Answered

SAVE THE CR100



Show first post
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.

3233 replies

Userlevel 1
Badge +3
does the sonos app work well with the 'assistive device ' mode of a smartphone? I don't think so. What do blind people do? The CR100 with its large tactile buttons was easy to use. Is there a 'tactile replacement'?
does the sonos app work well with the 'assistive device ' mode of a smartphone? I don't think so. What do blind people do? The CR100 with its large tactile buttons was easy to use. Is there a 'tactile replacement'?

Echo, Echo Dot, Sonos One..
Userlevel 2
Badge
So @Ryan_S, how about another approach? Ok, you won't support the CR100, you won't open source it, you won't give it to its pathetic remaining user "community". How about you crowdfund a new environment-resistant hardware controller, with a modern CPU and quantity of RAM, and give anybody with registered CR100s a set of discounts into that crowdfund (maybe proportionate to their controller-years of investment?). In the meantime you support the CR100 for a few more months. If there's demand it'll fly, if not, all us CR100 dinosaurs get to see how antedeluvian we really are, face up to our obsolescence and we can all kill ourselves or work out a modernisation path over the next while or whatever. Hey, even if it succeeds you can make the new controller out of the worst quick-death embedded-obsolescence tech if that suits your modern moral compass. We know you regret longevity, but won't really know until it dies on guarantee+1day.

For me, I discovered you were going to kill my titchy four grand Sonos system less than two weeks before your April deadline: that kindof sucks. I don't do Apple, I try to avoid Google, so I have one kindof-Android device, which I currently use to update my music index on demand when I buy a new album (since you removed Music Library management from the CR100), which is my only remaining control option. You are killing my home music system, and for me that's twelve or more years of investment. I early-adopted you, and now you really think disowning me is the best path forwards?

Go loyalty I mean market forces I mean eh.

Seriously: you made something really good once, and now your best thought is KILL IT NOW?

Rant ends, sigh.
does the sonos app work well with the 'assistive device ' mode of a smartphone? I don't think so. What do blind people do? The CR100 with its large tactile buttons was easy to use. Is there a 'tactile replacement'?
Yes, as far as I know. Try it out.
Userlevel 5
Badge +2
Johngolfuk,
...You seem to be asking for the Sonos CEO and an entire 'responsible' corporation, who have already openly stated in writing that they perceive that there is a potential future fire risk involving their now-old CR100 controllers, to now alter their decision and to set aside any concerns that they may have and to provide an official corporate supported path to allow their customers to continue to use their old 'risky' controller devices...
I’m sure we would all agree that even one serious fire in a family home from such an old device, would be one fire too many.

I just cannot see any responsible CEO, or responsible corporate body, agreeing to your proposal, if such a risk, however small, is still being openly perceived by them...


@Ken_Griffiths
Thankyou for you constructive contribution to this discussion, regrettably there still seem to be a large amount of debate about why Sonos are choosing this course of action (largely because Sonos will not respond and are basically stone walling the discussion).

I think all can agree that even one fire would be far to many (and the cost of such for SONOS would be far greater than doing the right thing by customers now would be) but there is uncertainty if this is correct / accurate / true representation of the problem. I think there is a nice post regarding the differences in product design between the CR100 & the new generation of products that present a fire risk.

When asked directly does a product safety issue exist with the CR100s they are remaining incredibly tight lipped (feel free to correct this SONOS). If an issue does exist Sonos path is clear and a product recall would be expected and I don't imagine anyone thinking otherwise BUT that is not what is being presented here.

What is being presented is just an arbitrary "End of Life" of working hardware that has been lawfully purchased in good faith, is functional to this day, and is fore-filling a valid role for many users, this is an enforced solution being pushed on all users.
The voucher offered does little to compensate a number of users because they offer no equivalent product the voucher can be spent on and any extra hardware and setup purchased with this would be real additional outlay especially in the case of owners of multiple CR100s.
This means the consumer will be stung with the loss of functional hardware, in addition to replacing the controllers they are being asked to outlay further just to get value from the vouchers.
IMO this stinks of someone being cheap at the expense of some of their most loyal and long term customers, and I think Sonos should be ashamed of this. The only people whom the voucher really helps are people whom no longer see the value in the CR100s (obviously this is a personal choice for each user and this apparently is echoed by Sonos)

The CR100s usage seems to vary widely but it still seems to be valued sufficiently to have 2000+ posts, in the most part by people like myself that have better things to do than read & write in forums but feel strongly enough about this issue to be wasting their time on it... IMO what is being proposed is "wrong" on many levels but only Sonos will know if they should be recalling CR100s because of safety consideration or corporate ones either way I think there are many better ways to deal with long term customers.:?
Userlevel 3
Badge +4
Hi I'm trying to lock down my system and my firewall can block "update.sonos.com" but I also trying to block ALL updates from iTunes APPstore with "appldnld.apple.com" and "mesu.apple.com" but it doesn't work. If I block "apple.com" then it blocks the update but then I cant look at my appleTV. Does anybody know what sites to block ? there is 94 sites with xxx.apple.com and its hard to know what they do.Another approach is to disable automatic updates in iOS from Settings >> iTunes & App Stores. In the Automatic Downloads section, turn off Updates. This will force you to explicitly open the App Store to manually update any application that has a new version, however.And you must do this for every iOS device in your household with the Sonos app.

If it was that easy. I have done want you have written.BUT children and guest can trigger the update. AND a friend who already has upgraded their Sonos can by misstake upgrade my units when visiting. It has already happen a year ago.
Userlevel 7
Badge +8
The CR100 connects to Sonos players differently than other 3rd party apps and the changes that are coming aren’t likely to affect those apps. Most of these apps work using UPnP commands.

By removing the code from players that supports connections from a CR100, are there new features or fixes that can be deployed into older players with 32MB and 64MB of RAM?

That's a great question. The changes that are coming won't be freeing up much space on older players but we're always working to try and bring new features to those players.


Just a reminder it doesn't free up much space, and we can expect no new features according to Ryan
Userlevel 7
Badge +8
I was actually looking for another post where RyanS stated the device was safe as any other with a lithium battery but can't find it in the post list. But I did find the one above which puts to the sword the thoughts that great features and nirvana lie at the death of the CR100.

I also had a call with a UK Support Team Leader where she told me the device was 100% safe.If anyone can dig up RyanS post on safety it would be great.

For the UK it is simple. The device is safe or dangerous. If it is dangerous then a recall is required. If it is safe then we can continue to use. If an incident happens then the courts may look at the contents of Sonos recent releases with regard to potential safety issues with the CR100.

It is up to Sonos, and Sonos alone to determine if the device is safe. There is no pressure that Sonos can attribute to users.

Safe = apologise to users for the FUD
Dangerous = recall

A bit dangerous because it is a bit old isn't a legal position afforded to Sonos i the UK at least. If it is not a safe product it is a dangerous product.
AnotherMusicListener,

Obvouisly the main purpose of my earlier post in this thread, was a part-constructive (invited) critique of johngolfs draft letter. I just cannot see such a 'formal' document persuading (inciting) a responsible body (the Sonos CEO) to provide an 'official' means of prolonging the life of the CR100 when they, (Sonos), have inferred that the older their device gets, with its 'sealed for life' batteries and aging circuitry etc. the perceived fire risk either occurs, or is possibly increased.

I simply cannot see Sonos reversing their decision having now openly and publicly stated (verbally and in writing) that such a a perceived fire risk exists with a CR100, in their opinion. I was simply pointing out to johngolf that I think his letter to the CEO would not achieve the outcome he is hoping for.

It’s really not the case whether the actual risk exists it’s what’s in the 'mind' of the corporation.

The CR100 is most probably too old to recall and repair/restore. There may not even be the capability to do the necessary work to put it in good order, but it is right the company should do all it can now to remove the perceived risk to their customer.

The age of the product and possibly the amount of CR100's now in circulation has led the company to end its life and compensate their affected customers accordingly.

The only way I can ever see the CR100 continuing to function, post April, is for the individual customer to ignore the Sonos official advice and go it alone, by doing so, they themselves are then accepting the (perceived) risks involved.

Note ... I’m really quite surprised that some here, are (still) openly encouraging others (in writing) to take the entirely unofficial path, and prolong the life of a CR100, as who knows what might happen if someone does, in the future, eventually come to harm, or their home is damaged etc. An insurance assessor or other authority could throw all, or part of the blame in the direction of some core individuals in this community thread. I personally think it’s unwise to openly encourage others to take an action that involves ignoring an officially acknowledged risk.

Anyhow, that’s perhaps a debate for another time....

I simply think that johngolfs letter and indeed this thread should focus less on saving the CR100, but maybe look at the level/type of compensation on offer from Sonos instead.

I think the CR100 will go in April, no matter what is said and done here, or elsewhere. Sonos simply must do that, having now expressed the (small) risk it exposes towards a customer.

On the compensation front, as a onetime owner of a CR100, I personally think the compensation Sonos offered was fair exchange ...and I’m reasonably sure the majority of other owners, have also thought that way too and taken their voucher in exchange, but there will be some, of course, who are not happy with the offer.

That’s where the real argument of johngolf's letter should, in my opinion, place it’s focus, otherwise I think his letter will simply fail.
Userlevel 7
Badge +5
AnotherMusicListener,
On the compensation front, as a onetime owner of a CR100, I personally think the compensation Sonos offered was fair exchange ...and I’m reasonably sure the majority of other owners, have also thought that way too and taken their voucher in exchange, but there will be some, of course, who are not happy with the offer.
fail.


As an ex-owner of ONE CR100, that's entirely unsurprising. I too would be somewhat less aggrieved if I also only faced the prospect of losing ONE CR100 - indeed, a refund of about 1/3rd of the original purchase cost of a device some 12-odd years later certainly isn't something to be dismissed out of hand.

The trouble is Ken, that many of us own (and are still using) multiple devices. For myself, it's 3, if you look through previous posts, there are others with many more than that... I think I recall the greatest number of CR100's mentioned by any single owner was 11 of them... 11!! - if some/all of those also had cradles (an additional $40 each) - that represents jolly well near $4000 of investment, and even if, as Sonos have stated in one of the replies here, "their research indicates a $50 tablet is a suitable replacement" (and let's leave well alone the the well-hashed debate about the definition of "suitable" as that's already been done to death here) - then that owner of 11 devices is going to have to buy 11 $50 tablets, ($550 so far) - and likely as not, to get the same installation/placement aesthetic is likely to need to also purchase some additional mounting hardware, (potential cost unknown, but for arguments sake lets say a really low $10 / unit), so another $110, so already that person is looking at being out of pocket by $660 - and has to spend a bunch of time (time=money) refitting everything.

Do you truly believe it is "fair" that you get $100 for your single CR100 - which by your own admission you don't use any more, and thus has no replacement cost to you, and he still only gets $100 for that $4000 investment that is wiped out, plus the $660-odd replacement cost, plus all the "buggeration factor" of all the time & effort that will need to put into the job of replacing them?

I've already spent what feels like days dealing with this, and I'm a paid-by-the-hour contractor, so I really don't want to think too much about what I've already lost in earnings by having to be sidetracked by Sonos actions.

To me, that really does not strike me as very fair.
Userlevel 5
Badge +4
I have a wife with a fiery temperament whose volatility appears to have increased since we publicly contracted in a church some years before our first CR100 came along. I'm watching the options closely and although sometimes slow to react (often in sleep mode) she's never yet exploded irreparably despite feeling warm if left recharging for too long in the conservatory. 😃
Userlevel 7
Badge +8
@F00tS0re, to be clear, this is a precautionary action. Aging lithium ion batteries have the potential to become overheated when left charging for extended periods of time. Given the controller’s age, this could affect the plastic casing of the CR100. We recommend all CR100 owners unplug and return or responsibly dispose of the controller.

Sonos: - can we please have a DEFINITIVE answer: - is the "kill switch" already in our devices? do we need to apply the April update to enable the delivery mechanism for the CR100 kill code? and ergo, is continuing to use CR100's past April an option (as has been given as a suggested solution numerous times by Sonos support staff) ???

My official statement marked as the best answer to this thread addresses this if you missed it.
In early April, we will release a software upgrade that will no longer support the aging CR100. Here are your options:
  • Accept the upgrade, understanding that your CR100 will no longer connect. This is our strong recommendation for two reasons: 1) due the age of the battery in the controller, it has the potential to overheat when left charging for extended periods of time 2) you will continue to receive the latest features, bug fixes, and security updates. This is a far better solution for safety and performance reasons, but we realize you’ll need to transition to a new controller. We have resources available to help you get set-up on an alternate controller and are offering a coupon code to sonos.com to help make the transition easier (amount varies regionally, one per household).
  • Ignore future upgrades, leaving your Sonos system on its current version. We do not recommend this option. If you do go this route, you are acknowledging the risk of the aging lithium ion battery in your controller. Additionally, opting not to update means you will not receive any new features or future security patches for your entire system – not just the CR100. For example, being on an unsupported version means that you might lose connectivity to music services, as is already the case for Google Play Music on the CR100. It is necessary to configure your system in advance to avoid future updates. Any update applied to the firmware and/or to the app, even unintentionally, is irreversible.


So according to Ryan the issue is precautionary - no actually known dangers exist.
Userlevel 7
Badge +8
AnotherMusicListener,

Obvouisly the main purpose of my earlier post in this thread, was a part-constructive (invited) critique of johngolfs draft letter. I just cannot see such a 'formal' document persuading (inciting) a responsible body (the Sonos CEO) to provide an 'official' means of prolonging the life of the CR100 when they, (Sonos), have inferred that the older their device gets, with its 'sealed for life' batteries and aging circuitry etc. the perceived fire risk either occurs, or is possibly increased.

I simply cannot see Sonos reversing their decision having now openly and publicly stated (verbally and in writing) that such a a perceived fire risk exists with a CR100, in their opinion. I was simply pointing out to johngolf that I think his letter to the CEO would not achieve the outcome he is hoping for.

It’s really not the case whether the actual risk exists it’s what’s in the 'mind' of the corporation.

The CR100 is most probably too old to recall and repair/restore. There may not even be the capability to do the necessary work to put it in good order, but it is right the company should do all it can now to remove the perceived risk to their customer.

The age of the product and possibly the amount of CR100's now in circulation has led the company to end its life and compensate their affected customers accordingly.

The only way I can ever see the CR100 continuing to function, post April, is for the individual customer to ignore the Sonos official advice and go it alone, by doing so, they themselves are then accepting the (perceived) risks involved.

Note ... I’m really quite surprised that some here, are (still) openly encouraging others (in writing) to take the entirely unofficial path, and prolong the life of a CR100, as who knows what might happen if someone does, in the future, eventually come to harm, or their home is damaged etc. An insurance assessor or other authority could throw all, or part of the blame in the direction of some core individuals in this community thread. I personally think it’s unwise to openly encourage others to take an action that involves ignoring an officially acknowledged risk.

Anyhow, that’s perhaps a debate for another time....

I simply think that johngolfs letter and indeed this thread should focus less on saving the CR100, but maybe look at the level/type of compensation on offer from Sonos instead.

I think the CR100 will go in April, no matter what is said and done here, or elsewhere. Sonos simply must do that, having now expressed the (small) risk it exposes towards a customer.

On the compensation front, as a onetime owner of a CR100, I personally think the compensation Sonos offered was fair exchange ...and I’m reasonably sure the majority of other owners, have also thought that way too and taken their voucher in exchange, but there will be some, of course, who are not happy with the offer.

That’s where the real argument of johngolf's letter should, in my opinion, place it’s focus, otherwise I think his letter will simply fail.


Ken

Thanks for the contribution, it is nicely written, polite and I agree with you to some extent. Yet as the above post from Ryan S and my call with a UK Team Leader (Sarah Jane) who stated the device was 100% safe it is possible that the safety issue was just a poorly constructed and thought through ploy with no actual substance. So there is an option to just retract it.

To be clear I don't want to keep the CR100 if it is dangerous, I want it recalled. If it is safe and this was just a FUD mechanism then I want to keep the device.

If as you surmise Sonos are going to have to follow through on the clear and present danger then there is a European wide mechanism for that - it is a recall. That ensures legal compliance, whereas just asking a few customers to not use it doesn't. I don't see that Sonos should be above the law.

I notified Citizens Advice (first line for Trading Standards), they have concurred with my assessment that if the devices are in fact dangerous then they should be recalled. They have notified Trading Standards.

The whole issue has been poorly handled by Sonos.
Userlevel 7
Badge +5
@F00tS0re, to be clear, this is a precautionary action. Aging lithium ion batteries have the potential to become overheated when left charging for extended periods of time. Given the controller’s age, this could affect the plastic casing of the CR100. We recommend all CR100 owners unplug and return or responsibly dispose of the controller.

Sonos: - can we please have a DEFINITIVE answer: - is the "kill switch" already in our devices? do we need to apply the April update to enable the delivery mechanism for the CR100 kill code? and ergo, is continuing to use CR100's past April an option (as has been given as a suggested solution numerous times by Sonos support staff) ???

My official statement marked as the best answer to this thread addresses this if you missed it.
In early April, we will release a software upgrade that will no longer support the aging CR100. Here are your options:
  • Accept the upgrade, understanding that your CR100 will no longer connect. This is our strong recommendation for two reasons: 1) due the age of the battery in the controller, it has the potential to overheat when left charging for extended periods of time 2) you will continue to receive the latest features, bug fixes, and security updates. This is a far better solution for safety and performance reasons, but we realize you’ll need to transition to a new controller. We have resources available to help you get set-up on an alternate controller and are offering a coupon code to sonos.com to help make the transition easier (amount varies regionally, one per household).
  • Ignore future upgrades, leaving your Sonos system on its current version. We do not recommend this option. If you do go this route, you are acknowledging the risk of the aging lithium ion battery in your controller. Additionally, opting not to update means you will not receive any new features or future security patches for your entire system – not just the CR100. For example, being on an unsupported version means that you might lose connectivity to music services, as is already the case for Google Play Music on the CR100. It is necessary to configure your system in advance to avoid future updates. Any update applied to the firmware and/or to the app, even unintentionally, is irreversible.


So according to Ryan the issue is precautionary - no actually known dangers exist.


I'd also asked explicitly and unambiguously in the support case I raised last month:

"Question: Is there now, or has there ever been, a “problem” with Sonos hardware batteries? – can you point to any Sonos customers who have suffered a battery explosion or fire? Has a recent occurrence lead to this overreaction?"

The reply from Sonos to that question was:

"In response to the points made in your email, as a conscientious, customer focused company, Sonos have chosen this route to prevent any occurrences of the situations you mention. An overcharged, overheated li-ion battery could lead to any one or all of these situations and so we are therefore taking a pro-active approach to safeguard our users and the Sonos experience."

So that would be a no then...

As an ex-owner of ONE CR100, that's entirely unsurprising. I too would be somewhat less aggrieved if I also only faced the prospect of losing ONE CR100 - indeed, a refund of about 1/3rd of the original purchase cost of a device some 12-odd years later certainly isn't something to be dismissed out of hand.

The trouble is Ken, that many of us own (and are still using) multiple devices. For myself, it's 3, if you look through previous posts, there are others with many more than that... I think I recall the greatest number of CR100's mentioned by any single owner was 11 of them... 11!! - if some/all of those also had cradles (an additional $40 each) - that represents jolly well near $4000 of investment, and even if, as Sonos have stated in one of the replies here, "their research indicates a $50 tablet is a suitable replacement" (and let's leave well alone the the well-hashed debate about the definition of "suitable" as that's already been done to death here) - then that owner of 11 devices is going to have to buy 11 $50 tablets, ($550 so far) - and likely as not, to get the same installation/placement aesthetic is likely to need to also purchase some additional mounting hardware, (potential cost unknown, but for arguments sake lets say a really low $10 / unit), so another $110, so already that person is looking at being out of pocket by $660 - and has to spend a bunch of time (time=money) refitting everything.

Do you truly believe it is "fair" that you get $100 for your single CR100 - which by your own admission you don't use any more, and thus has no replacement cost to you, and he still only gets $100 for that $4000 investment that is wiped out, plus the $660-odd replacement cost, plus all the "buggeration factor" of all the time & effort that will need to put into the job of replacing them?

I've already spent what feels like days dealing with this, and I'm a paid-by-the-hour contractor, so I really don't want to think too much about what I've already lost in earnings by having to be sidetracked by Sonos actions.

To me, that really does not strike me as very fair.


No Paul, I have not said anything in my posts above that says the compensation on offer is fair to eveyone. In fact I said I saw it was fair for my particular circumstance. It also appears it may have been seen as being fair by a good many other members/customers here, who have chosen to accept the Sonos voucher as being fair exchange.

It is the reason why I have suggested the letter from johngolf to the Sonos CEO (and perhaps this thread) should not focus on saving the CR100, but perhaps address the level of compensation on offer. The compensation offer is sometimes not suitable to everyone. That’s why I would be happy to support that argument to address it, but it’s an individual argument on a 'case by case' basis.

I just don’t think saving an old CR100 device, which a company openly states in writing that they perceive to be a potential future fire risk due to aging batteries and/or circuitory etc; should be the aim of the letter. It is why I was suggesting johngolf should switch matters, to make the level of compensation his objective, which appears to also be your own personal aim that I am seeing in your reply above.

I think trying to save the CR100 through any official channels is like 'flogging a dead donkey', having in mind what the company has published about the long term use of that device. Johngolfs letter, in its current form and in my view, will not achieve the outcome that he is hoping for.

He did ask for others to critique the content of his text and I can only finish by adding that my comments in my subsequent posts are just my personal opinion. I’m certainly not looking to offend anyone here by my remarks.
F00ts0re,

Obviously I do not know if the CR100 is dangerous or not, or whether, over-time it is being suggested by Sonos that it may become a fire risk due to its unique 'sealed for life' batteries and circuitory construction.

I don’t think it’s a case either, whether the manufacturers perception is a valid one at this point, because the device has now far exceeded it’s expected life-span. It clearly has exceeded its journey, as quite a few customers have openly expressed and accepted in the community forum, that they have tampered with their devices and changed their batteries in a last-ditch effort to keep them running.

So I personally don’t think the core argument of this thread ought to have ever been to keep the CR100 devices running, post April. The attention should have been to address the level of compensation on offer, but it is an argument that perhaps only exists for a few remainers, on a case by case basis.

As a responsible individual Home Owner, Parent and Grand Parent, I’m not one who would choose to argue with a manufacturers published written recommendation that may otherwise lead to some harm, even if their perceived risks, were later proved to be incorrect. I would rather accept a 'suitable' level of compensation, than remain exposed to the future perceived potential harm.

I also would not 'unofficially' and 'openly' encourage any others to go against the official manufactures advice, by showing/describing to them, a way to keep their CR100 devices running, post April, as that too would expose the author of such instructions to further additional personal risk. I just sincerely hope than no one comes to any future harm because they followed the unofficial advice given earlier by others in this thread.

So my views are reasonably clear, the CR100 devices are clearly officially going to be 'dead in the water' and further conversation or letters to the CEO etc. should really perhaps focus on the offer(s) of compensation, negotiated on an individual basis, by the core remainers.

I just don’t see saving the device is now a valid cause, even a small perceived risk is one that may bring future harm to a family and I don’t want to wait to see if that happens ...and clearly neither do Sonos, or its CEO.
Userlevel 7
Badge +5

As an ex-owner of ONE CR100, that's entirely unsurprising. I too would be somewhat less aggrieved if I also only faced the prospect of losing ONE CR100 - indeed, a refund of about 1/3rd of the original purchase cost of a device some 12-odd years later certainly isn't something to be dismissed out of hand.

The trouble is Ken, that many of us own (and are still using) multiple devices. For myself, it's 3, if you look through previous posts, there are others with many more than that... I think I recall the greatest number of CR100's mentioned by any single owner was 11 of them... 11!! - if some/all of those also had cradles (an additional $40 each) - that represents jolly well near $4000 of investment, and even if, as Sonos have stated in one of the replies here, "their research indicates a $50 tablet is a suitable replacement" (and let's leave well alone the the well-hashed debate about the definition of "suitable" as that's already been done to death here) - then that owner of 11 devices is going to have to buy 11 $50 tablets, ($550 so far) - and likely as not, to get the same installation/placement aesthetic is likely to need to also purchase some additional mounting hardware, (potential cost unknown, but for arguments sake lets say a really low $10 / unit), so another $110, so already that person is looking at being out of pocket by $660 - and has to spend a bunch of time (time=money) refitting everything.

Do you truly believe it is "fair" that you get $100 for your single CR100 - which by your own admission you don't use any more, and thus has no replacement cost to you, and he still only gets $100 for that $4000 investment that is wiped out, plus the $660-odd replacement cost, plus all the "buggeration factor" of all the time & effort that will need to put into the job of replacing them?

I've already spent what feels like days dealing with this, and I'm a paid-by-the-hour contractor, so I really don't want to think too much about what I've already lost in earnings by having to be sidetracked by Sonos actions.

To me, that really does not strike me as very fair.


No Paul, I have not said anything in my posts above that says the compensation on offer is fair to eveyone. In fact I said I saw it was fair for my particular circumstance. It also appears it may have been seen as being fair by a good many other members/customers here, who have chosen to accept the Sonos voucher as being fair exchange.

It is the reason why I have suggested the letter from johngolf to the Sonos CEO (and perhaps this thread) should not focus on saving the CR100, but perhaps address the level of compensation on offer. The compensation offer is sometimes not suitable to everyone. That’s why I would be happy to support that argument to address it, but it’s an individual argument on a 'case by case' basis.

I just don’t think saving an old CR100 device, which a company openly states in writing that they perceive to be a potential future fire risk due to aging batteries and/or circuitory etc; should be the aim of the letter. It is why I was suggesting johngolf should switch matters, to make the level of compensation his objective, which appears to also be your own personal aim that I am seeing in your reply above.

I think trying to save the CR100 through any official channels is like 'flogging a dead donkey', having in mind what the company has published about the long term use of that device. Johngolfs letter, in its current form and in my view, will not achieve the outcome that he is hoping for.

He did ask for others to critique the content of his text and I can only finish by adding that my comments in my subsequent posts are just my personal opinion. I’m certainly not looking to offend anyone here by my remarks.


No offence taken Ken (and definitely none meant by my previous reply)

I get what you're saying and I do appreciate the logic of the argument. I will say that I disagree slightly - on the basis that the entire premise of the battery risk is based on a falsehood - there's no evidence being presented to support the claims that Sonos make - they cannot (by which I mean have not, and seem unwilling or unable to) produce a single example of a CR100 battery actually causing a problem. Conversely, we have seen evidence presented here over the previous pages from an apparently competent electronics technician who's done a teardown of the unit, and lays claim to have repaired many, which suggests that the design of the CR100 is such that it is less likely to be susceptible to the kind of battery issues which have occurred in a relatively minuscule (in relation to the total number of Li-ion powered devices that exist today) - but nevertheless high-profile, number of instances. And we all know how the press love to whip up a frenzy of hysteria out of every possible perceived problem. I think I'd be right in suggesting the the most high-profile battery problem in recent years was that experienced by Samsung, and that has been shown to be a result of faulty manufacturing, not an intrinsic feature or behaviour of Li-ion battery chemistry as a whole... (No need for the board police to point out other vendors had problems too... I'm aware of them, I merely suggest this was the most widely publicised).

No-one would sensibly argue for continued use of a device that is demonstrably, or could reasonably be believed to be, dangerous, but surely such conclusions must be evidence-led? - otherwise why do not all Li-ion powered devices get recalled/bricked/end-of-lifed whatever you want to call it, after a set period of time, by their manufacturers?
I'm not aware of any other vendor who is now, or has ever suggested that Li-ion battery technology as a whole is inherently 'dangerous' - surely if that were the case, there wouldn't be tens of millions (my guesstimate) of devices in use around the world now. I'd posit that any of the vendors who have experienced problems with batteries will likely be laying the blame at poor manufacturing, or poor product design or such like? We've seen (and experienced) the evidence that the CR100 is afflicted by neither of these shortcomings... :D

No, I truly believe that the only evidence presented by any party thus far, points unequivocally to the battery claims made by Sonos to be without merit. I won't say "smokescreen" which was my initial choice of term to use there, because, giving Sonos the benefit of the doubt, just perhaps they do sincerely believe there is a problem, although other than the parroting of the party line, there's nothing coming from Sonos to further elaborate on why they might feel that way, despite all the evidence to the contrary, nor have/will they address the counter claims made here by numerous people, which would seem to fairly convincingly contradict their assertions.

Of course, as you rightly point out, they've come out & said it now, so the genie is out of the bottle, and no matter how wrong their assertions of danger may be, they're too proud or too stubborn to recant and admit to an overreaction. Either that, or the entire premise was knowingly a falsehood, and as many others have suggested, is just a contrived excuse to permit them to pursue their aim of destroying this item of inventory.

Nonetheless, I do believe that there is mileage in pressing Sonos to reconsider the action they are proposing to take, it may very well turn out to be fruitless, since there's little evidence that Sonos are listening or care. 😠 However, I don't see that having made a set of assertions publicly, that necessarily and irreversibly commits them to the course of action under pain of legal penalty. What likely legal consequence could arise from making a statement to the effect that:

"There have been no instances of battery problems of any kind with any Sonos products. We believe our products are manufactured to a very high quality, with great care and attention to detail and to safety. Upon review of the evidence of the situation, we feel that we may have overreacted to the perceived danger, and do not believe that the CR100 battery represents a clear & present danger to its users. Nevertheless, the ageing batteries will suffer from degraded performance, and were not designed to be end-user replaceable, and for that reason we are recommending that users migrate to other control options at their earliest convenience. Sonos will not however, forcibly disable the units in order to allow our valued customers sufficient time and opportunity to make that transition."

That would make me happy...
Userlevel 5
Badge +2
@Ken_Griffiths
AnotherMusicListener,
...I simply cannot see Sonos reversing their decision ...It’s really not the case whether the actual risk exists it’s what’s in the 'mind' of the corporation...

I was genuinely welcoming your contribution and not being ironic, it was well reasoned and well argued, I suspect you may well be correct that Sonos will not reverse there decision but I'm being optimistic that perhaps there is a more elegant solution, perhaps you are correct in thinking that the compensation package should be better tailored but as many have pointed out there are some whom value the controller for its unique attributes that are not available in alternative products.


... I’m really quite surprised that some here, are (still) openly encouraging others (in writing) to take the entirely unofficial path, and prolong the life of a CR100, as who knows what might happen if someone does, in the future, eventually come to harm, or their home is damaged etc...


As to you comment about blocking updates, I think you will find this actually an option presented by Sonos (refer to Ryan's offical answer on page one) all be it not the preferred option presented. In which case people are only offering details on how best to implement Sonos less preferred but valid option. I think you will find this would not alleviate any of Sonos manufacture liabilities and pass them onto random people posting tips in a forum. (But lawyers feel free to chip in)
Userlevel 2
Badge
@Ken_Griffiths makes good points about aims/outcomes. Failing continuation of the CR100, my desire is to find an alternative controller.

The compensation offered is useless to me because it doesn't offer any form of substitute for my CR100s: I have no iOS or Google Play-based Android devices. Compensation for loss of my controllers should involve helping me find and get a new controller of some sort. That either means the compensation should be spendable elsewhere on one of the tablets the community has identified as a best alternative to the CR100, or that Sonos should offer a suitable tablet for sale themselves so that the compensation can be used on some kind of new controller.

As a result I have privately suggested to Sonos that they, perhaps with reference to community recommendations, identify an appropriate small iOS or Android tablet with charging dock and sell that in their store, even if only for a brief while. If they do that then the compensation they're offering will actually have some value to me.
Userlevel 4
Badge
There is at least one precedent:-
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2017/11/after-online-outrage-logitech-will-now-replace-harmony-link-devices-for-free/
Userlevel 7
Badge +22
Unfortunately Sonos does not have a direct replacement to bargain with like Logitech.
Userlevel 2
Badge
The problem with stories such as the Logitech Harmony Link one is that there is no replacement: Sonos don't sell controllers. If they resold an appropriate curated choice of suitable iOS and Android tablets then even the compensation offered might mean something.

It's no good offering someone a discount on a new engine after you've taken the steering wheel out of their car.
Userlevel 7
Badge +22
I've always said they should have worked a deal with their pals over and Amazon for a bunch of FireHD 7s to hand out to replace all the CR100s. Of course everyone imaginable would have dusted off their old CR100s in the drawer to swap out.
Userlevel 7
Badge +5
The previous 2 points re lack of replacement item that Sonos could provide, are accurate and true. They have but one device in their store that even begins to come close; the iPort xPRESS Audio Keypad. That, for very many reasons, all exhaustively described over the previous 84 pages is not an entirely satisfactory replacement for a CR100. It is however, the closest thing they've got, and could perhaps be an adequate replacement for perhaps 50-75% of my use cases.

The very least they could do then, would be to offer to direct swap an iPort xPRESS for each and every single CR100 to be bricked. At least the presence of one of those on my wall would not actually leave me totally controller-less in several of my zones where a CR100 is my primary, and indeed often my only local control device.
Userlevel 7
Badge +11
does the sonos app work well with the 'assistive device ' mode of a smartphone? I don't think so. What do blind people do? The CR100 with its large tactile buttons was easy to use. Is there a 'tactile replacement'?

Echo, Echo Dot, Sonos One..

1 Please can you confirm the voice commands needed to select a song from our NAS using one of these devices? I would be interested to compare the time taken CR100 v Echo Dot or Sonos One.

2 The other question asked was:-
Is there a 'tactile replacement'?
I am not sure that:-
[Echo, Echo Dot, Sonos One.
is a very good answer! :8