End of Software Support - Clarifications

So apparently I have one amp that is legacy and one that’s not.  How does that work?  Also the 30% discount just makes it cost the same as what I bought the original amp for.  I get that new one has more power, but if I needed more power I wouldn’t have purchased it… so not really feeling like a discount. 

Also by increasing the MSRP by 10% right before you notify everyone of the 30% discount off MSRP is stupid.  Since the street price is 10% MSRP they are basically offering a 10% discount to upgrade and brick my old amp in order to not have my entire system unusable at some point in the future or have to remove a zone from my system to maintain functionality.

Why is Sonos requiring the product to be bricked anyway?  I get that this is intended to be an upgrade but a much better solutions would have been to offer a discount on a new item if you owned a qualifying item.  Let me buy the new item and then find a spot of the old one that is outside of my ecosystem.  Maybe I put it up at the cabin where it won’t matter, maybe I give it to my kid for his dorm room or maybe I have a spot in my house where being legacy is just fine. 

Also  how about offering the 30% off of the price from a couple weeks ago? or raise it to 40% to cover the difference.  It’s terrible for a group that was all about brand loyalty.  These things are expensive.  More expensive than similar systems.  Why they have gotten the premium price is due to the “build your system over time” add which makes it a little more reasonable and the ability to work together.  

So my suggestion.

1. Don’t force the item to be bricked at all.  Let the item continue to be used but let folks upgrade the specific components to get the functionality they were expecting.  These are you EXISTING customer.  Why screw with them, your own investor calls cite how important we are to the bottom line (something like over 33% of existing customer add to their system every year) for you and that’s discounting the word of mouth contribution that get net new folks onto the system.  Actually reward your existing customer base.  If you didn’t force the bricking then 10% off of street price (which is really what the current 30% off MSRP equates to compared to the price a month ago) is at least something.  You aren’t forcing anyone off.  You are giving a discount to get your system fully functional with non-legacy components and you leave us with components we can use stand alone or potentially give to others to get them into the ecosystem.
2. OR Up the discount.  50% would be more in line with having to brick a component.  Bottom line is up it so that I’m getting more than a 10% discount to brick a perfectly good item

Not sure by ‘stuff’.    Don’t think I care to debate it any way.  This has drifted off from the point I was making.

I don’t know the innerworkings of Sonos code and what sort of firmware matches are required in order for certain functions to work.  I can’t claim that is poorly written or exceptionally written.  From my experience, I’ve seen code I thought was poorly written that actually turned out to be necessary and rather clever after further understanding and inspection.  I’ve also seen code that looked poorly written that actually was poorly written.

Sonos has stated that they will fix these sorts of issues within the limits of the hardware.  I get your point thought that your expectation is that code should be written to just make it work, with more modern hardware carrying the load for the legacy hardware.  I don’t know that I agree with that, but I see the point.

And it’s your choice to do that.  In many cases, that is the best option. I also have a single legacy product still in use, and I’ve debated whether I need that room to be a part of my Sonos system.  I have seen many people assume that company X or company Y is a better option for them without really considering the details, history of that company, and all that, just because they are currently upset without Sonos.  Having made similar mistakes myself in the past, I hope people make their choices with cooler heads and not simply just to ‘stick it to Sonos’.

Two times, as far as I can count - and the first two incarnations were used by a very few devices only - the current third version is integrated with a long list of products.

I believe that only way for SONOS now is to take the initiative to run with their system as open source, that will give them the initiative back, sort of setting the standard for multi room speakers Open source will sort fo force the competition in the same way over time.

First one out will have the advantage.

But I’am not so confident that they are so brave and belive in their system so much.

This could help bring some tranparency to their plans and help mitigate the situation, but they still need to promise what Yamaha does with their Musiccast

Hmm, crickets… Yup, didn’t think there would be many.

Wkelkel’s situation was either very unique or he’s a shill for Sonos (only a recent poster). Either way management’s lack of follow-up in the press, directly with impacted long-term/loyal/brand evangelists, and on these forums is telling none the less. 

Meanwhile my family and friends are also watching this from afar and while they might not be posting, they believe Sonos in no longer a good company to do business with (and I was the one who convinced them Sonos was the way to go… yikes). 

From a sage Professor at UW business school - “It’s the customers you don’t hear from that often just go away.  The few customers who complain are giving you important information that you need to heed while doing you a great service by providing it (as long as you don’t take it personally).” 

In my circle, which includes people that I have recommended investing in Sonos whole house systems since 2005 approx ,with hard wired integrated systems to their specific homes,  people are not understanding why it now looks like their system days are numbered.

These people bought into a system, spending large sums of money and employing AV resellers /Installers in the process to effect a system that simply worked.

If their system ends up not doing what they bought and paid for it to do, no end of tech geek gibber/knowhow that is presented here is going to convince them to continue with  Sonos.

There are a number of 10,000 - 15,000 post people that frequent this forum that devalue the comments that actual users, as opposed to the biased opinions that the disciples make . 

Sonos tested the waters with the de-activation of the CR100 ...met little real opposition because of the small numbers of remaining CR100 owners measured against a longer term aim of planned obsolescence.

Unfortunately, as Sonos success progressed based on simple numbers  sold , there are many more owners with a dog in the hunt regarding future obsolescence. What was easy with the bricking of the CR100 is not going to be so easy with the latest round.

All the disciples present on this forum have been remarkably quiet considering their input on the CR100 thread, Sonos no doubt monitor the threads on their own Forum and may have been influenced by the small numbers of CR100 owners expressing their disappointment at the bricking of the CR100  and the input from the long term dwellers of this forum. That most likely their only/easiest way of measuring potential backlash at that time.

Comments were made regarding numbers of unique posters in the CR100 thread by the 10,000 -15,000 post guys, a small number of very vocal posters apparently, that were dismissed  for a variety of reasons  for expressing dismay at the retiral of the CR100.

What a surprise here we are again , same situation , but many more people unhappy with the prospects that Sonos are proposing due to larger sales = larger number of unhappy people = even more larger number of people never even going to consider Sonos. 

Maybe time to find a new church to worship at.

This is very well said, and I agree.  I also can see Sonos’ side of things.  They have made some critical mistakes in the past and obviously lately with the emails.  Developing the software and hardware without a clear vision was a mistake.  Developing the software which requires the same version on very different products in a system was a mistake.  Making different versions of products that look exactly the same, are named the same,  but have different internals was a mistake.  Someone at Sonos (most likely developers) saw this coming a long time ago.  Ignoring those warnings was a mistake, and they apparently put it off until it’s at critical mass.

Having said that, I understand that future updates which are out of Sonos’ control will push the code over the line on the legacy devices. They can’t be supported forever. 

Frankly I’m disgusted with the whole situation.  They will have to do something different - create a device that allows modern and legacy devices remain in a group, or change/rewrite the code.  

There seems to be a debate which system is better, Yamaha sonos or other .As I pointed out many pages ago all these systems is prone to being dropped by the manufacturers. Your be better off getting a dedicated device to stream and output locally to the sonos devices. No waste at all then and sonos doesn’t get another penny from me. 

Difficult for me to think that a tech company enjoying such a high reputation would flush all approval down the toilet so arrogantly without the slightest concern for your loyal customers. I can’t imagine that you didn’t think to offer an add on device to existing legacy products that bring said devices up to par with your new products. I would have been grateful for that option or something similar. What you have done is announce to the world that you just can’t trust SONOS. To be fair, since the clarification has come out I’m satisfied for now but Sonos has lost my trust. I never wanted a 30% discount. I just wanted a product with a name brand I could trust. 

A few things. 

SONOS trialled the 30% upgrade offer in November. I recycled a Play:5 gen1 and got 30% off a beam 5.1 setup - I was not forced in to a like for like upgrade. Therefore it was about increasing sales. I listened to the earnings call and the smart people in Goldman Sachs et al did not askk to many questions about that.  SONOS knew that people were happy to brick/recycle a product to get a 30% upgrade. The did not just drop this out of the sky. The policy is to move to ;modern’ products whatever the damage. There are various ways that they could have solved/soften/mitigated this response we see now. They chose this course of action deliberately. If they did not then we have some serious idiots in the boardroom. 

They should have said - we are moving to a new ‘modern’ system and you can get a like for like replacement with a 50% discount when you return your legacy product to us. We will then refurb/check then and resell as a SONOS Legacy product - call it SONOS classic or something. You now have two customer bases. One who can get into SONOS cheaply and one who move on to the modern system. Eventually you convert the Legacy people to Modern over time. Natural wastage will reduce the number of people you piss off to a small number compared to now. Those will 70% legacy products stick with Legacy and those with mostly Modern stick with SONOS PLUS or SONOS V2 - and publish your new offerings at that point, be it Dolby ATMOS or more voice stuff (this is what I think they game plan is)

Offer some hope for the future. We are doing this because Modern products are going to be so great. You can keep the legacy stuff and we will support it but the future is looking amazing for those in the SONOS plus arena. 

I have just packed up my 5.1 bean to return and they are going to send me a Play:5 gen 1 which gets me back to where I was when I traded up in November. I told then I would not have bought he 5.1 beam setup had I know about LegacyGate.

I have told them I won’t buy or recommend SONOS any more.