This is the first time I’ve seen Sonos ask for the old unit back as part of any condition to issue a discount voucher, but maybe there’s been a change in policy. I’ve not seen it publicised
?
I’ve seen it reported here a few times in the past. Not unusual for a defective unit to be returned before a coupon is issued.
It’s seems like it would be a necessary precaution to prevent fraud. What would stop the consumer from claiming that a perfectly functioning device is broken in order to get a 30% discount on new product? Sonos probably does a 5 minute test to verify that the device is indeed no longer functioning, then breaks it down to recycle parts.
OPs post is filled with a lot of assumptions that I just can’t accept as fact. I do not think that Sonos is selling 3 year old used devices as refurbished. As pointed out, these are likely devices that would returned via the return policy and this saw limited use if any at all. No repair required at all. I don’t think the amount of effort to repair 3 year old heavily used devices and risk customer disappointed doesn’t seem worth the effort.
Related, I don’t see this policy as very profitable for Sonos. I’m not sure what Sonos margins are, but I would bet 30% discounts take up a very big chunk of that profit. Factor in the cost manage the program, shipping damaged units back, analyze and repair, and I doubt there is much there at all. The main goal of the program is to surely retain customers so that they are more likely to buy a different new product later on.
Another assumption is that the issue is an easy fix. Without cracking it open, breaking adhesive seals that would need to be replaced, you don’t really know what the issue and cost is.
And your cost analysis makes no sense. Your initial cost for the sub is irrelevant since it’s a sunk cost no matter what. Sonos is offering you a new sub for $560. The repair option you’re asking for, if it were offered, would likely be a few hundred dollars for a 3 year old repaired sub. Yes, you’re paying more for the new sub, but you are getting more too. You could also factor in the difference in resale factor for a 2023 sub vs a 2020 sub that’s gone through repairs.
Regardless of all that, it does look like Sonos is trying to move towards a repair model that makes sense, like much of the industry is doing due to social pressures. The newer speakers are not using adhesives, and can be taken apart and back together to replace parts much easier. Not sure that’s going to result in cheap repairs, and it will take years to really get there, but it is moving that direction.
So according to your theory Sonos should offer to take back every reported and unreported broken units for the green reason?? If you’re so concerned about the efforts vs profit margins, do you not think paying shipping costs to take them back and paying employees and trash services to process them cost them additional costs that brings absolutely no value to them?
since you admit you don’t know their build cost vs profit margin, probably you don’t have exposure to that business sector. I’ll explain, Sonos is a manufacturer that also acts like a retailer. Manufacturers typically sell to retailers for ½ of cost or less than the actual retail price that we see. Bestbuy being a retail giant, Sonos must be selling to them less than ½ cost of retail price, and still make profit. So when they also sell on their website for that same retail price, that margin is even higher, because the retail price is fixed as a contractual obligation to prevent killing their own distributors- bestbuy. Hence only Sonos has the power to give out coupons due to their high margin advantage over distributors as the position of being the source - manufacturer. So 30 or 40 or whatever coupon they offer is nothing but a tactic to increase their sales. No business is going to put their money into your pocket by selling you below the cost they paid to make the product no matter what the reason is. Why do you think they gave away crap loads of 40% coupons to s1 users recently free? Because they want to give away money? Just think
Certainly in the upgrade policy FAQ linked in my previous post, the decision to return the old product to Sonos for recycling is ‘clearly’ in the hands of the customer, so I’m a little surprised at the request here to return the 3 year old item, but perhaps as @ratty mentions it’s more about performing an examination as to what went wrong with the device, rather than refurbishing the device for re-sale.
I think you’re conflating the upgrade policy, which applies to certain devices regardless of their current condition, with the defective product policy, which would only apply for defective products...obviously.
So according to your theory Sonos should offer to take back every reported and unreported broken units for the green reason?? If you’re so concerned about the efforts vs profit margins, do you not think paying shipping costs to take them back and paying employees and trash services to process them cost them additional costs that brings absolutely no value to them?
I did not say that the only reason Sonos asked you return the device is so they could recycle it. I said that they would determine that the speaker actually is faulty to prevent fraud. Then would recycle, rather than repair/resell or trash them. Regardless of whatever ‘green reason’ Sonos may or may not have, they recycle for PR reasons.
since you admit you don’t know their build cost vs profit margin, probably you don’t have exposure to that business sector. I’ll explain, Sonos is a manufacturer that also acts like a retailer.
You’ve made a lot of poor assumptions in your arguments, all conveniently favoring your narrative. I don’t see a reason that you would start being objective now.
Manufacturers typically sell to retailers for ½ of cost or less than the actual retail price that we see. Bestbuy being a retail giant, Sonos must be selling to them less than ½ cost of retail price, and still make profit. So when they also sell on their website for that same retail price, that margin is even higher, because the retail price is fixed as a contractual obligation to prevent killing their own distributors- bestbuy. Hence only Sonos has the power to give out coupons due to their high margin advantage over distributors as the position of being the source - manufacturer. So 30 or 40 or whatever coupon they offer is nothing but a tactic to increase their sales. No business is going to put their money into your pocket by selling you below the cost they paid to make the product no matter what the reason is. Why do you think they gave away crap loads of 40% coupons to s1 users recently free? Because they want to give away money? Just think
You are correct that Sonos margins are surely higher when selling direct, even after factoring in shipping and other costs, but I don’t think we can assume any of these margins. The margin between direct sales and sales through distributors isn’t relevant anyway.
And I said that the discounts take a big chunk of the profit. That does not mean I think they take a lose. You’re throwing up a straw man again. They surely aren’t in loss territory, but the motivation for these discounts aren’t profits or increased sales. In the case of failed units, they want to retain you as a customer for future sales rather than have you consider another system. In the case of the 40% discount, S1 customers are maintenance support costs for Sonos, who aren’t buying very many new speakers since few current speakers even work on S1. They want to provide incentives for you to get off of S1.
My analysis of the customer/support person interaction looks more and more accurate as this thread moves along.
So according to your theory Sonos should offer to take back every reported and unreported broken units for the green reason?? If you’re so concerned about the efforts vs profit margins, do you not think paying shipping costs to take them back and paying employees and trash services to process them cost them additional costs that brings absolutely no value to them?
I did not say that the only reason Sonos asked you return the device is so they could recycle it. I said that they would determine that the speaker actually is faulty to prevent fraud. Then would recycle, rather than repair/resell or trash them. Regardless of whatever ‘green reason’ Sonos may or may not have, they recycle for PR reasons.
since you admit you don’t know their build cost vs profit margin, probably you don’t have exposure to that business sector. I’ll explain, Sonos is a manufacturer that also acts like a retailer.
You’ve made a lot of poor assumptions in your arguments, all conveniently favoring your narrative. I don’t see a reason that you would start being objective now.
Manufacturers typically sell to retailers for ½ of cost or less than the actual retail price that we see. Bestbuy being a retail giant, Sonos must be selling to them less than ½ cost of retail price, and still make profit. So when they also sell on their website for that same retail price, that margin is even higher, because the retail price is fixed as a contractual obligation to prevent killing their own distributors- bestbuy. Hence only Sonos has the power to give out coupons due to their high margin advantage over distributors as the position of being the source - manufacturer. So 30 or 40 or whatever coupon they offer is nothing but a tactic to increase their sales. No business is going to put their money into your pocket by selling you below the cost they paid to make the product no matter what the reason is. Why do you think they gave away crap loads of 40% coupons to s1 users recently free? Because they want to give away money? Just think
You are correct that Sonos margins are surely higher when selling direct, even after factoring in shipping and other costs, but I don’t think we can assume any of these margins. The margin between direct sales and sales through distributors isn’t relevant anyway.
And I said that the discounts take a big chunk of the profit. That does not mean I think they take a lose. You’re throwing up a straw man again. They surely aren’t in loss territory, but the motivation for these discounts aren’t profits or increased sales. In the case of failed units, they want to retain you as a customer for future sales rather than have you consider another system. In the case of the 40% discount, S1 customers are maintenance support costs for Sonos, who aren’t buying very many new speakers since few current speakers even work on S1. They want to provide incentives for you to get off of S1.
You are so naïve. I do sourcing as a profession and I deal with large, distributors, manufactures retailers. You name it I know the game in and out. No business will open the doors to lose money and not maximizing their profit being the number one priority over anything. It’s a game of cost versus gain for them. And you use the word fraud, what fraud are they trying to prevent bye, taking my property in exchange for a coupon that is less in value the ones you can get for free? Realize that a coupon is worthless until the buyer redeem is it. So if I don’t use it and they take my sub, tell me who is creating a fraud? Yes, my guess in the specific percentage numbers are of my assumptions, but these are experienced and educated assumptions based on my profession based on the game. Sonos has become much bigger company in the last years. They have many employees and overhead facility costs to pay for. There is no way that they will sell anything to anyone without a profit margin. That is going to satisfy all of the investors, and be able to sustain turn on the lights for them. Remember, Sonos is a publicly traded company. They will now and effect do not have the ability to even set a price as generosity or courtesy to anyone lower than their cost. Most of what I say is actually common sense in the business world, and I am really surprised by the Content of your perception as kindness being the priority of a large publicly trade business entity and I will just leave it like that.
So according to your theory Sonos should offer to take back every reported and unreported broken units for the green reason?? If you’re so concerned about the efforts vs profit margins, do you not think paying shipping costs to take them back and paying employees and trash services to process them cost them additional costs that brings absolutely no value to them?
I did not say that the only reason Sonos asked you return the device is so they could recycle it. I said that they would determine that the speaker actually is faulty to prevent fraud. Then would recycle, rather than repair/resell or trash them. Regardless of whatever ‘green reason’ Sonos may or may not have, they recycle for PR reasons.
since you admit you don’t know their build cost vs profit margin, probably you don’t have exposure to that business sector. I’ll explain, Sonos is a manufacturer that also acts like a retailer.
You’ve made a lot of poor assumptions in your arguments, all conveniently favoring your narrative. I don’t see a reason that you would start being objective now.
Manufacturers typically sell to retailers for ½ of cost or less than the actual retail price that we see. Bestbuy being a retail giant, Sonos must be selling to them less than ½ cost of retail price, and still make profit. So when they also sell on their website for that same retail price, that margin is even higher, because the retail price is fixed as a contractual obligation to prevent killing their own distributors- bestbuy. Hence only Sonos has the power to give out coupons due to their high margin advantage over distributors as the position of being the source - manufacturer. So 30 or 40 or whatever coupon they offer is nothing but a tactic to increase their sales. No business is going to put their money into your pocket by selling you below the cost they paid to make the product no matter what the reason is. Why do you think they gave away crap loads of 40% coupons to s1 users recently free? Because they want to give away money? Just think
You are correct that Sonos margins are surely higher when selling direct, even after factoring in shipping and other costs, but I don’t think we can assume any of these margins. The margin between direct sales and sales through distributors isn’t relevant anyway.
And I said that the discounts take a big chunk of the profit. That does not mean I think they take a lose. You’re throwing up a straw man again. They surely aren’t in loss territory, but the motivation for these discounts aren’t profits or increased sales. In the case of failed units, they want to retain you as a customer for future sales rather than have you consider another system. In the case of the 40% discount, S1 customers are maintenance support costs for Sonos, who aren’t buying very many new speakers since few current speakers even work on S1. They want to provide incentives for you to get off of S1.
You are so naïve. I do sourcing as a profession and I deal with large, distributors, manufactures retailers. You name it I know the game in and out. No business will open the doors to lose money and not maximizing their profit being the number one priority over anything. It’s a game of cost versus gain for them. And you use the word fraud, what fraud are they trying to prevent bye, taking my property in exchange for a coupon that is less in value the ones you can get for free? Realize that a coupon is worthless until the buyer redeem is it. So if I don’t use it and they take my sub, tell me who is creating a fraud? Yes, my guess in the specific percentage numbers are of my assumptions, but these are experienced and educated assumptions based on my profession based on the game. Sonos has become much bigger company in the last years. They have many employees and overhead facility costs to pay for. There is no way that they will sell anything to anyone without a profit margin. That is going to satisfy all of the investors, and be able to sustain turn on the lights for them. Remember, Sonos is a publicly traded company. They will now and effect do not have the ability to even set a price as generosity or courtesy to anyone lower than their cost. Most of what I say is actually common sense in the business world, and I am really surprised by the Content of your perception as kindness being the priority of a large publicly trade business entity and I will just leave it like that.
Also, I forgot to touch on the point you bought brought up about Cooper and maintenance fee for s1. That is actually your naïve perception assumption. I said coupons are nothing but a sales tactic. Maintaining and supporting two platforms must cost them tremendous amount of money, especially in today’s economic situation. Tech companies have laid off hundreds and thousands of people, downsizing, eliminating or reducing the programs that they used to provide or force to increase price on the customers end. I don’t know anything about s1 nor do I know about the maintenance fee they recently imposed. But since you brought it up now I know it makes perfect sense to me as to what is going on. I know for a fact that Sonos like other companies are struggling with meeting sales targets, and that creates cash flow issue within the company. Then it the leads to cutting cost or firing employees, and ultimately because the cost to maintain s1 platform is in the necessary zero value add proposition for them, they have only sustained it from the time s2 was published because they felt the need to do something to avoid possible lawsuits from older customers, who bought their products and then left with no option to expand and enjoy newer technology, that new platform can I offer. Those users are furious and that is a fact. So for them to impose maintenance fee recently that is a strong indication that they are no longer able to financially support and sustain in the environment where revenue income stream is now in issue that cannot offset the cost to maintain s1 and still provide possibility to satisfy investors and pay their bills. Not that it is not it single leader ship’s decision to make rather a board of investors. Are you really naïve enough to think rich investors in the room when they make a decision they will prioritize kindness over profit gain???? I can school you all day if you want to learn
You are so naïve. I do sourcing as a profession and I deal with large, distributors, manufactures retailers. You name it I know the game in and out.
You’re claiming that Sonos resells old speakers that you used for 3 years, among other poor assumptions. I don’t trust your opinion. Name calling and straw men doesn’t help.
No business will open the doors to lose money and not maximizing their profit being the number one priority over anything. It’s a game of cost versus gain for them. And you use the word fraud, what fraud are they trying to prevent bye, taking my property in exchange for a coupon that is less in value the ones you can get for free? Realize that a coupon is worthless until the buyer redeem is it. So if I don’t use it and they take my sub, tell me who is creating a fraud?
If you don’t intend to use the discount, then don’t send in your defective sub. Your theory that the 3 year old defective sub is of value to Sonos is just silly. Even if it was of value, that’s not fraud. Fraud would be trying to get a discount code for a defective product when the product isn’t actually defective. They clearly can’t just give out 30% discounts to anyone who claims their devices don’t work anymore, so getting their hands on the device is a way to prove that. And the 40% is not free since you have to meet certain conditions, being on S1, to apply. And I have not looked into the details of these two discounts, but typically these discounts are on individual items, so it’s useful to have multiple discounts for multiple items and purchases. I certainly have used multiple discounts in the past.
Yes, my guess in the specific percentage numbers are of my assumptions, but these are experienced and educated assumptions based on my profession based on the game. Sonos has become much bigger company in the last years. They have many employees and overhead facility costs to pay for. There is no way that they will sell anything to anyone without a profit margin.
Why are you arguing that Sonos isn’t taking a loss on this discounts when no one is claiming they do?
So according to your theory Sonos should offer to take back every reported and unreported broken units for the green reason?? If you’re so concerned about the efforts vs profit margins, do you not think paying shipping costs to take them back and paying employees and trash services to process them cost them additional costs that brings absolutely no value to them?
I did not say that the only reason Sonos asked you return the device is so they could recycle it. I said that they would determine that the speaker actually is faulty to prevent fraud. Then would recycle, rather than repair/resell or trash them. Regardless of whatever ‘green reason’ Sonos may or may not have, they recycle for PR reasons.
since you admit you don’t know their build cost vs profit margin, probably you don’t have exposure to that business sector. I’ll explain, Sonos is a manufacturer that also acts like a retailer.
You’ve made a lot of poor assumptions in your arguments, all conveniently favoring your narrative. I don’t see a reason that you would start being objective now.
Manufacturers typically sell to retailers for ½ of cost or less than the actual retail price that we see. Bestbuy being a retail giant, Sonos must be selling to them less than ½ cost of retail price, and still make profit. So when they also sell on their website for that same retail price, that margin is even higher, because the retail price is fixed as a contractual obligation to prevent killing their own distributors- bestbuy. Hence only Sonos has the power to give out coupons due to their high margin advantage over distributors as the position of being the source - manufacturer. So 30 or 40 or whatever coupon they offer is nothing but a tactic to increase their sales. No business is going to put their money into your pocket by selling you below the cost they paid to make the product no matter what the reason is. Why do you think they gave away crap loads of 40% coupons to s1 users recently free? Because they want to give away money? Just think
You are correct that Sonos margins are surely higher when selling direct, even after factoring in shipping and other costs, but I don’t think we can assume any of these margins. The margin between direct sales and sales through distributors isn’t relevant anyway.
And I said that the discounts take a big chunk of the profit. That does not mean I think they take a lose. You’re throwing up a straw man again. They surely aren’t in loss territory, but the motivation for these discounts aren’t profits or increased sales. In the case of failed units, they want to retain you as a customer for future sales rather than have you consider another system. In the case of the 40% discount, S1 customers are maintenance support costs for Sonos, who aren’t buying very many new speakers since few current speakers even work on S1. They want to provide incentives for you to get off of S1.
You are so naïve. I do sourcing as a profession and I deal with large, distributors, manufactures retailers. You name it I know the game in and out. No business will open the doors to lose money and not maximizing their profit being the number one priority over anything. It’s a game of cost versus gain for them. And you use the word fraud, what fraud are they trying to prevent bye, taking my property in exchange for a coupon that is less in value the ones you can get for free? Realize that a coupon is worthless until the buyer redeem is it. So if I don’t use it and they take my sub, tell me who is creating a fraud? Yes, my guess in the specific percentage numbers are of my assumptions, but these are experienced and educated assumptions based on my profession based on the game. Sonos has become much bigger company in the last years. They have many employees and overhead facility costs to pay for. There is no way that they will sell anything to anyone without a profit margin. That is going to satisfy all of the investors, and be able to sustain turn on the lights for them. Remember, Sonos is a publicly traded company. They will now and effect do not have the ability to even set a price as generosity or courtesy to anyone lower than their cost. Most of what I say is actually common sense in the business world, and I am really surprised by the Content of your perception as kindness being the priority of a large publicly trade business entity and I will just leave it like that.
Also, I forgot to touch on the point you bought brought up about Cooper and maintenance fee for s1. That is actually your naïve perception assumption. I said coupons are nothing but a sales tactic. Maintaining and supporting two platforms must cost them tremendous amount of money, especially in today’s economic situation. Tech companies have laid off hundreds and thousands of people, downsizing, eliminating or reducing the programs that they used to provide or force to increase price on the customers end. I don’t know anything about s1 nor do I know about the maintenance fee they recently imposed. But since you brought it up now I know it makes perfect sense to me as to what is going on. I know for a fact that Sonos like other companies are struggling with meeting sales targets, and that creates cash flow issue within the company. Then it the leads to cutting cost or firing employees, and ultimately because the cost to maintain s1 platform is in the necessary zero value add proposition for them, they have only sustained it from the time s2 was published because they felt the need to do something to avoid possible lawsuits from older customers, who bought their products and then left with no option to expand and enjoy newer technology, that new platform can I offer. Those users are furious and that is a fact. So for them to impose maintenance fee recently that is a strong indication that they are no longer able to financially support and sustain in the environment where revenue income stream is now in issue that cannot offset the cost to maintain s1 and still provide possibility to satisfy investors and pay their bills. Not that it is not it single leader ship’s decision to make rather a board of investors. Are you really naïve enough to think rich investors in the room when they make a decision they will prioritize kindness over profit gain???? I can school you all day if you want to learn
There is no maintenance fee charged to customers using S1.
So according to your theory Sonos should offer to take back every reported and unreported broken units for the green reason?? If you’re so concerned about the efforts vs profit margins, do you not think paying shipping costs to take them back and paying employees and trash services to process them cost them additional costs that brings absolutely no value to them?
I did not say that the only reason Sonos asked you return the device is so they could recycle it. I said that they would determine that the speaker actually is faulty to prevent fraud. Then would recycle, rather than repair/resell or trash them. Regardless of whatever ‘green reason’ Sonos may or may not have, they recycle for PR reasons.
since you admit you don’t know their build cost vs profit margin, probably you don’t have exposure to that business sector. I’ll explain, Sonos is a manufacturer that also acts like a retailer.
You’ve made a lot of poor assumptions in your arguments, all conveniently favoring your narrative. I don’t see a reason that you would start being objective now.
Manufacturers typically sell to retailers for ½ of cost or less than the actual retail price that we see. Bestbuy being a retail giant, Sonos must be selling to them less than ½ cost of retail price, and still make profit. So when they also sell on their website for that same retail price, that margin is even higher, because the retail price is fixed as a contractual obligation to prevent killing their own distributors- bestbuy. Hence only Sonos has the power to give out coupons due to their high margin advantage over distributors as the position of being the source - manufacturer. So 30 or 40 or whatever coupon they offer is nothing but a tactic to increase their sales. No business is going to put their money into your pocket by selling you below the cost they paid to make the product no matter what the reason is. Why do you think they gave away crap loads of 40% coupons to s1 users recently free? Because they want to give away money? Just think
You are correct that Sonos margins are surely higher when selling direct, even after factoring in shipping and other costs, but I don’t think we can assume any of these margins. The margin between direct sales and sales through distributors isn’t relevant anyway.
And I said that the discounts take a big chunk of the profit. That does not mean I think they take a lose. You’re throwing up a straw man again. They surely aren’t in loss territory, but the motivation for these discounts aren’t profits or increased sales. In the case of failed units, they want to retain you as a customer for future sales rather than have you consider another system. In the case of the 40% discount, S1 customers are maintenance support costs for Sonos, who aren’t buying very many new speakers since few current speakers even work on S1. They want to provide incentives for you to get off of S1.
You are so naïve. I do sourcing as a profession and I deal with large, distributors, manufactures retailers. You name it I know the game in and out. No business will open the doors to lose money and not maximizing their profit being the number one priority over anything. It’s a game of cost versus gain for them. And you use the word fraud, what fraud are they trying to prevent bye, taking my property in exchange for a coupon that is less in value the ones you can get for free? Realize that a coupon is worthless until the buyer redeem is it. So if I don’t use it and they take my sub, tell me who is creating a fraud? Yes, my guess in the specific percentage numbers are of my assumptions, but these are experienced and educated assumptions based on my profession based on the game. Sonos has become much bigger company in the last years. They have many employees and overhead facility costs to pay for. There is no way that they will sell anything to anyone without a profit margin. That is going to satisfy all of the investors, and be able to sustain turn on the lights for them. Remember, Sonos is a publicly traded company. They will now and effect do not have the ability to even set a price as generosity or courtesy to anyone lower than their cost. Most of what I say is actually common sense in the business world, and I am really surprised by the Content of your perception as kindness being the priority of a large publicly trade business entity and I will just leave it like that.
Also, I forgot to touch on the point you bought brought up about Cooper and maintenance fee for s1. That is actually your naïve perception assumption. I said coupons are nothing but a sales tactic. Maintaining and supporting two platforms must cost them tremendous amount of money, especially in today’s economic situation. Tech companies have laid off hundreds and thousands of people, downsizing, eliminating or reducing the programs that they used to provide or force to increase price on the customers end. I don’t know anything about s1 nor do I know about the maintenance fee they recently imposed. But since you brought it up now I know it makes perfect sense to me as to what is going on. I know for a fact that Sonos like other companies are struggling with meeting sales targets, and that creates cash flow issue within the company. Then it the leads to cutting cost or firing employees, and ultimately because the cost to maintain s1 platform is in the necessary zero value add proposition for them, they have only sustained it from the time s2 was published because they felt the need to do something to avoid possible lawsuits from older customers, who bought their products and then left with no option to expand and enjoy newer technology, that new platform can I offer. Those users are furious and that is a fact. So for them to impose maintenance fee recently that is a strong indication that they are no longer able to financially support and sustain in the environment where revenue income stream is now in issue that cannot offset the cost to maintain s1 and still provide possibility to satisfy investors and pay their bills. Not that it is not it single leader ship’s decision to make rather a board of investors. Are you really naïve enough to think rich investors in the room when they make a decision they will prioritize kindness over profit gain???? I can school you all day if you want to learn
There is no maintenance fee charged to customers using S1.
What name did I call you? You seem to have a problem with comprehension or late to make things up. But you actually call me or implied that I am trying to create a fraud to scam a 30% coupon from Sonos. Clearly, you know nothing about business or common sense. This conversation is over between you and I because I can’t make sense of talking to somebody who isn’t on the same level.
Yep, I'd make him send the Sub in before I gave him a coupon for a free cookie, never mind 30% off a new Sub.
Yep, I'd make him send the Sub in before I gave him a coupon for a free cookie, never mind 30% off a new Sub.
Nah cookie still costs us money and shipping. I have crap loads of 15% for qualified products upgrades coupon, I’ll send him one of those after he sends me his sub. He will feel so grateful. That’s gain for me, him and Sonos. Win win win
https://www.nytimes.com/wirecutter/blog/what-is-right-to-repair/
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240SB244
Time to exercise our rights
apparently they don’t repair and resell our trade in units. But worse, they use them to comply the environmental regulation so they don’t have to pay fine or get shut down, all at the expense of forcing us to continue buying replacements when the units can probably easily be repaired
M
https://www.nytimes.com/wirecutter/blog/what-is-right-to-repair/
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240SB244
Time to exercise our rights
apparently they don’t repair and resell our trade in units. But worse, they use them to comply the environmental regulation so they don’t have to pay fine or get shut down, all at the expense of forcing us to continue buying replacements when the units can probably easily be repaired
In the second article, which I admit I’ve not read in detail, it appears to be limited to items costing not less than $50 and not more than $99.99 which does seem to be a very restrictive price range.
In the first article it says
“The idea behind “right to repair” is in the name: If you own something, you should be able to repair it yourself or take it to a technician of your choice.”
You do currently have that right, as I understand it. It doesn’t say the manufacturer must repair it - it gives you free choice on the open market to get it repaired.
Find a repairer and send it to them to fix. And by doing that you won’t have to use a Sonos discount voucher, which you seem to object to using. So: exercise your rights, and let’s all move on.
In the second article, which I admit I’ve not read in detail, it appears to be limited to items costing not less than $50 and not more than $99.99 which does seem to be a very restrictive price range.
In the first article it says
“The idea behind “right to repair” is in the name: If you own something, you should be able to repair it yourself or take it to a technician of your choice.”
You do currently have that right, as I understand it. It doesn’t say the manufacturer must repair it - it gives you free choice on the open market to get it repaired.
Exactly. RIght to Repair (which arose out of the auto repair industry) came to be because manufacturers were insisting consumers bring their vehicles to a dealership in order to perform repairs, or they would void the warranty and not pay. Right to Repair laws were put in place to make sure independent repair shops would get paid for warranty repairs and the warranty would still be valid. Quite different from stipulating that the original manufacturer must repair a product.
M
https://www.nytimes.com/wirecutter/blog/what-is-right-to-repair/
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240SB244
Time to exercise our rights
apparently they don’t repair and resell our trade in units. But worse, they use them to comply the environmental regulation so they don’t have to pay fine or get shut down, all at the expense of forcing us to continue buying replacements when the units can probably easily be repaired
In the second article, which I admit I’ve not read in detail, it appears to be limited to items costing not less than $50 and not more than $99.99 which does seem to be a very restrictive price range.
In the first article it says
“The idea behind “right to repair” is in the name: If you own something, you should be able to repair it yourself or take it to a technician of your choice.”
You do currently have that right, as I understand it. It doesn’t say the manufacturer must repair it - it gives you free choice on the open market to get it repaired.
Find a repairer and send it to them to fix. And by doing that you won’t have to use a Sonos discount voucher, which you seem to object to using. So: exercise your rights, and let’s all move on.
I don’t want to challenge your intelligence, but hahe you read everything? Have you read the law passed in CA? Where Sonos is located? There are 2 links. You read the article but not the law. And you cropped a F fraction of words to tell me to move on. Since you read the article then tell me which part of this don’t you understand - tech company’s secret sales tactic of intentionally make their products unrepairable to force customers buy new replacements because they cannot come up with new technology and new products fast enough to sustain their sales. Yet that’s not the worst, victims like you who sent back their defects thinking you’ve been done a favor, they use that to suffice their CA environmental compliance. You think I wouldn’t have taken it to an Indy shop if I could already, if Sonos hadn’t made their products unrepairable or parts unavailable, and completely transparent on everything?? Wake the F up, the government is even helping to protect YOU!
In the second article, which I admit I’ve not read in detail, it appears to be limited to items costing not less than $50 and not more than $99.99 which does seem to be a very restrictive price range.
In the first article it says
“The idea behind “right to repair” is in the name: If you own something, you should be able to repair it yourself or take it to a technician of your choice.”
You do currently have that right, as I understand it. It doesn’t say the manufacturer must repair it - it gives you free choice on the open market to get it repaired.
Exactly. RIght to Repair (which arose out of the auto repair industry) came to be because manufacturers were insisting consumers bring their vehicles to a dealership in order to perform repairs, or they would void the warranty and not pay. Right to Repair laws were put in place to make sure independent repair shops would get paid for warranty repairs and the warranty would still be valid. Quite different from stipulating that the original manufacturer must repair a product.
That’s just part of it. Using car is a bad example, you can’t play tricks to force people to buy a replacement car, but you can with an expensive electronics and that’s the whole new law was evolved to regulate tech companies dishonest sales tactics and protect consumers and environment. Read the Bill #244. That’s what a lawyer would use not the article
Existing law also requires every manufacturer making an express warranty with respect to an electronic or appliance product, as described above, with a wholesale price to the retailer of $100 or more, to make available to service and repair facilities sufficient service literature and functional parts to effect the repair of the product for at least 7 years after the date a product model or type was manufactured, regardless of whether the 7-year period exceeds the warranty period for the product.
M
https://www.nytimes.com/wirecutter/blog/what-is-right-to-repair/
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240SB244
Time to exercise our rights
apparently they don’t repair and resell our trade in units. But worse, they use them to comply the environmental regulation so they don’t have to pay fine or get shut down, all at the expense of forcing us to continue buying replacements when the units can probably easily be repaired
In the second article, which I admit I’ve not read in detail, it appears to be limited to items costing not less than $50 and not more than $99.99 which does seem to be a very restrictive price range.
In the first article it says
“The idea behind “right to repair” is in the name: If you own something, you should be able to repair it yourself or take it to a technician of your choice.”
You do currently have that right, as I understand it. It doesn’t say the manufacturer must repair it - it gives you free choice on the open market to get it repaired.
Find a repairer and send it to them to fix. And by doing that you won’t have to use a Sonos discount voucher, which you seem to object to using. So: exercise your rights, and let’s all move on.
I don’t want to challenge your intelligence, but hahe you read everything? Have you read the law passed in CA? Where Sonos is located? There are 2 links. You read the article but not the law. And you cropped a F fraction of words to tell me to move on. Since you read the article then tell me which part of this don’t you understand - tech company’s secret sales tactic of intentionally make their products unrepairable to force customers buy new replacements because they cannot come up with new technology and new products fast enough to sustain their sales. Yet that’s not the worst, victims like you who sent back their defects thinking you’ve been done a favor, they use that to suffice their CA environmental compliance. You think I wouldn’t have taken it to an Indy shop if I could already, if Sonos hadn’t made their products unrepairable or parts unavailable, and completely transparent on everything?? Wake the F up, the government is even helping to protect YOU!
Existing law also requires every manufacturer making an express warranty with respect to an electronic or appliance product, as described above, with a wholesale price to the retailer of $100 or more, to make available to service and repair facilities sufficient service literature and functional parts to effect the repair of the product for at least 7 years after the date a product model or type was manufactured, regardless of whether the 7-year period exceeds the warranty period for the product.
I’m moved on. I have already. I don’t need to continue dwelling and wasting time and energy on this. It really affects minimal if I lost a sub, I can easily move one over from another room that no one goes into. I’m using my example to advocate the rights we deserve from a consumer perspective. $800 loss may not be such a big deal to some of us, but it can be a month of rent to put a roof over other people’s heads. In my case, if the power surge is the issue, why not have the inexpensive protector built in? If they can make Atmos capable speakers and do spatial audio and everything, they can’t do that? If they care about environment, they’d rather sell replacements than trying to get the same unit fixed? Come on
I’m moved on. I have already.
In my case, if the power surge is the issue, why not have the inexpensive protector built in?
Where should the manufacturer’s duty of care end? And at what extra cost to the customer, to add in all the little extras? Waterproof covers to prevent liquid spills? Cushioned mats to prevent damage if knocked on the floor? Maybe extra-long power cords to ensure wall-mounting can easily be achieved. And the shelves to go with wall-mounting… Ok, I’m exaggerating a bit, but at some point, consumers need to take responsibility.
I know you’ll have a response to this post too: you clearly are going to have the last word. So I’ll love you and leave you to it. As you say: you’ve moved on. So have I; goodbye and good luck to you.
I’m moved on. I have already.
In my case, if the power surge is the issue, why not have the inexpensive protector built in?
Where should the manufacturer’s duty of care end? And at what extra cost to the customer, to add in all the little extras? Waterproof covers to prevent liquid spills? Cushioned mats to prevent damage if knocked on the floor? Maybe extra-long power cords to ensure wall-mounting can easily be achieved. And the shelves to go with wall-mounting… Ok, I’m exaggerating a bit, but at some point, consumers need to take responsibility.
I know you’ll have a response to this post too: you clearly are going to have the last word. So I’ll love you and leave you to it. As you say: you’ve moved on. So have I; goodbye and good luck to you.
I have moved on but if someone - a fellow consumer challenges me, I’m going to respond to your questions just out of respect. So the answers to your questions are: I don’t know and I don’t care. I don’t make decisions for Sonos neither do you. All I’m asking is the right to repair a 3 year old $800 intentionally made unrepairable product instead of turning it in to them for a crappy discount to purchase a new replacement so that the one I gave up can be used to fulfill their environmental compliance requirements that I’m basically paying double for. Your questions of how and why the unit gone bad is irrelevant because it can be any cause, it doesn’t matter. Sonos needs to adhere to the law and provide resources (tools, parts, components specs, diagrams etc) as required in the Bill to make repair possible for their customers. Age, cause, condition of the units don’t matter because it should be a customer/ the owner of the product’s choice, not theirs or anyone else’s say to deem it is junk
I’m moved on. I have already.
In my case, if the power surge is the issue, why not have the inexpensive protector built in?
Where should the manufacturer’s duty of care end? And at what extra cost to the customer, to add in all the little extras? Waterproof covers to prevent liquid spills? Cushioned mats to prevent damage if knocked on the floor? Maybe extra-long power cords to ensure wall-mounting can easily be achieved. And the shelves to go with wall-mounting… Ok, I’m exaggerating a bit, but at some point, consumers need to take responsibility.
I know you’ll have a response to this post too: you clearly are going to have the last word. So I’ll love you and leave you to it. As you say: you’ve moved on. So have I; goodbye and good luck to you.
I have moved on but if someone - a fellow consumer challenges me, I’m going to respond to your questions just out of respect. So the answers to your questions are: I don’t know and I don’t care. I don’t make decisions for Sonos neither do you. All I’m asking is the right to repair a 3 year old $800 intentionally made unrepairable product instead of turning it in to them for a crappy discount to purchase a new replacement so that the one I gave up can be used to fulfill their environmental compliance requirements that I’m basically paying double for. Your questions of how and why the unit gone bad is irrelevant because it can be any cause, it doesn’t matter. Sonos needs to adhere to the law and provide resources (tools, parts, components specs, diagrams etc) as required in the Bill to make repair possible for their customers. Age, cause, condition of the units don’t matter because it should be a customer/ the owner of the product’s choice, not theirs or anyone else’s say to deem it is junk
I’m not trying to have the last word so it can appear I won. I just don’t understand unless you are a Sonos employee why people like you choose to argue with me? I have a clear intention - that is to protect the consumers and provide them with possible scenarios and information should something similar happen to them through my case. It’s easy to judge from the sideline. No one is able to feel what I feel unless they are the first person impacted. If you disagree with my point of view, can’t see that this is potentially information that might help you, you don’t have to respond, scroll and move on. What are you trying to achieve by arguing with me, is Sonos going to reward you with a new sub having their back by putting down another fellow Sonos customer who is in a crappy situation???
Hi @Dfan111 et al
Well, this conversation appears to have run it’s course. I’m closing the thread before more arguments start.
