I just got my first pair of Sonos units - two Play:3's for the kitchen and bedroom and I absolutely love them. I'm not a huge audiophile, but the convenience and total plug 'n play nature of Sonos is what attracted me to it.
Of course the next thing that occured to me was how to get this connected up to my stereo.
What I don't understand is why the basic Connect is $349 while the Play:3 units are $299 each. I mean if anything it seems like a Connect is just a Play:3 without the speakers and amp? Why does it cost so much more for fewer features? Seems like the guts of the connect should be a $99 unit - I meant he appleTV is $99, and it does way more (At least in terms of technological capability - video/etc) than the connect.
To be honest I've been drooling over Sonos for years - and I know the quality is very high, but the expense of the units has always put me off. It wasn't until the Play:3 that I felt like there was enough bang-for-the-buck to justify diving in... I'm probably going to get at least 2 or 3 more Play:3's for elsewhere in the house, but it's going to be hard to justify the Connect until the price comes down further. It's still cheaper to just put a Play:3 in the same room as my stereo - it's small and powerful enough to just sit near my existing speakers.
Page 5 / 8
No. I realise the difference.
What I was trying to say is that a Bridge (which was at one time about £75.00 and is currently about £39.00) is now available "free" with a Play 3 for a total cost of £229.00
So, 2 components for £229.00 compared with £279.00 for one component that has no speakers and no amp.!!
This looks a rip off to me. It seems that Sonos are using people who have a decent system to subsidise the ones that just want a single Play 3 and end up putting their bridge on E bay for £20.00 ish. Net effect is that a Connect costs £70.00 (30% !!) more than a Play 3.
What I was trying to say is that a Bridge (which was at one time about £75.00 and is currently about £39.00) is now available "free" with a Play 3 for a total cost of £229.00
So, 2 components for £229.00 compared with £279.00 for one component that has no speakers and no amp.!!
This looks a rip off to me. It seems that Sonos are using people who have a decent system to subsidise the ones that just want a single Play 3 and end up putting their bridge on E bay for £20.00 ish. Net effect is that a Connect costs £70.00 (30% !!) more than a Play 3.
One more post and I can read links !!
OK, this should do it then 🙂
OK, this should do it then 🙂
It's called market pricing. See my post #2 in this thread.
What I was trying to say is that a Bridge (which was at one time about £75.00 and is currently about £39.00) is now available "free" with a Play 3 for a total cost of £229.00
Not any more it isn't, that offer ends today.
From the NADs manual:
The analog or digital sources are automatically played in their native formats. All the source’s audio channels are reproduced directly.
Stop your shenanigans!
I don't see the point in this.
1- Direct mode exist, i never negated this. In some amplifier it zeroes the delays, in others it simply reduces it. In Yamaha amplifiers the latter is true. What is true in any case is that, for instance, if you have 7 speakers and a sub attached to your amplifier, using direct mode you will be able to listen only in "true" stereo mode with 2 active speakers, all the rest will remain silent.
2. While many hi-fi aficionados have dedicated listening rooms with ultra hi-end gear and they listen to music only in stereo mode (2 speakers, no sub, etc.), this is simply not what 95% of consumers use their a/v receivers for.
Net, if you use your Connect with an amplifier connected to 2 speaker for "true" hi-fi mode you surely don't have any "Play" speaker in the room, as this would obviously ruin the hi-fi experience, if on the contrary you have a setup like a big open space with a 5.1 or 7.1 set-up plus some Plays in the same ambient and you want to use them all, you simply can't without having unbearable echo and delay.
Absolutely! Pricing is a philosophy/policy while costs are a fact. The two have nothing to do with each other in well run companies.
As long as enough people see the value in the product, they will buy them at the price quoted, and I am very sure that Sonos tracks this aspect carefully.
Probably because most people out there (including me) already have nice stereo systems that sound better then a Play 3 or 5 (not that they sound bad or anything) but already have invested money in the system(s) ...(receivers, AVR's, CD, DVD, Blue Ray players, Turntables, etc....) and just want to be able to play their "stored" music though those systems. Just a demand and supply thing.....with the SONOS system that I plan on getting I will be buying at least two Connects and 1 one Connect/Amp and one Play 5.
They have done a good job (marketing wise) covering all the bases......
They have done a good job (marketing wise) covering all the bases......
They have done a good job (marketing wise) covering all the bases......
Not for me,
As long as I perceive that they are ripping me off I will not buy a Connect.
As I type I am listening to music streaming wirelessly from my Media Drive (the same one that my Sonos players connect to) to my PS3 into my Pioneer 921 and out through my Athena Point Speakers. Quality seems spot on to me, and I can also use the PS3 to play games, stream TV, watch DVDs & Blurays and browse Photos.
I love my Sonos Plays but am not willing to fork out £279.00 (£30.00 more than a PS3) for the occasional evening when I want the living room synched with the Kitchen and Bedroom.
And when this becomes widespread market sentiment perhaps Sonos will review their pricing.
For those with serious money invested in downstream audio equipment the cost of a Connect is a relatively modest additional expense for the benefit of extending the Sonos experience to their quality listening area.
I'm a business owner, and understand completely the notion of pricing for market and value (not cost), especially in discretionary industries. With that said, I'm glad that there are other alternatives such as AppleTV. I own a two channel audio system that is $10,000, along with 6 other Sonos zones. But I simply refuse to buy the Sonos connect for my hifi rack as there are clearly alternatives that cost hundreds less. Apple TV with MOG airplaying from your mobile device... $99.
In time, Sonos will have to crack to sell. Industry leaders whom once touted Sonos almost exclusively are already making the switch away from a $350 solution that can be had for $50-$99 elsewhere: peachtreeaudio.com/computer-audio/airplay.html
Yes, I understand whole house systems. But that's just the thing. Audiophiles aren't worried about integrating their 'baby' into the rest of their casual listening whole house system.
Until then, enough are obviously buying the connect...
In time, Sonos will have to crack to sell. Industry leaders whom once touted Sonos almost exclusively are already making the switch away from a $350 solution that can be had for $50-$99 elsewhere: peachtreeaudio.com/computer-audio/airplay.html
Yes, I understand whole house systems. But that's just the thing. Audiophiles aren't worried about integrating their 'baby' into the rest of their casual listening whole house system.
Until then, enough are obviously buying the connect...
This is a very interesting discussion with many different rabbit trails throughout the discussion. The intial question was "Why is the connect more expensive than a play 3?". It is not about whether a play 3 is an entry level device, nor is it about whether sonos is ripping you off. The fact is there is no logical reason why the connect is so much more. It is confusing at best and it is obvious this is a bothersome issue for the community by the fact that there are 11 pages of replies to the topic.
When I bought my first play 3 and bridge I felt like I got a great piece of technology for what I was paying. The pricing made sense but it obviously doesn't make sense on the connect to many sonos users. You/me, we don't feel good about spending that much money on a connect. A play 3 or a play 5 is a considerable investment in my book. Your paying 300.00 for a play 3 which is one speaker that you can only connect to a sonos system. Spending that amount of money did not bother me one bit it made sense. Spending 379.00 for a connect (that is tax included) doesn't make any sense. At least not to me.
The connect AMP which is much more expensive still makes sense to me from a price point. It comes with an amp which in my opinion means you are getting a lot for your money.
Now if the sonos team had jumped in at some point and explained the connect is expensive becase... "we have to do a lot of processing to make sure the music sounds great going into your system, and we don't have to do that with the play 3 because we control the amp and the speakers... etc etc" well that would make more sense. My guess is that if the sonos team has not responded it is because there really is no decent reason why the connect is priced so high. For the record I did not go through every reply so if the sonos team did respond please disregard these last comments.
P.S. I love my sonos setup I just bought it a couple of weeks ago and have told many friends about how great it is. I also think the play 3 speakers sound great and felt they were completely worth the 300.00 price tag.
When I bought my first play 3 and bridge I felt like I got a great piece of technology for what I was paying. The pricing made sense but it obviously doesn't make sense on the connect to many sonos users. You/me, we don't feel good about spending that much money on a connect. A play 3 or a play 5 is a considerable investment in my book. Your paying 300.00 for a play 3 which is one speaker that you can only connect to a sonos system. Spending that amount of money did not bother me one bit it made sense. Spending 379.00 for a connect (that is tax included) doesn't make any sense. At least not to me.
The connect AMP which is much more expensive still makes sense to me from a price point. It comes with an amp which in my opinion means you are getting a lot for your money.
Now if the sonos team had jumped in at some point and explained the connect is expensive becase... "we have to do a lot of processing to make sure the music sounds great going into your system, and we don't have to do that with the play 3 because we control the amp and the speakers... etc etc" well that would make more sense. My guess is that if the sonos team has not responded it is because there really is no decent reason why the connect is priced so high. For the record I did not go through every reply so if the sonos team did respond please disregard these last comments.
P.S. I love my sonos setup I just bought it a couple of weeks ago and have told many friends about how great it is. I also think the play 3 speakers sound great and felt they were completely worth the 300.00 price tag.
Sonos very rarely posts in this forum, and never about something as banal as this. Its priced as it is because it sells enough to make the desired profit. Capitalism 101.
Quite right, pricing is a company policy decision, validated by market uptake. And it is easy to see how small price cuts need huge sales increases to keep the same level of absolute profits, though not intuitively understood.
Assuming that on a sales price of 100, Sonos sells 10 units in a period, and makes a profit of 30 per piece, or aggregate of 300. Drop the price by 10%, per piece profit is now 20, and to earn the same 300 aggregate profit as before, 15 units have to be sold, an increase of 50% in sales volumes. Will a 10% price cut result in 50% sales growth? Given how niche the Connect is, doubtful.
On the other hand, the Connect has unique value for people with high end 2 channel systems that have Sonos elsewhere in the house. Using a NAS, one music source is all that is needed - whether for high end sound in the listening room, or for a cheap and cheerful play 3 in other areas. One source for internet music, and one ring to rule them all - the Sonos Controller, on as many devices as necessary:). Nothing else in the market does this.
Indeed, why not increase the price of the Connect by 10 in the aforesaid example? Profit per piece now jumps to 40, and to keep aggregate profits constant at 300, only 7 to 8 units need to be sold at the 10% higher price, instead of 10. Given the niche nature of the Connect, the probability is that sales will remain at 10, because the value of the Connect to customers will not be below the new price of 110 for the niche application. And total profit will jump by 33%, from 300 to 400.
I would have said it is a good thing that Sonos isn't thinking on these lines, except for the fact that they would be, any savvy marketing company would, and they would have solid reasons for not having doing so till now.
Here is another member voting with the wallet. The connection to an existing stereo receiver, or speakers, is overpriced enough that I won't do it (them) even though I'd like to.
Maybe these products are selling like hotcakes, but the price points for those features do not make sense to me --- so even though I could afford it, I still won't do it because not matter how much I like Sonos (i.e., a lot), I consider their position on these products to be out of whack.
Maybe these products are selling like hotcakes, but the price points for those features do not make sense to me --- so even though I could afford it, I still won't do it because not matter how much I like Sonos (i.e., a lot), I consider their position on these products to be out of whack.
Maybe these products are selling like hotcakes, but the price points for those features do not make sense to me --- so even though I could afford it, I still won't do it because not matter how much I like Sonos (i.e., a lot), I consider their position on these products to be out of whack.
Sonos has sold over 2.5 million units to date, making them the 2nd largest speaker manufacturer in the world. Not the 2nd largest wireless streaming speaker manufacturer . . . the 2nd largest speaker manufacturer, period. I'm sure they'll miss the sale, but I'm equally sure they have a better handle on market pricing than you or I.
pocane,
I think that it is economy of scale. SONOS does not and cannot sell enough CONNECTS to realize the economy of scale required to drive unit cost down.
Think of an iPhone. This is incredibly sophisticated technology and an amazing bang for the consumers' buck. But this level of value can only happen when you have a product that can sell several million units over the first weekend.
In my observation there are two ways to approach a SONOS product. If you view it in the whole house audio context, SONOS is very inexpensive and likely outsells the combined total of the other products. It's a great deal. If, on the other hand, you view SONOS as a computer accessory, anything over about $100 is too expensive and there are loud protests. It's not a question of quality, $100 is the spend comfort limit.
The CONNECT should be compared to the CONNECT:AMP. In that context the CONNECT price is on the mark. The PLAY:5 and PLAY:3 out sell the CONNECT and CONNECT:AMP and are higher on the economy of scale curve. Rather than unnecessarily gouging people for the increased functionality of PLAY:3 and PLAY:5, SONOS is passing the savings due to economy of scale through to the customer.
Another component of unit cost is the excellent support that SONOS provides. Products shipped during the initial release in 2005 are still supported and free updates are provided for these units too. And, if you have an issue, an excellent support staff is just a phone call away. Obviously this adds a little to the cost because SONOS must recover these costs somewhere. I'm sure we can all cite a very inexpensive product that we've owned that offered zero support. What is the likelihood of future purchases from that company? Typically, one cannot stop with a single SONOS product because the experience is so good.
While I'm not much of an Apple fan, I give them credit for imaginative and quality products and reasonable support -- for a relatively short period of time. For example, I have an iTouch that I use as a controller, not music. The iTouch came out after the iPhone and already my model iTouch is not supported. I bought my initial SONOS products a few years prior to the iTouch. The SONOS products are still supported, while the iTouch is an orphan. This short support cycle is one reason why Apple products are one notch below last choice when I'm looking for products. Why did I bother with the iTouch? Market forces. For the short term I can't do what I need to do on Android. At some point I'm sure that this will be addressed and the iTouch will be gone.
I think that it is economy of scale. SONOS does not and cannot sell enough CONNECTS to realize the economy of scale required to drive unit cost down.
Think of an iPhone. This is incredibly sophisticated technology and an amazing bang for the consumers' buck. But this level of value can only happen when you have a product that can sell several million units over the first weekend.
In my observation there are two ways to approach a SONOS product. If you view it in the whole house audio context, SONOS is very inexpensive and likely outsells the combined total of the other products. It's a great deal. If, on the other hand, you view SONOS as a computer accessory, anything over about $100 is too expensive and there are loud protests. It's not a question of quality, $100 is the spend comfort limit.
The CONNECT should be compared to the CONNECT:AMP. In that context the CONNECT price is on the mark. The PLAY:5 and PLAY:3 out sell the CONNECT and CONNECT:AMP and are higher on the economy of scale curve. Rather than unnecessarily gouging people for the increased functionality of PLAY:3 and PLAY:5, SONOS is passing the savings due to economy of scale through to the customer.
Another component of unit cost is the excellent support that SONOS provides. Products shipped during the initial release in 2005 are still supported and free updates are provided for these units too. And, if you have an issue, an excellent support staff is just a phone call away. Obviously this adds a little to the cost because SONOS must recover these costs somewhere. I'm sure we can all cite a very inexpensive product that we've owned that offered zero support. What is the likelihood of future purchases from that company? Typically, one cannot stop with a single SONOS product because the experience is so good.
While I'm not much of an Apple fan, I give them credit for imaginative and quality products and reasonable support -- for a relatively short period of time. For example, I have an iTouch that I use as a controller, not music. The iTouch came out after the iPhone and already my model iTouch is not supported. I bought my initial SONOS products a few years prior to the iTouch. The SONOS products are still supported, while the iTouch is an orphan. This short support cycle is one reason why Apple products are one notch below last choice when I'm looking for products. Why did I bother with the iTouch? Market forces. For the short term I can't do what I need to do on Android. At some point I'm sure that this will be addressed and the iTouch will be gone.
Your iTouch, if unsupported, is old. Buy the latest, and you're golden. Planned obsolescense... Welcome to the technology age.
You bought an iPod Touch and only use it for controlling the Sonos? Its intended use, when released, was for playing MP3s.
I have an iTouch myself... also outdated. Not Sonos' fault... They write the apps with the latest software available, to be able to harness the features of the latest OS. Again, planned obsolescence... But on the part of Apple... not Sonos.
You bought an iPod Touch and only use it for controlling the Sonos? Its intended use, when released, was for playing MP3s.
I have an iTouch myself... also outdated. Not Sonos' fault... They write the apps with the latest software available, to be able to harness the features of the latest OS. Again, planned obsolescence... But on the part of Apple... not Sonos.
You bought an iPod Touch and only use it for controlling the Sonos? Its intended use, when released, was for playing MP3s.
Not for controlling SONOS, I much prefer the native controllers -- CR100 and CR200.
In general I don't think that Phones and Pads make optimal controllers, but this is the current state of the market. Since people already have a "screen" (the Phone or Pad) they feel abused if they must purchase a less cost effective additional screen to control items in their home.
The connect really exists because of us in the custom installation business. Less than 5% of our sonos sales are for the play3 or play 5. It is almost always a connect that goes into a separate amplifier or the connect amp for single room instances.
Our industry as a whole brings in 65-70% of all of sonos sales, we are the ones they try to cater too and not to sound like a pompas *** but our clients can afford the $349 for it.
Personally; do i think its overpriced for what it is, maybe? but its a unit that works, offers flexibility and serves a purpose in their lineup. I do think it is priced correctly within their lineup and sonos isnt going to change that price point to satisfy a small number of sonos users that think its overpriced.
I say bravo sonos!
Not for controlling SONOS, I much prefer the native controllers -- CR100 and CR200.
In general I don't think that Phones and Pads make optimal controllers, but this is the current state of the market. Since people already have a "screen" (the Phone or Pad) they feel abused if they must purchase a less cost effective additional screen to control items in their home.
well said! i wish they didnt discontinue it. I have 10 in the warehouse because we still sell them ALOT. Clients love it, especially my older clients that arent walking around with a iphone in their pocket
Our industry as a whole brings in 65-70% of all of sonos sales, we are the ones they try to cater too and not to sound like a pompas *** but our clients can afford the $349 for it.
Personally; do i think its overpriced for what it is, maybe? but its a unit that works, offers flexibility and serves a purpose in their lineup. I do think it is priced correctly within their lineup and sonos isnt going to change that price point to satisfy a small number of sonos users that think its overpriced.
I say bravo sonos!
In general I don't think that Phones and Pads make optimal controllers, but this is the current state of the market. Since people already have a "screen" (the Phone or Pad) they feel abused if they must purchase a less cost effective additional screen to control items in their home.
well said! i wish they didnt discontinue it. I have 10 in the warehouse because we still sell them ALOT. Clients love it, especially my older clients that arent walking around with a iphone in their pocket
Horsepucky! Sonos doesn't give out this kind of information, so you have no way of knowing this.
we are the ones they try to cater too and not to sound like a pompas ***
Not trying? *ahem* :rolleyes:
Sonos sells in Best Buy, Target, etc., and is marketed as easy to install. With their trend towards self-contained units sold in big box stores (which, "coincidently" coincided with their explosion in sales from 1M units sold in the first 6 years to 2.5M in the last 2), I highly doubt their current business plan is to cater to installers.
Not trying? *ahem* :rolleyes:
Sonos sells in Best Buy, Target, etc., and is marketed as easy to install. With their trend towards self-contained units sold in big box stores (which, "coincidently" coincided with their explosion in sales from 1M units sold in the first 6 years to 2.5M in the last 2), I highly doubt their current business plan is to cater to installers.
Hmm, well i guess me being one of my regions largest sonos dealers and custom installers and the ability to see future sonos products under NDA and getting to talk with some of the high ups at sonos means nothing, i guess they are blowing numbers out their rear? i doubt. :rolleyes:
First of all, you shouldn't be talking about any NDAs (that's kind of the point of the NDA).. Second of all, if custom installers make up 65% of Sonos sales, I'll eat my shirt. Third of all, I seem to remember a mod posting a warning about custom installers having too much of a commercial presence on what is supposed to be a USERS forum. Did you not get the inference?
We don't mind installers and dealers hanging out. The experienced installers can offer their perspective and we can help the new installers be better installers. However, we do not allow dealers and installers to solicit business.
3PedalMINI,
"NDA" means "Non Disclosure". SONOS is touchy about this. Simply mentioning that you have one will decrease the likelihood that you'll receive another.
3PedalMINI,
"NDA" means "Non Disclosure". SONOS is touchy about this. Simply mentioning that you have one will decrease the likelihood that you'll receive another.
I can only speak for me, living in an open-plan house, where I CAN hear it when the Play 5 and 3 are out of sync with my stereo. However, that rarely happens. Normally they are all in sync. The only time things really were out of sync was when I had hooked up the Connect to my iMac. That caused serious delays for a while. After a recent update I no longer get those delays (I now have a Play 5 in the study so the Connect has gone downstairs to the HT where it is hooked up to an AV but where it never needs to be in sync with anything else).
To come back to the original point: it is very easy to spot music being played even slightly out of sync in an open-plan house!
There was a time I would have agreed with you, and I still do to some extent, but there are circumstances where having dsp is "better". One such is my HT where the front speakers are really too far apart (there is a fixed screen between them) in relation to the listening position. This is not always a problem but with some music you just get a better sound stage when the centre-speaker is active as well.
Enter your E-mail address. We'll send you an e-mail with instructions to reset your password.