Skip to main content
Spotify today announced Spotify Connect, which will be a series of hardware from well-known hardware to seamlessly integrate spotify onto devices where the control is from the regular Spotify application on your phone or similar.



Streaming is still done directly through internet, so the phone isn't in charge of it, just controls it.



I really do hope that Sonos will follow this approach as well, I believe there are a lot more like me that primarily uses Sonos for Spotify, and being able to use the same app as always would be awesome.



Seems like there is already a feature request over at ask.sonos.com https://ask.sonos.com/sonos/topics/support_spotify_connect_to_allow_users_to_use_the_spotify_app_as_the_controller
I don't know..



That's why I asked the question



You haven't answered it...



Yes I have. Since Sonos is willing to work with Google, it proves they are perfectly willing to change their architecture to enable streaming directly from apps. But if they can't do the same with Spotify, it must be some conditions on Spotify's side that is holding it up, or it is Sonos that is making monetary demands. MacFarlane has recently stated that Sonos gets no revenue from streaming services. Which means it isn't Sonos demanding any kickbacks. So it comes down to a few things:



Spotify charging too much for licensing.

Spotify demanding a hardware solution in Connect products (which is true).

Spotify protecting their other partners from competition from the leading wireless streamer on the planet.



All of which are Spotify's fault, not Sonos'.
^ So Sonos can't afford to do a deal..but NAD can??
^ So Sonos can't afford to do a deal..but NAD can??



Maybe that explains why Bluesound devices are so much more expensive than the equivalent Sonos device?
Y MacFarlane has recently stated that Sonos gets no revenue from streaming services.



This is now irrelevant.



Sonos wouldn't sell a single Zone player from this day on without these streaming services..
Maybe if you gave people more than two and half minutes to formulate a reply they might do, we're not all on speed here.



Incidentally, we'all here aren't going to do anything about anything because we're not Sonos employees, we're just users, like you, so it's a waste of time imploring us to do anything, we have no say in the matter. But you know that already.



wappinghigh often stubbornly refuses to believe that we users are not Sonos employees. He has referred to Sonos as "your system" to me and other posters on more than one occasion.
Maybe that explains why Bluesound devices are so much more expensive than the equivalent Sonos device?



I can't see why this is..



I don't recall the price of Bluesound gear going up after they announced the Spotify connect feature..
wappinghigh often stubbornly refuses to believe that we users are not Sonos employees. He has referred to Sonos as "your system" to me and other posters on more than one occasion.



Are you guys going to be logical here.. or are you going to continue to attack the man rather than approach the issue rationally?
This is now irrelevant.



Sonos wouldn't sell a single Zone player from this day on without these streaming services..



So what? Sonos has a partnership with more services than any other streamer there is. They certainly aren't lacking for music partners.
Are you guys going to be logical here.. or are you going to continue to attack the man rather than approach the issue rationally?



It is hard to approach the issue rationally with someone who believes we are not actually users and continually tells us that we are responsible for Sonos' decisions. There is a degree of irrationality here, but I assure you it isn't coming from us.
^ So Sonos can't afford to do a deal..but NAD can??



You forgot #3:



Spotify protecting their other partners from competition from the leading wireless streamer on the planet.
^ I was simply pointing out the irrelevance of Mr McFarlanes comment that Sonos didn't receive any revenue from streaming services..



You raised it jg



Not me..
^ I was simply pointing out the irrelevance of Mr McFarlanes comment that Sonos didn't receive any revenue from streaming services..



You raised it jg



Not me..



Dude, you have been here 7 years. Learn to use the quote function!!



And why is this irrelevant? You claim it was Sonos fault Spotify Connect is not supported. I was pointing out that in a monetary sense, it is not Sonos holding out for big bucks in order to support it, because Sonos receives no income from services. So that eliminates one very large way you could place the fault on Sonos.
You forgot #3:



Spotify protecting their other partners from competition from the leading wireless streamer on the planet.



Ok.. I can see maybe they might be doing this..that maybe they are witholding doing a deal with Sonos because they want to offer a heads up on the competitors.. but this now means they (Spotify) have some serious traction here..does it not?
Ok.. I can see maybe they might be doing this..that maybe they are witholding doing a deal with Sonos because they want to offer a heads up on the competitors.. but this now means they (Spotify) have some serious traction here..does it not?



Spotify will have serious traction the day they turn a profit. Until then, they are just another music service living on borrowed time. Back room deals are just more evidence of this fact.
In a Judge Judy type of situation in resolving a dispute between two parties (and there appears to be one here) usually it's one party that "owns" the problem..



So who owns the problem here do you think?



Spotify..who can now stream their music service via their own GUI/menu structure pretty much to any device they now want...



or



Sonos who can now only stream music services one way within their own confined environment?
In a Judge Judy type of situation in resolving a dispute between two parties (and there clearly is one here) usually it's one party that "owns" the problem..



So who owns the problem here do you think?



Spotify..who can now stream from their music service via their own GUI/menu structure pretty much to any device they now want...



or



Sonos who can now only stream music services one way within their own confined environment?



Well since Sonos most certainly CAN stream music from outside their environment, i.e. the Google Play Music app, Judge Judy would toss your entire premise out the window as being facts not in evidence.
Sonos who can now only stream music services one way within their own confined environment?



Sonos is not a music streaming service, they're never going to stream anything outside of their own environment are they?
Well we shall see..



Time will tell who really has the problem here I guess.. 🙂
Well we shall see..



Time will tell who really has the problem here I guess.. :)



Sir, you have been complaining very vocally about Sonos for 7 freaking years! Serious question: If there are so many better alternatives out there, why the heck don't you sell your gear and get something else? It certainly would cut down on the obviously massive amount of stress you experience from being an owner of Sonos.
I was pointing out that in a monetary sense, it is not Sonos holding out for big bucks in order to support it, because Sonos receives no income from services. So that eliminates one very large way you could place the fault on Sonos.



You are implying something based on what Mr. McFarlane said which may or may not be true. He only said that Sonos receives no cut from music service subs, he didn't say they wanted no money for allowing Spotify connect access.
Sir, you have been complaining very vocally about Sonos for 7 freaking years! Serious question: If there are so many better alternatives out there, why the heck don't you sell your gear and get something else? It certainly would cut down on the obviously massive amount of stress you experience from being an owner of Sonos.



Why do you insist on replying. If you ignored him he would have moved on by now. Oh wait now I see your game.
Why do you insist on replying. If you ignored him he would have moved on by now. Oh wait now I see your game.



I'm not sure that's entirely the case, wappinghigh revived this thread 4 months after the previous reply had been posted completely unprompted by anyone here and he does seem remarkably capable of holding a conversation all by himself. I don't think anyone replying to him or not is really the point that he's trying to achieve.
I'm not sure that's entirely the case, wappinghigh revived this thread 4 months after the previous reply had been posted completely unprompted by anyone here and he does seem remarkably capable of holding a conversation all by himself. I don't think anyone replying to him or not is really the point that he's trying to achieve.



Ok but why reply then? People copy pasting their usual provocateur replies is just as bad if not worse IMHO. But feel free to feed him, I think JG is trolling also IMHO.
Does anyone still use Spotify? :)



In the US, Deezer is lossless and just slightly more expensive if one buys "in bulk" (big chunk of time).



Beats is working on rolling out $5 monthly lossy streaming.



I guess I agree with the OP premise if all one cares about is Spotify streaming. Otherwise, it's trolling.
Does anyone still use Spotify? :)



In the US, Deezer is lossless and just slightly more expensive if one buys "in bulk" (big chunk of time).



Beats is working on rolling out $5 monthly lossy streaming.



I guess I agree with the OP premise if all one cares about is Spotify streaming. Otherwise, it's trolling.



I do find it curious that the latest flurry of posts about Spotify Connect (at 320kbps) being the imminent downfall of Sonos is by the very same person who predicted back in 2007 that lack of 24/96 hires capability would be the imminent downfall of Sonos. I dare say his market analysis is not one I would follow if I wish to make any cash.
Terms & ConditionsCookie settings