Enthusiast I

Sonos Company Ethicacy, Morality and Integrity Core Values?

132 replies
5209 views

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.

This topic has been closed for further comments. You can use the search bar to find a similar topic, or create a new one by clicking Create Topic at the top of the page.

Show previous replies

Smilja

Sorry Kumar, but the part that you quote Sonos as saying about ignoring future upgrades came much later in the debacle after they had been rumbled as to peddling the untruth about the safety of the battery. [...]

No, it came two days (Feb. 2nd) after the 'Save the CR100' topic was created (Jan. 31th).

»And the world is like an apple whirling silently in space, Like the circles that you find in the windmills of your mind.« (›Windmills Of Your Mind‹ [1967]. Music by Michel Legrand ; English lyrics written by Alan & Marilyn Bergman)

K

Kumar

Sorry Kumar, but the part that you quote Sonos as saying about ignoring future upgrades came much later in the debacle after they had been rumbled as to peddling the untruth about the safety of the battery.

I note that you said that you had not followed the CR100 story I hope I don't see you here in the future lamenting or justifying the destruction of your ZP'S:)

I found the Sonos response that I quoted with a Feb 2 2018 date attached to it, in the three month old Save the CR 100 thread. As the best answer, obviously so nominated by the OP of the thread, and therefore it was easily found by me, saving me the trouble of reading all 115 pages there. Based on this, the Sonos quote does not seem to me to be much later in the debacle as you suggest. If there has been other communication that "peddles untruths" before the OP first post and the Sonos response on Feb 2 2018 nominated as best answer, I do not know.

If I had the CR100 and wanted to keep it operational, I now see that I would be able to do so following the "how to" steps clearly laid down by Sonos. It would be at the cost of sacrificing updates from 2018 onwards to the system, which sounds fair enough as a price to be paid if I wanted to keep a ten year + old product, not sold since 2009, in use. It means I can't have my cake and eat it too, but I don't expect to be able to do that every time. Where I can do so, it is a bonus.

If Sonos allows me the option of keeping my ZPs or other kit operational in future, ten years after my purchase dates via exercising of similar choices, I will not be lamenting - there would be no justifiable ground to do so in my book.

I therefore do not agree that Sonos has killed the CR100. The decision to do so has been left to every individual user.

When I referred to mindless ranting, it largely was with reference to posts made by some other posters on this thread.

Stuart_W

World-Class Superstar

And as far as I'm concerned this allegation the Sonos lied about there being a risk of the batteries being a fire hazard is highly dubious. It apparently comes from one user who, via telephone, claims a Sonos employee admitted there isn't a problem with the batteries.

I find it depressing that people will post in a thread questioning Sonos' ethics, morals and integrity and accuse Sonos outright of being liars. I suggest those people are hypocrites of the highest order.

You're entitled to be pissed off with Sonos but that doesn't give you the green light to behave in the exact same way that you accuse Sonos of doing. Besides, if it's good enough for you why not Sonos?

Arc + Sub (Gen 1) + 2 x Play 1/ Stereo Play 3s/ Era 100 Stereo in Kitchen, One Stereo in Bedroom, Play 1 stereo pair in Study, Play 1in Bathroom, Sonos Move 2

nyCecilia

Prominent Collaborator I

Not quite like patio furniture as you say then. Which isn't a surprise and the linked article is as old as 2003. I suspect things will have moved on to a greater recognition of sentience in animals since then.

Clearly either 1. you don't understand the meaning of *analogy* or 2. you're a lawyer or lawyer-wannabe who enjoys using logical fallacies to further their agenda. (I'm betting on 2.)

My analogy stands. SONOS took a stand on something that I own, that is in my house, and reached in and killed it against my wishes. This is morally unethical, and made me feel exactly as stated in my original analogy:

Dogs have an average lifespan of 15 years. In reality, some get sick and die sooner; some live much longer, into their 20's and even 30's. How would you feel if you brought your healthy 16 year old dog to the vet to get some flea treatment and the vet told you that he was going to be put down because he's outlived his useful lifespan? How ethically moral is it for the vet to do this against your wishes?

forum says i'm a member since 2011 but really since 2004/5 ish ZP100, ZP80, ZP120, S5 and still using CR100 daily. SAVE THE CR100!

K

Kumar

I have come to the conclusion that people who go on shouting that it was Sonos that killed the CR100 are trolls. Sonos offered an option over three months ago, on Feb 2, that would have allowed this lot to keep the CR100 in use with all the functionality that was present on it when they bought it from Sonos prior to 2009, along with many new features released free thereafter till 2018 Q1. Those that chose not to opt for that option are the ones that did the killing, not Sonos.

It does not take a lawyer to come to this obvious conclusion, just a little application of a rational mind. But it is nice to start a rant with dramatic statements like - Sonos killed my CR 100. By reaching inside my home. Dramatic and attention catching, but grossly inaccurate and a blatant misrepresentation.

It is time to stop feeding these trolls.

K

Kumar

Clearly either 1. you don't understand the meaning of *analogy* or 2. you're a lawyer or lawyer-wannabe who enjoys using logical fallacies to further their agenda. (I'm betting on 2.)

Wrong and wrong. I just happen to think straight and am not able to suffer visible logical fallacies, instead of using these to further an agenda as you seem to be clearly fond of doing.

I have come to the conclusion that people who go on shouting that it was Sonos that killed the CR100 are trolls. Sonos offered an option over three months ago, on Feb 2, that would have allowed this lot to keep the CR100 in use with all the functionality that was present on it when they bought it from Sonos prior to 2009, along with many new features released free thereafter till 2018 Q1. Those that chose not to opt for that option are the ones that did the killing, not Sonos.

It does not take a lawyer to come to this obvious conclusion, just a little application of a rational mind. But it is nice to start a rant with dramatic statements like - Sonos killed my CR 100. By reaching inside my home. Dramatic and attention catching, but grossly inaccurate and a blatant misrepresentation.

It is time to stop feeding the trolls.

K

Kumar

Clearly either 1. you don't understand the meaning of *analogy* or 2. you're a lawyer or lawyer-wannabe who enjoys using logical fallacies to further their agenda. (I'm betting on 2.)

Wrong and wrong. I just happen to think straight and am not able to suffer visible logical fallacies, instead of using these to further an agenda as you seem to be clearly fond of doing.

K

Kumar

I have come to the conclusion that people who go on shouting that it was Sonos that killed the CR100 are trolls. Sonos offered an option over three months ago, on Feb 2, that would have allowed this lot to keep the CR100 in use with all the functionality that was present on it when they bought it from Sonos prior to 2009, along with many new features released free thereafter till 2018 Q1. Those that chose not to opt for that option are the ones that did the killing, not Sonos.

It does not take a lawyer to come to this obvious conclusion, just a little application of a rational mind. But it is nice to start a rant with dramatic statements like - Sonos killed my CR 100. By reaching inside my home. Dramatic and attention catching, but grossly inaccurate and a blatant misrepresentation.

Time to move on from this silly thread.

K

Kumar

It is satisfying to start a tirade with dramatic statements like - Sonos killed my CR 100. By reaching inside my home. Dramatic and attention catching start, but also grossly inaccurate and a blatant misrepresentation and here is why:

Sonos offered an option over three months ago, on Feb 2, that would have allowed people to keep the CR100 in use with all the functionality that was present on it when they bought it from Sonos prior to 2009, along with many new features released free thereafter till 2018 Q1. Those that chose not to opt for that option are the ones that did the killing, not Sonos.

It just takes some straight thinking to come to this conclusion. No further value to add to this thread, so it is time to move on.

K

Kumar

Note for Sonos Staff: the continuing silly/incompetent moderation that either you or the Insided filter is doing here is messing up the flow of argument/conversation, as it so often does. Especially when the argument happens on a weekend where the automated filter works but the human responses needed are taking a holiday.

Will you be fixing this old matter that has probably arisen because of the equally old and unresolved spam issue at least before the decade is over?

Show more replies

Sign up

Login to the community