Hi @Ralph Bolton,
No, that’s not how this works.
If a player is not able to update to S2 via normal means (i.e. through the Sonos app) then we cannot make it update for you.
You’ve received wrong information, and no one in our support team will perform such an upgrade for you, regardless of the size of the system or how much fuss you make.
I also heard from a friend that the moon landings were all faked. (Just kidding.)
S2 isn’t wildly different from S1 anyway
It already is, and will increasingly diverge. The key point is that S2 simply won’t fit on legacy devices. Their memory is too small.
Thanks for the response - and that was pretty much what I was expecting to be told. If what I heard was true though, with no disrespect intended, it’s unlikely to have come from Support - probably a few rungs further up the management ladder. I of course don’t expect Sonos to talk about this, but wondered if anyone in the community would care to comment?
Not everything on the internet is true...
ratty has already responded correctly, there is simply neither enough memory or CPU capabilities in the ‘legacy’ devices to run S2, no matter what your friend told you.
ratty has already responded correctly, there is simply neither enough memory or CPU capabilities in the ‘legacy’ devices to run S2, no matter what your friend told you.
Graphic showing difference between S1 and S2 hardware: https://www.facebook.com/Phonos.application/photos/a.915560425121335/3373638859313467/
If what I heard was true though, with no disrespect intended, it’s unlikely to have come from Support - probably a few rungs further up the management ladder. I of course don’t expect Sonos to talk about this, but wondered if anyone in the community would care to comment?
I’m sorry to say that this sounds like the kind of conspiracy theory which abounds in darker corners of the internet. Its genesis is obviously the suspicion that Sonos management deliberately crippled the legacy units by not extending S2 to them when they could have, so as to force users to upgrade.
Such theories typically germinate and are nurtured in complete ignorance of engineering, or even of the basic laws of physics.
My guess would be that this rumor actually has some basis in fact, but as it was passed on from person to person, it got twisted into something that’s wholly incorrect.
There are several Sonos speakers that are capable of running on both S1 and S2 systems. To name a few, play:1, Sonos One, playbar, play:5, play3, etc. So yes, these speaker can be running on an S1 system, and then upgraded to run on a S2 system. This is not a secret at all. There are also some speakers that are only capable of running on S1, such as the old ZP devices and Connect and Connent:Amp made before a certain date (the exact date, I don’t recall). There is no way that these legacy devices can operate in an S2 system. Of course, Sonos newest products are S2 only.
It’s entirely possible that someone alone the chain of this rumor misunderstood how it works, and possible little understanding of Sonos products at all and started claiming that any device can run on S2….that’s how they interpreted what they were told. Indeed, there really isn’t any such thing S1 or S2 hardware, as S1/S2 designates the operating system, not hardware classification. I don’t think there is any official hardware classifications that Sonos has made, as each product has different hardware with different capabilities, depending on it’s function and the price/availability of hardware at the time the product was released. The closest I’ve heard is referring to S1 only devices as ‘legacy’ while everything else is ‘modern’.
@Ralph Bolton . Please explain why it is so implausible that the capabilities of the Sonos system have increased so much since the early years - and are planned to increase yet further - that the oldest devices simply cannot keep up. The only devices that have been limited to S1 had 32MB of RAM, vastly less than the latest products. Why would you choose instead to believe an unsubstantiated rumour with no provenance whatsoever?
Also, please could you explain precisely what you mean by “technically, S2 is possible on S1 hardware”? What does that look like?
I’m not arguing that old gear can do as much as new gear. All I’m saying is that I heard via a friend that someone’s got a big house, with lots of Sonos (“something in pretty much every room”). When the whole S1/S2 thing happened, the owner “kicked off” at Sonos, who eventually relented and somehow enabled S2 on the (otherwise mixed) system.
I have no idea what it looks like, other than the owner says they’ve got S2, even though some of their gear is old. I’m looking forward to an opportunity to see for myself, and ideally find out what is and is not possible with it. Maybe something for the future.
As for an “unsubstantiated rumour” - I heard it from someone I trust, who presumably was talking about someone they trust. Whilst I wouldn’t say it has “no provenance”, I can’t verify it, that’s true - hence I came here, and asked the question. I was only asking, I wasn’t looking to start some sort of flamewar or even to dredge up the whole S1/S2 debacle all over again.
Thanks for the response - and that was pretty much what I was expecting to be told. If what I heard was true though, with no disrespect intended, it’s unlikely to have come from Support - probably a few rungs further up the management ladder. I of course don’t expect Sonos to talk about this, but wondered if anyone in the community would care to comment?
I’ll comment. S2 cannot run on S1 devices. Period. It is too big for the hardware. Also, new (post split) devices cannot run on S1 because in order to be recognized by the S1 system, a device needs to be defined in the S1 software. Since S2 only devices didn’t exist at the time S1 was frozen, there is no way to define them in S1 without running into the hardware limitations cited above.
So, Sonos not only won’t upgrade S1 devices to S2, they physically can’t upgrade them to S2. Nor can they combine new S2 only devices with S1.
Hilarious. Every crazy rumour there has ever been has resulted from someone who heard it from someone they trusted, who heard it from someone they trusted…
The only things missing are names, plausibility and even a tiny scrap of evidence.
Just obtain an undoctored dump of the full Sonos System Info in Settings/System/About My System. We can soon put this ludicrous rumour out of its misery.
As for an “unsubstantiated rumour” - I heard it from someone I trust, who presumably was talking about someone they trust. Whilst I wouldn’t say it has “no provenance”, I can’t verify it, that’s true - hence I came here, and asked the question. I was only asking, I wasn’t looking to start some sort of flamewar or even to dredge up the whole S1/S2 debacle all over again.
It sounds like you’re only willing to listen to answers that concur with the rumor you’ve heard.
Besides the whole hardware limitation issue that invalidates your theory….why would Sonos even do this if it were possible? So you have a big customer, someone with the max number of speakers you can have, which is 32. Say that half of them are legacy, only capable of S1. If Sonos was really concerned about losing this customer, and the influence they provide, wouldn’t be a lot cheaper to just replace his speakers at cost or for free? Making some weird exception and allowing legacy speakers on S2 would be a nightmare for Sonos. If word gets out they did this, they have a TON of upset customers. Even if it remains a secret, they would have to test each version of S2 with these legacy speakers to make sure nothing breaks….just for this single or very few customers. That’s going to cost a lot more that just replacing his speakers with S2 compatible ones.
I suspect that, if said noisy customer raised a stink with Sonos, Sonos simply explained the benefits of the trade-up scheme. A single legacy product earns a 30% discount off any Sonos product including ‘sets’ . It doesn’t take a lot of maths to figure out that the discount off a ‘set’ could easily exceed the entire original purchase price of the legacy unit. Plus you get to keep or sell the functional legacy unit.
Most likely there is a misinterpretation of the “Is this process reversible?” paragraph.
I’m looking forward to an opportunity to see for myself, and ideally find out what is and is not possible with it.
This is the best way for you to get your theory tested. Hopefully you will report the results here, either way!
Thanks all for your ideas. It is of course entirely possible that the story got confused from person to person. If I ever get a proper look at the system in question, I should hopefully be able to put that one to bed.
It’s also possible the original install was altered in some way such that S2 became possible without any special intervention. However, I doubt that to be true - anyone with any amount of Sonos, bought over several years has a few old devices and a few new ones - upgrades of several devices, even with the trade-in deals are likely to be expensive - that’s something you’d imagine the home owner would remember - and would unlikely be twisted into “they did it for free”.
It is also possible it’s a split S1/S2 system - although again, I suspect this is unlikely. That’s not something you’d do by accident, nor does it leave your system able to play music in every room while you make breakfast (unless you’re very lucky to be able to shuffle devices around just-so). Again, it feels like this is unlikely to have been misunderstood.
As for the question of “why would Sonos do this?” - well, that’s of course anyone’s guess. It’s been suggested that they could have made a version of their software which would naturally “downgrade” on older hardware. Evidently they chose not to do this, and by “cutting S1 loose” somewhat, they’ve disenfranchised some customers (apparently none reading this though). I don’t know if such a customer would have any legal claim against Sonos, but if they did, then it seems entirely feasible for Sonos to “fiddle” with an install so that it says it’s S2, but perhaps only operates with S1 features or some such. Since Sonos Support have given us an unequivocal “no” on the subject, if such a thing were to have taken place, it would certainly seem to be an “outlier”.
Lastly, for whomever it was asking for names, well, I heard it from Derek, and he was talking about Tim. Both dads at my kids school. I’m not sure how that helps, but there you go.
As I say, thanks all for your inputs - it’s been interesting. I’ll see if I can substantiate anything I asked about and report back.
Thanks all for your ideas. It is of course entirely possible that the story got confused from person to person. If I ever get a proper look at the system in question, I should hopefully be able to put that one to bed.
You’re the only one who still has any doubt about this.
It’s also possible the original install was altered in some way such that S2 became possible without any special intervention. However, I doubt that to be true - anyone with any amount of Sonos, bought over several years has a few old devices and a few new ones - upgrades of several devices, even with the trade-in deals are likely to be expensive - that’s something you’d imagine the home owner would remember - and would unlikely be twisted into “they did it for free”.
No, it’s not possible. There was no special install that was done before S2 existed that somehow made the devices work on S2. That’s like saying that it’s possible that 1980s computers could somehow read blueray disks by chance.
It is also possible it’s a split S1/S2 system - although again, I suspect this is unlikely. That’s not something you’d do by accident, nor does it leave your system able to play music in every room while you make breakfast (unless you’re very lucky to be able to shuffle devices around just-so). Again, it feels like this is unlikely to have been misunderstood.
You could have misunderstood what was told to you. Splits can make sense especially for larger installs, depending on how you want to use the system.
As for the question of “why would Sonos do this?” - well, that’s of course anyone’s guess.
It’s not a matter of guessing, it’s a matter of using the facts we know to logically conclude that there is no logical reason for Sonos to provide some sort of special version of S2 that works on legacy devices for a secret group of customers.
It’s been suggested that they could have made a version of their software which would naturally “downgrade” on older hardware. Evidently they chose not to do this, and by “cutting S1 loose” somewhat, they’ve disenfranchised some customers (apparently none reading this though).
You are the only one that’s made that suggestion.
I don’t know if such a customer would have any legal claim against Sonos, but if they did, then it seems entirely feasible for Sonos to “fiddle” with an install so that it says it’s S2, but perhaps only operates with S1 features or some such. Since Sonos Support have given us an unequivocal “no” on the subject, if such a thing were to have taken place, it would certainly seem to be an “outlier”.
No. It’s nonsense. Sonos has no legal obligation to continually provide software updates and new products to S1 customers indefinitely. It’s been well over a year now. Again, if Sonos had a concern about losing some existing customers over this, they would providde trade in discounts, which they have for all, or free replacements to special customers. The cost of the replacements would surely be much cheaper than create a special secret S1/S2 hybrid version of Sonos...not to mentioning giving these customers all the benefits of S2.
Seems to me that unless the OP does a hands on test of the referred system, and comes back with any revelations, there is nothing more to be said here.
Its marketing and nothing more…. not enough CPU or memory? S2 does not run on the speaker, only firmware. Someone made a poor decision and here we sit. Thousands in gear that’s EOL due to some pricks marketing decision. It would be different if SONOS was actually doing a good trade in program, but the $$$ off new to upgrade sucks!
They could have wrote a new APP that’s backwards compatible, I wasn’t born yesterday.
Now my new Roam is just BT…..
The firmware is S2, or S1. The only gear that is EOL is the 30 pin dock for iOS devices, and the CR100 remote controller. All other devices continue to run as they always have.
You may not have been born yesterday, but you don’t seem to understand memory or CPU restrictions when talking about the firmware that operates the computer in each Sonos device.
S2 does not run on the speaker, only firmware.
What? You appear to have no understanding whatsoever of how Sonos works, which does rather undermine your argument.
Its marketing and nothing more…. not enough CPU or memory? S2 does not run on the speaker, only firmware. Someone made a poor decision and here we sit. Thousands in gear that’s EOL due to some pricks marketing decision. It would be different if SONOS was actually doing a good trade in program, but the $$$ off new to upgrade sucks!
They could have wrote a new APP that’s backwards compatible, I wasn’t born yesterday.
Now my new Roam is just BT…..
The app is a controller, that is all. It has nothing to do except issue control commands. 90% of all functionality is done by the firmware on the players themselves. This includes, searching, fetching, and playing music, setting up and accessing accounts and services, storing and editing playlists, maintaining the queue, everything in fact, except displaying the content and issuing play/stop/FF/REW commands.
Don’t believe me? Set up a queue of music. Then exit the controller app. Turn off your phone/tablet. Toss it out the window or in the toilet. Smash it with a hammer. Does the music still play? Of course it does, because as I said, the app is just a controller.
And when it comes to understanding how Sonos actually works, you do seem to have been born yesterday.
Its marketing and nothing more…. not enough CPU or memory? S2 does not run on the speaker, only firmware.
They could have wrote a new APP that’s backwards compatible, I wasn’t born yesterday.
The older speakers have limited amounts of memory. The phone running the app does not have the same limitation. Sure, the app could (theoretically) be written. The app controller could then send play instructions to the device. But what when your phone is running a different app? Music stops cos the app terminates? Run in background mode so data streaming risks becoming patchy? When someone else in the household fires up the app on their phone, how does their controller know what yours is doing? Does your stream get terminated?
I think it’s time to accept the S1/S2 situation once and for all.
