Forced to update to incompatible controller software?

OK, well, be that as it may, I shall not be leaving another fridge's worth of phantom power drain on 24/7.

Modern power supplies limit the stress caused by turning devices off and on. In the EU at least, all devices sold are required to handle this, AFAIK.

Nothing about a power supply can mitigate the effects of thermal cycling. A unit not drawing power is cooler than a unit drawing power and by definition going from one state to the other requires a thermal cycling. But as ratty said, it is your choice. Whatever makes you feel good. But if one is really going calculate the energy footprint of any given product, one must realize the overall impact on the environment is far more complicated than, not to mention counter intuitive to, the standard narrative. Otherwise, we are really looking at what makes us feel good, rather that what is good for the environment.

Thanks for everyone's help.
I apologise if I was a bit sharp there but I'm not in the best of moods today, for entirely unrelated reasons.

I think a lot of us can understand that.

Modern power supplies limit the stress caused by turning devices off and on. In the EU at least, all devices sold are required to handle this, AFAIK.

Nothing about a power supply can mitigate the effects of thermal cycling. A unit not drawing power is cooler than a unit drawing power and by definition going from one state to the other requires a thermal cycling. But as ratty said, it is your choice. Whatever makes you feel good. But if one is really going calculate the energy footprint of any given product, one must realize the overall impact on the environment is far more complicated than, not to mention counter intuitive to, the standard narrative. Otherwise, we are really looking at what makes us feel good, rather that what is good for the environment.

I assume you're referring to the energy and resources needed to manufacture another Sonos speaker if it stops working due to the constant cycling. Well, I know what power I'm using (or not using) today, but I have no way reliably to estimate the lifespan of a Sonos speaker, or the effect (I suspect small) of such infrequent cycling. So there's no way to do those calculations.

Anyway I note that Sonos has been telling owners of some older products that their functionality is going to be more limited because they're 10 years old. I suspect your Sonos product is likely to be made obsolete by the constant upgrade cycles long before it dies due to power cycling.

No, I mean it is far more complicated than simply measuring watts. Materials used, manufacturing methods, shipping methods, lifespan, replacement cost, disposal method, etc., all have an environmental impact. If you are perfectly OK justifying your concerns by ignoring these factors because you think they are minimal or do not apply, fine. That is your right. But there is pretty good evidence that some of the more "green" technologies have hidden environmental costs that dwarf the savings advertised.

And the only limited Sonos devices are the controllers. The original ZP100 and all subsequent players are still going strong. Of course that does bring up the fact that Sonos brand controllers have been abandoned for phones/tablets, which are the poster children for the disposable society, not to mention having a catastrophic environmental and human impact in the places they are manufactured and/or "recycled". But that is another story altogether.

Anyway, I think the point is made that a lot of this is mere cherry picking to make oneself feel good, with no real measure of the true environmental impact. None of us is really willing to live without our luxuries despite the effects on our planet and its people, so we point to the big yellow Energy Usage stickers to alleviate the guilt. But then again, I'm a born pessimist, YMMV! 😃

Yes, but you're raising concerns that individuals have no way to factor in to their calculations in practice. Even if I wanted to, I could not calculate all of those impacts that you mention. Short of hairshirt environmentalism (trying to consume less), which I believe is a total dead end, not least because most people will never adopt such a lifestyle, all you can do is take the measures that lie within your power as an individual. I think it's a false dichotomy to suggest that either we pay no attention to energy usage, or stop consuming products altogether. It's not true that energy efficiency has no impact - the trend in energy usage vs. GDP growth suggests otherwise.

As I said, you do what makes you feel good. Others take other factors into account, and feel the mitigating factors do not justify the possible impact of turning the units off all the time (the same tactic you used earlier in thread to discount the life cycle argument). Neither one is wrong. Which is why statements like "You may not care about how much energy you use, but I certainly do." will be challenged. Nobody is accusing you of being environmentally careless, in kind you shouldn't resort to knee-jerk accusations in reply to well thought out, well evidenced rebuttal of your position either.

Like I said, I'm a bad mood today for unrelated reasons so I apologise for using overly aggressive language.
I don't see how others can take those other tactors into account when they don't have the data to do the comparison. I think each person should do whatever is in their power, and trust that others will do their part.

Well, that's the thing. You don't see how others can take the other factors into account, and we don't see how you can not take them into account. Your view is that you are cutting down on energy use by turning them off, with no accounting for the fact you may actually be using more energy (not to mention other environmental impacts). You are just assuming the mitigating circumstances are not negating your efforts, whereas we are assuming the opposite. Both sides are assuming, one is simplifying the equation, the other complicating it. Neither one is necessarily correct, and both are assuming much more than is in evidence.*

*Though I would posit that there is much evidence to support both the shortened lifespan of electronics due to voltage/power cycling and the environmental impact of the disposable society; which the decreased lifetime of a Sonos unit would certainly contribute to.