Either I'm misunderstanding or this scheme is just encouraging people to throw away perfectly good Sonos equipment.
The way I read it, you "trade up" by selecting an eligible device and it then gets deactivated by Sonos for you to bin.
This is surely ethically wrong?
When trading up from a connect to an Arc i clicked on Boost by mistake and my credit has been applied to the boost. Is there a way of changing credit to an Arc purchase please?
This is a user forum. You need to contact Sonos directly.
When trading up from a connect to an Arc i clicked on Boost by mistake and my credit has been applied to the boost. Is there a way of changing credit to an Arc purchase please?
You do know “encouraging” is not a gun to the head, right? Of all the policies to complain about, you pick one that encourages recycling? First world problems indeed. 
You see it as encouraging recycling and I see it as encouraging waste. So I guess we'll agree to disagree.
Sadly though it's not a first world problem. Just a world problem.
I don’t seen how the Sonos tradeup program is a problem for the world. Are you saying the volume of Sonos speakers that are recycled instead of used is going to have a significant impact on the environment? Or maybe suggesting that the program is going to encourage people to recycle instead of reuse in general...and that’s going to damage the environment in a noticeable way?
Man I wish I had the kind of time you people do to argue about dumb stuff like this. I was just trying to find the answer to my question about how to get around the deactivation of my connect so I could resell it in order to re-coop some of the outrageous amount of money that the Ports cost. Get jobs sheeple. Then no one will have to waste time reading your dumb, irrelevant arguments.
Dumb!
Ha ha, "re-coop".
:-)
Man I wish I had the kind of time you people do to argue about dumb stuff like this. I was just trying to find the answer to my question about how to get around the deactivation of my connect so I could resell it in order to re-coop some of the outrageous amount of money that the Ports cost. Get jobs sheeple. Then no one will have to waste time reading your dumb, irrelevant arguments.
You do realize that you are replying to months old posts that do not even apply today, since the “recycle” program that bricked the old devices is no longer in effect?
You do know “encouraging” is not a gun to the head, right? Of all the policies to complain about, you pick one that encourages recycling? First world problems indeed.
You see it as encouraging recycling and I see it as encouraging waste. So I guess we'll agree to disagree.
Sadly though it's not a first world problem. Just a world problem.
I don’t seen how the Sonos tradeup program is a problem for the world. Are you saying the volume of Sonos speakers that are recycled instead of used is going to have a significant impact on the environment? Or maybe suggesting that the program is going to encourage people to recycle instead of reuse in general...and that’s going to damage the environment in a noticeable way?
Man I wish I had the kind of time you people do to argue about dumb stuff like this. I was just trying to find the answer to my question about how to get around the deactivation of my connect so I could resell it in order to re-coop some of the outrageous amount of money that the Ports cost. Get jobs sheeple. Then no one will have to waste time reading your dumb, irrelevant arguments.
Either I'm misunderstanding or this scheme is just encouraging people to throw away perfectly good Sonos equipment.
The way I read it, you "trade up" by selecting an eligible device and it then gets deactivated by Sonos for you to bin.
This is surely ethically wrong?
No one is fooled by Sonos and their trade up program I hope. It’s simply “hey look at our stuff and buy it cause the older expensive stuff we sold you is not making us any money anymore.”
I love my Sonos system but I think this program Is a bunch of crap. If the ports were $200 each then maybe I wouldn’t feel like I’m getting screwed but they’re not. I have two connects that I have to trade up if I want the new updates so even with credit it’s gonna be over $600. $600 to get the same service yet slightly worse than what I had before? Bunch of crap you ask me. I did trade one of my connects up already and am saving up enough money to do the second one but I’m not happy about it at all. Don’t release an upgrade able product and then years later after someone has invested a large amount of money say were not gonna do that anymore. And good lord lower the prices on your items. I can buy a top of the line Yamaha receiver for around $500 but I can only buy one Play 5 for that. Not consumer friendly but I gotta say I still love the products. Just wish I could afford more of them.
Wrong thread.
Seems odd to me. When I went through the process, during the time that Sonos was requiring the ‘bricking’ of the traded in device, I recall at least three, if not four pop up warnings about the consequences of my actions. Are you saying you didn’t see these? Or did you not read them? Or not believe them?
For me, it was annoying. I knew what I was doing, I wanted fewer pop ups warning me about the fact that my devices would no longer be usable.
Yes, now I’m unhappy that I took the decision when I did, and didn’t wait it out. On the other hand, I have absolutely no one to blame but myself. I took the decision based on the information available at the time. I read the warning pop ups that Sonos put in my way, but for me, it was an end to get to the 30% discount.
I’m sorry you’re upset with Sonos about this. I wish there was something that could be done to recover your two PLAY;5s, because then I could recover mine (if I hadn’t already recycled it, per the instructions Sonos gave).
Had both of us waited a bit longer, then we’d both be much happier. I just don’t think that there’s an opportunity to change what has already happened.
How about how misleading the process is in your app and that it activates without real confirmation. I was looking to see what it was and I mistakenly activated it for my 2 Play5’s. So I called support to cancel and they said they would cancel the exchange. Well that didn’t happen and now support tells me to talk to sales. Sales does not ever answer a call or email.
Once a happy customer with a lot of products now very frustrated.
I own 2 play5, 2 sub, 2 play bar, 1 sound bar and 2 play 1s
I am thinking of selling them as once push comes to shove and. you need service they are not there.
Has anyone experienced this and able to cancel a trade-in?
Thanks
Yeah sounds good.
If concessions are made (the 30% discount) it’s an attempt to compensate those impacted.
It’s semantics at this point.
Yea, I can agree to that.
I agree they botched it. It’s all in the way the message is presented. If they said, “hey everybody, we’ve been doing some big things that we would like to roll out our new S2 platform but we have an issue that would affect our legacy equipment which are just not powerful enough to run S2. We’re considering these options so we can all be on one platform, 1,2,3 let us know what you think.
Again, just thoughts.
I don’t think Sonos really could have put this to a vote, the reality is that Sonos has competition to deal with and needs to appeal to new and current customers...and current customers don’t have to consider this. But perhaps they could have done some testing of the messaging to get a better idea of the best way to communicate.
that was my hypothetical, I don't really care that much.
If concessions are made (the 30% discount) it’s an attempt to compensate those impacted.
It’s semantics at this point.
Yea, I can agree to that.
I agree they botched it. It’s all in the way the message is presented. If they said, “hey everybody, we’ve been doing some big things that we would like to roll out our new S2 platform but we have an issue that would affect our legacy equipment which are just not powerful enough to run S2. We’re considering these options so we can all be on one platform, 1,2,3 let us know what you think.
Again, just thoughts.
I don’t think Sonos really could have put this to a vote, the reality is that Sonos has competition to deal with and needs to appeal to new and current customers...and current customers don’t have to consider this. But perhaps they could have done some testing of the messaging to get a better idea of the best way to communicate.
If concessions are made (the 30% discount) it’s an attempt to compensate those impacted.
It’s semantics at this point. I agree they botched it. It’s all in the way the message is presented. If they said, “hey everybody, we’ve been doing some big things that we would like to roll out our new S2 platform but we have an issue that would affect our legacy equipment which are just not powerful enough to run S2. We’re considering these options so we can all be on one platform, 1,2,3 let us know what you think.
Again, just thoughts.
In your opinion what would be “fair”?
First, I’ve been a Sonos fan for a long time. I worked through the quirky stuff and I still think they make a far superior product than any competitor.
As far as fair, replace legacy products at cost (cost of goods sold). Meaning, no markup, just the cost to build the product, not including operational costs, marketing, advertising, etc. They know the exact cost to build an individual unit of all their products, and they know their margins, etc. Customer pays shipping and handling etc. This way the customer doesn’t get anything for free and Sonos stops anyone from complaining or accusing them of using software upgrades as a way to drive new revenue.
A couple problems with this. First, I don’t think Sonos wants to make their margins public. Besides competitive reasons, I’m sure many customers would be upset and decide that Sonos is charging too much at regular prices, etc. The second is that many customers don’t feel like they should pay anything at all, since their speaker is working right now at zero additional cost to them. This will not make everyone happy.
It shuts the whole conversation down and it would probably cost less and relieve a lot of headaches in the long run than supporting two distinct software platforms.
I don’t see how it would avoid supporting two systems. As I stated before, many feel that Sonos should not ask them to pay a penny to keep the system they already have going. Yes, you may feel this is fair and it would move you off S1, but many would not.
As an aside, I’ve thought about a Sonos prorated offer. Say a 10 year life of a device, so if you own 10 or more years, you get nothing or a minimum offer. If you’ve owned 5 years, then 50% discount. However, it penalizes longer term customers. It also would not make sense to limit the trade in to direct replacement products, rather than any speaker or speaker set in the store (where you can actually get a dollar value greater than original product price).
At a minimum, the 30% replacement discount should be applied to any other discount at the time. E.g. Sonos One - Currently $50 off so the price is $149 then take the 30% discount, $104.
Thanks
That could very well be a loss for Sonos. I’ve recommend others to just use the sale price now and save the 30% off for a future big ticket item.
Trade up timing isn’t at issue, nor relevant it was the original announcement that Sonos would no longer support legacy systems (originally in May) and then the damage control that followed 1. Apology, 2. Clarification 3. S1 and S2.
I said they knew (past tense) about the impending incompatibility issues, and they did, as confirmed by their VP of Software in an interview with Wired in March. The article also clarifies the chronology of events.
Here you go, WIRED
Again, just my observations and 5000 replies is a lot too;)
Have a great day and stay healthy.
You said that Sonos knew this was unfair, because of apology and the trade in offer. I don’t see how the trade in offer means that Sonos thinks it unfair. I think they know that others will think it’s unfair, and they were aware that many folks won’t like the decision they’ve made. Perhaps that’s close enough, but I also think there actual explanation has merit as well, that they want people to experience modern Sonos (and thus want to buy more speakers) rather than legacy Sonos.
And as far as Spence’s apology, it was not about unfairness, it was per the Wired article “ apologizing for the confusion and clarifying some of the company’s plans around aging speakers.”
For the record, I think Sonos has botched much of this transition, starting from the trade in annoucement. IMO, they should have started with upcoming S2 features, then followed with what happens with S1 and the trade in program, as it is now with no recycle requirement. I didn’t have an issue with the recycle requirement, but better to start without recycling than drop it months later..
In your opinion what would be “fair”?
First, I’ve been a Sonos fan for a long time. I worked through the quirky stuff and I still think they make a far superior product than any competitor.
As far as fair, replace legacy products at cost (cost of goods sold). Meaning, no markup, just the cost to build the product, not including operational costs, marketing, advertising, etc. They know the exact cost to build an individual unit of all their products, and they know their margins, etc. Customer pays shipping and handling etc. This way the customer doesn’t get anything for free and Sonos stops anyone from complaining or accusing them of using software upgrades as a way to drive new revenue.
It shuts the whole conversation down and it would probably cost less and relieve a lot of headaches in the long run than supporting two distinct software platforms.
At a minimum, the 30% replacement discount should be applied to any other discount at the time. E.g. Sonos One - Currently $50 off so the price is $149 then take the 30% discount, $104.
Thanks
Trade up timing isn’t at issue, nor relevant it was the original announcement that Sonos would no longer support legacy systems (originally in May) and then the damage control that followed 1. Apology, 2. Clarification 3. S1 and S2.
I said they knew (past tense) about the impending incompatibility issues, and they did, as confirmed by their VP of Software in an interview with Wired in March. The article also clarifies the chronology of events.
Here you go, WIRED
Again, just my observations and 5000 replies is a lot too;)
Have a great day and stay healthy.
In your opinion what would be “fair”?
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.
You have some of your information off here. First Sonos offered the trade up discount long before they announced any change in support for legacy items. I’m not sure you could really call it an apology at that point, as it certainly looked as if Sonos was trying to reduce the volume of legacy products out there. Second, Sonos is not producing and selling soon to be outdated equipment. None of the legacy items that are to be part of the S1 system were produced less than 5 years ago, most much longer than that. And Sonos has stated that every product will be supportted for a minimum of 5 years after they stop selling it.
Lastly, I don’t think it makes much sense to say someone’s statement should be thrown out because of too many or too little post count. Why not take a statement for what it’s worth regardless of where it came from?
I’m still confused about why they haven’t come up with a fair solution.
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.
I’m still confused about why they haven’t come up with a fair solution.
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?
Either I'm misunderstanding or this scheme is just encouraging people to throw away perfectly good Sonos equipment.
The way I read it, you "trade up" by selecting an eligible device and it then gets deactivated by Sonos for you to bin.
This is surely ethically wrong?
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.
Either I'm misunderstanding or this scheme is just encouraging people to throw away perfectly good Sonos equipment.
The way I read it, you "trade up" by selecting an eligible device and it then gets deactivated by Sonos for you to bin.
This is surely ethically wrong?
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.
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…..
Enter your username or e-mail address. We'll send you an e-mail with instructions to reset your password.
