In the aftermath of the CR100 debacle it may be helpful to discuss the direction and methods taken by Sonos management to achieve their end goal of retiring the CR100 by force and the impact on and perception of customers future buying decisions
They still have not made it clear in any believable way why they forced this issue which leaves many people puzzled and angry at the rendering useless of their legally owned equipment.
Personally , this is a first for me . I have never owned a product previously that I have bought that has been rendered useless by the creators period,. Far less easy to swallow is the subterfuge of the battery non issue to cover an ulterior motive. This makes the company Sonos look untrustworthy at best . If you have a reason for doing this , spit it out and let people know. I believe that I, as the purchaser gets to decide when it is time to retire my own possession. I have a belief that quality equipment that was sold as a quality product to prospective buyers should be subject to end of life decision only by the buyer and no one else.
I struggle with the management decisions taken that force me to re-evaluate my investment in their goods within my home.
Prior to the CR100 execution , I viewed my home audio system as an asset to my home , something that simply worked and worked well with minimal intervention required from me which is pretty much what I expect from audio equipment . Now I view the lifespan of this investment as something which looks like is beyond my control even if the equipment is still functioning regardless of my desire to maintain that .
The support aspect of this situation where Sonos staff went into hiding and avoided direct questions from concerned customers has to go down as a low point in any companies record in dealing with their best ambassadors.
These are just a few points that caused me to raise this topic for discussion regarding the ethicacy and morality and integrity of the current Sonos operation...any one of the the issues I have listed above would make Sonos or any other company ineligible for consideration for future investment either in business or in domestic life for this individual.
What do others think....? Please keep the thread social.
Page 1 / 6
It sounds like you aren't aware of the other threads that are dealing with this exact same topic...repeatedly. You might want to go look at the "Save the CR100" thread if you really want to get a ton of various opinions on the topic.
No very aware . Re-read the title of the thread please.
Once was enough, I saw nothing that wasn't discussed in the thousands of posts in the other thread, so I thought I was helping you out to get the information you were looking for. Guess not.
Can't help you there pal...this is an entirely different subject matter . Differentiation can be difficult to grasp. IE. if you are a hammer everything looks like a nail.
But thanks anyway for your kind consideration.
But thanks anyway for your kind consideration.
I think a mountain is being made out of a molehill by a very few people, who as it is, have been justly compensated for a piece of electronics that was kept functioning far past its intended lifespan, and had been limping along in functionality for years now. I also feel that if people were truly as put out and damaged, and Sonos was as unethical, immoral and lacking in core values as they claim, there would have been a class action lawsuit by now. Despite the many and varied threats to start one, I see nothing of the sort taking place.
On the other hand, Sonos could have handled the announcement better. They stumbled there. Not that perfect PR would have stopped the onslaught from the very few, yet very, very verbose and prolific posters in the "Save the CR100" thread; Sonos should not have given them more ammo than they needed.
Just my 2 cents.
PS - In before this gets merged into the CR100 thread where it belongs.
On the other hand, Sonos could have handled the announcement better. They stumbled there. Not that perfect PR would have stopped the onslaught from the very few, yet very, very verbose and prolific posters in the "Save the CR100" thread; Sonos should not have given them more ammo than they needed.
Just my 2 cents.
PS - In before this gets merged into the CR100 thread where it belongs.
But thanks anyway for your kind consideration.
You're welcome!
On the other hand, Sonos could have handled the announcement better. They stumbled there. Not that perfect PR would have stopped the onslaught from the very few, yet very, very verbose and prolific posters in the "Save the CR100" thread; Sonos should not have given them more ammo than they needed..
With 16600+ posts it's really really funny to see you calling posters with a few dozen to hundreds posts"very,very verbose" and "prolific level posters". That's expert level delusional power there. Seems you are having a hard time squaring your religious defense of Sonos with the obvious fact they screwed up on this. Just my 2C :8
Gee, I never knew prolific was an insult. I see no conflict, nor delusions here. I am prolific in my postings, as accumulated over 10 years. Others were prolific over 3 or 4 months in the CR100 thread. Still others were very verbose. Those are facts, no insults intended, only an observation. My only point was that 1000 posts of 1000 characters from 10 posters are very different from 10 posts of 100 characters from 100,000 posters.
But don't let that stop you from turning yet another thread into your personal vendetta against me, Logan.
But don't let that stop you from turning yet another thread into your personal vendetta against me, Logan.
It does seem that Sonos may be in the process of shifting their core values. Yes the Save the CR100 thread has covered this at (great) length, but the Alexa implementation within the Play One looks like another example of less than "clear" marketing messages.
The question for me is, does this shift (real or perceived) of the Sonos core values matter to enough people to damage the company? and here is a thought, if Sonos is really damaged then all our expensive kit could becomes worthless!
The question for me is, does this shift (real or perceived) of the Sonos core values matter to enough people to damage the company? and here is a thought, if Sonos is really damaged then all our expensive kit could becomes worthless!
I have always been nervous allowing "auto update" of any device or software in my home. SONOS has just proved to me how dangerous it is.
I was an early SONOS adopter and supporter, and spent a lot of money time and effort to those ends (free end user testing? participation in this/prior forum?). Many people have purchased SONOS on my recommendation or from seeing it in my home/business. To be treated this way...as if they have the right to bully their way into my home and destroy my property...I am done with them. I hope the lot of them lose big from this and will do my best to make sure that happens. This is war.
I was an early SONOS adopter and supporter, and spent a lot of money time and effort to those ends (free end user testing? participation in this/prior forum?). Many people have purchased SONOS on my recommendation or from seeing it in my home/business. To be treated this way...as if they have the right to bully their way into my home and destroy my property...I am done with them. I hope the lot of them lose big from this and will do my best to make sure that happens. This is war.
I see this as a much larger than Sonos issue, about a consumption driven economic growth model; if any values are to be questioned, the ones that drive these are the culprits that need to be in the dock.
In Home audio, the days when people happily used decades old kit with the same remote - where the remote was even part of the kit - are gone, swept away with the "growth based on planned obsolescence" model everywhere.
Hopefully, those holding on to their CR100s are being consistent across their consumption behaviour, as it relates to clothes, cars, homes, computers, appliances and the rest. Unfortunately, this is very hard to do for every such purchase, and Sonos is just a small part of the shift in everyone's behaviour. And core value questions in this context therefore need to be framed much more broadly.
And if everyone were to hypothetically switch overnight away from this model, GDP growth everywhere will not just slow down, but will go negative for a long while, leading to a corresponding drop in average income levels.
The Earth will probably heave a sigh of relief though.
In Home audio, the days when people happily used decades old kit with the same remote - where the remote was even part of the kit - are gone, swept away with the "growth based on planned obsolescence" model everywhere.
Hopefully, those holding on to their CR100s are being consistent across their consumption behaviour, as it relates to clothes, cars, homes, computers, appliances and the rest. Unfortunately, this is very hard to do for every such purchase, and Sonos is just a small part of the shift in everyone's behaviour. And core value questions in this context therefore need to be framed much more broadly.
And if everyone were to hypothetically switch overnight away from this model, GDP growth everywhere will not just slow down, but will go negative for a long while, leading to a corresponding drop in average income levels.
The Earth will probably heave a sigh of relief though.
I agree with the original poster on this topic and that this IS a different topic than "save the CR100"
I am also in nyCecilia's camp where I take offense of any company that decides when I am done using something I paid for and if I had known this was the deal I would have not purchased Sonos gear in the first place.
The discussion of Corporate morality and responsibility to their customer is certainly a valid one here.
many of my comments in the "Save the CR100" thread apply and I am not going to bother repeating myself, but I am certainly open to consider what others think.
Sonos will ultimately do what they feel is best for them, or what wont hurt them the most for sure.
if they ultimately look at the latest action as "bad for business" they could always fix it..
I am no longer a Sonos customer, just a user, until the gear can no longer serve MY purpose or Sonos allows me a choice in the Firmware I want to use.
I am also in nyCecilia's camp where I take offense of any company that decides when I am done using something I paid for and if I had known this was the deal I would have not purchased Sonos gear in the first place.
The discussion of Corporate morality and responsibility to their customer is certainly a valid one here.
many of my comments in the "Save the CR100" thread apply and I am not going to bother repeating myself, but I am certainly open to consider what others think.
Sonos will ultimately do what they feel is best for them, or what wont hurt them the most for sure.
if they ultimately look at the latest action as "bad for business" they could always fix it..
I am no longer a Sonos customer, just a user, until the gear can no longer serve MY purpose or Sonos allows me a choice in the Firmware I want to use.
I am no longer a Sonos customer, just a user, until the gear can no longer serve MY purpose or Sonos allows me a choice in the Firmware I want to use.
When you want to buy more kit in future for whatever reason, how will you make sure of not facing similar issues with it? What kit maker will treat you different? Including in this issues like lack of repair services some years down the line.
I don't have a CR 100, but I do have close to useless iPod Touch devices that are in working condition, but not supported by Apple. But when I must have a device that only Apple makes that best meets my needs, I will still buy Apple for lack of better alternatives.
I am no longer a Sonos customer, just a user, until the gear can no longer serve MY purpose or Sonos allows me a choice in the Firmware I want to use.
When you want to buy more kit in future for whatever reason, how will you make sure of not facing similar issues with it? What kit maker will treat you different? Including in this issues like lack of repair services some years down the line.
I don't have a CR 100, but I do have close to useless iPod Touch devices that are in working condition, but not supported by Apple. But when I must have a device that only Apple makes that best meets my needs, I will still buy Apple for lack of better alternatives.
Kumar,
you wrote of the "consumption behavior" of most, and I must admit that I am one of those that is capable of my own repair as I am a component level tech for over 40 years, used to own a consumer electronics repair shop, and am now an IT consultant. so technically I DO ALL my own repairs and continue to use gear that most have tossed away years ago.
for that matter I will also do my own mechanical repair and my own home construction, I realize I am not of the typical "consumption behavior" of today.
with that said, I agree that for those looking for product today, its all built to break and need replacement, software is a typical excuse to forced obsolescence, but compared to gear built 20 years ago, its not built to last.
(how funny is it that the ONE item Sonos built like a tank, and would easily run another 10 years, IS the CR100)
I will make my decisions and come to new methods as needed, I cannot say if I will be able to find an equal replacement but I would NEVER give any company that screwed me once the chance to do it again.
I can see why you still feel like you could purchase from Apple again, Apple did not "brick" your IPod Touch, so in my book, the same issue does not apply.
Sonos has taken a whole new approach to forcing the death of an item (or removing its ability to communicate with the rest of the system, same difference) , and not just allowing it to remain usable with no further improvements like your IPod Touch.
NOT giving their users any sort of choice does not give me any incentive to speak well of them.
As of July Apple is going to render ALL devices not running iOS 11 useless, including said iPod Touch.
In Home audio, the days when people happily used decades old kit with the same remote - where the remote was even part of the kit - are gone, swept away with the "growth based on planned obsolescence" model everywhere.
Hopefully, those holding on to their CR100s are being consistent across their consumption behaviour, as it relates to clothes, cars, homes, computers, appliances and the rest. Unfortunately, this is very hard to do for every such purchase, and Sonos is just a small part of the shift in everyone's behaviour. And core value questions in this context therefore need to be framed much more broadly.
And if everyone were to hypothetically switch overnight away from this model, GDP growth everywhere will not just slow down, but will go negative for a long while, leading to a corresponding drop in average income levels.
The Earth will probably heave a sigh of relief though.
Some good points for discussion there Kumar, which I was hoping that this thread would generate. Unfortunately it seems that the good old boys can't grasp the subtleties of this particular discussion and insist on trying to bookend this topic into the save the CR100 where it certainly does not belong.
Kumar mentions the shift in consumer behaviour and how that effects economic growth. Personally I am still on the old model not the new model of planned obsolescence. I cannot think of a purchase or a consumption in our household where planned obsolescence has ever been factored in. We buy into products where we can see potential for long term usage with the ability to repair or refurb as necessary . I dislike the throwaway concept and would never buy into something knowingly that is of that nature.
In my starter thread I stated that this exposure to the destruction of my property was a first for me and has changed my perception of a previously well regarded company.
I am certain that I am not alone in this perception. I can accept change and change in technology and adapt as I see fit to suit my goals as a consumer.
What I will never accept is being lied to by a company who have taken my money and have now decided that they are changing the rules to fit their goals. That action does not fit in with my road map and the lying from management gets them excluded from my future bid list.
Lets discuss the morality of a company who are happy to lie to customers . Are you comfortable buying from a company that openly lies ?
I can see why you still feel like you could purchase from Apple again, Apple did not "brick" your IPod Touch, so in my book, the same issue does not apply.
Steve, with your skills, you are well placed to keep old equipment in service, but you must know you are a rare exception. And one that is getting even more rare given the nature of design/construction of modern kit, compared to amps of yesteryear that were more easily repaired with parts that were more easily available. Sonos, as do all other makes, do not have too many like you in their target market. And I doubt you will be differently served by any other make when you decide you need more kit.
As to the iPod touch, it was being used largely as a Sonos Controller host; now I cannot so use it, because it will not access iTunes to get the latest Controller version. So, I can no longer use it in the manner. To me, someone has done the same thing to it as has been done to the CR100.
Let's start with an example when Sonos lied to you.
Perhaps you missed the battery issue .
Perhaps you also missed the bit in the starter thread where I said "Far less easy to swallow is the subterfuge of the battery non issue to cover an ulterior motive. This makes the company Sonos look untrustworthy at best "
Your understandig of the term "lie" is quite odd.
Lets discuss the morality of a company who are happy to lie to customers . Are you comfortable buying from a company that openly lies ?
To the first part, I respect your approach, and I wish I could follow it. I cannot in many cases because the old product, and I largely refer to appliances and electronics kit here, can no longer be easily repaired. And living in a world that thrives on throwaway, it isn't easy to march to a different drum where one does not have the necessary skills to do so.
I bought Sonos with no expectations of useful life from it beyond 5-10 years, given the nature of its construction and non availability of parts/service. Before that, my high end audiophile kit was, in theory, bought with longer life expectations; ironically, being a victim of the audiophile equipment churn, none was used as long as I have used Sonos kit since 2011.
But if I was to now look to buy only such products that are not of a throwaway nature, much of my purchasing would be a severe challenge. Products that will outlive me are either not available or are very expensive.
To the second part of "open lying", since I do not have the CR100, I haven't followed this subject closely enough to have identified any open lies, so I can't answer the question directly. I do know I have an iPod touch and a Sonos iPod dock that are not in use anymore because of Apple. I don't like it, but that seems to be how things are these days. From what I have seen of Sonos, they certainly seem to be doing more than Apple to maintain usability of old kit and perhaps more than many others in home audio, via ensuring backward compatibility in their new features; all of the kit that I bought from Sonos since 2011 other than the dock is fully usable and some like the play 1 continue to get new features and tweaks, free. On this subject therefore, I have no issue with Sonos even while recognising that the kit is not built to the same standards of, as an example, my now sold Quad 909 amplifier.
I do agree that Sonos is guilty in its marketing of either not telling the full story, or using slogans that contain exaggerated statements; but not more so than other makers of audio and other products. One has learnt to not believe all the marketing jazz in every such case; if I was to not buy from all such that do this, there would be almost none I could buy anything from.
Yes it may appear odd to someone who has difficulty understanding a concept because of a predisposed position.
Regardless of my understanding of the word lie. Sonos perjured themselves to their detriment by claiming there was a battery issue which they subsequently back peddled ineptly when called out on. Integrity and morality?
Why not just state what is actually happening instead of trying and failing with an untruth?
Anyway what the actual discussion is about is in the thread title, we don't want to go down the road of the CR100 thread
I
Regardless of my understanding of the word lie. Sonos perjured themselves to their detriment by claiming there was a battery issue which they subsequently back peddled ineptly when called out on. Integrity and morality?
Why not just state what is actually happening instead of trying and failing with an untruth?
Anyway what the actual discussion is about is in the thread title, we don't want to go down the road of the CR100 thread
I
To expand on the 909 amp; I bought it new in 2002 and sold it in 2014 once Sonos took over all music duties in the home. Had I kept it, it would have gone back to Quad in about 2020 for new capacitors and a general service, and would have been good for another 20 years.
I don't think I use any products that are built in that way anymore; not even cars. I certainly don't equate Sonos with Quad on this aspect, and Sonos also justifies this by being a lot cheaper than Quad.
I don't think I use any products that are built in that way anymore; not even cars. I certainly don't equate Sonos with Quad on this aspect, and Sonos also justifies this by being a lot cheaper than Quad.
That's already been discussed exhaustive in the 'Save the CR100' thread. So, why the new approach – for your amusement only?
Enter your E-mail address. We'll send you an e-mail with instructions to reset your password.