Add "Prevent Updates" to System Updates Options


I would like to see an additional option in advanced settings to "Prevent Updates". This would be used by people who have a significant investment in older controllers or some other reason not to use the latest firmware and want to prevent an accidental upgrade. The key difference for this setting from just unchecking the "Automatically check for updates" box are as follows:

- The new option will remove the "Update Now" button from showing on any controller.

- The new option will cause zone players or controllers that may have required repair to take on the current system firmware revision when added back to the system rather than forcing an update to the latest firmware version. (Note this is not the same as rolling back firmware which Sonos says it will not support)

-The new option will block any third party app or controller from initiating an update unless you go into advanced options and explicitly turn off the "Prevent Updates" flag.

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.

25 replies

I'm kind of surprised that nobody is interested in retaining the old firmware version.
Userlevel 1
Badge
I am.  I have auto updates disabled, but now I need to reconnect a dropped speaker, Sonos is trying to force an update before allowing me to search for/add the speaker back to my config. I haven't updated because the last update destroyed my home auto system, so I now have a orphaned speaker.
Userlevel 4
Badge +5
I like this idea. I am very interested in maintaining my current firmware and software.

They seem to be able to restore a system from Beta to Production version, so the technology would be there to restore a system to a 5.0 state if they had the will. Why can't they start another software install "stream" with just 5.0 in it instead of Beta?

They seem to refuse to acknowledge the need.

It sad that I will have to use a firewall to stop the update from happening, and hope that I don't have to restore a speaker from sonos or I will be hooped as User482341 has had happen.

These recent updates are so significant that I am really beginning to question my investment.  The "My way or the Highway" Sonos attitude has me looking at other ways to get things done in the future.
Userlevel 2
Badge



- The new option will cause zone players or controllers that may have required repair to take on the current system firmware revision when added back to the system rather than forcing an update to the latest firmware version. (Note this is not the same as rolling back firmware which Sonos says it will not support)




This needs to happen.

I'm a bit shocked this thread is three years old. I've been having significant usability problems for the last year because updating or adding a new controller to the network means that EVERYTHING gets updated which means being forced into updating all controllers right away or I lose functionality.

To say that the way Sonos does the update procedure is inconvenient to advanced users, or users with larger networks, is an understatement. I should be able to update a single controller and have other controllers still function regardless of how old their version of the app is running. I can't have laptops and mobile devices and tablets running 8.0 and 8.1 and 8.3 on the same network? Are you kidding me? That's lazy and it breaks my network and breaks the routine I have with my devices in my home. My devices, my network, my home.
Userlevel 2
Badge
https://consumerist.com/2017/08/23/sonos-holds-software-updates-hostage-if-you-dont-sign-new-privacy-agreement/
This is a three year old thread with a total of 6 posts from 4 users. I highly doubt the idea is going to be looked at with that kind of "overwhelming" support. :8
Userlevel 6
Badge +12
This is a three year old thread with a total of 6 posts from 4 users. I highly doubt the idea is going to be looked at with that kind of "overwhelming" support. :8

And why does that make you happy?
Oh, I know. People who don't want to be forced to update are "oldfashioned".
And you are not.
Yeah, that's it!

You will learn some day that this update hysteria will be yesterdays (bad) news. It's just stupid.
Especially when you can't reverse the process if there's a problem.
You have probably removed Ctrl-Z from your keyboard too.
It doesn't make me happy or sad. Just stating an observation on the popularity of this request and the likelihood of it being implemented. Sorry if you equate an objective observation with such a fierce emotion as hatred.
Userlevel 6
Badge +12
Your smiley implied this made you happy.

It's also very common in practically all communities that persons who states obvious disadvantages with the current always-update-all-the-time paradigm are pointed out as oldfashioned and that there's no use complaining.

That might be true for now but I'm pretty sure we who see the drawbacks will be right in the long run. This madness of constantly changing functionality and updates can't go on for decades. Even if a post with not enough followers on a Sonos community makes you believe otherwise.
Time I raised my head above the parapet ...

Would this 'turning off of updates' not then allow the CR100 devices to continue to be used? Despite the very clear warning from the company that their ageing in-built lithium batteries, if left on charge, are now considered a potential fire hazard. The CR100 devices are well past their use-by date and were withdrawn a long long time ago from production and sale.

It is quite a foolish step surely to continue to use them against all the advice and possibly put your family and home at risk, albeit a small risk, right now or at some stage in the future? I personally don’t think it’s worth it and Sonos are right to do all they can to keep their customers safe by disabling the controller through firmware update. I can’t criticise them for doing that, as it shows they are acting responsibly and before such risks may occur.

A much better argument, I think, would be around the level and type of compensation perhaps? ...and whether it should be applied to each CR100 device, rather than a group of devices. Maybe that argument would have more credibility, if the user has retained the original bill of sale for each of their devices and not simply purchased them used, or pre-owned.

I’m personally quite happy with the £100 being offered for my two old controllers, which will provide a discount against further Sonos equipment,

I have now switched off my two CR100's for safety reasons and very shortly they will be heading off to the waste disposal site. More fool anyone who is choosing to ignore the advice and continue take a risk with their in-built lithium batteries, or those who chose to change their batteries themselves with possible cheap foreign imports.

My CR100’s are off and staying off. I would suggest others here do the same, there are plenty of other cheap and safer ways to control our Sonos products these days using the Sonos App given away for FREE, on a variety of platforms.
Your smiley implied this made you happy.



It was an eye roll, nothing happy about that.
Userlevel 6
Badge +12
Time I raised my head above the parapet ...

Would this 'turning off of updates' not then allow the CR100 devices to continue to be used? Despite the very clear warning from the company that their ageing in-built lithium batteries, if left on charge, are now considered a potential fire hazard. The CR100 devices are well past their use-by date and were withdrawn a long long time ago from production and sale.


Batteries can easily be replaced. Actually I bough a new battery for my CR100 a year ago but didn't feel the need to replace just yet since the one in use is quite good still.

Has there been any incidents with CR100:s catching fire by themselves?
Often, when you hear of these things it seems to be on new equipment where the power system/battery has been designed wrong somehow.
The CR100 has built-in batteries and is a 'sealed for life' unit. I appreciate some unqualified users will technically know how to remove the rear cover and replace the batteries, but the majority would not attempt such things and so it is right for Sonos to call it a day on the product. It’s the unknown element due to the age of the batteries that probably brings about the risk. These units have far exceeded their use-by date intended in the eyes of the manufacturer.

So that’s why I’m following the advice to ditch them. Like I said my family and home are too important to me to take a risk with old lithium batteries, no matter how small that risk maybe.
Userlevel 6
Badge +12
The CR100 has built-in batteries and is a 'sealed for life' unit. I appreciate some unqualified users will technically know how to remove the rear cover and replace the batteries, but the majority would not attempt such things and so it is right for Sonos to call it a day on the product. It’s the unknown element due to the age of the batteries that probably brings about the risk. These units have far exceeded their use-by date intended in the eyes of the manufacturer.

So that’s why I’m following the advice to ditch them. Like I said my family and home are too important to me to take a risk with old lithium batteries, no matter how small that risk maybe.


OK, fair enough but I have an extremely hard time believing this in reality is the reason for this sudden alarm telling everyone to ditch their CR100. In that case there would be alarms about old iPhones also. And the CR200. And what about the capacitors in old Connects? Old capacitors can catch fire and these units are turned on practically always which should make them age faster than CR100 and so on.

If you really are concerned about safety there is probably a lot of other stuff in your house way more in need to be thrown away. In my opinion Sonos is playing a pretty dirty game claiming their CR100 has become dangerous all of a sudden.

By the way; not even a superdesigned iPhone is "sealed for life".
Expanding the lifespan of products by replacing batteries is good for the environment.
I’m not really looking to dispute things here or get into a tit for tat discussion, but it’s clear Apple stop supporting their products, but they still provide an authorised battery replacement service.

Apple have tried to disable third party repairs to their devices and to exclude and warn customers that some chargers and cables are unsupported... they also stop the user upgrading their rather expensive devices with the latest firmware and features to encourage further sales of newer products.

The CR200 does not have in-built batteries... they can be swapped by a customer with little or no technical experience.

Sonos have chosen to exclude the CR100 rather than have a battery replacement service and they continue to allow free firmware upgrades to all their 'speakers' and 'connects' etc. I think losing the CR100 whilst continuing to FULLY support all their main products is a much better strategy than the one imposed by Apple on their customers. It allows us all to listen to our music under optimal conditions and more recently some users can choose to implement voice control, if they want to go down that smart-home route.

I purchased the first Apple iPad for £750 (plus case/cover) to find that it was no longer supported by Apple a couple of years later. It became a rather slow and expensive web browser, whilst gradually failing to support the many useful every day Apps.

I still think Sonos have it 'right' on this occasion and the £100 voucher compensation is far more than anything that I ever received from Apple, for my now useless ipad v1 (64gig).
Userlevel 6
Badge +12
Quite an interesting development in this matter in the big thread about CR100... Some posters imply Sonos is opening up to be sued because they claim their batteries are dangerous. UK customer laws are cited and such... I have no idea myself about the legal status. But it would be quite funny if this lame excuse would end up in court.
T-S,

I have a slightly different personal view of things in the main CR100 thread... I will add I have only briefly read through it, rather than studied it in any great detail.

I would first of all think that the UK user-numbers would be quite small for the CR100. If you look at the unique number of posters in the main thread who are complaining, or involved in the discussion. On the scale of things, it’s still a very small number of users.

I’m not so sure the original U.K. sales of the CR100 were that high anyway, by comparison to some other countries.

It’s also quite possible that the British Courts, may find the level of compensation offered by the company more than acceptable, considering the age of the CR100 device and the fact that Sonos are acting 'responsibly' towards their customer.

Sonos are merely highlighting that the assessed risk is based on the age of the battery and some 'now-very-old' CR100 components and their 'potential' (combined, or otherwise) as a fire hazard, rather than an actual known fire risk, that’s as far as I can tell.

At the moment, no statistics are readily available to show the problems reported to Sonos in the past. It could even be a risk that has come to light from the batteries being fitted and used long-term within the products of other manufacturers and that Sonos believe that a fire hazard could therefore occur in the CR100 device at sometime in the future. There may not be a risk at this precise moment in time, but let’s not take any chances.

I think the UK courts may also see that the CR100 devices have long-since served their intended purpose and that there are now many cheap alternative options on the market, which are available today to continue to control their main speakers and products, in some cases that could be 'cost free' to many users who may already have available access to mobile devices, tablets, computers etc.

Even the cheapest brand-new mobile controller device, to buy these days, is probably in the region of £50 to £70. So I suspect any compensation awarded by a Court In the U.K. would not exceed that amount, having already had 'fair and reasonable' use out of a CR100 device.

What slightly baffles me too, in the main CR100 thread, is that some 'unqualified' users think changing the batteries in these 'manufacture-sealed' devices, for themselves, somehow resolves the issue for everyone... to me they are potentially increasing their own risk, as the devices are sometimes then fitted with cheap imported batteries and the opening of the unit also involves 'breaking the seal' and the possibility of disturbing or damaging components, aswell as allowing in moisture. Some are even going onto use their 'opened' CR100’s in a bathroom environment.

Even then, if their new battery, components and seal do work fine, it still doesn’t mean that the problem is then solved for every CR100 device out there. There could still be one, or more, CR100 with old lithium batteries fitted and they remain a potential fire risk. Just one CR100 with old batteries etc. is still 'one too many'.

Therefore, Sonos still need to do everything they can reasonably do, to reduce the problem and the only way to do that is to disable them all and make the CR100 obsolete to reduce the likelihood of it being used by any of their customers.

Many Sonos customers have still never (ever) changed their CR100 batteries and those that have, may have been unqualified, or have deliberately ignored the manufacturers advice or instructions. The internal workings were not designed to be tampered with by anyone other than the qualified/authorised manufacturer.

If anyone decided to take Sonos to Court over the matter, I’m not so sure they would truly achieve the desired outcome they hope for... in fact the court could decide that removing the product from 'sale and use' after an acceptable lifetime of achievement, was the correct thing to do and that the £100 voucher compensation was not a necessary step... and then where would we all be?

Like I said, I’m quite happy I’ve had 'fair and lengthy' use out of my old CR100 and I’m quite happy to take the voucher offered, in exchange.

It is also one less 'potential' future fire risk to my family and home and I see myself as being rewarded for getting rid of that risk.

There are some users in the main CR100 thread who appear to be thinking just of themselves and their own situation ...rather than the bigger complete picture of 'safety for each and every customer' which has to be the main priority for Sonos or any other 'responsible' company for that matter.

There is (perhaps) better argument in the CR100 main thread, where users discuss 'reasonable' alternative methods of compensation, such as being provided with an alternative method to control their Sonos equipment in exchange for scrapping their CR100. I admit that I do have some sympathy with that viewpoint, but only in very extreme cases where a user has no other 'controller' access, but that’s probably a discussion for another day.
The "CR100 is now dangerous" thing is complete nonsense. The battery in the CR100 is a piece of cake to replace. Two screws, unclip the cable, and push in the new cable. Took all of about 3 minutes.

The truth of the matter is that the CR100 is old, and in order to make it "fit" with the other products, they need to have developers who know how to build firmware for it. This adds some cost, and Sonos don't want to have to live with that technical burden any more. That's if there's any spare space in the devices' FLASH for new stuff, which I doubt.

It's a real shame because the developers of the android app (which we are going to be forced to use) have no idea about how to make a decent UI. I say this because I have the app running on a tablet, and from an HCI perspective, it's absolutely shocking. All the useful stuff is hidden behind tiny buttons, or swipes and taps, while 90% of the screen is non-responsive. A physical button to control volume trumps a fiddly little slider any day.

The CR100 is perfect, easy to use and has an interface that everyone can understand. If my CR100 stops working, my kids, my elderly relatives and my neighbours will be unable to use my Sonos when they're in the house. Also, every time I need to use it, I have to go run upstairs, find my phone, unlock it, open the sonos app, change to the zone I want to control, make the change, re-lock the phone and put it back, then run back downstairs again. Utter rubbish! i'm not carrying my phone everywhere just because some exec at Sonos tells me to! Absurd!

And don't tell me "just buy a tablet in each room" I *HAD* a bunch of tablets because I couldn't get any more CR100s but guess what Sonos did? Yes, that's right, one day they stopped support for Android 4.4.2 with a forced update, and those tablets suddenly became useless to me, since all they did was act as Sonos controllers. I wasn't able to prevent the update, it just happened. Boom. Useless, no rollback.

So here I am, with around £300 of useless electronics which was purchased to control my Sonos kit. So, am I pleased with this "forced update" thing that Sonos is doing? No. I'm very NOT happy. I don't give a monkeys about all the new streaming features, and Amazon Alexa integration. I bought it to be a surround system and soundbar for the TV, and play music from a few Net radios and my NAS throughout the house. Nothing else.

So, how do I stop my Sonos system from ever talking to Sonos ever again? I want to sever all electronic ties to the Sonos.com system. I will not be buying any more speakers from them, and when these speakers start to fail, I'll be looking to replace them with something else. If the network breaks, and my CR-100 stops working, I'll be starting to put them on eBay.

I have a friend with an old Squeezebox, and that still works perfectly after all these years. Even gets better sound quality via FLAC and his stereo. So you telling me that "updates have to happen, and things stopping working is natural" is utter rubbish. It's all about their company policy and unwillingness to support products long-term. they want you to buy their kit, so enforce obsolescence. The moment something becomes inconvenient, it'll be dropped. So if you're an owner of a ZonePlayer, or use a BRIDGE, be very very worried, because all those products have been superceded. Soon the series 1 speakers will start to enter the target zone, and we'll be asked to upgrade to series 2 at what cost?
Userlevel 7
Badge +2
This is a three year old thread with a total of 6 posts from 4 users. I highly doubt the idea is going to be looked at with that kind of "overwhelming" support. :8
So three years ago 4 users were ahead of the curve and now following Sonos recent announcement the rest of us understand what they were on about!!
3 . . . 300 . . . Still a drop in the bucket.

And the "Save the CR100" thread is thataway ---->
Userlevel 7
Badge +2
Time I raised my head above the parapet ...

Would this 'turning off of updates' not then allow the CR100 devices to continue to be used? Despite the very clear warning from the company that their ageing in-built lithium batteries, if left on charge, are now considered a potential fire hazard. The CR100 devices are well past their use-by date and were withdrawn a long long time ago from production and sale.

It is quite a foolish step surely to continue to use them against all the advice and possibly put your family and home at risk, albeit a small risk, right now or at some stage in the future? I personally don’t think it’s worth it and Sonos are right to do all they can to keep their customers safe by disabling the controller through firmware update. I can’t criticise them for doing that, as it shows they are acting responsibly and before such risks may occur.

A much better argument, I think, would be around the level and type of compensation perhaps? ...and whether it should be applied to each CR100 device, rather than a group of devices. Maybe that argument would have more credibility, if the user has retained the original bill of sale for each of their devices and not simply purchased them used, or pre-owned.

I’m personally quite happy with the £100 being offered for my two old controllers, which will provide a discount against further Sonos equipment,

I have now switched off my two CR100's for safety reasons and very shortly they will be heading off to the waste disposal site. More fool anyone who is choosing to ignore the advice and continue take a risk with their in-built lithium batteries, or those who chose to change their batteries themselves with possible cheap foreign imports.

My CR100’s are off and staying off. I would suggest others here do the same, there are plenty of other cheap and safer ways to control our Sonos products these days using the Sonos App given away for FREE, on a variety of platforms.

I will have to disagree with most of the above, but I am happy that you are content with your current position.

We have 7 CR100s all with new or under 2 year old batteries (none are cheap foreign imports), so if Sonos reckon a CR100's battery is safe for about 14 years ours are safe for another 12 or more. Therefore I do not agree "it is quite a foolish step surely to continue to use them against all the advice" and we are not "possibly put your family and home at risk". And just whilst on the subject of battery replacement, Sonos used to offer this as a paid for service and have never really come up with a good reason why this service was withdrawn (see my posts on the subject a few years back!).

"A much better argument, I think, would be around the level and type of compensation perhaps? ...and whether it should be applied to each CR100 device, rather than a group of devices." - Agreed IF there was a credible alternative to the CR100s many unique features that are not available on any of the other controllers offered at the moment e.g. water proof, instant on, hard buttons etc.(there is better list on the SAVE THE CR100 thread).

If you are happy with your Sonos set-up and CR100 voucher then I am pleased for you. I on the other hand agree with the OP from 3 years ago.
Userlevel 7
Badge +2
T-S,

I have a slightly different personal view of things in the main CR100 thread... I will add I have only briefly read through it, rather than studied it in any great detail.

I would first of all think that the UK user-numbers would be quite small for the CR100. If you look at the unique number of posters in the main thread who are complaining, or involved in the discussion. On the scale of things, it’s still a very small number of users.

I’m not so sure the original U.K. sales of the CR100 were that high anyway, by comparison to some other countries.

It’s also quite possible that the British Courts, may find the level of compensation offered by the company more than acceptable, considering the age of the CR100 device and the fact that Sonos are acting 'responsibly' towards their customer.

Sonos are merely highlighting that the assessed risk is based on the age of the battery and some 'now-very-old' CR100 components and their 'potential' (combined, or otherwise) as a fire hazard, rather than an actual known fire risk, that’s as far as I can tell.

At the moment, no statistics are readily available to show the problems reported to Sonos in the past. It could even be a risk that has come to light from the batteries being fitted and used long-term within the products of other manufacturers and that Sonos believe that a fire hazard could therefore occur in the CR100 device at sometime in the future. There may not be a risk at this precise moment in time, but let’s not take any chances.

I think the UK courts may also see that the CR100 devices have long-since served their intended purpose and that there are now many cheap alternative options on the market, which are available today to continue to control their main speakers and products, in some cases that could be 'cost free' to many users who may already have available access to mobile devices, tablets, computers etc.

Even the cheapest brand-new mobile controller device, to buy these days, is probably in the region of £50 to £70. So I suspect any compensation awarded by a Court In the U.K. would not exceed that amount, having already had 'fair and reasonable' use out of a CR100 device.

What slightly baffles me too, in the main CR100 thread, is that some 'unqualified' users think changing the batteries in these 'manufacture-sealed' devices, for themselves, somehow resolves the issue for everyone... to me they are potentially increasing their own risk, as the devices are sometimes then fitted with cheap imported batteries and the opening of the unit also involves 'breaking the seal' and the possibility of disturbing or damaging components, aswell as allowing in moisture. Some are even going onto use their 'opened' CR100’s in a bathroom environment.

Even then, if their new battery, components and seal do work fine, it still doesn’t mean that the problem is then solved for every CR100 device out there. There could still be one, or more, CR100 with old lithium batteries fitted and they remain a potential fire risk. Just one CR100 with old batteries etc. is still 'one too many'.

Therefore, Sonos still need to do everything they can reasonably do, to reduce the problem and the only way to do that is to disable them all and make the CR100 obsolete to reduce the likelihood of it being used by any of their customers.

Many Sonos customers have still never (ever) changed their CR100 batteries and those that have, may have been unqualified, or have deliberately ignored the manufacturers advice or instructions. The internal workings were not designed to be tampered with by anyone other than the qualified/authorised manufacturer.

If anyone decided to take Sonos to Court over the matter, I’m not so sure they would truly achieve the desired outcome they hope for... in fact the court could decide that removing the product from 'sale and use' after an acceptable lifetime of achievement, was the correct thing to do and that the £100 voucher compensation was not a necessary step... and then where would we all be?

Like I said, I’m quite happy I’ve had 'fair and lengthy' use out of my old CR100 and I’m quite happy to take the voucher offered, in exchange.

It is also one less 'potential' future fire risk to my family and home and I see myself as being rewarded for getting rid of that risk.

There are some users in the main CR100 thread who appear to be thinking just of themselves and their own situation ...rather than the bigger complete picture of 'safety for each and every customer' which has to be the main priority for Sonos or any other 'responsible' company for that matter.

There is (perhaps) better argument in the CR100 main thread, where users discuss 'reasonable' alternative methods of compensation, such as being provided with an alternative method to control their Sonos equipment in exchange for scrapping their CR100. I admit that I do have some sympathy with that viewpoint, but only in very extreme cases where a user has no other 'controller' access, but that’s probably a discussion for another day.

I guess the points you have not picked up on during your brief look at the SAVE THE CR100 thread, is Sonos, when pushed, have as good as publicly said that the CR100s are in fact safe to use.

It is also the case that many users would not have purchased any Sonos ZPs or Play units if the CR100 was not available and the only controllers for a Sonos system were touchscreen or App based. If the 2018 controllers were the only ones available in 2004 we would never have purchased Sonos, we would have gone hard wired.

Look at it this way, would you be happy if, after lots of research, you purchased a TV with a remote control that you found to be the best on the market and then a number of years later the TV manufacturer said, the remote control was too dangerous to use now and here is an App you can use from your tablet instead? Yes you have had good use of the remote over many years but the TV is still going and was purchase at the same time as part of a single integrated TV system. I would want the remote replaced with a similar unit not with an App that takes longer to fire up, does not have hard buttons but a touchscreen layout the keeps being changed etc.

Now if you are happy with this and what Sonos are proposing to do, all well and good.
It's a rolling wave of unease that's washing over me right now. it's setting a worrying precedent, and it's looking more and more like the way things are going. Want to play that old game? No, you can't because they took the server offline that authenticated the DRM. Want to buy a new computer with Windows 7? No, you can't because Microsoft and Intel made a pact to prevent it saying it's "impossible" (even though people have successfully managed to get it working perfectly on the latest gen by using hacks).

We no longer own our music, we "rent" it from Itunes, and Google Play. We don't buy books, we "borrow" them onto our Kindles, and Amazon has the right to delete all our stuff if it wants to (check the EULA if you don't believe me).

And now, Sonos has entered the fray by saying "We know your speakers work, and you've had no problems with them. We understand you have all this older kit that is currently working, however as of tomorrow, we're going to turn it all off". We're no longer buying our own equipment, we're leasing the use of that equipment from a company, and when they decide to terminate the lease, we have no option but to throw it away.

So, if you're thinking "Meh, this isn't an issue, I'll just keep upgrading", that's fine until the company decides it needs to refresh its product line, and all of a sudden you find that your playbar is now unable to accept streaming services for some jibberish reason, despite the fact it was able to yesterday. Or that you can no longer pair those old Sonos:1s into a stereo pair without adding a new Play:1Extra or whatever.

Now, look at your computer. Are you using Windows 10? Did you remember to turn off all the telemetry? No? Better check on that.
Userlevel 7
Badge +2
3 . . . 300 . . . Still a drop in the bucket.

And the "Save the CR100" thread is thataway ---->

In this 3 year old thread the OP requested that Sonos add an "additional option in advanced settings to "Prevent Updates"." - I am now adding my support to this request

Sure this is because I wish to retain CR100 functionality for as long as possible, but my reason is not the issue, support of the OP's original request is.

A good feature request is a good feature request even if only one (bright) person thinks of it.
Badge
It's a rolling wave of unease that's washing over me right now. it's setting a worrying precedent, and it's looking more and more like the way things are going. Want to play that old game? No, you can't because they took the server offline that authenticated the DRM. Want to buy a new computer with Windows 7? No, you can't because Microsoft and Intel made a pact to prevent it saying it's "impossible" (even though people have successfully managed to get it working perfectly on the latest gen by using hacks).

We no longer own our music, we "rent" it from Itunes, and Google Play. We don't buy books, we "borrow" them onto our Kindles, and Amazon has the right to delete all our stuff if it wants to (check the EULA if you don't believe me).

And now, Sonos has entered the fray by saying "We know your speakers work, and you've had no problems with them. We understand you have all this older kit that is currently working, however as of tomorrow, we're going to turn it all off". We're no longer buying our own equipment, we're leasing the use of that equipment from a company, and when they decide to terminate the lease, we have no option but to throw it away.

So, if you're thinking "Meh, this isn't an issue, I'll just keep upgrading", that's fine until the company decides it needs to refresh its product line, and all of a sudden you find that your playbar is now unable to accept streaming services for some jibberish reason, despite the fact it was able to yesterday. Or that you can no longer pair those old Sonos:1s into a stereo pair without adding a new Play:1Extra or whatever.

Now, look at your computer. Are you using Windows 10? Did you remember to turn off all the telemetry? No? Better check on that.


While a lot of that could be considered paranoia or rant, I largely agree with the sentiment. Especially on the playing old games point. I've spent a large chunk of my life dedicated to retro gaming and even developing software and hardware for such systems. It won't be long before those pursuits are a thing of the past. Although saying that I recently noticed the Vita is doing quite well still unofficially supported by it's community despite having long since been dropping by the manufacturer (in the western world at least)

Anyway, to get back on topic...

I have no interest in voice activation, I far prefer a controller (be that phone, tablet, laptop or whatever) but I am eagerly awaiting Airplay 2. After that I might have a look into whether I can block the systems from phoning home either via DNS filtering on my end or firewall rules. Obviously I don't know how big of an impact that will have on the systems functionality though.

Surely post-activation, if you are not using any streaming services then the system MUST be able to work in an environment that doesn't have a connection to the outside world?? Maybe it doesn't? I've never tried, or bothered to look into it.