7. Sonos Vs. The Competition

Sonos versus The Competition

Sonos’ biggest competitor—aside from extremely expensive hard-wired professional home installations—is Logitech’s SqueezeBox line. In addition, a company named Roku makes a slimmed-down wireless networked music solution called the SoundBridge with limited functionality compared to Sonos and Logitech.

Until early 2008, Logitech’s product did not offer a remote control, which made multiroom functionality difficult. Logitech launched the SqueezeBox Duet, however, and came a bit closer to Sonos’ domain, though there are still major differences between the two. I should note that I have owned a Series 2 SqueezeBox model for several years, and am familiar with the SqueezeBox server software. My SqueezeBox plays over WiFi or Ethernet from my PC in the office to the speakers in my living room—I use it only in the living room.

When it comes to price, the seemingly huge discrepancy between the SqueezeBox Duet ($399) and the Sonos Bundle 150 ($999) has more to do with the way the companies choose to package their hardware than the actual feature set of said hardware. For example, SqueezeBox Duet works in only one room; add a room for $150, and it now costs $550. Sonos bundles its second room with an amplifier, which means you don’t need to buy a receiver for that room—a value of $200 at the least. Tack on another $200 for the needed receiver to the cost of the SqueezeBox and it costs $750. The price discrepancy is now $250; that’s sizable, but not horrendous.

Here’s a chart of Sonos’ new pricing

There are a few key differences between the systems. Because SqueezeBox’s software (SqueezeCenter) operates like a server, the computer hosting the music must be running in order to stream the music to the SqueezeBoxes. Sonos doesn’t work like this, which is why you can turn your PC off and let the Sonos take music from any network-attached storage drive. SqueezeBox will work with some NAS systems, but not all. Sonos is a bit more flexible as well when it comes to customizing volume and tracks for each room. SqueezeBox does not have as robust a setup for "zones."

It is also convenient that Sonos does not rely on the often flaky nature of the cable-company provided router, while SqueezeBox does. Sonos creates it own wireless network of appliances.

Beyond the actual cost of an amplifier, there’s also a convenience cost to using a Squeezebox with separate receivers in each room—they take up space, they use their own remotes, and they look ugly.

Both Sonos and SqueezeBox have a very functional, well-designed software interface that can be accessed from any computer on the network. In some ways, SqueezeCenter might actually be better, since it allows me to click a link to see a current artist’s whole repertoire from my collection. That’s something I wanted from Sonos but couldn’t find.

Since I’m used to SqueezeBox’s old model—not the new Duet—the Sonos controller adds a lot of positives to the Sonos system. For one thing, I’m used to my husband sitting on the couch with his laptop creating playlists via SqueezeBox’s Web-based software interface. Sonos’ remote is a whole lot smaller and more hand-held than a laptop, and frankly, a lot less likely to decrease my husband’s chance of fathering children—constant laptop use can be, er, uncomfortably warm...