Hi
Let's say i'm having a party, and my Sonos is playing the music.
Many of my guests are friends that earlier has gotten access to my WiFi. During the party, these guests could download Sonos Controller/app, connect to Sonos, and start controlling the music.
There is no way in Sonos controllers to set a password, to avoid this behaviour.
Other workarounds would be setting up a guest WiFi network that doesn't have access to Sonos, but this would require a new router (in som cases), or change my original password in my entire existing network, which would be annoying ;)
Are there any plans to add this feature?
Maybe even a possibility to require a password for each Sonos device (tick box in controller preferences for each device?)
Am i missing something, other than keeping my guests sober and not annoying 😃
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.
Page 2 / 8
Job done.
Well...for example, i trust my daughter. But as soon as her guests get a hold of her phone, tablet or computer, then what? You can't hide it every time you have guests, nor bring it all to the bathroom when you have to go 😉
This solution renders phone, tablet and pc useless to anyone other than my daughter.
All of the above solutions will do the job in one way or another, with some side-effects
Why not a Sonos password? It offers even more flexibility, to an already great product!
I think your daughter will learn very quickly if you ban her device from the WiFi for a while after any problematic incident.
Absolutely not a life and death problem!
You seem to miss the fact that my daughter is not the problem, her guests are! (maybe later in life, she will be problematic ;))
Tell me why my idea is a bad idea?
With passwords in place, i can set up her controllers to only control one (or more) Sonos devices. Any guests, be it adults or children, would also be denied access, even if they install a controller on one of their own devices.
I guess that's the point - perhaps there is a way that Sonos can require a login for each individual controller (which of course can be entered once and memorized foe ease of access later), so that restrictions can be set up for each individual controller. Certainly not as easy to implement as originally thought, but possible, and accomplishes what OP was suggesting.
Userlevel 1
And when somebody picks up a controller that isn't "theirs"?
Userlevel 4
+2
You seem to miss the fact that my daughter is not the problem, her guests are! (maybe later in life, she will be problematic ;))
Tell me why my idea is a bad idea?
With passwords in place, i can set up her controllers to only control one (or more) Sonos devices. Any guests, be it adults or children, would also be denied access, even if they install a controller on one of their own devices.
Did you over own a record player? Tape desk? CD player?
When you had a party in your home, did you lock them in a cupboard so nobody could change the music? No, I thought not.
If you don't want your children's Sonos household to be able to control the rest of the house, you can already do this. You configure their Sonos players to be part of a separate Sonos "household", just like my next door neighbour cannot control my Sonos devices. No password required.
The reason you don't have a password on your daughter's phone/tablet etc. is because they are a pain in the ***. If you had to type a passcode each time you wanted to skip track or change volume, it would remove the simplicity that Sonos has been built upon.
If it was commonplace to have a key on a CD player, I'm sure Sonos would have implemented this many years ago.
From a more technical perspective:
UPnP doesn't specify any kind of authentication. This is sort of the mentality behind it, it should just "work". Passwords tends to add a complexity for users and often bog down support with trivial questions like "how do I reset my password that I mistakenly activated?"
Since there are no standard for it, Sonos would either need to deviate from the specs, and go rogue, or add it as proposal for all other manufacturers to implement. This kind of feature would also break a lot of 3rd party solutions that speak with Sonos.
Thirdly, are you really considering that your cost for a new router actually would have any relevance from an economic perspective? Implementing a feature like this would at LEAST take 50-100 man hours to implement, and then testing, beta testing, roll out, not to mention all time needed to follow up on this. So your cost for buying a new router ($100?) is relevant here, how? 🙂
UPnP doesn't specify any kind of authentication. This is sort of the mentality behind it, it should just "work". Passwords tends to add a complexity for users and often bog down support with trivial questions like "how do I reset my password that I mistakenly activated?"
Since there are no standard for it, Sonos would either need to deviate from the specs, and go rogue, or add it as proposal for all other manufacturers to implement. This kind of feature would also break a lot of 3rd party solutions that speak with Sonos.
Thirdly, are you really considering that your cost for a new router actually would have any relevance from an economic perspective? Implementing a feature like this would at LEAST take 50-100 man hours to implement, and then testing, beta testing, roll out, not to mention all time needed to follow up on this. So your cost for buying a new router ($100?) is relevant here, how? 🙂
No different than using a computer that isn't "theirs". If owner of device has a passcode for the device itself (Ipad, Ipod, computer), they won't gain access. If they don't, that's their fault.
I use Quicken on my PC. Both my computer and Quicken require passwords. My choice. I could eliminate one or both passwords if desired. Could work the same with Sonos.
Thirdly, are you really considering that your cost for a new router actually would have any relevance from an economic perspective? Implementing a feature like this would at LEAST take 50-100 man hours to implement, and then testing, beta testing, roll out, not to mention all time needed to follow up on this. So your cost for buying a new router ($100?) is relevant here, how? :)
My router (Asus RT-N56U) fully supports guest network/access. I have no need for a new router, and have never stated i need a new router.
I still believe it would be a good feature to add to every controlling device.
And what is 50-100 man hours + testing for a company like Sonos?
When you had a party in your home, did you lock them in a cupboard so nobody could change the music? No, I thought not.
But you definitely close/lock doors to parts of the house you don't want people getting into. With Sonos, they could still control players in rooms you don't want them to. Also, if there are CD's you don't want your kids to play at a party (perhaps Rage Against the Machine - Killing in the Name for instance), yes, you would remove it from the cd's they can access. Might be a pain to do, but if it's important to you, you do it. With digital music, it could/should be easy.
That seems to be the best solution currently.
If it was commonplace to have a key on a CD player, I'm sure Sonos would have implemented this many years ago.
Let's not carry things to the extremes. No one is talking about passwords for every user action (skip tracks, etc). It's simply access/no access. Obviously, passwords are important for many applications, otherwise they wouldn't be so ubiquitous or recommended. Let the user decide how much access the password would allow - that way you could require no password since you don't like them, and others could get the level of control they desire. Do you have something against allowing others to benefit from features that you don't necessarily need? Your only valid argument would be if it cost you more cash or makes things overlying complicated for you.
Userlevel 1
Err, in your first two posts you stated, quite plainly, that it would need a new router!
"this would require a new router (in some cases)"
"but it could also call for a new router!"
He's talking in general terms - point being that some users may have to buy a new router. As I read it - in his opinion for his situation, passwords would be more convenient than setting up his router for guest access.
Userlevel 1
"but it could also call for a new router!"
He's talking in general terms - point being that some users may have to buy a new router. As I read it - in his opinion and in his situation, passwords would be more convenient than setting up his router for guest access.
He's not talking in general terms, he's asking specifically for his case of wanting to throw a party. He's been given a simple answer to his problem. What do you think is going to happen first, Sonos implementing this idea or him just setting up a guest network?
In the case of the router, he is talking in general terms, as his own words indicate. You just read it the way you wanted to. He's already said he didn't need a new router, so clearly he was referring to others who may. I'll let the OP follow up if he so desires.
It doesn't matter what I think is going to happen first. Whether he sets up a guest network first or not, he still has the opinion that passwords might be useful, and started a thread to express that opinion. You obviously don't think it would be. That should be enough. But when facts are distorted and misinterpreted, corrections are in order.
I still don't get it...
Main devices to manage your Sonos music today are smartphone, tablet or computer. All of them are personal/private devices and guests shouldn't have access to them as they usually contain a lot of personal/sensitive information. So I think we all agree that you should protect your devices by a passcode/password/whatever...
But if using a smartphone (let's just stay with that) requires a passcode there's no need for the Sonos app to also require a password. You don't want guests to change your music by using your smartphone. But I guess you don't want them to search your private emails, photos, chats, etc. either. So protect your devices and your done. Without the need for an additional Sonos passcode.
Just my 2 cents... 😉
Main devices to manage your Sonos music today are smartphone, tablet or computer. All of them are personal/private devices and guests shouldn't have access to them as they usually contain a lot of personal/sensitive information. So I think we all agree that you should protect your devices by a passcode/password/whatever...
But if using a smartphone (let's just stay with that) requires a passcode there's no need for the Sonos app to also require a password. You don't want guests to change your music by using your smartphone. But I guess you don't want them to search your private emails, photos, chats, etc. either. So protect your devices and your done. Without the need for an additional Sonos passcode.
Just my 2 cents... 😉
I think you have said plenty, and i agree 100% with you!
("could" and "in some cases" were carefully chosen!)
Userlevel 1
Bull****, he's talking specifically about what HE wants. You don't request things on behalf of non-existent other people, you ask for what you want.
It doesn't matter what I think is going to happen first. Whether he sets up a guest network first or not, he still has the opinion that passwords might be useful, and started a thread to express that opinion. You obviously don't think it would be. That should be enough. But when facts are distorted and misinterpreted, corrections are in order.
The point is he's been given an answer that will do what he wants RIGHT NOW. He won't get what he's asking for because people have been asking for since day 1 (as he'd know if he'd bothered to do a search on the forum for the same idea) and Sonos have never shown the slightest inclination that they're going to implement it, so he may as well just set up his guest network and get on with it instead of wasting everybody's time.
The point is he's been given an answer that will do what he wants RIGHT NOW. He won't get what he's asking for because people have been asking for since day 1 (as he'd know if he'd bothered to do a search on the forum for the same idea) and Sonos have never shown the slightest inclination that they're going to implement it, so he may as well just set up his guest network and get on with it instead of wasting everybody's time.
I don't see any reason to start a post with an inflammatory, asterisked-out expletive.
Unless you work for the Sonos development team, you have no idea that "he won't get what he's asking for". That is your opinion, and it doesn't address anything the OP asked in the first post, which is WHY a password is a bad idea?
He wasn't "given an answer" - he was already aware of the "answer" of guest-access as he stated plainly in his first post.
I feel bad for the OP, as this was his first post here, and it has not been very friendly or helpful. Instead, you chastise him for not searching (which he may have, you don't know), and then accuse him of wasting "everybody's" time. Well he didn't waste my time, so you are wrong. And who are you to speak for everybody?
OP - keep up the good ideas for product enhancement, but maybe post them on ask.sonos.com where they will be considered respectfully.
FWIW the Sonos CEO is quoted in this post from an interview a couple of years back:
Times change, but there's no sign that Sonos' view has.
"You can’t put, “hey, type in the three numbers to start using a controller” because that’s going to drive you crazy usability wise, you’ll turn it off and never turn that feature on again"
Times change, but there's no sign that Sonos' view has.
Rather than a password, would it be feasible to be able to tie an individual controller to one or more specific Sonos devices/zones?
This could be a one-off password protected option in the settings menus.
So if anyone got hold of the daughters phone, all they could access would be the relevant zone(s).
This could be a one-off password protected option in the settings menus.
So if anyone got hold of the daughters phone, all they could access would be the relevant zone(s).
Unless you work for the Sonos development team, you have no idea that "he won't get what he's asking for". That is your opinion, and it doesn't address anything the OP asked in the first post, which is WHY a password is a bad idea?
He wasn't "given an answer" - he was already aware of the "answer" of guest-access as he stated plainly in his first post.
I feel bad for the OP, as this was his first post here, and it has not been very friendly or helpful. Instead, you chastise him for not searching (which he may have, you don't know), and then accuse him of wasting "everybody's" time. Well he didn't waste my time, so you are wrong. And who are you to speak for everybody?
OP - keep up the good ideas for product enhancement, but maybe post them on ask.sonos.com where they will be considered respectfully.
Thank you for your support Rash!
Seems like you are the only one to have read my posts the way they are intended, instead of "the devil reading the bible".
If my intentions have not been clear enough for everyone else, i'm sorry to have wasted your time.....however, i will be sleeping tonight ;)
Rash: I was not aware of ask.sonos.com, maybe i'll post there, but as Ratty has pointed out with his link to an interview, the odds are stacked against me, and my debut at Sonos forums was rather discouraging, to say the least :rolleyes:
Don't let this vigourous little debate put you off. It's just that for longstanding members this issue has, as noted above, been coming up time and again for 8 years.
Yes, it would be handy to be able to restrict controllers to certain Players, but there are other ways of dealing with it today. Some are technical, as in splitting the network or Sonos Household. Some come down to basic manners and parenting. ;)
If Sonos had seen this is a deal-breaker for potential purchasers they would have prioritised development long ago.
Userlevel 4
+2
It's clear to me that Sonos should re-program the mute button again and make it sense fingerprints.
Then you could simply "log-in" to your local Sonos player with your finger and unlock the controller.
Sonos should do this right now, I would buy 10 more zones if they did...and throw a big party to celebrate. I'd even invite people I don't trust, as they couldn't change the volume as their fingers wouldn't work.
Then you could simply "log-in" to your local Sonos player with your finger and unlock the controller.
Sonos should do this right now, I would buy 10 more zones if they did...and throw a big party to celebrate. I'd even invite people I don't trust, as they couldn't change the volume as their fingers wouldn't work.
Then you could simply "log-in" to your local Sonos player with your finger and unlock the controller.
Sonos should do this right now, I would buy 10 more zones if they did...and throw a big party to celebrate. I'd even invite people I don't trust, as they couldn't change the volume as their fingers wouldn't work.
Very Funny. :D
Blunt, ironic, sarcastic and slightly mean. But funny nonetheless (as many good quips are). And on-point as well.
Best of Luck
Page 2 / 8
Enter your username or e-mail address. We'll send you an e-mail with instructions to reset your password.