Sonos Home Theater Receiver?

Because they're in the speaker market, not the home A/V receiver market? While they're related from a consumer perspective, they're probably pretty different from a manufacturing perspective, and I'd think that Sonos would prefer to stick in their wheelhouse and make great speakers for home music, rather than expanding into another area.

I'd also imagine that the home theater receiver market is pretty full with other players already. Might be hard to "break in" to that market and 'rake in a bunch of money'....

They're not only in the speaker market (Amp, Connect, Playbase). It's all digital processing, so not that different. No other player has incorporated Sonos wireless functionality in a receiver.

You're right, rake wasn't the right metaphor...more like vacuum...vacuum in a bunch of money.

Heh.

As I'm sure you're aware, I have absolutely no idea, I'm just spitballing.

But if there was that much money lying on the table, wouldn't there already be a company in there raking it up?

At the end of the day, Sonos is a "we make speakers" company. And frankly, they've always been focused on "whole home music". The home theater line is secondary to that, and not where it feels like they're concentrating their attention.

For sure. My question is meant to generate conversation, but ideally someone from Sonos could jump in.

You touched on my point. I take your “speaker company” to mean they’re an audio company. But, I think they’re running out of room to bring something new. Providing a way to tie into my home theater speakers would be game changing.

Yea, I’d love to see the market research on that, and figure it against costs of manufacture. Then the marketing cost for entering a newish area of sales.

Because there are millions of consumers (like me) who have zero interest in huge, unsightly, overly complex, black A/V receivers that have features that seem to change every year, Dolby this, THX that, etc, when I basically only watch The Newshour and stream from Amazon and Netflix. Playbar just gets out of the way, and perfectly suits my needs, and the needs of many, many others.

AV receivers have to be low margin products; the house brands sell for $99, major brands are constantly on sale. Hard to make "big bucks" in a low margin environment.

Zero interest in room shaking explosions and car chases, which so many movies have degenerated into. Great acting, great dialog, great cinematography, great directing, all work well with a good display and the Playbar.

I do not want a Connect.

Why doesn't Sonos get into the Home Theater receiver market by creating a receiver that could solve all of these issues/use cases and rake in a bunch of money?
As others have said, probably not much money to be made, as the number of people who have full AV systems are now very much in the minority.
Why would you want to buy (what would probably) be an expensive new receiver, though, when simply adding a Connect would resolve your issue?
If you have a more modern receiver, then it may even have Chromecast/Spotify etc built in, so you can still stream to the receiver from your chosen music source, albeit not via the Sonos software.

Yea, I’d love to see the market research on that, and figure it against costs of manufacture. Then the marketing cost for entering a newish area of sales.
I would also. I’m not sure what percent of total market share Sonos could capture, but if you three and this guy are correct, there would be goodness to creating a minimally-featured, small(er) form factor receiver with Sonos Amp capabilities built in.

As others have said, probably not much money to be made, as the number of people who have full AV systems are now very much in the minority.
Why would you want to buy (what would probably) be an expensive new receiver, though, when simply adding a Connect would resolve your issue?
If you have a more modern receiver, then it may even have Chromecast/Spotify etc built in, so you can still stream to the receiver from your chosen music source, albeit not via the Sonos software.

I don’t know about “the minority.” I searched for data to confirm or refute that statement and came up blank.

Why? I don’t want a separate component AND a common problem many home theater enthusiasts have is how to get wireless surround sound which is Sonos’s wheelhouse. Again, your streaming example is not my use case where I’d want the same music playing on all Sonos devices (e.g. during parties).

I’m going to chime in a little late but a lot of the responses to the initial question are very ignorant. The surround amplifier buisness would be great segway for sonos to get into. The market is stagnant full of products that lack innovation and really has not changed much in 30 years. A pioneer or Denon AVR have to many buttons options..and settings and can easily be mis configured by a everyday operator. Setting up wired speaker systems allow you to gain a natural stereo separation that sounbars only simulate. Not to mention getting to use your own speakers. sonos very much has a horse in the race with high end clients the same clients that purchase whole home audio or have wired theater rooms. The only class D amplified AVRs I know of are made by pioneer and retail at 1,599ish there is plenty of margin and space here for a product that adds some simplicity and technology. People want easy that’s why sonos is king with their home audio solution. If they could bring that same ease into what I think is a broken market I think the risk would pay off in profitability for the company. Not to mention the ease of an app guided setup. There would also be a Benefit of less needs for universal remotes if sonos removes some complexity here.

Please sonos make me a receiver that does not work like my dad and grandpas, it’s about to be 2020 I want something that breaths the same creativity from the AMP just with 5.1 channels.

-I work in home theater sales

I'm not quite following what's being asked for here. If it's asking to be able to setup a 5.1 HT system with Sonos amplification/processing, but 3rd party passive speakers, this is already possible...almost. You can setup the front channels (left, right, simulated center) + sub (Sonos or wired active sub). Then you add a second amp for the rear channels. It's technically 4.1, but I'm not sure it makes sense for Sonos to make a single amp/receiver that covers all channels in a single box. For one thing, that means you'd have to wire front and back speakers from the same central location. That's rather difficult in many open concept spaces. The other is that it's only useful for those who don't want to use Sonos speakers for the rear channel. I'm not quite seeing what's missing here.

If you want something more than Sonos's offering for HT, then go out and get the latest and greatest and use the Connect (now Port) to integrate it to Sonos. I'm not following the logic of wanting the functionality of the Port, but not wanting the Port. Is it form factor? Cost? Ease of use.

Now if we were talking about a hypothetical "Super Connect" that would connect to your TV, and wireless send audio to 6 (or more) speakers/subs in a HT configuration, that's different I think. But even then , I can't really say that I'm going to go for that, just because my open concept space where I watch TV isn't setup to take advantage of that, and I'd have to get electrical outlets added in certain spots (or have wires everywhere). Would all that cost be worth it for marginally better sound? Maybe. Then again, I could probably go with a old fashion reciver and passive speakers for similar cost or less.