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

T

TJRL

Renowned Enthusiast II

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 Specifics, facts, actual incidents; no speculation please.
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).

7x CR100, 2x CR200, 5x SP100, 1x ZP80, 7x ZP100, 1x iPod Dock, 1x Boost, 4x Play 1, 3x Play 3, 2x Play 5, 1x PlayBar & 1x Sub.

jgatie

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

Chris

Lead Maestro

The thread has no subject

Respect the Queue (2)Move (3)Beam (1) Era100 (2)ARC (1)SonosOne (1)Playbar (4)Play5 (4)Play1 (3)Play3 (1)Port (2)Connect (1) Roam (2) Ace (1)Connect:Amp (4)Sonos Amp (1)Sub + (9) Echo + Smartthings; (2)Play)

K

Kumar

I would counsel that others have greater expectation from major purchases than you.

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.

A

Amgwanagitbuti

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.Corporate ethics vary. And its values start at the top. I would confidently say that Patagonia's Yves Chouinard would not have green-lighted anything resembling Sonos' recent misdirection regarding Li battery "safety". The company was caught foisting FUD in order to further a product line decision about which they chose not to be transparent. Whether anybody from Sonos participates in the thread is irrelevant IMO.

K

Kumar

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.

K

Kumar

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.

K

Kumar

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.

T

TJRL

Renowned Enthusiast II

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. :8Not going to feed the trolls.

7x CR100, 2x CR200, 5x SP100, 1x ZP80, 7x ZP100, 1x iPod Dock, 1x Boost, 4x Play 1, 3x Play 3, 2x Play 5, 1x PlayBar & 1x Sub.

stevecomp3

Enthusiast II

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. :8Not going to feed the trolls.

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......

(8) CR100, (2) CR200, (2) ZP80, (6) ZP100, (2) Play5, (1) Play1 paid for and maintained with my own money, No one has the right to tell me I need to throw it away!

Show more replies

Sign up

Login to the community