This post is rather long.

Its purpose is to educate. Not specifically about a Sonos product or business model; but more so in the use of certain terms when expressing one’s opinion. This is a community where members come to learn and share their opinions/ideas. The words we use as just as important to properly convey the message; as is the message itself.

The post in question is titled “Playbar + Era 300. In that post the terms “Profit and Sustainability” were used regarding Sonos in a not so flattering manner. If you continue reading; below are my comments taken from the subject post….

….Not to fault the author; but to speak on how the comments in this thread about making the Playbar compatible with the Era 300’s; or vise versa, have (unsupportively) crossed into areas that accuse Sonos of being a “profiteer” and reneging on its pledge of “product sustainability”. Not So. You can call me a Sonos “Fanboy” if you like...that’s your prerogative.

Let’s talk about “Profit” and “Sustainability”.  First, here’s a really simplistic statement/example of “profit” that anyone should understand:

“Profit is a term that often describes the financial gain a business receives when revenue surpasses costs and expenses. For example, a child at a lemonade stand spends one quarter to create one cup of lemonade. She then sells the drink for $2. Her profit on the cup of lemonade amounts to $1.75”.

Companies have to show a profit on the goods and services they provide in order to stay in business. Profits pay salaries and fund R&D for future products. Do you really think Sonos could survive in the market had it settled on the Playbar as its premiere product achievement? BTW…that’s a rhetorical question.  

Here's a definition of sustainability; or more aptly stated as Economic Sustainability:  

“In the context of business, it refers to the efficient use of assets to maintain company profitability over time”.

Wow…is there a link between Economic Sustainability and Profit? Again, that’s a rhetorical question.

When the Playbar was developed it was reviewed by engadget as follows (click here for the full review):

“Sonos has found a sweet spot in the audio world. Its wireless technology and ability to stream music from almost any source -- be it from the cloud or local storage -- have given it considerable geek cred, yet its simple setup still offers mass appeal. Of course, none of that would matter if its systems didn't sound good, but fortunately, Sonos' Play 3 and Play 5 and its Sub have all impressed with the quality of audio they produce. The $699 Playbar is the newest member of the family, and with this product, Sonos is setting its sights squarely on the home theater market”.

 The Playbar went on to support the Sonos One (when used as surrounds) which replaced the Play 1. An example of “sustainability”; If you will given how the term has been used in this thread.

What seems to be lost (in the comments) is the understanding that all of the products mentioned in conjunction with the Playbar were developed using similar (if not the same) internal components such as:

• Chipset
• CPU
• Logic Board
• Network Interface Card (NIC)
• Memory type/allotment 

The last of the above is probably the most critical and often times the most expensive. There is a certain amount of memory required to make each speaker that Sonos designs function in concert with other components and accept updates. 

You can’t open any Sonos product and add more memory. It is finite. Designing more memory into a product than is required is expensive. Doing so can price a product out the market. Thus the product may never see the light of day. So yes…in that scenario “profit” out-ways “sustainability” as some in this thread have chosen to use the term.  

That doesn’t label Sonos as a company only concerned with profits at the expense of its customers. By the same token it doesn’t say that Sonos when designing the Era 300 was aiming to force customers to moth-ball their Playbars to purchase an Arc or Beam 2; in order to use them as surrounds. Never, mind that the Era 300 is a Dolby Atmos speaker that compliments the Arc and Beam 2 sound bars; also designed for Dolby Atmos. I could also, sarcastically say that the Ray doesn't fit as a “sustainable” product since the Era 300 isn’t compatible with it either.  

Besides the technology of the Era 300 being light years ahead of the Sonos One/SL and the Playbar; the amount of memory required for the Playbar to communicate with the Era 300 (I’d hazard to say) just isn’t there. That not withstanding such components as, Chipset, CPU and Logic Board.

One final point regarding profit and economic sustainability. Sonos continues to support products such as the original Play 5. If not with feature updates then through the S1 controller app. Many companies abandon products (reference new features and use-ability) that are no longer sold. Advancements in technologies make it unprofitable for some companies to maintain parts and/or technical support/service for products that are no longer sold. 

One would be hard pressed to find a mechanic that can properly service a 1957 Chevy; yet alone find parts. Let’s not forget the pocket transistor radio, Sony Walkman, or any number of electronic devices that still work; but are no longer supported by the manufacturer. I realize that I have a lot of history I can relate to and have followed the progression of technologies. I dare say 90% of you have probably only read about the Vietnam War in history books. But, I digress.

The bottom-line here…let’s not loosely throw references to “profit” and “sustainability” as negatives toward Sonos. Before making such accusations know the meaning and proper context in which the term(s) should be used.

EDIT:

Here’s another point on using terms and not knowing the actual meaning. I’ll not provide a link to the post so as not to cause further embarrassment to the community member. The post involved removing the Sonos logo from a product as the OP didn’t like brand names showing on product(s) they purchased.

A comment was posted wherein the poster indicated that they have a form of “Logophobia”. The poster (I’ll assume) meant the comment as a humorous play-on-words. However, Logophobia is a condition wherein the person has an irrational or disproportionate fear of words. So be careful of terms you may use (or make up).

To continue…I’m not the smartest nor the most learned regarding every aspect of today’s technology. What I do have is an extensive “historical” knowledge of technology development/advancement. My interactions with technology pre-date Apple (by many years) and also Microsoft before its Windows concept.  

The IBM System/360 unveiled in 1964 (yes, I was around as a teenager) was one of the first mainframe computers used by companies post the Korean War (“War” being a debatable description for another time). The debate as to when the term “Personal Computer” (PC) was first used and by whom to refer to a mainstream product depends upon who you talk to and/or what source is used.  

What I will add is that Apple did “Jim Jones” like marketing to distance themselves from the terminology and establish their own generic identifiers “Macbook, iMac and Mac”. PC (in the mainstream) is now referenced as any computer not under the Apple brand. However, no matter how you slice it…a Macbook, iMac or Mac are ALL personal computers (PC).

I trust you’ve found this “novella” entertaining; if not useful. I hope it was the latter.