Trade up scheme

I’m not concerned about my Gen 2 Play 5, it has the newer radio and far more memory than the products that were declared legacy. Even if Sonos released a Gen 3 tomorrow I’d have a minimum of five years of full support on it.

Only issue with the Gen 2 versus the Gen 1 is the loss of the headphone jack, that sucked until I came up with another solution.

Imagine a car manufacturer bricks your car and it is only 4 years old, that would suck. If Sonos doesn’t go through with this new program. Can I get my Play5 reactivated for a fee, since I purchased new speakers only because they said they would not update the speakers anymore. That would be a good idea.

Well, seems a lot has changed since you wrote this email! 

Sonos removed the ability to play from my iPhone - an absolute key feature for me. I would NOT have bought my system without this which completely changed the way I interacted with the system which I had bought for my home and my office. I now hardly use either which has made me consider selling them…...that was until Sonos decided to brick old models so now I cant even do that as the used market has collapsed. Fact is people dont trust the brand now. Fact is people bought a hi fi and hi fi traditionally is kept for years and years. Fact is I was happy with my system just the way it was. Fact is that Sonos has, uninvited, stepped in and ruined my use of a system that has costs me thousands. 

If sonos abandon selling to legacy community, the value of your old stuff might increase as locked down owners want to add things…..long shot…..

It seems that New Zealand’s Consumer organisation agrees with you. An article appears in their latest magazine and online here.

It’s hard to imagine how Sonos could have generated worse world wide publicity even if they had tried.

The whole thing is a huge insult to the loyal customers that were there first to help Sonos become an industry leader.  I love Sonos, I think 99% of us do but 30% trade-up allowance?  My Play 5’s still sound awesome and work just fine. 

There are grounds for legal action as buyers were never informed of any lifespan of Sonos products. 

Some have tried to defend Sonos by making comparisons to upgrading to new phones, “it’s just like upgrading your phone to get new features, the old Sonos devices won’t work so you have to upgrade”.  What? That’s completely irrelevant as the phone companies and carriers have been perfectly clear to consumers about future upgrades to take advantage of technical advancement, BUT you are not forced to upgrade to use your device as old as it may be.  My father still uses his iPhone 4 that’s over ten years old.  I tell him, “Dad we should upgrade your phone”, he says, “why, it works just fine”.  I try it and it’s painful to use, I think he should upgrade, but again, he’s not forced to upgrade, forced to pay to play. 

It’s clear Sonos has a scaling and compatibility issue to address but I don’t think it’s intentional or a conspiracy to drive sales of new products.  I think they honestly didn’t know at the time that the cutting edge products they sold and we paid a premium for, would, in their view, become obsolete. 

The bottom line is that the devices are not obsolete, they work just fine, they still make the same sound as when purchased and they still connect seamlessly to a Sonos network. So they should continue to work but making devices backward compatible takes time and resources which could be used on future advancements.  I get it and I’m all for advancement, but making me and other loyal customers pay for Sonos’ growing pains is the unethical part.  

The decisions were made by the executive team at some point, it may have sounded something like this “look, guys/gals, it doesn't make any sense to support our legacy products as we continue to make advancements and refine our ecosystem. They just can’t keep up and we can’t be bogged down trying to support them, we have to move on and sunset those products.” It sounds good and it does make sense. 

The problem, both ethically and legally, was in their decision to force customers to buy new components to stay current with Sonos. 

There are thousands of companies out their still running legacy systems for their early adopters of software and other services.  New customers can’t buy Version 1, but they still run Version 1 because they know they can’t force clients to pay for Version, 2, 3, 4, etc.  Sooner or later the company hits the time when converting V1 customers to V2,3,4, etc. is more advantageous than continuing support.  The company tells the client, “you’ve been such a loyal client for so long we would like to move you to a newer version for free, we’ll take care of everything”.  The client is happy, the company strengthens the relationship and no longer has to support outdated technology.  Wins all around! 

Sonos, on the other hand, made a conscious decision to defray costs by making Sonos’ customers pay for new products.  The 30% discount is just adding insult to injury especially when products on currently on sale at a 28% discount. 

Sonos customers were hit with a new unforeseen expense to comply with Sonos or lose the use of the products they purchased. 

What would you think would be the outcome If Sonos told customers in advance about product life span before they drop $800 on a set of Play 5s?   Could you imagine? 

“You’re going to love Sonos, wireless speakers are the future, but one last thing Mr customer, there is a very good chance that your new speakers won’t really work in a few years, is that ok?”  “Oh what do I care? $800, ahhh, a mere bag of shells!  I like to upgrade my entire audio system every two years!”  Who cares about money? I don’t mind getting screwed every now and then as long as I get a discount!  

Just bad all the way around.  Knowingly taking products off support makes them defective and therefore Sonos customers are damaged financially.  I’m still confused about why they haven’t come up with a fair solution.  It’s only a matter of time before a class action suit hits which will cost Sonos 10X of doing the right thing in the first place. 

@LeftyGomez, I advise to go and read Sonos S2 overview and compatibility thorougly.

Everyone’s idea of “fair” is different. I’m sure that many users wouldn’t consider anything less than having SONOS simply ship out replacement products at no charge to be “fair”. However, if SONOS does this and wants to remain a viable company, they must increase the price for anyone purchasing new product. Is this being “fair” for customers purchasing new units? Would potential customers refrain from purchasing these more expensive units? Regardless, we will eventually be having a similar discussion regarding now current and yet to be introduced product.

One solution to this dilemma for SONOS and all other high-tech manufacturers is to lease the product. As EOL approaches, for any reason, the leased base is simply swapped out. The swap cost will be baked into the long term lease fees.

Would you be satisfied with a lease arrangement?

True, “fair” is a relative term which is why there is such backlash. Some users may want new equipment, but answering your own hypothetical remains hypothetical. I’ve yet to see any company make public apology made for treating people fairly.  Clearly, Sonos knows of the unfairness or there would be no need to apologize or offer a discount.  They also knew of the impending issue while still producing and selling the soon to be outdated equipment, now that doesn’t seem fair or does it? 

Leasing equipment?  Do you mean like the cable companies do with modems?  No thanks.

Just my observations.  BTW anyone with 16,834 replies is far too biased.  

@Smilja I’ve already read it, thoroughly, but thank you for your assistance.