Why is Connect more expensive than Play?

Welcome to the forums.

It's too temptingly easy to compare "cost" with "price". Yes, the build cost of a CONNECT may well be similar to or less than a Play:3 (give or take the odd drive unit, Ethernet switch, ADC, S/PDIF output etc) but like it or not Sonos will price products at a point which the market will bear.

One could argue that the Play:3 may be pitched low to woo a new class of customer, whereas the CONNECT would be purchased by those wishing to link Sonos with existing - perhaps expensive - HiFi equipment. In the latter case $100 either way may not be a major issue.

I agree totally. Having worked in a busy hi Fi environment, I've seen manufacturers lower their prices and basically devalue their own product. Sonos have got it right.

seriously? Thanks for the condescending reply. I understand market dynamics...

I don't however work in a busy Hi Fi environment where a few hundred here and there is not insignificant. I live in a house, with a family, with a budget.

I don't want to feel like I'm overpaying... and all you've convinced me is that yes, Sonos is ripping people off because people are willing to pay $349 for something with less capability. I can see the attitude here is going to be "But sonos can do whatever they want because their products are so good and the market will bear it!" - I respectfully disagree with their pricing choice, I think it's lame.

But to get back to the realities of the product: When you mentioned the ethernet switch, I took a closer look at the pictures and I see now that this behaves as an ethernet switch and has audio in... those aren't huge features, but at least there's SOME value-add. Not $50 + the value of an amp and speakers though, at least to me.

Thanks for the condescending reply.
It wasn't intended as such.

I respectfully disagree with their pricing choice, I think it's lame.

Take your case to Sonos, or simply vote with your feet and walk away from the purchase. This is a user forum so don't expect Sonos representatives to chime in with a defence of their pricing strategy.

Yes, Sonos products are not cheap. Some of them, such as the soon-to-depart CONTROL/CR200, are arguably over-priced for what they do. But until a serious competitor comes along and does what Sonos does they have a first-mover advantage. A good many of us here think that despite the initial price Sonos represents value for money, especially considering the life span of the product and the continuous cycle of free software upgrades.

It wasn't intended as such.In fairness, maybe he wasn't referring to you?
I know where the OP is coming from - I have a CONNECT and do see it as a very overpriced wifi and ethernet 'box' with audio output to my amp. It's very small and very light - and they must make a fortune on it. However, I bought it and paid the money - so who's right really - they obviously sell....

seriously? Thanks for the condescending reply. I understand market dynamics...

Sorry, I do not see condescension in either of ratty's or Kenners' responses. Both appeared quite fair, and point out valid pricing/marketing issues.

I don't however work in a busy Hi Fi environment where a few hundred here and there is not insignificant. I live in a house, with a family, with a budget.

We all have budgets. Circumstances differ as to what one feels is 'fair' or 'too much'.

I don't want to feel like I'm overpaying... and all you've convinced me is that yes, Sonos is ripping people off because people are willing to pay $349 for something with less capability. I can see the attitude here is going to be "But sonos can do whatever they want because their products are so good and the market will bear it!" - I respectfully disagree with their pricing choice, I think it's lame.

If that's your opinion, then don't buy the product. It's your choice. Nobody is holding a gun to your head to make a purchase.

But to get back to the realities of the product: When you mentioned the ethernet switch, I took a closer look at the pictures and I see now that this behaves as an ethernet switch and has audio in... those aren't huge features, but at least there's SOME value-add. Not $50 + the value of an amp and speakers though, at least to me.

Another reality of Sonos is that to get a comparable whole house product, one would need to go to a semi or full-custom setup that would cost 5-10 times the amount of Sonos. Even then, it might not have the multi-room sync'd music and/or multi-room individual music.

Personally, I feel that the price of Sonos is quite fair for what it does. If one is just looking for an internet streaming boombox solution, then Sonos will appear quite overpriced to those users. There may be cheaper alternatives.

As the Play:3 works well for you, I can see why the the higher priced Sonos units may put you off. Conversely, I see little need for a Play:3 in my own home. I use several Play:5's to 'round-out' whole-house music while the Connect and Connect:Amp drive the better speakers.

Since you understand market dynamics, you must realize that if Sonos was making excessive profits (especially with a 'simple or cheap' product), other companies would be quickly entering their market space. As several companies have tried and failed to usurp Sonos' marketshare, it leads me to believe that there are some quite large hurdles to overcome. These barriers to entry may be technical, legal (patents), financial, or multiple combinations.

As for Sonos pricing, it's not the cost of producing the second (or 10,002nd) unit that drives the price, but the cost of getting that first unit to the market. Possibly, the Play:3 benefited from the development of the previous ZonePlayers and can be delivered at a lower price point.

Moreover, I suspect that Sonos is using the Play:3 as a loss-leader (like the Kindle Fire) to get more customers into the Sonos universe.

Once again, that other 'Sonos Killers' have come and failed, seems to speak to the point that Sonos is most likely well positioned, price-wise.

If you really intend to tilt at windmills, then please have a go at the DeBeers company. I'd really like to see diamonds come down to their true market price based on their actual existence rather than their artificially limited availability. 😉

Best of Luck

I think that the PLAY:3 price is low balled to increase market penetration. As unit volume increases, the manufacturing costs will decrease and allow some profit. SONOS used this strategy on the original ZP100 which was initially priced very low, considering the manufacturing costs. The ZP100 was priced at a fraction of the cost of anything remotely competitive in terms of function. This was a gutsy, high risk strategy that worked.

I think that the PLAY:3 price is low balled to increase market penetration.

Yup. (thumbsup)

I'd also say that the connect seems pricey. But, as others have, I bought one (and 4-5 other P5s/P3s).

The weird thing from my perspective is how it sticks out like a sore thumb aesthetically in my very humble stack of home audio/video gear. That little white box just doesn't seem to fit into the "high end" enthusiast space the way one poster implied.

The other thing I've seen posted around other forums and reviews is that the Connect is a "weak point" in the Sonos proposition as it is perceived to be too expensive for the value. I actually wondered (and posted) about whether a Play5 wouldn't be a better value with the headphone output.

I'm keeping my Connect.

My Connects (actually, one is an old ZP80) are not visible. If I didn't tell you where it was you'd have no idea it was there.