Restricting controllers to certain zones

[buzz]

Search the web for "wireless mac address breaking." Note that actually visiting any of these sites is walking into the lion's den. Take care!

[nz120]

I wasn't trying to create a debate about access to wireless networks.
A recent post complained that party guests were taking control of his SONOS system from their IPhones. My comment was simply that surely this happens because the wireless network to which the SONOS bridge is connected is unprotected.
I'm not doubting that someone with knowledge can break into mine or other wireless network. But I can't see a party attendee of a professional businessman coming prepared to hack the wireless network solely so that they can take over control of the music!

[buzz]

nz120,

Hacking the SonosNet will be difficult. It will probably be much easier to hack the WiFi. Or, they can simply plug into a network jack -- usually there is no protection here.

[NoBoB]

Originally Posted by nz120

I'm not doubting that someone with knowledge can break into mine or other wireless network.

My mistake. You threw me off by stating:

Originally Posted by nz120

I have my network locked down to only allow specific MAC addresses, so even if you cracked the PSK you couldn't get access.

I didn't want a user seeing that statement and thinking "I don't need WPA, MAC filtering is all it takes" when, in fact, that couldn't be further from the truth. If I can misinterpret your intent, so could someone else, yes?

Certainly, a user complaining of unwanted queue changes shouldn't have given out their wireless key in the first place, and if they're running an open WiFi system, well, they're asking for more trouble than an unwanted song or two.

[vschlenk]

from me

[worldzfree]

I would also like to see this feature. It would be nice for a business setting where the office side of the business can just control the office music and the warehouse side of the business can just control the warehouse music. But during those times where I want to group them all together I could be the one to do it.

[tmtuohy]

Hi Sonos Development Staff,

I really don't see what the big deal is with implementing access control with respect to accessing zones, controller settings, etc. This is basically standard practice these days for most "system-level" products.

I have been an avid Sonos user and supporter since 2005 and really love the system and Sonos' support of (most) new music services as they are made available. However, I feel that Sonos is really not interested in developing "world class" software for their products and instead operates on a "minimalism" strategy to promote the sales of more Sonos hardware. For a product that has been around as long as yours, I honestly believe Sonos has missed the boat when it comes to evolution of the software that drives the system. Sure, you've consistently added music service support and "bells and whistles" features but I can honestly say that the Sonos software experience has NOT dramatically changed over the last 7 years for me. Why do I believe that is? Here is my viewpoint:

1) Lack of a truly open API. I don't see much coming out of Sonos Labs even though it's been open for almost a year. I would expect a minor flood of iphone/android apps by now. Also, Sonos Labs is not targeted at small development shops, IMHO.

2) Sonos either does not have the manpower to progress the current software to a higher level or they are just not interested enough. If the software (or some part of it) was Open Source for the last 7 years, you can bet things like access control and other features that Sonos users have been hounding you for would have been implemented by now. Granted, Quality Control would be an issue but I would rather risk it and get the features/functionality I really want.

I hate to say that my Sonos system is "so 2005" but the truth is, that's the way I feel about it now.

[ratty]

tmtuohy,

The opening of the new community at ask.sonos.com allows for more direct dialogue with Sonos staff. Indeed there's already a thread on this topic which you'll see is flagged as "under consideration".

Originally Posted by tmtuohy

1) Lack of a truly open API. I don't see much coming out of Sonos Labs even though it's been open for almost a year. I would expect a minor flood of iphone/android apps by now. Also, Sonos Labs is not targeted at small development shops, IMHO.

There's already an open control API: UPnP. Indeed a quick scan through the Unsupported Area forum will bring up various third party developments using this API, notably sonospy.

Sonos Labs and the music partners API are aimed at addressing a specific requirement: facilitating the addition of new music services. I don't have an immediate handle on how many services have appeared as a result of the program but it's a good few.

2) Sonos either does not have the manpower to progress the current software to a higher level or they are just not interested enough. If the software (or some part of it) was Open Source for the last 6 years, you can bet things like access control and other features that Sonos users have been hounding you for would have been implemented by now. Granted, Quality Control would be an issue but I would rather risk it and get the features/functionality I really want.

I'm sorry but I'll vote a definite -1 to the idea of open source for Sonos. Surely the demise of Squeezebox/Squeezecenter is a relevant object lesson? Dependable quality control would go out the window, and I for one would not want to run the risk of bricking all my players with the latest nightly build....

[jgatie]

Originally Posted by ratty

I'm sorry but I'll vote a definite -1 to the idea of open source for Sonos. Surely the demise of Squeezebox/Squeezecenter is a relevant object lesson? Dependable quality control would go out the window, and I for one would not want to run the risk of bricking all my players with the latest nightly build....

A -1 for me, Squeezebox is moving towards a cloesd architecture, simpler model because of the nightmare they had to face in trying to market a poorly managed Open Source product to a non-technical market.

[logan]

Originally Posted by ratty

I'm sorry but I'll vote a definite -1 to the idea of open source for Sonos. Surely the demise of Squeezebox/Squeezecenter is a relevant object lesson? Dependable quality control would go out the window, and I for one would not want to run the risk of bricking all my players with the latest nightly build....

It also provides a lesson and contrast for what might happen to us owners when Sonos decides to orphan the current hardware.

I don't expect that Sonos will support current hardware with software updates forever do you? The last update will be it as far as progress goes. Scary thought.

Squeezebox owners will see community development no matter what Logitech does.

Originally Posted by jgatie

A -1 for me, Squeezebox is moving towards a cloesd architecture, simpler model because of the nightmare they had to face in trying to market a poorly managed Open Source product to a non-technical market.

To say that open source is the problem seems like a stretch. Logitech corp has huge problems - their stock price trend shows you are probably right about the mismanagement and marketing.

Open source projects can be well marketed and well managed just as closed source projects can be mismanaged and marketed poorly.