all) of the things back, unlike the other manufacturers of my T`V/Cable Box - those things have gone for good, it seems.
I rely on all these companies though, with their agreements, to do their level-best to keep my devices/network secure and that’s really all I can perhaps hope for.
I think that there are a lot of changes being delivered to the speakers.
If any of these are of the kind you refer to in the first part of your opening post, this is a naked heist by Sonos, EULA or no EULA.
They sold you the speaker, they did not rent it to you.
As a S1 user, I am glad that I am of no interest to Sonos, they will leave me alone as long as I do not update my S1 version.
To expand as an example - from all I am reading I get a sense that when local NAS play returns, it will involve the cloud and will not work without internet access, as it does today under S1, and in the way it has since the birth of Sonos. NAS play can be done minus internet.
Once the cloud is in the picture, so is the potential for latency and external glitches affecting music play of locally hosted music.
EULA cannot be a cover for inflicting this on users. Now it is quite possible that some users may be ok with latency and many may not be NAS users. Both types may be happy to cede control of their speakers to Sonos for all the singing/dancing future that Sonos is promising to give them.
But not everyone would want to get into bed with Sonos to that extent, so the obvious solution is that users should have the option to do that, or, choose not to so get into bed, but still use Sonos in the way they have all these years.
All that may mean is all users can choose between S1 and the new courageous app if they have hardware that can make nice with that app.
Today that choice isn’t there for users to exercise.
They sold you the speaker, they did not rent it to you.
The speaker they sold, but read your software licence, some it was given to you under a GPL license, other sections under Sonos license.
They sold you the speaker, they did not rent it to you.
The speaker they sold, but read your software licence, some it was given to you under a GPL license, other sections under Sonos license.
Oh sure, no one reads EULA till an event like this happens. One assumes what is in the second part of the OP opening post, and gets blindsided by the first part, if that gets invoked and then justified by what is in the fine print of the EULA. Does that make it ok?
They sold you the speaker, they did not rent it to you.
The speaker they sold, but read your software licence, some it was given to you under a GPL license, other sections under Sonos license.
Oh sure, no one reads EULA till an event like this happens. One assumes what is in the second part of the OP opening post, and gets blindsided by the first part, if that gets invoked and then justified by what is in the fine print of the EULA. Does that make it ok?
Looking at it from the other side, if you agree to a contract’s terms are you justified in complaining when the other party acts within the contract?
