I am generally not a fan of trying to introduce too many changes at one time.  So in that regard, I’m not disappointed that Sonos isn’t creating user profiles at the same time they are doing UI changes, not to mention the likely release of new product in the next couple months.  I’m not really expecting Sonos to create user profiles, since there has never been a hint that they would.  Just because I like the idea doesn’t mean I know the amount of effort and cost it would take to do that, nor all the unintended consequences I have not considered.

FYI, you can already do basic controls to use a Sonos system without being logged into the Sonos account, as long as you’re on the WiFi network.  If you try and do an admin function, you will need to log in.  So having user profiles, or sub accounts, wouldn’t impact administration in that regard.  Perhaps they can exist without requiring any authentication, but I have seen plenty of request for such a thing to be password protected...so brother doesn’t mess with sister’s playlists.

That sort of thing would need to be maintained on a cloud server, which Sonos already has, but perhaps is hesitant to expand the footprint of.  I would not want it to work like the Ring system though as Ring doesn’t really accommodate multiple users in the same household, as far as I can tell.  Each Ring user has their own separate system.  If you don’t have your own system, there is no need for a separate account.  But admittedly, this is how I use Ring, so perhaps I’m only using part of the functionality.  Regardless, with Sonos, there should be no need to create and maintain a full separate Sonos account just because you want to create a profile for a family member or guest.

And this is probably more of a nice to have for me personally.  Probably a dozen other features I would elect to be implemented first.

Hi @Timboslice 

The app update will not include any changes to the speaker firmware, which would be required for the change you mention. At present, it remains a feature request.

I hope this helps.

This is a question for another thread, but I’ll answer it here.  It is highly improbable that you will ever be able to switch quickly between a surround and stereo setup for your surrounds and sub(s).  They are two completely different configurations.  One is a one-way private network from the soundbar to the surrounds/sub required for the low latency needed to sync with video, the other is regular Sonos, which is higher latency, buffered and uses a more reliable radio band that can penetrate walls and floors to sync audio between rooms.  Each requires a reconfiguration of the radios and a series of handshakes, which is why adding/deleting surrounds/subs takes the time it does.  So a quick toggling in the future is probably not possible. 

Yes, that was partly my point. Profiles stored at system-level could be provided without having to be integrated into system admin rights management.

True, but even without password protection it would be better than current setup and would be in line with how Sonos currently supports multiple instances of same streaming service (there is currently nothing to prevent me accessing the streaming service accounts of others in house via Sonos).  

Ring does support use of multiple Ring accounts in a single household. It’s why I used it as an example (and actually the main reason I purchased Ring in the first place). The system owner/admin invites other Ring accounts to the system (settings > shared access) and each account can set their own preferences (such as what events they want to receive notifications for, and notification snooze settings). Device admin tasks can only be performed by the admin account.

While I agree that it’s offtopic, and that network reconfiguration can’t simply be toggled on/off, this particular feature would not need a network change to be implemented.  Currently, you have the option to play non-TV  stereo sources with the front  speakers only or front and rear playing stereo.  This would be a 3rd option to play rear only.  Essentially, your Arc would still receive the audio and distributing to the other speakers in the room, it would simply play no audio itself.

This is really a corollary of the more comment request to be able to move sub to a different room, use portables as surrounds, etc...but a corallary that can be resolved without network changes. 

I suspect maybe the issues with this though is that the room is likely not tuned well for this, and many users would expect that they can move the surround speakers to a different room, etc in this mode without issue.  In the case of the Era 300, you definitely would not be able to play atmos audio soley through the surrounds, as another issue.

I don’t really know what a household is in Ring context.  My use case is that I have Ring cameras in my home, and I also have access to the Cameras at mom’s house.  There are 2 separate accounts, not related in any way except for the shared access.  I do have admin access to mom’s cameras though, as she isn’t really up for handling that herself.  I can’t change anything about her account though, just camera settings. (She also has ‘read-only’ access to my cameras, except the backyard...she doesn’t need to see what happens back there)

Anyway, within Sonos I just would not want a ‘sub’ account to be a full Sonos account.  The admin needs to be able administer these sub accounts. And I don’t see a value in letting someone with a completely different Sonos account and setup, at their own location, any sort of access to my home system.

I tried to keep it simple, but as you know, I’ve addressed the gotchas (grouping, Atmos audio, etc.) in other threads, and in my opinion, they are probably the reason we aren’t going to see the feature implemented. 

Thanks to everyone for the answers and explanations. However, I had also expressed myself incorrectly. Sorry for that. Of course I meant that Atmos music sounds much worse in combination with the ERA300 as surround due to the fact that the front-facing drivers are switched off than if I only use it in stereo combination with the ERAS (optionally with sub). But as I have read, this seems to be an insurmountable hurdle. Nevertheless, I wouldn't mind an automation system that triggers the switching, even if it takes 1-2 minutes, but happens automatically.  Fingers crossed that it might be possible at some point. No matter how ;-)

Call me an old fart if you want. I just prefer the good old Windows desktop controller. It does everything that's needed to play music all around my house. Occasionally I use my phone, I admit. But the Windows desktop controller still does the job, every day. God forbid they put it to eternal sleep...

Household maybe the wrong term in Ring terminology. They seem to refer to location when referring to a collection of devices at a single address. That’s what I meant by household. You can share the devices at a “location” with other Ring.com accounts, giving them non-admin access as you seem to have done by providing your Mom’s Ring account with non-admin access to some of the Ring devices at your house. 

If Sonos ever added support for user profiles my preference also would not be for each user to have to create a Sonos.com account. I would much prefer user profiles to be stored on the local system so that anyone on the local network could access the profiles even if not signed into the app using a Sonos.com account. The reason I mentioned web-based profiles (and Ring) was because you said the new web app requires web sign in (unlike the current Sonos apps). If the new web app can’t connect to the local Sonos system without web sign in, then the only way I can see profiles working would be for each user to have a Sonos.com web account. Allowing multiple Sonos.com accounts access to a single Sonos system could be achieved in a similar way to how Ring does it. What would be the alternative way to support user profiles if the web app requires web sign in?

I’m not sure I follow what you mean by needs to administer the sub accounts. With Ring, the administrator can remove access from accounts they have given share access to. What other user-account administration is needed?

I’m also not sure why you are focussed on people at different locations. The primary scenario I’m thinking of is multiple people living in the same house who use the system on a daily basis but want different favourites/preferences when interacting with the system. That’s how we use the Ring system in my house (each person in the house has their own Ring account; one person has admin control and the others have non-admin shared access) and similar concept could be applied to Sonos if user profiles needed to be web-based.

I think it is over 12 months since new search was introduced without the ability to search local libraries.  Now we have a new UI that not only fails to include local library search it also fails to provide a means to update the paths for such libraries. Coffin and nails come to mind.

Sonos headphones would have been my reason to upgrade to S2 and replace my S1 only kit. Now and given the limited use I think the headphones would have had as part of the sonos ecosystem those purchases are on going to be on hold until it becomes clear that local libraries regain their second (or better) class status rather than what really looks like total indifference at best.

Will it be easier to turn off and on the Sub or change the level? In the current app you have to take many steps to get there.

Hi @SleepyRobot 

There isn’t much change - you’d still need to go to Settings, select the right room, then adjust the setting.

I hope this helps.

Users logging in while off the wifi network (web app) would need to provide the name of the system they are logging into (the owner account of the system, perhaps including household as well), then the username and password.  So very example, for someone could log into my system by  accessing melvimbe_system / guest /password123.  Obviously ‘guest’ would not be a full Sonos account, and would only have context within the Sonos account melvimbe_system.   Authentication of the guest sub account could be done by a Sonos cloud server, or perhaps offloaded to the local Sonos system itself.

It makes more sense for a Sonos user to be able to create and maintain the profiles/subaccounts that have access to the system they are responsible for than to have someone create a full Sonos account just to access someone’s system.  That would be creating a full account when there is no intention of buying Sonos products or any of the features that come along with a full account.  From Sonos standpoint, you are now tracking a lot of accounts that aren’t ‘real’ accounts, messing up your analytics.  From the full Sonos account/user perspective, I know have to create and  maintain my own account, wife, 2 kids, and guest as separate full accounts.  I would much rather go into the Sonos account an adminster these as subaccounts/profiles under my system, with the ability to create/delete accounts, reset passwords, etc, than do that through Sonos.com, essentially.

I’m essentially trying to look at this with an object oriented approach.  I recognize that a full Sonos account and user profile account are similar objects, but they are not the same, and need different functionality tied to them.  It is better to treat them as different objects.   I’ve seen similar objects treated as identical from a design approach before, and it usually ends up as a complete mess.

By contrast with Ring, the user accounts are generally the same object with the ability to own products and view products other users own.  You aren’t ever needing to create a sub account for your family member to view the cameras.

But back on Sonos, there are lots of other things to consider with this sort of concept.  Can the system owner setup services for users/sub accounts, or do they do it themselves?  What happens when one user starts streaming and another user wants to end or modify that stream?  

In Sonos context, I think of the location as the WiFi network your Sonos is setup on.  It is reasonable to want to grant access to your system without wanting to give them access to your WiFi network, ether through the guest WiFi network or just mobile access. This request pops up on the forum from time to time.  So it absolutely can  be users in the same house, but not the same ‘location’.

I don’t think your Ring scenario, with multiple accounts created for members of your household, is all that common.  I can understand creating one account for admin and other for view only, but I suspect that is rare.  I suspect it’s even more rare to create multiple view only accounts, as that would only be needed if your household members have access to different cameras.  I’m glad it works for you, but I don’t think that’s really what Ring was trying to do when they allow users to view each others cameras.

SONOS offers a Professional Service. This is not intended for home users, but it does allow a Supervisor to administer users and multiple sites.

I totally get where @osm is coming from. This is exactly what I am used to for other devices, eg Ring/Amazon/Google/Nest/Apple/Smarthome devices/Smart scales/dog GPS trackers/etc, you share your ‘system’ with other accounts.

Think of the old days, you may have a turntable/amp/speakers, another member of family or visiting friend may have their own collection of records, you allow him to play their music on your system. There is nothing stopping one person taking a record off and putting there own on the turntable. Or someone changing the station on a playing radio. I see this as the modern equivalent, ie you are allowing another user ‘account’ to access your ‘system’.

I am sure Sonos would love to have additional accounts without associated hardware, just from the data harvesting value.

However, I also think there is less and less value in the Sonos App, as more and more native apps can connect to Sonos (Spotify/Airplay/etc), ie the Sonos App is used less now that Native Apps are integrated with Sonos.

Lets see how this goes after the 7th 

I wonder if we will need to pay for users (if they bring it) or cloud controller access, in the future, for a low low monthly price. 

Yeah, that would work too. When it comes to other family members, I wouldn’t personally have any particular preference either way (your suggested approach vs each person in getting their own Sonos.com account), but your suggested approach would be better-suited for providing guest access. 

Regarding “Users logging in while off the wifi network (web app) would need to provide the name of the system they are logging into”: Does your phrasing here mean the web app can actually connect to the local (on network) system without need to sign in with a Sonos.com account? I took an earlier comment from you to mean login was always needed when using the web app regardless of whether it was used on or off network. 

I’m not sure these necessarily need to be issues. I personally see profiles as necessary for each user to have their own favourite lists (stations, albums, playlists etc). Basically the lists in My Sonos in the current app. System administration including adding/removing services would require the system administrator to as it does currently.

It’s not just about controlling who has access to which cameras. The approach of utilising shared access via multiple Ring.com accounts is what Ring recommended when I asked them how I could setup the system so that different people living in the house can configure alert/notification settings to their own preferences. I’d be quite surprised if desire to control motion/event notification settings at a user-level instead of system level is uncommon.

Hi All

We really appreciate the discussion and feedback, but as the new app will not bring any functionality changes - in particular multi-user and search - please keep the discussion on-topic and relating to what might be in the new app rather than what you now know will not be, from this point on. If you want to discuss new features such as those mentioned here, start a new topic relating to them. Thanks.

Yes, it's game over for what was once Sonos' core customer base - people with local music libraries. The writing was on the wall when New Search was introduced last May. Now, looking at the limited previews of the app, it's a muddled mess with trending, recommenations, playlists and all the other nonsense that makes me steer clear of streaming platforms. And there's still only one service you cannot remove - Sonos Radio. I'm going back to an amp, speakers and laptop setup. 

In fairness, the new app does bring functionality change as it will no longer be able to search local libraries and the current one can.

The thing is that maybe 98% of Sonos users today, none of who visit this forum, will see the new app and love it for all the bells and whistles at their command, now in a contemporary format. This target audience just isn't part of this conversation and I therefore don’t know what Sonos expects as actionable feedback from it.

Those with Connect Amps and Play 3 units - or even Play 1 units - are risking music play disruptions if they stay on the S2 upgrade path that includes the new eye candy. 

This is the announcement forum.  I don’t think Sonos was expecting actionable feedback from this post.  I don’t think they are surprised by the feedback or that it’s unwelcome per se, just that they were not actively looking for critiques of the UI.

This is a new UI, not exactly an upgrade path as you’re portraying it.  Users could get the May 7th update, and never update again (fireware and app).  Yes, there are potential downsides to that strategy, but they are not any different than not getting the UI update to begin with.  The one exception might be that the webapp is server based, and therefore effectively always on the latest version.  It surely is using the standard APIs though, which are not likely to change frequently, or change in a way that breaks existing code using the older versions of the API.

I am simply going by what Corry said about valuing feedback received.

Users of Connect Amps and the like that have suffered equipment collapses subsequent to S2 updates and as of now are still left in the lurch by Sonos may not appreciate the parsing between what this UI is and what it isn't. I don’t see Sonos saying that their new UI isn't going to break more borderline kit either.

Hi @Kumar 

The new app is not going to affect speaker functionality - it’s a User Interface refresh for the controller. As a comparative example, you would not expect a replacement remote for your TV to affect the picture quality.

As a result, it should not be compared to the S1/S2 split - it really isn’t anything like that at all.

I hope this helps.