Sonos Company Ethicacy, Morality and Integrity Core Values?

Perhaps you missed the battery issue .
Your understandig of the term "lie" is quite odd.

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.


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

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.

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?
That's already been discussed exhaustive in the 'Save the CR100' thread. So, why the new approach – for your amusement only?

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 .

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.


As to the titled questions:
1. I have never used the CR100, but I find it a little hard to believe that the present model free controllers are so bad compared to it, that the lifespan of the investment in Sonos is affected. Sonos has sold millions of units since they stopped making/selling the CR100, as evidence of this.
2. Even if the lack of morality was to be stipulated, one would be cutting ones nose to spite ones face by not buying more Sonos kit for JUST this reason, unless one found some other maker that behaved differently and also offered all the Sonos features at the same price point. This also isn't like blood diamonds, surely. Or like using underaged labour in third world locations.

I can get people being annoyed because their perfectly serviceable remote is being consigned to the tech rubbish bin against their wishes. I got annoyed when Nokia discontinued a phone the day after launch and support ended 18months later. It put me off the company but I still ended up buying their products again… eventually. The Sonos One and “Alexa Enabled” could have been clearer, although I think Amazon needs to take some blame there too.

However to wish a company to fail and actively encourage that is even more immoral in my eyes. As someone who has worked for a company that has been dissolved it is a traumatic experience that I would not wish on anyone. To target Sonos when they have retired a 10 year old product, for which there are free alternatives, seems harsh in the extreme. Fine sell your kit, and don’t recommend them if asked but to go out of your way to tell others to boycott them? Surely the CR100 is not worth of that extreme a reaction?

Ah so this is just another CR100 thread then 😞

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?
That's already been discussed exhaustive in the 'Save the CR100' thread. So, why the new approach – for your amusement only?

Short memory Smilja.?
[...] Lets discuss the morality of a company who are happy to lie to customers . Are you comfortable buying from a company that openly lies ?
Let's start with an example when Sonos lied to you.

You asked me for an example of when Sonos lied. I gave you one.

I was hoping to discuss underlying reasons for decisions made and how they affect the consumer and not try to regurgitate the CR100 thread. However your request for an example of a lie to their customer base and your response to me providing the example is taking the thread straight back into the area that we should avoid.

There's no new approach for my amusement. I am far from amused. If you cannot grasp any of the concepts listed in the title of the thread and contribute meaningfully without asking for examples of, to use your own words, things that have been "discussed exhaustive" in the CR100 thread then its probably time for you to re read the posts above and try to understand the point of this thread as separate from the Save the CR100 thread.

Kumar, I agree with much of your post about the throwaway nature of consumer products these days.
I have never had to consider whether my product's life span will be ended by me or by the manufacturer before this event but now it is clear that I will have to evaluate that in future buying decisions.

I first bought Sonos in 2005 I think and have expanded it steadily since then installing in multiple homes and in different countries. When I initially bought the system ,forced obsolescence of the product by the manufacturer itself was not even considered. I like you had previously come from traditional audio systems that just trundle on regardless.
In my initial post I mentioned that this was a first for me to have a manufacturer kill its own product , which for me and others has been a disturbing occurrence raising questions that previously did not exist for me.
I don't inhabit these forums , I am only here because of an action thrust on me, previously I was a happy customer now I am not.
I accept that things move along, technology changes and Sonos must move and stay current but it seems to me that they have placed whatever the goal was in retiring the CR100 ahead of their integrity.
The long term dwellers on this board seem unable or unwilling to address that particular aspect of this debate. I don't understand the devout nature of that position and what the motivation is for such a zeal attached to a manufacturer.