End of Software Support - Clarifications

They do not even deserve 1*

(starting a new topic here because every other chat relating to the core topic has been closed for comment - nice)

I bought my Sonos Product new in 2014. The end of software updates / end of support suggests it’s legacy products between 2005 and 2011, but mine is included, even though it was bought new in 2014. That’s a contradiction. So Sonos sold me what they knew was outdated non future-proof product after a date they later use to define “legacy and outdated” on the basis of those products being based on tech that cannot handle new innovation.

So why was Sonos product sold in 2014 not already upgraded to newer hardware that will then not suffer from being bracketed with older tech from 2005 to 2011?

In my lingo, that 2014 product is not fit for purpose (because it’s being bracketed with product from 2005). That statement, in retail law, justifies a full refund. That’s how clear cut the bad behaviour from Sonos is on this issue.

I see the CEO has admitted Sonos did not get this right. If this is really true, where’s the follow up email to the one I received 21st January telling me the original email is wrong and everything is going to be fine?

Iain

The way this consumer anger is going, Sonos might not get an opportunity to sell any fresh & exciting products if the brand continues to self-devalue in the way it has in the last 72 hours.

It’s a situation of Sonos’ own making. 

Some people have spent thousands. 

What do you expect people to do?

Roll over so customers can go through the same rinse & repeat in another 5 Years time (or less), when it’s decreed expensive equipment is outdated & ‘legacy’?

There is no real information, because Sonos hasn’t decided on the information, or more likely it has but is keeping it’s customers in the dark as it’s going to cost them.

That’s the issue.

I don’t think at any point I’ve said to “roll over”, and I think your reply here is illustrative of the hysteria that some customers have whipped themselves up into in how you’ve taken what I wrote and completely blown it out of proportion, but spamming this thread with massive images and repeated requests for discounts when what customers more generally need is clarification and information on what they are doing about split systems, isn’t helping other customers.

I have been living in a SONOS bubble for years. Thanks to all the posters for opening my eyes to ALL the terrific alternatives. My favorite so far is Yamaha and their Multicast technology, even with SONOS’ stupid 30% rebate offer, Yamaha looks like a better option.
Have to mention the Audio Pro LINK 1. Replaces a connect for $129.

Let the research begin. 
So long SONOS suckers.

I quite agree. Forget about upgrading lets keep what we have working (as is does). Even huge discounts mean we all have to give Sonos MORE money to keep what we already have. And in 5 years you’ll be forced to do the same, and 5 years after that!

Lets put pressure on them to work a long term solution such as a web based controller - with an API so others can create apps that function on future devices - so legacy systems can continue to work for many years until the hardware fails.

It’s been said 70% might ease things, NO IT WONT this was sold as a hi fi system so should last until it dies, not because of updates and features I don’t want

IMO, SONOS needs to go back to basics to understand what they are selling and why the devices are purchased. In summary, the products are amplifiers and speakers that people are buying to render sound in their property.

If, after investing thousands to have a ‘whole home system’, who wants to be told X years down the line that because one of their amplifiers has failed they are now having to split their ‘whole home system’ into separate zones – the exact opposite to what the system was sold as being capable of and intended to do. It does not take much imagination to see that over time, you end up with a very expensive individual zone (aka room) solution as/when separate components fail and need replacing.

The whole issue, again IMO, revolves around the forced software upgrades that caused a similar, though smaller scale furore (though a lot of post pages) when SONOS decided to brick perfectly good controllers (the CR100s) a while ago – at that time it was up to individuals to find way to retain the devices if they wanted. At least there appears to have been some learning from that debacle.

The way the system is being developed is leading to incredible waste. I understand the units cannot be sold on if the upgrade option is taken because they are ‘bricked’ by SONOS software turning them into unnecessary landfill – the least green option I can think of.

You do not have to be a genius to see that creating a system where every device within the system constantly needs updating to match all the rest is a flawed solution. The primarily purpose of these devices is to deliver sound to a room. I still use speakers and amplifiers that are over 30 years old and they still perform fine – in fact they form part of my SONOS system via ZP80s. I don’t believe users expect things such as speakers and amplifiers to have a short life span.

Surely it would be better to keep the processing at amplifier/speaker level thin (simple) and use a ‘SONOS Hub’ type solution whereby the main processing and upgrades can be centrallised. A ‘SONOS’ protocol could be used to communicate between all the devices. Any external protocol changes would then impact the interface device - the hub, rather than every device in the system.

If significant changes happen in the market place where the communication between the ‘hub’ and the speakers/amplifiers change (voice-controlled speakers maybe), then a new ‘hub’ could provide the extra processing whilst still retaining communication with the legacy products – by implication it would be a prerequisite to an upgrade but that looks a lot more palatable IMO.

SONOS was sold as a whole home solution that could deliver the same or different sound to every room in which it was installed. It was not sold on the basis that it would be less than that over time, unless you ripped out all the old kit and replaced it with new. Come on SONOS, engineer a solution that delivers what you promised without the compromises you are now foisting on your customers, not to mention your complete disregard for green issues we are facing.

Like many others I have spent thousands on a Sonos system that was supposed to grow with my needs. My reward for loyalty? Spend even more thousands to update my system and have salt rubbed into the wounds by not only offering a patheic discount on an already expensive item, but to have my ‘out of date’ equipment taken away and rendered useless. Double whammy. I get the honour of paying lots for my equipment to become obsolete.

If the last pragraph of the CEO’s staement is true, then Sonos need to look hard at this as they would not exist without loyal customers. A like for like swap programme would be better.Someone in the PR department needs to look hard at these words and realise that putting out corporate statements that they think is the right hting to do, is not the same as actually doing something to apologise for this giant own goal. Give your so called loyal customers replacement products for our out of date equipment, but don’t insult them by charging them for your shortcomings.

I love Sonos, and have recommended them to friends and family but action like this makes you wonder why I bother and will warn anyone against their products now. The ball is in Sonos’ court. Backup your words wth actual deeds and get your customers back on side if you want a future growing business. Loyalty works both ways.

Having read the latest “clarification” and apology, I am even more convinced that I will never buy another Sonos product ever!

All we have is confirmation that the bricking is going ahead combined with platitudes that amount to “sorry if that wasn’t clear enough in the previous communications”.

Only a fool would buy Sonos kit now or upgrade their Sonos system - how long before your next “investment” becomes a brick?

I don’t buy the argument that hardware is the issue here, streaming sound is inherently easy, straightforward and low on hardware\software requirements.

The issue seems to be poor software design\architecture, combined with a total lack of desire on the part of Sonos to just make their system work. It’s just software and not very complicated software at that.

To break the system by preventing in-sync broadcast sound across old and newer speakers on the same network, is to break the whole raison d'être for Sonos - without this Sonos is not Sonos.

To break newer speakers by not providing updates because you use older speakers on your network is frankly ludicrous, illogical and unforgivable.

To break older speakers by not providing updates to maintain API’s for streaming is disgusting - these are not cheap disposable items. We expect speakers to last, and the environmental impact of making perfectly good speakers defunct should not be overlooked.

To deliberately brick speakers in return for a discount against new speakers is shameful and the environmental damage caused by this deliberate throwing away and destruction of working speakers should be an object lesson in how not to do things for other companies.

On so many levels Sonos is letting itself, its customers and the environment down.

It is clear this was planned\thought about for sometime from the reports to investors, and its clear there is no change of heart and that the plan will continue.