Trade up scheme

I had to record my distaste at this poorly thought through initiative. Sonos is a company that sells a premium product. They’re well made and in the audio arena its not uncommon for people to keep speakers and amps etc. for decades. My 10 year old Sonos AMP (eligible for upgrade) works perfectly and is in no way ‘obsoloete’. That Sonos have made in their opinion an ‘improved’ version doesn’t render it suddenly worthless. 

The first R in the recycle chain is ‘Re-Use’ as this has almost no negative impact on the planet. That Sonos somehow think it is a good look to actively encourage customers to brick units is amazing. The fig leaf terms and conditions “You promise to recycle the box” is an incredibly cynical acknowledgement of Sonos duplicity - “Its not Sonos fault they didn’t actually recycle anything! How we’re we to know?”. The excuse that it is optional also designed to pass the responsibility from Sonos on to the end user.

Why doesn’t Sonos simply offer a 30% discount to its customers. From Sonos point of view they get the sale and and same revenue anyway. Let the ‘obsolete’ equipment be re-housed to a home where people can get a taste of the Sonos premium sound (i.e. break that high entry level barrier that kept me from buy a Sonos for over a decade after I’d thought they might be worth the price).

Its a very regrettable offer IMO and Sonos as a brand is diminished by it. 

Peter

Danny (melvimbe) thanks for taking the time to read and respond.  Sure, I hope it was obvious some of my comments were inferences and I think (well hope) you’d agree some of your responses are opinions too, and quite slighted to Sonos’ favour.  (And no, I’m not saying that’s a bad thing - I’ve been there.)

But I really have to disagree with a lot of your inferences.  Politely.  This is just a different opinion - I’m not saying you are wrong, just that you have a more rose-tinted view of all this than I.  I just disagree and here are some of the reasons why – oh and I need to rebut a couple of things I didn’t say.

senecan wrote:

Even if some of these products are more than 10 years old, that doesn’t mean they were purchased 10 years ago.  The connect:amp is a case in point: at the start of this year this was “current” and the best choice for users with their own speakers already.

 

 melvimbe replied:

Yes, I think that’ pretty well understood, and an somewhat  understandable complaint.  However, I think most recently purchased devices won’t be traded in, since customers will likely be happy with what they have now and won’t feel like they get their money’s worth.  I am guessing Sonos didn’t distinguish between old and new Connect:amp’s either because it’s difficult to identify the age of products with customers or felt it would be too confusing for customers.

Sonos have claimed that in the FAQ of the Trade-Up program that, “because all our products are part of a system, older ones may affect the performance of newer ones”.  This is a clear indication that you need to trade up.  I was pointing out, only, that an argument along the lines of “this was designed 10 years ago” doesn’t hold much water when it was being sold as current just over a year ago.  And as I mentioned the connect:amp is still being sold as a “last chance” on the Sonos website.

senecan wrote:

There are a couple of nasty consequences of this trade-up program:

1. The resale value of eligible old kit just took a major nose-dive.  This is because Sonos are incentivizing trade-up, meaning future support is likely to be zero.

 

melvimbe replied:

You’re comment on support is speculative, but surely the take some will have.  I think the used market will be effected in lots of ways both directions.  Less people will bother to sell the speakers since they have a trade in value, while some will want to buy a speaker for it’s trade in value.  Some will feel the risk of buying used is worth it since you can recover some value through trade in, while will feel it’s a doom product as you suggested.

The key phrase is “for its trade-in value”.  That’s a very hard limit, and below the current trending prices on <ahem> a popular auction site.  I used the phrase “likely to be” with regard to support – so yes that I defined it myself as speculative already, but I think a reasonable guess.  The fact of trade-up is a bit of a hint, the Play:5 Gen1 has been end-of-life but still supported for a while now.

senecan wrote:

1. In fact the tagline that there are certain features that old kit can’t support and may compromise the capabilities of new kit on an existing setup, this seriously reduces desirability of these models.

 

melvimbe replied:

I don’t see this as effect of the trade in program,  since the statement is true whether there was a trade in program or not.  The products are built with lower specs and are less likely to get newer features added because of this.

Sonos now promote trade-up with that comment I quoted earlier, about older kit potentially reducing the performance of newer kit.  I think this has not been widely established before.  Sure we know old kit can’t do new things (like Play:5 gen 1s act as satellites) but not that new kit can’t do new things if you keep your old kit around.

senecan wrote:

1. Clearly Sonos consider this kit to be worth 30% to scrap/recycle.  That is a pretty hard limit on the value you can charge second hand, if you can bypass the above.

 

melvimbe replied:

Sonos has stated several times that they want to incentives people to purchase the new speakers as part of the reason for this.  And you’re applying the 30% figure incorrectly.  It’s 30% off of whatever product you buy, not 30% off the value of the product you’re selling.  That means the dollar value varies from $54 to $210 depending on what you purchase. So if you’re trading in a $400 Connect for a $700 playbar, you’re getting over 50% of your money back essentially.  So in regardless to what you can charge second hand, it’s a matter of what the speaker is worth for use itself or whatever the buyer intends to trade it in for.

That’s kinda pedantic – I’m referring to 30% of the value of an appropriate “current” device.  Your math goes a bit awry – eg if I trade-in a connect:amp and use the 30% off a Sonos One that’s a significantly lower value.  I’m saying the kit you bought (possibly) just  over a year ago is worth 30% of its replacement – that’s the number the sticks and any other scenarios about buying a new product that isn’t representative of the old lead to a range of values.  Should we take a median?

senecan wrote:

1. You can’t stack discounts - I asked.  The description says 30% of ONE new item for each trade-up, but doesn’t say you can’t apply multiple 30%s to the same ONE new item, but you can’t.  This means, potentially, you have to spend 70% to replace an “old” item with something that on the surface seems to do exactly the same.

 

melvimbe replied:

Besides the fact that you don’t have to trade in your old gear at all, you don’t need to trade in for the current version of your product.  You could trade in a Connect for a Sonos One if you wish, not the same at all.   Disallowing stacking is a very reasonable measure for Sonos.  They aren’t trying to lose money with this program.  I don’t know what their margins are, but I would guess 60% off would be at a loss.

I think disallowing stacking is very poor.  If I give up two of my existing end-of-life products, why can’t I get a bigger discount on the item I choose in their place?  I lost two things here. 

Note I use the predicate “I think” in giving that opinion.

senecan wrote:

1. Oh and btw - perhaps Sonos aren’t still making these models but you can still buy, at the time of writing, a Connect from the “last chance” section on the Sonos website and it is way more than 30% of the original price.  So what gives?

 

melvimbe replied

Again, the value of the trade in is 30% off a new item, not the original cost of what you are trading in.  If you want to buy a Connect in that’s currently 20% for example ($280?), knowing that you can trade it in for 30% off a Port or any other Sonos device later on, that’s an option. 

Again, see above.  30% is the working value; the discount of a like-for-like but current alternative. 

senecan wrote:

I really worry about the signal this is sending.  Point 2 worries me more than anything: that Sonos are clearing the way to hobble or isolate my existing Gen1 Play:5s, Connect and Connect:Amp (yes, I have all of these) interacting with the newer kit on my network.  The one key feature of the Sonos ecosystem is that it is “one thing” that can play anything, anywhere.

 

melvimbe replied

None of the speakers have been removed yet.  I get why people think the end is coming based on this, but if there is an end,  it will come with or without this trade up program.  Personally, I’m not all that worried.

Supporting old kit is just a real pain; I think Sonos have actually been pretty honourable in this regard up to now, actually. 

I’d prefer to see them offer a proper incentive and then switch off that old kit – do it properly, not cheaply.  Which is what I think this is.

Could you trade a Z80 in for a Beam or does it have to be for an equivalent bit of kit?

You could. Or even for a ‘set’ (bundle) which includes a Beam, since some such ‘sets’ presently count as ‘single product’ for the purposes of the program.

I appreciate the civil debate.  I don’t want to say your opinions or mine are slanted one direction or the other.  I think we are both attempting to be objective, even when it comes to things that can’t be clearly stated as fact and require some opinion.

And apologize for this post appearing possibly difficult to read.  The quoting feature on this forum isn’t that great.  I did remove comments I had nothing to comment on.

The performance issue I’m aware of is the wireless connectivity, since Sonos net is a net involving all the units in your system.    In that regard, it’s a chain that’s only as strong as it’s weakest link.  There are some features that available on certain products, but I’m not aware of how old products limit features on new products.

I’m looking at the value from a individuals perspective, where your trade in value does change depending on how you use it.    I agree that trading in a Connect:amp for a Sonos One gives it lower value and is not a good deal, unless the person trading doesn’t want to go through the effort to trade on ebay or what have you...and believe they won’t ever want to use the trade in for a higher priced product.  For me personally, I am holding out a trade in value (on a Connect) for nothing less that a $700 product that I want.  Even then, I don’t know that I’d use it if there is a near 30% off sale currently, which I believe is the case with upcoming black friday sales.  I also have a Connect:amp in service that I use regularly, and have no plans on replacing with a Sonos Amp.  I don’t see the value in it right now.

I get your point though that, if someone is currently using their Connect:Amp, the likely replacement would be the Sonos Amp.  There are many though that have unused products they want to trade up (as I do) or will decide to get a Sonos Amp and Sonos sub, for example, using 30% off the sub.  Again, how an individual uses, the trade in, and their personal tolerance for reselling a unit as an option, is going to dictate what the value of the trade in is.

You don’t have to trade in both your products.  Only trade in one if you want one new product.  Save the other for the next product you may want to buy.   It sounds like you’re assuming that your old product will be de-supportted and you’ll be forced to buy new effectively.  This isn’t the case currently.  In my opinion, even if that were the case, I don’t know that Sonos has any obligation to offer compensation whatsoever for the older products.  Product bought within the last couple years is different, but again, nothing is being de-supportted right now, so it’s purely hypothetical.

Old kit is still supported and hasn’t changed.  How are you concluding that support that was honorable no longer is?  If we make the assumption that Sonos is going to stop support for the  ZP players,  Connect:amp, and Connect at this time next year (not a good assumption IMO), the I would agree that a blanket 30% is not a good incentive/return for those that just bout a new product a month ago.  I get that you’re predicting something like that scenario is going to happen.  I withhold judgement till it actually does.

Danny (melvimbe) thanks again.  I hear you with formatting answers for individual responses so won't this time.  Also I do understand where you’re coming from and don’t want to make this forum tennis, boring so many others with over-defensive responses, so (hopefully) won’t.

The performance issue I’m aware of is the wireless connectivity, since Sonos net is a net involving all the units in your system.    In that regard, it’s a chain that’s only as strong as it’s weakest link.  There are some features that available on certain products, but I’m not aware of how old products limit features on new products

Yep I read that too.  But still the quote is from the FAQ on the Trade-Up details, that “because all our products are part of a system, older ones may affect the performance of newer ones”.  That’s Sonos, not me.

where your trade in value does change depending on how you use it. 

Sure, with the 30% thing you can create all sorts of interesting  possibilities - eg trade-in a Connect:amp for 30% of a Sonos One.  That would be a rubbish trade-in.  My point is, to avoid going into a land of weird maths it might be reasonable to assume the “normal” trade-up is like-for-like; ie I’d  give up a Sonos Play:5 gen 1 in order to get a gen 2.  In other words, a comparative price-point.  As you say, you could gain an above average discount, or as I say a below average one too.  (Can we say that sorta evens out?)

You don’t have to trade in both your products.  Only trade in one if you want one new product.  Save the other for the next product you may want to buy. I t sounds like you’re assuming that your old product will be de-supportted and you’ll be forced to buy new effectively …. (etc)

I keep coming back to this but it is important.  Sonos (not me) said: “because all our products are part of a system, older ones may affect the performance of newer ones”.  They also say,  The memory and technology of your device has reached maturation and has a limited lifespan.“  This is in the FAQ on the trade-up page.  And it does sound like writing on the wall...

… which actually I get and don’t particularly have a problem with.  It is a proper pain  having to support so diverse an ecosystem, and I’m sure Sonos would like to move on from those  10-year designs.  And, probably, in a good way - eg two networks without impacting new kit on a new protocol.  But if I have multiple items that are viable for trade-up (I have 4) I’d like  to limit my losses with embracing change within reason, eg allowing a max of two to stack for 60% or just offering a better trade-up discount, possibly even banded by when I bought them.

All the best to you Danny and thanks for the interesting point of view

Simon (senecan)

I think we could both agree that it’s not a very clear statement in that FAQ.  “Performance” is too vague.  I think it only refers to network performance, but I can’t say that for sure since I don’t know what I don’t know.  And I can’t say it doesn’t leave room open for interpretation.

I think we are on the same page here as far as what the discount is.  I just don’t want to say 30% off means $120 (or whatever the median or average means), even though it may be pedantic because I’ve see generalities taken to be exacts in my experience on these forums.    I think it’s important to be clear.  There was another post here today where a guy was thinking his $300 original purchase price resulted in $30 off a new product.  Besides his math off, the original cost of purchase price is irrelevant.

If the writing was on the wall, it was already there before this program came about. I see this as Sonos trying to ease transition for customers with older products into new ones.  Marketing probably also wishes this would push people to buy several new products.

Kind of an aside, but using myself as a customer, I’ve had several mental roadblocks to buying into Sonos through the years.  I liked the product a couple years before I bought anything, but couldn’t pull the trigger until they came with the smart app.  $400 for the CR100 controller was too much for me.  And I also didn’t see the point in buying speakers, I bought the Connect and Connect:amp only. I had my own speakers I wanted to use.  I don’t think I ever would have bought any ever I hadn’t gotten a playbar+sub_2 play:3s as part of the deal when I bout my current house about 4 years ago.  And I didn’t buy a Sonos One until it had been out for a year, as I felt having separate echos was good enough (still do in some cases).  Anyway, point being that sometimes customers can get ‘stuck’ in settling from what they have, and a little push to make the transition to new products is needed.  (And not saying there is something wrong for just keeping what you have)

I can agree that it’s a judgement call on how much trade discount Sonos should offer.  Personally, 30% isn’t quite enough for me to move on some of my units, while I would have moved for 20% on others.

Likewise.  Refreshing conversation.

I traded a ZP-80 for a full 5.1 Beam surround system. Traded another for just a Beam.

melvimbe wrote:

I think we could both agree that it’s not a very clear statement in that FAQ.  “Performance” is too vague.  I think it only refers to network performance, but I can’t say that for sure since I don’t know what I don’t know.  And I can’t say it doesn’t leave room open for interpretation.

Well certainly I would think wireless network performance is one of the things - these models all lack the 5GHz wireless support.  I had once asked why my Play:5 Gen 1s couldn’t be used as satellites in a 5.1 setup with sub and playbar, and the answer was they lack the wireless bandwidth as they have an “old” wireless chip.  But, interestingly, the connect:amp can be used in such a setup to drive the satellites - but only if you connect both playbar and connect:amp to your network by ethernet cable. 

So this is an example of simply not supporting a new feature on an old product (the Play:5 gen 1s), but without affecting anything else on the network.  But why can’t I just connect the Play:5 by ethernet?  Again, only speculative, but it could just be the lack of processing power.

I speculate on that because we have the recent surprise of the Sonos One gen 2.  It seems the main benefits of that are improved memory and processing power - features that actually make no difference right now.  So what gives?

Sonos said at the time:

Currently there are no feature differences between Sonos One Gen 2 and the original version. The original Sonos One will continue to support all its current features, and more, in the future.  Over time, however, the increased memory, Bluetooth Low Energy, and processing power may allow us 1o bring new product experiences  to the Gen 2 version that the original  will not be able to support.  That said, we have no specific Gen 2-only features planned at this time.

The other feature these models boast is a line-in.  I’ve always been slightly in awe of how well that works - these are analogue line-in.  So there must be a great deal of processing to present those audio inputs as digital streams to the network.  Then there is the question of how much bandwidth that stream consumes and I’d imagine (again, just speculating) that means you need either a fast network or some form of very rapid compression at source.  You can get away with a small delay at source here, as long as all the receiving devices can decompress at the same rate.

This all boils down to “network performance” as you say, but I suspect it’s more than just the performance of the wireless chip and/or capability to do 5GHz - it is also raw processing power.  I’d think Sonos would want to exploit the increased processing  power of new models by not being hobbled by the old.

Here’s where it comes to a trade-off: cool new features and support for cool old features.  The Sonos ecosystem is great because it’s homogenous (almost) in terms of feature support.  It could just be that, to keep offering market-leading new features, Sonos need to shake off the sluggish models.  Google and Samsung are just two names doing cool new stuff in the same space and these guys are not so nostalgic.  To stay competitive Sonos have to do new processor/network hungry stuff while at the same time maintaining their brand and premium marque qualities of supporting their entire legacy product line.

This offer is  horrible. I have a connect:amp. I would be interested in possibly upgrading to the new amp but the feature set is fairly limited and the new amp is a whopping £600.

Considering the discount is only 30% and that is on full retail price, which you can get it cheaper from other retails/offers anyway this is simply not enough. This would still take it down to £420 which is still a massive amount of money for a small upgrade.

To those saying that expecting a double dip is pure personal greed, that is ridiculous. The 30% is not enough and bricking a perfectly good device is stupid.

A reasonable thing would be the 30% incentive to upgrade (because why would i upgrade otherwise anyway?) and then allow me to keep or sell the the device. I could get around £250 selling it, meaning that the upgrade has cost me £170, i don’t understand how you think this is “personal greed” it’s still a good chunk of money to do this and the best thing for the environment is for someone to reuse the equipment. It’s only in doing this are you getting anywhere close to what would be a reasonable upgrade deal and also good in terms of recycling.

Also this makes very little difference to Sonos, there profit would be the same. Only offering 30% and then expecting you to throw your device in the trash is pure greed on the part of Sonos, not the individual. 

Heck slightly lowering the discount and letting you keep your device would be a better option than this and Sonos themselves would make more profit, seems a silly choice to me, even if they had good intentions.