4 ms·

I haven’t owned Sonos gear in a long time, but certainly back in the day they had just amazing products. That SUB where it was so perfectly balanced? They did a

I haven’t owned Sonos gear in a long time, but certainly back in the day they had just amazing products. That SUB where it was so perfectly balanced? They did a demo (that you could easily reproduce at home) where you could have it driving “call the cops” noise disturbance bass without upsetting a nickel set lengthwise on top, just a great unit and not the only one. Awesome stuff. But while superior products at a price point can capture a bunch of share, after that they grow at the rate of the market. Those markets have “matured”. For whatever reason we don’t as a society let “tech” markets mature. We demand growth long after everyone is satisfied. This is where ideas like “growth” and ideas like “useful” diverge: raise your hand if you like Facebook or Google in 2025 more than 10-15 years ago. Sonos (and I’m aware of the structure) “grew” right out of a sustainably profitable business with happy customers.

lotsofpulp 2y ago
> For whatever reason we don’t as a society let “tech” markets mature. We demand growth long after everyone is satisfied. That reason is people like more money than less money. No one logs into their brokerage account and invests in Sonos because they have a great product that is growing (or shrinking) at the rate of the speaker market. People want to see their year end report at least equal the broad market returns. The directive for all business leaders is to hit those benchmark returns, not pump out a solid speaker for however many years. And if a private business owner operates their company in a way that lags the market’s returns, then they are basically doing charity work. They’re going to have to pay a lot of cash compared to their competitors who can use RSUs to incentivize employees.
- benreesman 2y ago
  Well, we could at least examine the idea of paying executives over a longer time horizon. Clearly everyone likes money. We could pay them for good things rather than the transient illusion of good things. Yes it would be imperfect. No it wouldn’t be worse than this mess. Bell Labs didn’t invent the transistor on this model, JFK didn’t send us to the moon on this model. This “privatize the commons of a century of effective public/private partnership” model is going rather shit in fact.
  - lotsofpulp 2y ago
    >Well, we could at least examine the idea of paying executives over a longer time horizon. Every publicly listed business already does this, in the form of stock grants and options with various targets to hit at various intervals. See bottom of page 51 for an example: https://investor.apple.com/sec-filings/sec-filings-details/default.aspx?FilingId=18101316 https://investor.apple.com/sec-filings/sec-filings-details/d... It’s where all those rage bait headlines of extreme executive compensation come from, from maturing equity granted before the stock appreciated a good amount over the course of a few years.
    - benreesman 2y ago
      There is absolutely no basis for the sweeping, extraordinary claim that “every publicly listed business” is managed and incentivized around sustainable long-term value. I hate to be aggressive but it’s really pretty godawful that people let absurd, corrosive claims like this fly. There is a creeping normalcy to weird Art Laffer talking points and weird Milton Friedman Freak Offs with no evidence. Things suck for the typical person since Dick Cheney and Art Laffer started “cutting taxes”. You’re wrong in a way that demands a complete ignorance of everything from news to history to human empathy. This mindset needs fucking therapy and where therapy fails the legal system for a fucking change.
      - lotsofpulp 2y ago
        > Well, we could at least examine the idea of paying executives over a longer time horizon. This is not > There is absolutely no basis for the sweeping, extraordinary claim that “every publicly listed business” is managed and incentivized around sustainable long-term value. There has been plenty of research into figuring out how executive compensation can be tied to longer term performance, but “sustainable long term value” is such a nebulous term, I have no idea what it could mean other than a fantasy where people are able to magically measure everything they want. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_compensation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_compensation I only meant to highlight the fact that it is standard practice at publicly listed businesses to hire consultants whose job it is to figure out how to align executives and reward them for achieving long term goals. Maybe you think the current timetables are not long term enough, or the measures are not correct, but it’s not as if cash is being handed out Willy nilly.
vachina 2y ago
It’s a company that makes speakers. Unbelievable that it can have such value to be able to be listed on NASDAQ. My Google Home costs $30 second hand, don’t sound as good, but I’ve not spent a single cent on it after setting it up. What is SONOS doing?
- vikramkr 2y ago
  Not exactly sure what you mean - is there some reason companies that sell speakers shouldn't be able to be publically traded?
  - jkestner 2y ago
    Yes. It will further abstract the owners’ responsibility to the users, and the product will get shittier faster.
    - vikramkr 2y ago
      That's a general rant against publically traded companies. I'm specifically asking about the original posters take that a company that makes speakers specifically shouldn't be publicly traded. Like it sounded like they thought a speaker company couldn't be big enough to be on NASDAQ or something?
- bmelton 2y ago
  The market has matured, but as of a year ago, there isn't another solution that I could drop in that could replace my SONOS system. SONOS is so far ahead and had to establish themselves by solving for so many fringe use cases that they are generally the only ones who have things like the connect:amps to bridge wired outdoor speakers and architectural in-ceiling/in-garden speakers within the same ecosystem I'm sure that at some point, Samsung or Google or Sony or some upstart will catch up, but it will be a long time before someone eliminates SONOS from contention despite this multi-year setback
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
Newlaptop 2y ago
> For whatever reason we don’t as a society let “tech” markets mature. We demand growth long after everyone is satisfied. The reason is tax law and it applies to all companies not just tech. Removing the double-taxation of dividends would fix so much of our economy. If you run a stable, no-growth but profitable company, and each year return the profits to the owners (shareholders) in the form of a dividend, that's bad because the income is first taxed when the corporation declares it as income and then again when the shareholders receive the dividend. If instead you don't issue the dividend, but re-invest to grow the company, then the value of the shares can increase without creating a taxable event for the shareholders. We could avoid a lot of the boom-bust cycles, enshittification of products and other economic problems if we just structured tax law to encourage stable, profitable companies issuing boring predictable dividends instead of our current system that requires infinite growth.
- consp 2y ago
  Or tax sale of shares the same so there is no loophole and you can either spend it on something useful or lower taxes for everyone instead of just for shareholders.
- lifeisstillgood 2y ago
  So is this the difference between capital gains and income tax?
- callmeal 2y ago
  >that's bad because the income is first taxed when the corporation declares it as income and then again when the shareholders receive the dividend. Why is that bad? The first case is income to the corporation and they pay income tax on it. The second is income to the shareholder and they pay income tax on it. How is it different from the corporation's employees paying income tax on money received from the corporation? >If instead you don't issue the dividend, but re-invest to grow the company, then the value of the shares can increase without creating a taxable event for the shareholders. That's true as long as the shareholders never sell their shares. Once they do, it's a taxable event like the dividend.
Earw0rm 2y ago
Amen.

lotsofpulp 2y ago

> For whatever reason we don’t as a society let “tech” markets mature. We demand growth long after everyone is satisfied. That reason is people like more money than less money. No one logs into their brokerage account and invests in Sonos because they have a great product that is growing (or shrinking) at the rate of the speaker market. People want to see their year end report at least equal the broad market returns. The directive for all business leaders is to hit those benchmark returns, not pump out a solid speaker for however many years. And if a private business owner operates their company in a way that lags the market’s returns, then they are basically doing charity work. They’re going to have to pay a lot of cash compared to their competitors who can use RSUs to incentivize employees.

benreesman 2y ago
Well, we could at least examine the idea of paying executives over a longer time horizon. Clearly everyone likes money. We could pay them for good things rather than the transient illusion of good things. Yes it would be imperfect. No it wouldn’t be worse than this mess. Bell Labs didn’t invent the transistor on this model, JFK didn’t send us to the moon on this model. This “privatize the commons of a century of effective public/private partnership” model is going rather shit in fact.
- lotsofpulp 2y ago
  >Well, we could at least examine the idea of paying executives over a longer time horizon. Every publicly listed business already does this, in the form of stock grants and options with various targets to hit at various intervals. See bottom of page 51 for an example: https://investor.apple.com/sec-filings/sec-filings-details/default.aspx?FilingId=18101316 https://investor.apple.com/sec-filings/sec-filings-details/d... It’s where all those rage bait headlines of extreme executive compensation come from, from maturing equity granted before the stock appreciated a good amount over the course of a few years.
  - benreesman 2y ago
    There is absolutely no basis for the sweeping, extraordinary claim that “every publicly listed business” is managed and incentivized around sustainable long-term value. I hate to be aggressive but it’s really pretty godawful that people let absurd, corrosive claims like this fly. There is a creeping normalcy to weird Art Laffer talking points and weird Milton Friedman Freak Offs with no evidence. Things suck for the typical person since Dick Cheney and Art Laffer started “cutting taxes”. You’re wrong in a way that demands a complete ignorance of everything from news to history to human empathy. This mindset needs fucking therapy and where therapy fails the legal system for a fucking change.
    - lotsofpulp 2y ago
      > Well, we could at least examine the idea of paying executives over a longer time horizon. This is not > There is absolutely no basis for the sweeping, extraordinary claim that “every publicly listed business” is managed and incentivized around sustainable long-term value. There has been plenty of research into figuring out how executive compensation can be tied to longer term performance, but “sustainable long term value” is such a nebulous term, I have no idea what it could mean other than a fantasy where people are able to magically measure everything they want. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_compensation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_compensation I only meant to highlight the fact that it is standard practice at publicly listed businesses to hire consultants whose job it is to figure out how to align executives and reward them for achieving long term goals. Maybe you think the current timetables are not long term enough, or the measures are not correct, but it’s not as if cash is being handed out Willy nilly.

vachina 2y ago

It’s a company that makes speakers. Unbelievable that it can have such value to be able to be listed on NASDAQ. My Google Home costs $30 second hand, don’t sound as good, but I’ve not spent a single cent on it after setting it up. What is SONOS doing?

vikramkr 2y ago
Not exactly sure what you mean - is there some reason companies that sell speakers shouldn't be able to be publically traded?
- jkestner 2y ago
  Yes. It will further abstract the owners’ responsibility to the users, and the product will get shittier faster.
  - vikramkr 2y ago
    That's a general rant against publically traded companies. I'm specifically asking about the original posters take that a company that makes speakers specifically shouldn't be publicly traded. Like it sounded like they thought a speaker company couldn't be big enough to be on NASDAQ or something?
bmelton 2y ago
The market has matured, but as of a year ago, there isn't another solution that I could drop in that could replace my SONOS system. SONOS is so far ahead and had to establish themselves by solving for so many fringe use cases that they are generally the only ones who have things like the connect:amps to bridge wired outdoor speakers and architectural in-ceiling/in-garden speakers within the same ecosystem I'm sure that at some point, Samsung or Google or Sony or some upstart will catch up, but it will be a long time before someone eliminates SONOS from contention despite this multi-year setback
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]

Newlaptop 2y ago

> For whatever reason we don’t as a society let “tech” markets mature. We demand growth long after everyone is satisfied. The reason is tax law and it applies to all companies not just tech. Removing the double-taxation of dividends would fix so much of our economy. If you run a stable, no-growth but profitable company, and each year return the profits to the owners (shareholders) in the form of a dividend, that's bad because the income is first taxed when the corporation declares it as income and then again when the shareholders receive the dividend. If instead you don't issue the dividend, but re-invest to grow the company, then the value of the shares can increase without creating a taxable event for the shareholders. We could avoid a lot of the boom-bust cycles, enshittification of products and other economic problems if we just structured tax law to encourage stable, profitable companies issuing boring predictable dividends instead of our current system that requires infinite growth.

consp 2y ago
Or tax sale of shares the same so there is no loophole and you can either spend it on something useful or lower taxes for everyone instead of just for shareholders.
lifeisstillgood 2y ago
So is this the difference between capital gains and income tax?
callmeal 2y ago
>that's bad because the income is first taxed when the corporation declares it as income and then again when the shareholders receive the dividend. Why is that bad? The first case is income to the corporation and they pay income tax on it. The second is income to the shareholder and they pay income tax on it. How is it different from the corporation's employees paying income tax on money received from the corporation? >If instead you don't issue the dividend, but re-invest to grow the company, then the value of the shares can increase without creating a taxable event for the shareholders. That's true as long as the shareholders never sell their shares. Once they do, it's a taxable event like the dividend.

Earw0rm 2y ago

Amen.