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.
Page 3 / 6
Userlevel 5
+5
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?
Dude if you are gonna troll this thread don't get all butt hurt like your friend jgatie when posters respond to you. If having a different opinion than you two stable genius' makes me aragonistic I'll own it.
Userlevel 7
+2
I say again, good grief. If that's all you've got, no wonder the need for an echo chamber. :8
TJRL,
now you know the word "Trolls" is quite divisive on these boards.... you could get slapped for offending and/or hurting the feelings of someone on this board....
of course the ones likely most offended will truly be the real mythological Trolls, they are not very happy being bunched with this lot.......
now go to your room.... a little time out with a CR100 and nice music should calm you down......
I say again, good grief. If that's all you've got, no wonder the need for an echo chamber. :8
Idle curiosity and the need to reinforce my cynicism about ALL corporates led me to reports about problems of unethical exploitation of labour used in the outsourced manufacture of Patagonia apparel. With a lot of talk from the company about how it is going to fix this, with comment from industry insiders to the effect that these are systemic causes in third world - or even Taiwan located - apparel manufacture, that make it very difficult to do so, if not impossible.
But why not just eliminate the entire problem in one fell swoop by relocating all manufacture to the US? Or even more, to California?! But that would eat up the profits/and need even more clever marketing to sell the same clothes at a higher price point than 100 dollars a work pant! Which US consumers will perhaps not be willing to part with, which will mean lower profits for Patagonia. So, third world outsourced manufacturing strategies, with the systemic ethical issues therein accepted as a compromise.
Also, quote:
Patagonia in fact has no factories at all: all manufacturing is contracted. I find this very odd. A company so concerned about the earth is not actually settled upon it, its business not in any place.
In a frank and thoughtful statement, Patagonia accepts that there are strong environmental arguments for localism; that manufacturing and sales ideally ought to be closely linked (http://www.patagonia.com/blog/2012/04/patagonia-clothing-made-where-how-why/). Furthermore, there is plenty of evidence that a localism which links design and manufacturing favours innovation (http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21714330-they-dont-make-em-any-more-politicians-cannot-bring-back-old-fashioned-factory-jobs), as amply demonstrated by Zara (http://www.ethicsoffashion.com/fast-fashion-localism/).
In an ironic twist, a video explaining Patagonia’s care in choosing factories shows the firm’s head of CSR, Cara Chacon, sporting an Eat Local t-shirt (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WexueycQgmY). It’s hard to see why it’s morally important to eat locally if it isn’t important to manufacture locally. Is there some important moral difference between food and clothing?
Unquote.
Cynicism reconfirmed, in spades.
But why not just eliminate the entire problem in one fell swoop by relocating all manufacture to the US? Or even more, to California?! But that would eat up the profits/and need even more clever marketing to sell the same clothes at a higher price point than 100 dollars a work pant! Which US consumers will perhaps not be willing to part with, which will mean lower profits for Patagonia. So, third world outsourced manufacturing strategies, with the systemic ethical issues therein accepted as a compromise.
Also, quote:
Patagonia in fact has no factories at all: all manufacturing is contracted. I find this very odd. A company so concerned about the earth is not actually settled upon it, its business not in any place.
In a frank and thoughtful statement, Patagonia accepts that there are strong environmental arguments for localism; that manufacturing and sales ideally ought to be closely linked (http://www.patagonia.com/blog/2012/04/patagonia-clothing-made-where-how-why/). Furthermore, there is plenty of evidence that a localism which links design and manufacturing favours innovation (http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21714330-they-dont-make-em-any-more-politicians-cannot-bring-back-old-fashioned-factory-jobs), as amply demonstrated by Zara (http://www.ethicsoffashion.com/fast-fashion-localism/).
In an ironic twist, a video explaining Patagonia’s care in choosing factories shows the firm’s head of CSR, Cara Chacon, sporting an Eat Local t-shirt (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WexueycQgmY). It’s hard to see why it’s morally important to eat locally if it isn’t important to manufacture locally. Is there some important moral difference between food and clothing?
Unquote.
Cynicism reconfirmed, in spades.
The lesson for Sonos perhaps is to just implement product strategies without offering technical reasons for these, and making sure that none of these strategies violate any legal requirements in every country where the products are sold. One can never make everyone happy; one has to choose a business value maximisation strategy and then execute it as well as one can. Making a lot more customers happy than that are made unhappy is the best outcome to be expected, and is also an unavoidable outcome of running any business.
Those that are unhappy will move to another alternative, and that consequent loss of business is the price to be paid if any strategy optimisation is to be done.
Those that are unhappy will move to another alternative, and that consequent loss of business is the price to be paid if any strategy optimisation is to be done.
What exactly is the purpose of this thread beyond just ranting then? And I am not sure that a company that sells work pants for over a hundred dollars is as innocent as it claims to be. For instance:
"But North Face and Patagonia are both wrestling with a more consequential paradox, one that is central to contemporary consumerism: we want to feel morally good about the things we buy. And both companies have been phenomenally successful because they have crafted an image that is about more than just being ethical and environmentally friendly, but about nature, adventure, exploration – ideas more grandiose than simply selling you a jacket, taking your money and trying not to harm the earth too much along the way. But the paradox is that by presenting themselves this way, they are selling a lot more jackets. In other words, both companies are selling stuff in part by looking like they’re not trying too hard to sell stuff, which helps them sell more stuff – and fills the world with more and more stuff."
Italics added for emphasis; IMO, just clever marketing.
"But North Face and Patagonia are both wrestling with a more consequential paradox, one that is central to contemporary consumerism: we want to feel morally good about the things we buy. And both companies have been phenomenally successful because they have crafted an image that is about more than just being ethical and environmentally friendly, but about nature, adventure, exploration – ideas more grandiose than simply selling you a jacket, taking your money and trying not to harm the earth too much along the way. But the paradox is that by presenting themselves this way, they are selling a lot more jackets. In other words, both companies are selling stuff in part by looking like they’re not trying too hard to sell stuff, which helps them sell more stuff – and fills the world with more and more stuff."
Italics added for emphasis; IMO, just clever marketing.
I don't frequent forums generally , it has been interesting and I hoped to learn something about business and decisions and technology moving forward.
I have learnt from experience not to have these expectations these days, and I now choose price points taking limited lifespans into account.
I live in India, a major market for even folks like Mercedes and BMW. Whose expensive cars do not give trouble free service in our environment for more than 3-4 years. And the electronics/mechatronic elements are very complex, and can only be fixed via expensive replacements - not repairs. I would never buy any of their products, because good old Toyota is also available at much lower price points for purchase and repairs and functionally does 90% of what fancier cars can do on our roads. In the case of Sonos, price point differences between a play 1 unit and cheaper throwaway kit isn't significant for my pocket over a ten year lifespan, so buying Sonos where the application needs are met isn't a problem for me.
I don't like the general situation, but what's to be done other than to learn to live with it and deal with it in a pragmatic way? On the ethics of this behaviour, my view is that one can't pick on any single company, sellers and buyers are equally responsible for this state of affairs; the fancy cars also sell here to folks that are quite happy buying a new car every four years, as an example.
To the second part of the quote above, any expectation that Sonos would participate here in a way that will help you learn was misplaced. I doubt any other company would so participate either. And other than Sonos, I doubt anyone else here can contribute significantly to meet your stated expectations.
Userlevel 7
+22
The thread has no subject
Nope, just read it again. I'm pretty sure you equated the reasons behind switching forum software to a morality issue.
I say again, good grief. If that's all you've got, no wonder the need for an echo chamber. :8
I say again, good grief. If that's all you've got, no wonder the need for an echo chamber. :8
Yes I can - I gave an example earlier in this very thread (about this very forum!).
You are equating switching forum software with a question of ethics and morality? Seriously?
Good grief. :8
No "seriously" I was not. The trust of my earlier post had nothing to do with forum software.
You asked
I gave you a specific example with the facts of an actual incident without speculation (but with a real question to be considered at the end) and you are unhappy that I am not an "echo chamber" of your views. - "Good grief" no pleasing some people! :P
Deep breath and back to the subject of the thread (if you can).
Why am I not the least surprised that you and jgatee would be ok with this. I bet you would even thank them for the voucher and opportunity to spend more money as you both pretty much argued in the other thread. Religious devotion. Laying the ground work for brickening #2 are we? :8
Actually, it was many of the other posters in that thread who were begging to spend more money on a replacement. If you like, I can post links.
By the way, what other thread is that? Surely not the one you have tried hard to distance this one from?
Start "discussion" topic expecting an echo chamber of like minded people, complain when an actual discussion breaks out, attack those who do not echo in the echo chamber. Lather, rinse, repeat.
Yes I can - I gave an example earlier in this very thread (about this very forum!).
You are equating switching forum software with a question of ethics and morality? Seriously? I am the worst fan of InSided you will find here and even I don't think it has anything to do with ethics or morality.
Good grief. :8
Userlevel 7
+22
Being an antogosnit against helpful members of this community doesn’t make the community members loyalists it makes the antagonist the problem.
I have tried as hard as I can to distance this thread from the Save the CR100 thread. Unfortunately your reference to the save the CR100 again takes us back into the territory that I made efforts to avoid from the starter post.
Your previous post mentions a voucher enabling a purchase for a modern day equivalent of a ZP. Are you in addition to being a benevolent ,charitable, delusional , guidance person also a clairvoyant??
I see no reason why Sonos would retire a ZP unit without a similar compensation to that offered for the last retired unit. You didn't answer my very pertinent question on this matter, and instead decided to hurl personal insults. So much for a "discussion".
Yes I can - I gave an example earlier in this very thread (about this very forum!).
Chris wrote:
I buy very little I expect will last me over 10 years.
Hi Chris
Looking at your tag line that you seem proud of, there are many others that own equipment that dates back way further than you despite your Sonus disciple position. I would counsel that others have greater expectation from major purchases than you. It would seem that the religious fervour attached to this brand by the long term dwellers of this forum naturally overcomes common sense. I am glad that you have something to cling to , I don't frequent forums generally , it has been interesting and I hoped to learn something about business and decisions and technology moving forward.
This hasn't happened for me , but I have learned that when you have a pre disposed group like exists on this forum there is little to be gained in discussion.
The most interesting thing is most likely that Sonus management who will read this stuff will gain more intellectually from the people who discuss the serious issues rather than the blind allegiance exhibited by the handful of people who inhabit this wasteland.....
I buy very little I expect will last me over 10 years.
Hi Chris
Looking at your tag line that you seem proud of, there are many others that own equipment that dates back way further than you despite your Sonus disciple position. I would counsel that others have greater expectation from major purchases than you. It would seem that the religious fervour attached to this brand by the long term dwellers of this forum naturally overcomes common sense. I am glad that you have something to cling to , I don't frequent forums generally , it has been interesting and I hoped to learn something about business and decisions and technology moving forward.
This hasn't happened for me , but I have learned that when you have a pre disposed group like exists on this forum there is little to be gained in discussion.
The most interesting thing is most likely that Sonus management who will read this stuff will gain more intellectually from the people who discuss the serious issues rather than the blind allegiance exhibited by the handful of people who inhabit this wasteland.....
Userlevel 7
+22
Whatever turn it into to whatever you want - as normal just trying to be an antagonist on this board. I am not specifically talking about Sonos ... when in fact Sonos has held steadfast to much older equipment. So thanks for validating how well Sonos is keeping me current.
Hi Chris
Looking at your tag line that you seem proud of, there are many others that own equipment that dates back way further than you despite your Sonus disciple position. I would counsel that others have greater expectation from major purchases than you. It would seem that the religious fervoura tavched
I have tried as hard as I can to distance this thread from the Save the CR100 thread. Unfortunately your reference to the save the CR100 again takes us back into the territory that I made efforts to avoid from the starter post.
Your previous post mentions a voucher enabling a purchase for a modern day equivalent of a ZP. Are you in addition to being a benevolent ,charitable, delusional , guidance person also a clairvoyant??
Why am I not the least surprised that you and jgatee would be ok with this. I bet you would even thank them for the voucher and opportunity to spend more money as you both pretty much argued in the other thread. Religious devotion. Laying the ground work for brickening #2 are we? :8
Userlevel 7
+22
I buy very little I expect will last me over 10 years.
If the ZP units were bricked by Sonos, wouldn't the majority of people be satisfied with the fact there is a modern day equivalent they could use their voucher to buy? After all, I kept reading in the CR100 thread that if they offered a modern hard button controller that was, sturdy, waterproof, and had other features like the CR100, then people wouldn't be upset and would be lining up to buy them.
Page 3 / 6
Enter your username or e-mail address. We'll send you an e-mail with instructions to reset your password.