the retailer makes enough margin as is so don't need to receive any more incentive IMO.
I hadn’t realised that the retail margins on Sonos products was public knowledge. What is it?
the retailer makes enough margin as is so don't need to receive any more incentive IMO.
I hadn’t realised that the retail margins on Sonos products was public knowledge. What is it?
Don't think it is public knowledge, I'm in the custom install business. Margin depends on product but Sonos set their products retail price
the retailer makes enough margin as is so don't need to receive any more incentive IMO.
I hadn’t realised that the retail margins on Sonos products was public knowledge. What is it?
Don't think it is public knowledge, I'm in the custom install business. Margin depends on product but Sonos set their products retail price
I used to be a Sonos reseller. I stopped because the margins left no hope of making any money. I am sure the big retailers are on bigger margins, but in fact neither you nor I have a clue whether your assertion is true. Not that it makes any difference to the theme of this thread.
So a manufacturer that sells new equipment and actually financially encourages dealers to recycle electronic products that have been maintained for in some instances more than ten years is somehow morally wrong?
I think Sonos could have done a lot worse, first by stopping updates after (see some Android phones) a couple of years and then by not caring about recycling at all.
People would be better off selling their older gear on eBay, assuming it’s functional. They’ll get more than the discount offered by Sonos, and someone else will get to enjoy the older device.
But for how long? The amount of memory in the ZP80 and ZP100 is so small it is inevitable that at some point Sonos will no longer be able to maintain compatibility with the current system. I don’t know if that point will come in 6 months, 2 years. 5 years or whenever, but come it will. A ZP80 would need to be a virtual giveaway for me to purchase one.
This is a digression, but there is no hard technical reason why Sonos needs to stop supporting (as in ‘render non-functional’) their older devices. They could happily continue to support the functionality they do today, with the overall system software recognising different device capabilities. Countless software systems do this using versioned interfaces or other well-known approaches.
If they choose to stop support it will be based primarily on economic and/or product strategy considerations, not technical ones.
Are financial reasons any less valid than technical reasons? Should a company not strive to make a profit?
Are financial reasons any less valid than technical reasons?
Absolutely not. It’s just a recurrent theme on the forum that removal of support for older devices is somehow inevitable for technical reasons, when it’s not.
(I was amused to be offered a trade in discount for a Connect:Amp that I bought at retail less than 18 months ago. Uhm … no thanks. I can understand the argument for the older ZP devices, however.)
Are financial reasons any less valid than technical reasons?
Absolutely not. It’s just a recurrent theme on the forum that removal of support for older devices is somehow inevitable for technical reasons, when it’s not.
(I was amused to be offered a trade in discount for a Connect:Amp that I bought at retail less than 18 months ago. Uhm … no thanks. I can understand the argument for the older ZP devices, however.)
I would say technical and financial, for the very reasons you state. Technically, they cannot keep up with the current functions. Financially, it makes no sense to maintain multiple code bases for a dwindling amount of users who by very definition (frozen to one release) will be unlikely to purchase more units.
I have currently three items on their ‘trade in list’, but I would rather they just gave me the 30% off new products than bricking the old ones, which I suspect they’ll do soon enough anyway. I already ‘lost’ 3 ‘remotes’ when they stopped supporting android 4.2, but I also have 6 Play:1’s that I suspect is next on the list.. I ‘d hope they would let people keep playing systems on old versions, maybe I’ll experiment with my firewall settings to stop Sonos form upgrading but keep controller communication and music streaming going..
I have no need for Apple Airplay or cringy voice control..
My fondness of Sonos is falling..
…..maybe I’ll experiment with my firewall settings to stop Sonos form upgrading but keep controller communication and music streaming going..
No need to experiment - there was a very good document kindly created by someone here, which detailed how to go about things. It was for v8.4, but the basic principles still apply. If you can’t find it, I have a copy that i can send you.
I’ll agree that as a species, humans create too much waste and “latest technology” seems to be accelerating this waste generation. But, here we are. Should we stop creating new technologies and continue using the current technologies or revert to older technologies that could be dragged out of attics and basements? Would this old technology still be operational? While there are some outliers, most consumer electronics gets into very serious component failure in the 15-20 year range. Consumers are reluctant to spend amounts approaching the cost of new replacements when repairing older, usually less functional, products. Further, one can completely resolve a failure only to be facing a different, unrelated, failure a short time later.
In my opinion, SONOS is attempting to create a more responsible path forward.
Shipping units back to SONOS is one option, but why spend the resources boxing up, then shipping the units to SONOS? Local recycle is kinder to the environment.
Total capitalism here, they need to sell units for shareholders...I’m reading media posts on how great it is SONOS are offering to recycle, but looking at the ‘trade-up’ they’d rather you drop it at any electronic recycling (typically in the UK that’s the local tip) as it’s cheaper than returning to SONOS … it’s such a scam; very very disappointed with the ethics here.
These units aren’t even that old, my Play 5 was registered in 2017 and is on the ‘trade-up’ list, so why would I scrap that?! If I wanted Alexa support I’d just by the little plug-in for >£20 etc.
It’s a company under threat from ever increasing competition on the smart speaker market that has clearly got to the bottom of the barrel to increase unit sales.
Total capitalism here, they need to sell units for shareholders...I’m reading media posts on how great it is SONOS are offering to recycle, but looking at the ‘trade-up’ they’d rather you drop it at any electronic recycling (typically in the UK that’s the local tip) as it’s cheaper than returning to SONOS … it’s such a scam; very very disappointed with the ethics here.
As stated in the post above you, recycling locally is better for the environment then shipping it elsewhere to be recycled. And you can ship it to Sonos if you wish.
These units aren’t even that old, my Play 5 was registered in 2017 and is on the ‘trade-up’ list, so why would I scrap that?! If I wanted Alexa support I’d just by the little plug-in for >£20 etc.
The trade-up program is optional. If you’re happy with your play:5 then keep it.
It’s a company under threat from ever increasing competition on the smart speaker market that has clearly got to the bottom of the barrel to increase unit sales.
I suppose it’s subjective regarding what marketing methods are ‘bottom of the barrel’ or not. Sonos did release it’s Q3 financial statements recently and it does looks like sales are moving in the right direction.
https://variety.com/2019/digital/news/sonos-fiscal-q3-2019-earnings-1203295731/
Interesting article by The Verge here about Sonos' sustainability. Seems like it's an even split between the public caring / not
https://www.theverge.com/2019/12/30/21042871/sonos-recycle-mode-trade-up-program-controversy
And the best argument in the whole article is that “something (...) feels very off”: “But for those who do want to take advantage of the trade-up program, something still feels very off about having to render these products inoperable in exchange for a discount on the current Sonos lineup.” Wow, investigative journalism at its best. ;-)
The only good way to make sustainable hardware is to open-source the required software and interfaces.
If Sonos is no longer willing to pay software maintenance, it should provide user community all required material to do it.
Sonos stock holders would probably get all soggy and hard to light if Sonos started open-sourcing all the patented stuff that makes Sonos gear what it is.
Allowing folks to load their own versions of firmware into a Sonos device would be a nightmare. Not sure who it would suck worse for, the support staff or the public relations folks. Both would be busy telling folks with unsupported firmware: “Sorry not our circus, not our clowns.”
There is also past experience to go from, a lot of the core OS stuff is open source and folks have been whining about SMB and wanting newer versions but nobody has stepped up to work on that project.
folks have been whining about SMB and wanting newer versions but nobody has stepped up to work on that project.
If you are talking about Sonos and SMB, Jeremy Allison offered to help Sonos with their SMB issue back in 2017 
https://en.community.sonos.com/setting-up-sonos-228990/sonos-support-for-smb-2-0-protocol-6739642/index2.html#post16127262
And it went nowhere. Nobody knows why it went nowhere. There is speculation but that is all.
The code is there, nobody has started an independent project.
And it went nowhere. Nobody knows why it went nowhere. There is speculation but that is all.
The code is there, nobody has started an independent project.
What do you mean by independent project? I don't think I understand what you are saying.
Sonos have recently started a trade in promotion in the UK
There is none such for where I live, so this doesn't affect me for good or bad. Why can’t you pretend to live where I do? For just this limited purpose?
And a quote from the verge link:
But for some reason, selling or giving your aging Sonos gear to someone else isn’t an option under the program. This is a strange pact that doesn’t really exist with any other major electronics manufacturer.
Why isn't this being seen as something that Sonos offers that no one else does, instead of calling it strange? If this an option that Sonos offers that no one else does, is that therefore not a positive? One could sell the device, and buy the new one at full price. Or, keep using the old one.
Or am I missing something?
Digressing a little, where I think different from many here is in not seeing much value in over 90% of the software upgrades that Sonos has done since the time I bought the kit in 2011. I am pretty sure that the kit would have continued to do - as it does today - all it could back in 2011 when I bought it, even where my listening sources have changed significantly from NAS to music services, even if Sonos had not done anything to the software than keep it functional - this is just home audio after all, where the basic tech, even when digital, hasn't changed since CDs were introduced.
But complaining about that is pointless IMO when there is the much bigger picture of how waste, electronic or otherwise, is being generated by lifestyles that are not environmentally sustainable, now at a global level. If and when that elephant in the room gets addressed beyond lip service/tokenism, this will too. And as long as that one doesn’t, this one is a minor issue.
…...where I think different from many here is in not seeing much value in over 90% of the software upgrades that Sonos has done since the time I bought the kit in 2011. I am pretty sure that the kit would have continued to do - as it does today - all it could back in 2011 when I bought it, even where my listening sources have changed significantly from NAS to music services, even if Sonos had not done anything to the software than keep it functional - this is just home audio after all, where the basic tech, even when digital, hasn't changed since CDs were introduced.
For once, we are in complete agreement…. The only significant thing to me was Trueplay, which soundwise was/is a game changer… Apart from that, I’d be happy to go back to 4.x - I much preferred the controller interface of all platforms...
But complaining about that is pointless IMO when there is the much bigger picture of how waste, electronic or otherwise, is being generated by lifestyles that are not environmentally sustainable, now at a global level. If and when that elephant in the room gets addressed beyond lip service/tokenism, this will too. And as long as that one doesn’t, this one is a minor issue.
Yes, but this is part of the problem - if it wasn’t for the software/functionality bloat, we wouldn’t be talking about bricking perfectly good units...
PS Sorry about the quoting - can’t use this new system at all...
Yes, but this is part of the problem - if it wasn’t for the software/functionality bloat, we wouldn’t be talking about bricking perfectly good units...
It is a very small part of the problem, even if one stayed with just the domain of computer tech where Intel and Microsoft were the shining beacons of this bloat. Expanding to autos, every new model car seems to be bigger than the ones preceding, and not just because people are getting fatter. It is an epidemic, the underlying issue of how lives are lived these days.
My problem is with those that pick on the pennies while living blissfully unconcerned about the pounds.
