Answered

SAVE THE CR100


Userlevel 5
Badge +8
  • Enthusiast II
  • 325 replies
Losing our two CR100s will be the most devastating thing to happen to our household.

My ONE YEAR OLD can play his favourite music by just pushing the button over and over again. My 7 year old will now PESTER ME CONSTANTLY to use my phone whenever he wants to listen to Harry Potter (which is ALL THE TIME)

My parents in law - NEITHER OF WHOM OWN SMARTPHONES will now have to go downstairs and switch on their PC in order to listen to the audiobooks and radio programmes I've given them. They don't use all these 'services', but Sonos is amazing so we built it for them, at great cost for the convenience of having the controller.

My wife won't be able to roll over in bed and hit the volume without blinding us all with your WHITE app in the middle of the night (swipe tap tap tap vs reach and push a button?????)

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE DON'T DO THIS SONOS!!!!!

My Children and in-laws are going to HATE me for this.

DO NOT criticise our choices not to use smartphones, or Alexa, or Spotify. Why should we buy new things to make your system work?

PLEASE don't take away the ability to connect we are happy with basic controls?


What am I going to do now? Tell me WHAT?
icon

Best answer by Ryan S 2 February 2018, 19:08

View original

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 7
Badge +8
@RyanS

The technology at Sonos already exists to run multiple version of beta software. We can have an app delivered through control panel as confirmed by the beta testers. Our systems will know what they are doing and not upgrade to 8.x and kill the CR100.

The software will need no modification as it already exists as either 8.3 or 8.4, it will just need replicating and version numbers tweaking.

The functionality exists, the overhead to Sonos is miniscule.

This would seem a win win win for:
- Sonos, as they protect the biggest advocates of the system
- The Users, as we get to keep the CR100, whilst allowing onward development of the system.
- The Environment as except in a very cases continued use is better than landfill. I did look for an environmental policy on the website but failed to find one. May be this is why Sonos is OK with landfill.

If/when you deliver the killer upgrade that everyone is dreaming off (makes cheese toasties or whatever) we can rejoin the main path.

Regards

Dave

P.S. Before the board police go off on one:
Chicks - I know the Echo is better than cheese toasties already.
Chris - I know you like John's posts better
JGatie - I know my post is utter nonsense
Userlevel 6
Badge +5
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.

Worth asking on Apple's forums? - Might be some more knowledgeable guys on there..

Though from my experience, you'll probably get an answer back telling you how to do it on an Android phone.

If you do get any useful info, let us know.

Cheers
Userlevel 6
Badge +5
@RyanS

The technology at Sonos already exists to run multiple version of beta software. We can have an app delivered through control panel as confirmed by the beta testers. Our systems will know what they are doing and not upgrade to 8.x and kill the CR100.

The software will need no modification as it already exists as either 8.3 or 8.4, it will just need replicating and version numbers tweaking.

The functionality exists, the overhead to Sonos is miniscule.

This would seem a win win win for:
- Sonos, as they protect the biggest advocates of the system
- The Users, as we get to keep the CR100, whilst allowing onward development of the system.
- The Environment as except in a very cases continued use is better than landfill. I did look for an environmental policy on the website but failed to find one. May be this is why Sonos is OK with landfill.

If/when you deliver the killer upgrade that everyone is dreaming off (makes cheese toasties or whatever) we can rejoin the main path.


Dave,

You're point is very similar (apart from the cheese toasties) to the conclusions I have in my draft covering letter to go off with the bullet point list.

I plan to post the letter up tomorrow afternoon / evening (GMT) to give everyone a chance to pore over and suggest edits before it goes off.

Cheers

John
Userlevel 6
Badge +1
Sign the petition and contact Sonos customer support and let them know what you think.

400 signatures and growing :D

https://www.change.org/p/patrick-spence-ceo-sonos-stop-sonos-from-disabling-the-cr100-controller-from-their-system?recruiter=121008685&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=copylink&utm_campaign=share_petition&utm_term=psf_combo_share_initial.undefined

Also, consider locking down your system to prevent your CR100 controller(s) from being bricked - must be done before the end of March (or the next Sonos update). Checkout my guide here : https://en.community.sonos.com/controllers-software-228995/save-the-cr100-6800510/index70.html#post16217266
Userlevel 7
Badge +8

I plan to post the letter up tomorrow afternoon / evening (GMT) to give everyone a chance to pore over and suggest edits before it goes off.
Cheers
John


Have sent you a PM
Userlevel 5
Badge +4

I plan to post the letter up tomorrow afternoon / evening (GMT) to give everyone a chance to pore over and suggest edits before it goes off.
Cheers
John


Have sent you a PM


OMG - Didn't realise you could do that on this forum! Would have been so much easier, but possibly transparent too. Another MUSE fan too. Thought they'd gone all sabbatical until I caught a video on TV last weekend for "Thought Contagion". Quite "Thriller"esque in parts... (and a lovely vest too).

Anyone with a legal slant know anything about Tort in the UK? Thanks to C for that one. I'll explore this a bit more tomorrow.
Userlevel 5
Badge +3

Anyone with a legal slant know anything about Tort in the UK?


It's a long time since I studied tort in English law, but from what I recall it deals primarily with people's responsibilities to each other outside of a contract. Help - reading that back, I bore myself: I'll try to make it more interesting. Also, I remember enough about tort to state very clearly that none of what follows constitutes legal advice - it may not be relied upon.

Contract law, reduced to its barest bones requires one party, let's call him "Donald", agreeing to pay money for goods or services from another party (let's call her "Stormy"). Donald and Stormy both have to intend there to be a contract between them. If Donald doesn't pay, then Stormy could bring a breach of contract claim against Donald. Equally if Donald did pay, but Stormy didn't provide the services contracted for, Donald could bring a breach of contract claim against her. Enough, already.

Tort is more complex. While there are various forms of tort, the one first taught at law school is the tort of negligence. Successfully bringing a negligence claim normally allows a plaintiff to recover financial damages. In order to bring a successful claim, a plaintiff needs to prove:

1. a "duty of care" - the respondent must owe a duty of care to the plaintiff: this is a matter of the facts of the case. Say, for example, S is a provider of electronic home audio systems and J uses S's system which includes regular (sometimes annoyingly regular) software updates. In providing its services S takes pride in providing the latest services to its customers - whether they want them or not - and has recently required its customers to register an email address with it so that it can communicate with them more easily. In our entirely hypothetical example, it could be argued that S owes a duty of care to J, as the relationship between S and J is sufficiently proximate and it would be fair, just and reasonable for the courts to find one.

2. "breach of the duty of care" - the court looks at whether the behaviour of the respondent fall below the standard expected from the "reasonable man". In some case the court might look to an industry standard when making its decision. Returning to our hypothetical and fictitious example: S releases a software update that renders part of J's electronic home audio system unusable and worthless. A court might consider that in doing so, S was in breach of its duty of care to J. Equally it might not, for example on the basis that it was reasonable to release the softwate update in order to protect J from immediate and terrible immolation by a series of exploding lithium iron batteries that formerly powered the happily and now safely defunct part of J's system.

3. "the breach caused harm" - the court normally asks itself "but for the action of the respondent, would the harm have resulted?" I'll leave it to you to guess what the court might think in our hypothetical and fictitious example. The court also asks "was the damage foreseeable". Again, your guess is as good as mine (and I'm sure better) in this hypothetical and fictitious example.

If a claim was succesful, you would then get into the vexed question of damages, about which I know even less than I know about tort. However you would obviously need to bring a claim which is always a risky and stressful business and have the appetite (and pockets) for a fight.

T
Userlevel 6
Badge +5
Morning / Afternoon / Evening all

Here's the daily update

No changes today - move along. Just posting to keep momentum going

Please feel free to suggest additions / corrections / removals, I will post again tomorrow evening.

My intention is to finalise this list by Wednesday evening (GMT) and get it away with a covering letter by email to Sonos Central in time for Thursday morning.


Reasons to maintain support for the CR100
1. We don't want our kids using tablets / smartphones to control Sonos in their bedrooms as this gives them unsupervised internet access

2. It's splashproof and robust - great for kitchen, bathroom, pool, outdoor use & for the kids

3. We feel we are currently forced (but don't want) to lock down our systems from future upgrades and potentially lose our streaming services in the future as a result. This forced locking down of systems to protect our CR100s is effectively preventing us from ANY future Sonos purchases.

4. Casual users (an example, holiday home users but also anybody who chooses not to upgrade to each and every new release) might innocently perform an upgrade in 6 months and lose their CR100s without any warning.

5. The CR100 is easier for people with certain disabilities to use over a touchscreen / PC based app. In addition, we believe that any person whose hands are too old or too young to have the required level of physical dexterity would struggle to use a touchscreen comfortably.

6. We have invested a lot of money in CR100s (several users citing ownership of 4, 5, 6 or more units) and still see them as an ongoing concern with plenty of life left. We do not want to re-invest in a corresponding number of new tablets (or other equivalent devices) to take over the job.

7. It is easy for guests to use. We are happy to hand over our CR100s for them to use but not our smartphones or tablets.

8. It is our preferred method of controlling our Sonos systems. We do not want to move to solely app or voice controlled methods.

9. Many of us have affixed our CR100 charging cradles to walls and buried the wires. We do not want these to become a useless ornament

10. We use the alarm clock feature - very easy with the hard buttons

11. We accept the "aging battery" issue at our risk although many users have changed their own batteries anyway (a very easy job thanks to internet guides, availability of batteries and the fact that the battery has a plug in connector)

12. We are not comfortable about disposing equipment that works perfectly (even through proper recyling channels) - unnecessary e-waste is bad for the environment.

13. It is instantly available to control our systems - we don't want to have to go through the process of unlocking our device and waiting for an app to launch

14. We like the feel of hard buttons and can use it in the dark with our eyes closed. Other button based options Sonos currently sell fall completely short in terms of full system control.

15. It operates without the need for access to the Internet.

16. It does not depend on a service that has additional privacy implications / concerns.

17. It is dedicated to the whole-home music system so it is intuitive – so much more so than the apps.

18. It has a quick response for essential functions, visual feedback on the screen & great zone control compared to apps.

19. We feel it starts a bad precedence for forced obsolescence which can only be bad for the Sonos brand.

20. The CR100 is a branded Sonos item so anybody using it immediately knows what system they are controlling.

21. We are not seeking to hold back Sonos development at the expense of other non CR100 users. However, the CR100 is a fixed piece of hardware that will never change. We feel that this makes it easy to remain part of the Sonos system for future updates. We accept that new features will not be added to the CR100

22. As the rightful owners of the CR100 we feel it should be us, not Sonos, that decides at what point to retire our products.
Userlevel 6
Badge +5
Sod it, I had a bit of time this afternoon so, here goes, the proposed covering letter

Open to all edits as usual.
----

Dear Patrick,

I write on behalf of the many users expressing their disappointment at your proposed firmware update in April 2018 that will permanently disconnect a CR100 from its associated Sonos system and thus render the controller useless.

You will be aware that there has been a great deal of discussion on your forums over the last 7 weeks, the principle one being the thread entitled "Save the CR100"

This thread has, at the time of writing, XXXX posts over XX pages.

I agree, some of the content of this thread is heated exchange and unnecessary contribution but it is clear to see that emotions are running high on this subject and the majority of content has been from active supporters expressing their dismay and arguing their points reasonably for Sonos to maintain support for the CR100.

In addition, a petition active on change.org has, at the time of writing, attracted XXX signatures

The petition can be found here
-----link to petition----

Other than the disabling of the CR100, one of the major issues we have is that during this 7 week period, there has been very little input from Sonos other than to confirm to us, again, that we either accept what's happening or "lock down" and accept the "risks"

As a result, and from the contributions on this forum, we have put together the following list which we feel present sound arguments for you to consider as to why support for the CR100 should continue.

----list follows----

----list ends

In conclusion
I have owned and used my Sonos equipment daily since 2005 and have never had a need in the past to use these forums.
Judging by many of the users and their relatively low post counts (many of them new sign ups solely to post on this forum), I am not alone.

From reading their posts, these users are genuinely worried, alarmed and confused as to what the future holds for their Sonos systems - systems that they have clearly spent a huge amount of money on.

We accept that the CR100 is a relatively old piece of hardware that does not have the capability to handle future system enhancements - we do not expect Sonos to offer continuing future support for the CR100 at the expense of adding new features to the overall system.

Yet, the CR100 is still an extremely reliable piece of hardware and remains for many their first (or only) choice as a means to control their Sonos systems.

For this reason, we urge the provision of a legacy software version held at 8.4, available as a choice, when we check for system updates.

This way, we have options. We can choose to remain at 8.4 or, at a time that is right for us, upgrade to the very latest software as and when any new features are sufficiently tempting for us to retire our CR100s.

Another benefit of this arrangement is that we can choose - at any time - to roll back to 8.4 should we decide we want to extend the life of our CR100s for as long as possible.

As and when we install this legacy software, we have no problem with accepting terms and conditions exonerating Sonos from any battery or security issues as well as technical support.

The main benefit to us, of course, is that it will allow us to continue using our CR100s, even in the event of having to perform a full factory reset or reconnecting spare units that have not been used in some time.

The main benefits to Sonos? This would be seen by us as a massive goodwill gesture and we would be happy to continue investing in Sonos components from your entire range as we are aware that all hardware currently available is compatible with 8.4. In addition, we would continue to recommend Sonos as "the manufacturer to go to" for easy to use, well supported multi room audio solutions.

Therefore, we believe the provision of this legacy software is a simple, elegant and hassle free solution for Sonos.

If legacy software is technically not possible, or you simply decide that you are unwilling to provide this option for us, we would be grateful to know the reasons behind this.

Finally, thank you for reading this letter.

Much time and effort has been put in to compiling our arguments and we would respectfully ask that you do the same in offering your response.

Yours sincerely

etc. etc.
On behalf of all users wishing to continue using their CR100s
Userlevel 7
Badge +2
@RyanS

The technology at Sonos already exists to run multiple version of beta software. We can have an app delivered through control panel as confirmed by the beta testers. Our systems will know what they are doing and not upgrade to 8.x and kill the CR100.

The software will need no modification as it already exists as either 8.3 or 8.4, it will just need replicating and version numbers tweaking.

The functionality exists, the overhead to Sonos is miniscule.

This would seem a win win win for:
- Sonos, as they protect the biggest advocates of the system
- The Users, as we get to keep the CR100, whilst allowing onward development of the system.
- The Environment as except in a very cases continued use is better than landfill. I did look for an environmental policy on the website but failed to find one. May be this is why Sonos is OK with landfill.

If/when you deliver the killer upgrade that everyone is dreaming off (makes cheese toasties or whatever) we can rejoin the main path.


Dave,

You're point is very similar (apart from the cheese toasties) to the conclusions I have in my draft covering letter to go off with the bullet point list.

I plan to post the letter up tomorrow afternoon / evening (GMT) to give everyone a chance to pore over and suggest edits before it goes off.

Cheers

John


While I deal with a freight-train of a head cold AND a new Puppy I ponder....
Sonos really wants to go all-out with Voice as the replacement for sliced bread, (which I feel is only half-baked and perpetually in a Beta mode) and they really want to shed the controller as a device they ever made (huge mistake as it separated them from the rest)
moving forward, they will be simply competing with the rest of the product lines out there, and the next vendor to come out with perfect multi-room wireless synchronization will likely be one of the big-boys, and Sonos will be done if they do not open everything up and force everyone to follow along.
I am sure there are technical reasons, but I am also sure they really do not want to deal with the early adopters having a device that the new purchasers cannot buy (unless they go to EBay) and then Sonos must continue to support them when a new owner finds them. Must really suck to have made something that simply does not die on its own and forces you to pull the trigger of death on your own for NO GOOD REASON.
they really will not be happy until every CR100 is six-feet under.......

Way to show your loyal fans some respect Sonos, Thank you very much.

Sonos, you MUST give us a choice, and even after you pull the trigger you can reverse course and allow us an "updated" firmware that will give us a Legacy Mode.
But obviously the choice is yours.
Userlevel 3
Badge +2
@johngolfuk: Thanks for drafting such a clearly thought-out and calmly-worded letter. I have one very minor comment, namely that in the second paragraph "principle" should read "principal".
Userlevel 5
Badge +3
@johnofgolfuk - excellent letter. Nothing to add (beyond IanW's comment)

T
Userlevel 7
Badge +2
more thoughts to share......

In looking into "what else can I do with the Sonos firmware" I have come to find all over the message boards how since V8.0 the firmware has started to lock down the "HTTP://SONOS-IP:1400/command" access,

you used to be able to see a load of detail and even find the cause of problems with that detail.
this corresponds to the issue I had not being able to connect (3) CR100s to my network and requiring Sonos to put on of my players into DevMode which basically opened up the firmware again and allowed the CR100 to talk to the Player.

So the more I search, read, and play around I am realizing that since Sonos is locking everything down due to "Security Concerns" they likely do want to upgrade the firmware on the CR100 due to cost of further development on a "dead" product as far as sales go, OR they Cannot because they truly no longer have the talent that would even know what to do to update the security needs of the CR100 to get around the closing up of the security holes in the SonosNet implementation.

I also tie this together with the Alexa implementation and Sonos's push to likely become "Compliant" with the partners they want to work with going forward and the security issues Sonos apparently built into their protocols. .

Again, I (and a lot of other owners of the gear) that do not care to being forced forward into services we do not need, should not be Forced to trash perfectly good hardware in the process.
the excuses used re insulting to all users as they truly do not apply, and while Sonos is working hard to bury our controllers deep into the ground they are digging themselves their own hole and getting ready to toss all respect of their clients and goodwill they have built up over the years.

the fact that there is a way to allow us to remain functional on a Legacy Platform if only Sonos respected their clients makes this matter worse......

We are only a SMALL percentage of actual owners with the CR100 and wants to keep them, I believe there are many that have no clue they are about to bricked.

April is going to be interesting.
Userlevel 6
Badge +5
@johngolfuk: Thanks for drafting such a clearly thought-out and calmly-worded letter. I have one very minor comment, namely that in the second paragraph "principle" should read "principal".
Cheers - just testing 😉 .... Now edited...
Userlevel 6
Badge +5
Oh, one other thing before I hit the hay....

Obviously, I will email the final letter to Patrick Spence but if anyone has other email addresses they can share for Sonos senior management, I will CC them in.....

(F00tS0re I acknowledge your contribution to this via PM earlier in the day)

Cheers

John
Userlevel 6
Badge +3
Oh, one other thing before I hit the hay....

Obviously, I will email the final letter to Patrick Spence but if anyone has other email addresses they can share for Sonos senior management, I will CC them in.....

(F00tS0re I acknowledge your contribution to this via PM earlier in the day)

Cheers

John


John, you rock!!! 🙂 Thank you.

I would add: Mike.Carlino at sonos.com Dir of customer experience.
I emailed Patrick last week and it came back that he is out of the office till April 2nd. Interesting.

What about posting the letter on their Facebook and Twitter accounts as well?
Userlevel 5
Badge +4
I'd like to echo my thanks too. There are some some clever minds out there - certainly better than mine. Some give small seeds that others develop so eloquently and others are catalysts. There's a lot of powerful information flowing just now and I wanted to recognise everbody's efforts while my own small brain catches up. (Domestic duties etc. call). I've read some amazing stuff which deserves a more considered reply than is possible tonight.
Userlevel 7
Badge +8
Well I now have the keys to the executive washroom, I have been offered a voucher per registered CR100.

I have declined and requested this be made to all not just those willing to complain at a certain level. I don't need to be in a special club, and I pretty much can guarantee that £200 is not going to buy me off.

The offer is unambiguous, direct from Sonos, and from a level where I am certain they have the authority to make the offer.

Dave

P.S. John letter & list are great and thanks for putting some of the rants so eloquently.
Userlevel 5
Badge +2

... we either accept what's happening or "lock down" and accept the "risks"...


@johngolfuk
Thanks for attempting to keep this discussion on less emotional and more rational level. I remain optimistic that Sonos will amend there strategy, if for no other reason than to look after their long term customers.

Just one point for you to consider:
I'm not sure that Sonos can truely pass off the product liability in the manor they are attempting to. From my understanding if there is a genuine product safety issue with the CR100 batteries then it remains Sonos responsibility as the manufacturer and there is a clear product recall path that needs to be taken.
I think the offical answer that "Ignore future upgrades... you are acknowledging the risk of the aging lithium ion battery..." is a bluff by Sonos (but I guess they probably have a legal team also).

I think it maybe unnecessary and unwise for any consumer to accept a companies product liability or risk irrespective of the companies chosen strategy.

I'm sure one of the legal minds can weigh in here if they like.
Userlevel 7
Badge +8
I'm not sure that Sonos can truely pass off the product liability in the manor they are attempting to. From my understanding if there is a genuine product safety issue with the CR100 batteries then it remains Sonos responsibility as the manufacturer and there is a clear product recall path that needs to be taken.
I think the offical answer that "Ignore future upgrades... you are acknowledging the risk of the aging lithium ion battery..." is a bluff by Sonos (but I guess they probably have a legal team also).

I think it maybe unnecessary and unwise for any consumer to accept a companies product liability or risk irrespective of the companies chosen strategy.

I'm sure one of the legal minds can weigh in here if they like.


Its my favourite subject. UK legislation is pretty clear.

The General Product Safety Regulations 2005 (UK)
“dangerous product” means a product other than a safe product;
“recall” means any measure aimed at achieving the return of a dangerous product that has already been supplied or made available to consumers;

Obligations of producers and distributors
9.—(1) Subject to paragraph (2), where a producer or a distributor knows that a product he has placed on the market or supplied poses risks to the consumer that are incompatible with the general safety requirement, he shall forthwith notify an enforcement authority in writing of that information and
(a) the action taken to prevent risk to the consumer; and
(b) where the product is being or has been marketed or otherwise supplied to consumers outside the United Kingdom, of the identity of each Member State in which, to the best of his knowledge, it is being or has been so marketed or supplied.
(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply—
(a) in the case of a second-hand product supplied as an antique or as a product to be repaired or reconditioned prior to being used, provided the supplier clearly informed the person to whom he supplied the product to that effect,
(b) in conditions concerning isolated circumstances or products.

The only two options provided for are safe or dangerous. There is no option for it is a bit dangerous because it is a bit old. Dangerous means a recall. Safe is er....Safe.

Consumers cannot accept liability for this.
Userlevel 5
Badge +2
Well...I have been offered a voucher per registered CR100...

In my opinion (a few others also) I think the level of compensation is clearly an issue as these controllers are fore-filling a roll for many users and would need to be replaced with alternative hardware (and in some cases plaster work & wiring).

1) If there is a product safety issue they should issue a recall, and compensate users accordingly
2) If they no longer wish to support the hardware (say it's cost prohibitive) then they should offer reasonable compensation

The vouchers (at lease in Australia) cannot be spend on a comparable controller.

I personally wouldn't mind buying new third party controllers (at my expense) if Sonos gave me reasonable compensation so I wasn't out of pocket. After all I still like the system, and prior to this intended to purchase further Sonos gear I could pick up the new controllers and then use the vouchers on the hardware I previously intended to invest in.

Interesting they are now offering more people better compensation packages when I emailed them this was there response:

Thanks for contacting Sonos Customer Care. Sorry to hear you're unhappy with the CR100 compensation. We believe this is a generous agreement as most companies do not compensate users for when their products are at their end of life period. The CR100 can easily be replaced with an android tablet of higher functionality. In our research you can purchase a suitable tablet for $50.

I guess we disagree on what "suitable" replacements would cost or function like.
Userlevel 7
Badge +2
Well...I have been offered a voucher per registered CR100...

In my opinion (a few others also) I think the level of compensation is clearly an issue as these controllers are fore-filling a roll for many users and would need to be replaced with alternative hardware (and in some cases plaster work & wiring).

1) If there is a product safety issue they should issue a recall, and compensate users accordingly
2) If they no longer wish to support the hardware (say it's cost prohibitive) then they should offer reasonable compensation

The vouchers (at lease in Australia) cannot be spend on a comparable controller.

I personally wouldn't mind buying new third party controllers (at my expense) if Sonos gave me reasonable compensation so I wasn't out of pocket. After all I still like the system, and prior to this intended to purchase further Sonos gear I could pick up the new controllers and then use the vouchers on the hardware I previously intended to invest in.

Interesting they are now offering more people better compensation packages when I emailed them this was there response:

Thanks for contacting Sonos Customer Care. Sorry to hear you're unhappy with the CR100 compensation. We believe this is a generous agreement as most companies do not compensate users for when their products are at their end of life period. The CR100 can easily be replaced with an android tablet of higher functionality. In our research you can purchase a suitable tablet for $50.

I guess we disagree on what "suitable" replacements would cost.


for me last night, with a train-wreck of a head cold, Suitable WAS being able to reach over with the eyes closed and press the Middle button, in the bottom right group, "in" just once to restart the stalled XM radio stream.
I could not have opened my eyes and expected to focus on anything last night, for that matter I could not have opened my eyes....
my thanks to Sonos for providing options, suitable in this case would have anything else but what they are offering.

I expect tonight to be much the same, maybe tomorrow the train will start to leave the station....
of course makes working with a new puppy that much more fun.....

Anything less than a purpose built remote with tactile buttons is NOT a suitable replacement for the CR100.
Johngolfuk,

I have just read, with some interest, your draft letter (template) posted above in this thread and as an ex-owner of a CR100 controller (now decommissioned) and whilst also having some small amount of sympathy with your ongoing (compensation) cause, I am still left with a good deal of concern by your final proposal/suggestion/recommendation contained in your letter to the CEO.

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 know many continue to argue the fire risk is minimal and that some may have changed their internal ‘sealed for life' batteries etc. but there maybe some devices out there, where batteries have not been upgraded and they remain a potential risk. Even if that risk is small... it is still a risk that Sonos has now openly acknowledged publicly and in writing.

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.

You are asking for the CEO to take a course of action, that I think many would see as being completely irresponsible, having previously acknowledging in writing that a risk does exist, or is perceived.

If you were to persuade the CEO to go along with your idea and then later, just one person was seriously injured, or killed, as a direct result of such a fire, I think not only would the CEO perhaps be held accountable for the death, but in U.K. law, you too might also be 'dragged' into the situation for 'inciting' the CEO'S behaviour that then allowed the risk to continue.

For that reason, you may want to decide to reconsider your proposal, as I think the letter, in its current form, will be entirely unsuccessful in the outcome you are currently hoping for.

The company has publicly acknowledged that the ageing CR100 device is a perceived (albeit small) fire risk. The company and its CEO are already acting responsibly and I think anyone here will be hard-pushed to persuade the CEO to officially alter their position and provide a route that will allow the CR100 to continue.

I think the template letter may need a bit of a re-write that concludes with an entirely different proposal. I would perhaps suggest looking more towards the compensation aspect, albeit I thought the offer on the table was really fair, for my own personal situation. That’s where I think the real argument now lies for the small majority of folk we are seeing in this one long (fairly repetitive) thread, that in truth probably has contributions from less than 400 individual members with a centre main core of less than fifty.

I prefer not to sign this post as 'A. Friend', nor as 'A. Fanboy', as in truth my only real aim here, is to try to prevent you, or others, inciting anyone (in a position of responsibility) to do anything that may lead to some other person being harmed in the future, by allowing them to bypass the recommended official corporate advice.
Userlevel 7
Badge +2
I'm not sure that Sonos can truely pass off the product liability in the manor they are attempting to. From my understanding if there is a genuine product safety issue with the CR100 batteries then it remains Sonos responsibility as the manufacturer and there is a clear product recall path that needs to be taken.
I think the offical answer that "Ignore future upgrades... you are acknowledging the risk of the aging lithium ion battery..." is a bluff by Sonos (but I guess they probably have a legal team also).

I think it maybe unnecessary and unwise for any consumer to accept a companies product liability or risk irrespective of the companies chosen strategy.

I'm sure one of the legal minds can weigh in here if they like.


Its my favourite subject. UK legislation is pretty clear.

The General Product Safety Regulations 2005 (UK)
“dangerous product” means a product other than a safe product;
“recall” means any measure aimed at achieving the return of a dangerous product that has already been supplied or made available to consumers;

Obligations of producers and distributors
9.—(1) Subject to paragraph (2), where a producer or a distributor knows that a product he has placed on the market or supplied poses risks to the consumer that are incompatible with the general safety requirement, he shall forthwith notify an enforcement authority in writing of that information and
(a) the action taken to prevent risk to the consumer; and
(b) where the product is being or has been marketed or otherwise supplied to consumers outside the United Kingdom, of the identity of each Member State in which, to the best of his knowledge, it is being or has been so marketed or supplied.
(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply—
(a) in the case of a second-hand product supplied as an antique or as a product to be repaired or reconditioned prior to being used, provided the supplier clearly informed the person to whom he supplied the product to that effect,
(b) in conditions concerning isolated circumstances or products.

The only two options provided for are safe or dangerous. There is no option for it is a bit dangerous because it is a bit old. Dangerous means a recall. Safe is er....Safe.

Consumers cannot accept liability for this.


my prior post suggested the batteries and the charging circuit that Sonos created are not an issue.
they simply want to kill the units and pretend they never existed.
funny, I would suggest they would have likely never sold many players without that very control.

they are using "today's Lithium Battery Fears" against yesterdays product hoping to elicit FEAR into people to rid themselves of this "dangerous" device.....

sad........
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.