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 6 / 6
All the conversations here throw up in sharp relief one I had a few months ago with a savvy member here on the subject of the irritatingly frequent controller updates that Sonos puts forth these days for what is just a home audio system at the end of the day. He had explained how he had set up his multi zone local NAS based system so that it was immune from these Sonos antics, by denying the internet and therefore Sonos any access to any parts of it and using it thereby in the manner he bought it, as a stable home audio system for many years now. Obviously, it in turn had no access to the net and he was fine with that state of affairs; neither had he any need to buy more Sonos kit for his home. It isn't something that I would like to emulate, using internet music services as I do, but it was a viewpoint to respect, for being supported by effective actions and not just words and rants.
I can't recall if the CR100/200 were part of his set up, but if they were I am sure all this noise and heat over the CR100 would not be even a small cloud on his horizon.
I can't recall if the CR100/200 were part of his set up, but if they were I am sure all this noise and heat over the CR100 would not be even a small cloud on his horizon.
And a question addressed to the community regulars only:
Suppose someone was to choose the Sonos explained option of keeping the CR100 alive, apart from the battery issue, what would be the downsides that will be faced? What dire things will happen if someone was to choose to not get any further updates? I can understand adding new units will not be possible, but what else?
Suppose someone was to choose the Sonos explained option of keeping the CR100 alive, apart from the battery issue, what would be the downsides that will be faced? What dire things will happen if someone was to choose to not get any further updates? I can understand adding new units will not be possible, but what else?
Now that I have found them, his exact words quoted below, that explains the above in his own words, from one that has chosen to get off the Sonos upgrade path for good:
"In this case I like the hardware the way it was designed, fit for its original purpose. I resent any company removing features I use in order to implement features I don't want without my permission. Especially on hardware I own.
But I am content to keep the system, preserved, walled off from the internet. I am seperate from Sonos now, I have purchased my last hardware.
Leave my system intact. I see no reason for it to degrade outside of hardware failure and as the owner of many ZP80's and CR100's I am quite adept at repair.
That's all I'm asking for...to be left alone."
So he does have CR100s as I expected, and isn't raving about losing them because - he isn't going to lose them. But he does not want any new features either, so he understands that he can't have his cake and eat it as well by wanting the Cr100 to work, but also wanting everything else Sonos does to enhance the system after April 2018 to also do so.
As I said, this isn't something I would do, but I can see the rational and clear thinking in his behaviour, something that seems missing in many posts on this thread.
Userlevel 7
+21
Yep, definitely another CR100 thread.
Userlevel 7
+17
I never realised Tesla has the ability to remotely kill their cars.
The story involves a company that buys insurance write-offs, repairs and then sells them on. The written off Tesla was bought like any other car for £15K, repaired and sold on.
Later on the new owner had the car remotely killed by Tesla as It was reported as an insurance write off ...
The story involves a company that buys insurance write-offs, repairs and then sells them on. The written off Tesla was bought like any other car for £15K, repaired and sold on.
Later on the new owner had the car remotely killed by Tesla as It was reported as an insurance write off ...
You’re right I do not have to accept it, but when the ‘do you want to upgrade?’ box appears, there’s no reference to the fact that by choosing to update you are about to brick some of your hardware. In the case of the CR100,these were £350 boxes back in the day so they’re not cheap. Also, if you do end up updating Sonos refuse to let you downgrade back to a working version either.. finally, there’s no option to opt out of the update, you have to ensure no one in your household presses the update button either by taking action such as locking down your network or relying on everyone (including your children) remembering to not press update on any of your sonos controllers or tablet controllers... this has done in a way that leaves a sour taste in the mouth. If sonos had made the update process highlight that it was about to brick the controller and it gave you an option to opt out of future updates such that existing functionality was maintained I think most people would have been happy with this, but they didn’t.
Sonos did send out emails regarding the CR100, correct? Still you have point regarding specifying the features changes for upgrades. I do not that that would stop someone from still upgrading accidently though.
Interesting analogy here, one with many parallels... I do have an echo dot and would be annoyed if existing functionality was withdrawn at any time in the future as the packaging did not say it was a time limited product. However, I don’t expect all new functionality to work in finitum as hardware does move on. The other difference is that an echo dot is a £40 device, not something that people have spend £1000’s on over the years - this is a factor as well in my opinion.
Agree that cost is a factor. In some way, I think that is part of the reason Sonos choose to do it this way. Many other companies will just put an entire product line to pasture. Sonos 1.0 is dead, everything is 2.0 going forward. However, because this is a whole home product where people are investing a lot and intend to add on products in the future, having no new functionality when it's technically possible and having to scrap everything they have to new stuff that does pretty much what the old stuff does...they wouldn't be that happy.
Disagree on this point. If sonos had provided options to avoid the update, instructions as to how to prevent the update hitting and they provided a downgrade path for those who had accidentally accepted the update then I’d have accepted this as fair and moral. The fact is they did not provide any advice as to how to prevent the update and they only referenced sonos community generated instructions how to achieve this after a lot of bad feeling being vented on the boards.
Well, when it asks if you want to update now, you say no. I don't know what other instructions would be required. As far as a downgrade path, that implies that Sonos is going to support multiple software versions. Then, for the next upgrade, another group of people what their favorite version supported because they like the black background over the white, or vice versa. It's opening up a potential can of worms. A common problem with IT support, as I imagine you are familiar with. I personally work with Oracle ebusiness, where pretty much every customer is pretty much on their own unique version. It's a nightmare trying to get good support.
Thanks for the decent reasoned response though !!
likewise.
Userlevel 7
+17
On the save CR100 thread, someone reported that if you try to update above 8.4, a warning box appears warning you that the CR100's will no longer work if you carry on with the update, although no one from sonos has confirmed it.
Page 6 / 6
Enter your username or e-mail address. We'll send you an e-mail with instructions to reset your password.