In this modern era, buried in the user agreement, is the fact that we don’t own any of the underlying intellectual property and our use of it is at the whim of the property owners. While this is the way that the tech world works at this point, I don’t like it.  I use as much public domain stuff as possible. And, I will send contributions to support Shareware products that don’t bludgeon me with advertising.

Regarding this specific issue, I don’t keep any of my music on a phone/pad/computer and therefore I’m not affected. For me, the best feature of SONOS has been that I don’t need to have a phone/pad/computer managing music play on a second by second basis. I start the music using whatever device is nearby, then I can shut down the device while the music plays.

Of course you don’t agree.  Care to wager a brand new Era 300 on the outcome?  I’ll give it 5 years, if the bemoaning isn’t futile and they reverse the decision, I’ll buy you a brand new Era 300 or (its future equivalent).  Otherwise, you owe me the same.  Is it a bet? 

I don’t think you can ignore the costs that they have to incur to maintain existing features, either to work with other company software, like Google, or to protect from malware threats. And that’s assuming that it is even possible to get these feature to work with whatever android code is coming out and some level of effort that doesn’t take away from other features.  I tend to think that is more of the decision factor than trying to force customers to replace existing features with new products.  Honestly, I would think that about most companies, not just Sonos...the big companies that have major leverage over markets being the exceptions.

I don’t think anybody really likes this, not even the property owners.  Back in the day when there was just PCs and Macs, no internet software updates, not much integration, and viruses were rare...you could write software and be pretty confident that features would work indefinitely on the software it was designed for.  Of course, now, you have more OS with different versions, everything interfacing and connected with all the malicious threats. You can’t guarantee what works now will work tomorrow as everything changes around the code you own.

Perhaps making matters worse, we no longer (rarely) pay for software in either a one time fee or recurring subscription.  These are ‘free’ with cost effectively embedded in the associated hardware with expectation that future hardware sales will pay for future software maintenance/enhancements indefinitely.   

The disagreement was related to “it´s generally useless”. It maybe doesn´t turn out in a good way. But if you don´t try, you have lost already...

Generally I tend to agree. But for this very feature I don´t as this very feature is something they most likley don´t touch anyway…

Another way: They could at least tell customers: if you don´t like it, don´t update to the new App version starting on May 23rd. Or release a new app like they did with the Sonos S1 vs. S2.
There are so many ways they could have chosen to keep customers happy and be flexible. But they decided to just get rid of a function that might have been a reaon to buy for a bunch of people. Generally very sad decision and not customer friendly. No matter what some people in the thread say, most likely  because they are not using the feature.

As I mention in these discussions, I had to recycle a perfectly functional cellphone because the cell towers will no longer support it. The carriers decided that there was no economic advantage for them to continue to support my phone.

We don’t know the details leading to this result. I’m reminded of the AirPlay development when it was replaced by AirPlay 2. All supporting models had to be redesigned. This required a lot of expense by the adopting companies. There may be some sort of similar development for this Android feature. SONOS knows the numbers and any required licensing terms. In spite of the howls here, there may not be a significant base of SONOS owners using the feature. It’s also possible that Google demands that feature users accept Google advertising and snooping — essentially converting the SONOS controller into a Google accessory.

No, it’s completely useless, and one has already lost whether one complains or not.  Me, I like to hold onto my dignity rather than ranting to nameless, faceless corporations as if I’m owed some sort of loyalty.  I either stay with the brand, or walk away., and if I choose the latter, you won’t hear Boo! from me about it.  YMMV.  

Thanks for enlighting us about your posture. If you don´t like what others are doing to improve the situation then just leave the scene. 

The entire point is there isn't anyone doing anything to "improve the situation".  You can't.  You may as well shout at the wind.  It's like banging your head against the wall, it will only feel good when you stop.

PLase stop talking as if you know what I am doing to improve the situation. Just because I am posting here my opinion doesn't mean I think it just improves by doing this. A board is exactly for that to share info and express opinions. And just because you have a different one, you don't need to mock ppl who express their discomfort with the sonos decision. 

Today my new Denon 350 arrives.

My sonos play 5 will be for sale tomorrow 

I purchased a Sonos One speaker as a birthday gift for my wife several years ago, for the SOLE use of playing her locally stored music collection from the SD Card on her Android 11 phone. All tracks ripped from CDs that she owns or purchased from Amazon/etc, about 15-20GB of MP3s in total.

She does not have, nor does she want, any paid online services as she already owns all of the music that she wants to listen to. She browses her collection by library cover art grid, and plays her music that way.

Is this purely an app update (which I can block for her by preventing Play Store updates) or is it controlled via Sonos server-side mechanisms? I guess I could firewall the Sonos from internet connectivity, while leaving the local WLAN operating?

If this cannot be resolved, her Sonos speaker will become an expensive brick - very deliberately broken by Sonos themselves - for which we would of course require compensation.

Andre

Just a thought: is this being removed from the S1 app? If that one truly is feature-frozen, then will the S1 Android could be a possible solution? Sonos could also block the S1 app on A14, avoiding whatever platform issue is the underlying cause.

Per the original post, first line…

Starting May 23rd, 2023, the Sonos S1 and S2 controller for Android will no longer support the ‘On this Device’ feature for streaming locally saved audio files directly to Sonos devices.

Sonos states in the 2nd paragraph of the original post...

As newer versions of mobile operating systems are released, it can sometimes change the way information is shared between devices, and this feature will no longer be compatible with newer versions of the Android operating system. 

So unless Sonos is bluntly lying to you, and the original code for the feature will continue to work as is in newer Android versions, you would need to block Sonos app and firmware upgrades as well as and android upgrades.  

I don’t think Sonos wants to tell customers to never update the Sonos app (android or apple), never update the firmware, never update their Android OS, expose themselves to whatever malware threats come by not updating, never use any new android or Apple device as those will have the new app version, and never buy a Sonos product again since they will also only be compatible with the latest version. 

The S1/S2 change over was a huge debacle for Sonos and pretty much universally unliked by customers.  And it would not actually solve anything as they reason for the feature removal is that it won’t work in future android systems, according to Sonos.

How do you get around the fact that the feature won’t work on newer versions of android?  The two solutions you provided ignore that.

To be fair on Sonos, Google’s continued push towards forcing apps to use their god-awful Storage Access Framework does not make local file access easy or fast (it’s horribly slow in fact) but it does still work in its own bizarre way. And for anyone using current versions of Android, it still works fine and ought to continue to work.

It’s a shame that Google never read the definition of an Operating System though, which is basically to seamlessly facilitate background communication between the user, programs and the underlying hardware layers & peripherals. Android seems to be trying to do just the opposite!

Andre

Ooops, my bad.

Sure, the security thing is a problem. Yet my Sonos is protected in my wifi by other measures (if you get in, the sonos speakers are my least concern. Other things are much more important there.)
When it comes to the app on my smartphone: I use it only IN my house. (no point using it outside)

For the newer Android versions: I simply don´t believe their statement, comming from the software area myself. Something smells fishy with such a high level and to my knowledge simply not correct statement. If you simplify the methodology (not sure how technical everyone here is) it´s that you connect via WIFI through a SONOS!!! App to SONOS!!! equipment. Not sure what special thing google! could change that this won´t work with playing music anymore. Others are able to do as well I would imagine with knowing and having access to the Sonos API any skilled developer could get this done. It´s really not rocket science.

Actually the Sonos app doesn’t connect to the music at all.  The app is simply a controller; it never sees the music and the music doesn’t stream through the app.  Instead, the Sonos units themselves are told via the app what to play, and where to play it from.  The Sonos hardware then connects to the source and plays the instructed track(s).  Done this way, the device running the app is acting like a portable NAS, and as such, is susceptible to whatever rules Google or Apple has regarding external access to files contained on the device.  Not what you wish to hear, but those are the facts, and to convert the app from a simple controller to one which actually streams the music directly to the devices would mean a complete top to bottom redesign of the entire Sonos system.  

This point was that this solution isn’t something Sonos can share with it’s customers.  And as I already mention, it’s a solution that prevents customers from buying any more Sonos products.

Well, the Sonos app is just a controller, not a streamer/player. Unless playing local files is an exception to the ruler, the app is just telling the speaker where the audio file is and to go get it.  It is not a ‘Sonos app to Sonos Equipment’ connection, it’s Sonos equipment to android OS file system.  This could be tested (before support is dropped) by initiating playback of a local audio file and then closing the Sonos app.  If the app isn’t involved with transmission, playback should continue.

So the ‘special thing’ Google has to do is allow an outside device to access files via WiFi, and at a reliable rate to allow playback on the speaker with building up a large buffer.  What @Andre Willey stated above seems to imply that the connection is not that easy or reliable?

But sure, Sonos could probably totally re-engineer how this feature works, testing, developing etc, so that the app transmits audio for this one situation...hoping that Google doesn’t make changes to the OS again making whatever the re-worked solution is unreliable.  

For those that don’t know, you used to be able to play files from iOS devices too, but iOS changed making this unreliable, and Sonos dropped the feature.  This all happened before airplay 2 was announced and supported.  Similar happened with lockscreen controls on iOS devices.  Point being that Sonos has a history of implementing features that are made possible with android/iOS features, only for them to be unworkable when these OSs are updated.

I have rarely used this feature but yes it is disappointing when features are removed, What really irks me though is the fact that they are remotely removing the feature from existing working systems, without providing a good reason.

Yes I can see some small customer relationship difficulties when a facility is removed at op sys upgrade time but there must be ways to address that and anyway such difficulties are going to occur whenever the facility is removed. There is a sort of arrogance in a company that decides your working system is going to loose functionality without you having any control over that decision. 

For their own convenience and control, more and more companies are operating from the cloud. This means that the customer’s installation is little more than a browser plugin. From the company’s perspective, updates are easy and all users are running the latest version. Protection of intellectual property is easy because it is controlled in the cloud server. RMR (Recurring Monthly Revenue) is easily guaranteed. Marketing can operate at a high level by constantly following use of the product and give suggestions with respect to additional purchases or enhancements. User data can be sold to 3rd parties and ads can be pushed on users.  Features, such as integration with AI can operate at scale.

I don’t like this business model. I don’t like my data being mined and sold, tight cloud integration can slow response time. (Yes, I realize that high end AI can’t be done on a phone or desktop.) And, the application must be online. If the application cannot be online for some reason, it’s worthless. The biggest problem for me is that the application can be instantly withdrawn or taken down if the company closes down.

I tend to be a “buy once, use forever” type. This is scary for the company because their source of income comes from customer base expansion. If the market saturates, the company is at end of life.

So... does this mean i have to buy a whole new item the Roam... to connect it to my home group.. in order to use a service i already had... they they removed?