Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Sonos's “recycle mode” intentionally bricks devices so they can't be reused

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 478 posts

Re: Sonos's “recycle mode” intentionally bricks devices so they can't be reused

#11

Post by BorisTheBrave »

So, Sonos optionally lets you brick your own device, as part of their Trade Up program that gives a discount on your next device. It's named Recycle mode as, presumably, all the bricked devices are good for is recycling.

There doesn't seem to be anything stopping users from selling their speakers on - they just forgo the Trade Up discount.

The poster's point that this cuts down on re-use of perfectly good products is true, but it doesn't seem that much different to other trade in programs, e.g. Apple's. The difference seems to be that Sonos leave the burden of actually recycling the product (or not) to the user, while Apple does it for you.

Re: Sonos's “recycle mode” intentionally bricks devices so they can't be reused

#12

Post by doublement »

iforgotpassword wrote: post #2

Ok, this seems really disgusting. The post was lacking some context at first but from how I understand this, you can render your sonos device unusable voluntarily and in turn get a new sonos device for a little cheaper. This happens by marking the serial number of your device on the sonos servers as "recycled" making reactivation impossible. And they're somehow marketing this "feature" as environmentally friendly bec…

I will never buy a Sonos product, and no one else should either.

Re: Sonos's “recycle mode” intentionally bricks devices so they can't be reused

#13

Post by atomicthumbs »

noodlesUK wrote: post #10

What’s intensely frustrating about this is that audio equipment is one of the few areas where old high end kit is still absolutely fantastic for current users. I have an NAD 3020 from the 1980s which works perfectly with the same pair of speakers that it was bought with. I can’t say the same about other tech, but audio just doesn’t age at the same speed.

I wrote the Twitter thread and I use a Marantz 2230, for what it's worth. All my own audio equipment was recycled at some point.

Re: Sonos's “recycle mode” intentionally bricks devices so they can't be reused

#14

Post by baybal2 »

Apple pays Chinese "recyclers" for not to refurbishing their I-stuff, and sending it to a crusher. That's not a big secret in the industry.

A lot of luxury goods brands destroy their unsold merchandise, and some even go Apple style after their second hand market too.

Re: Sonos's “recycle mode” intentionally bricks devices so they can't be reused

#15

Post by rkochman »

BorisTheBrave wrote: post #11

So, Sonos optionally lets you brick your own device, as part of their Trade Up program that gives a discount on your next device. It's named Recycle mode as, presumably, all the bricked devices are good for is recycling. There doesn't seem to be anything stopping users from selling their speakers on - they just forgo the Trade Up discount. The poster's point that this cuts down on re-use of perfectly good products is…

I assume Apple and other companies sell the used products to liquidators who refurbish and resell them. Is that not true?

Re: Sonos's “recycle mode” intentionally bricks devices so they can't be reused

#16

Post by Eikon »

maweki wrote: post #4

Why is that not incredibly illegal?

Because that's not going to be argued like that in court.

It may not be that hard to say that's its for:

- Preventing "counterfeiting" as in people salvaging their PCBs to put on "rogue" devices.

- Protecting their brand name as a "rogue" device may misrepresent what a proper sonos product actually is.

- Preventing misuse of the account that was registered on the device, hence protecting their customers personal data.

- Customers only use this mode when a product is not repairable.

That's the power of having a strong legal departement, pretty much anything can be argued even when everyone knows the real intent. When such things are done properly, it's really hard to prove the intent hence, the risk is pretty low of being fined anything.

Re: Sonos's “recycle mode” intentionally bricks devices so they can't be reused

#17

Post by mkolodny »

baybal2 wrote: post #14

Apple pays Chinese "recyclers" for not to refurbishing their I-stuff, and sending it to a crusher. That's not a big secret in the industry. A lot of luxury goods brands destroy their unsold merchandise, and some even go Apple style after their second hand market too.

Source?

Re: Sonos's “recycle mode” intentionally bricks devices so they can't be reused

#18

Post by katmannthree »

alasdair_ wrote: post #8
iforgotpassword wrote: post #2

Ok, this seems really disgusting. The post was lacking some context at first but from how I understand this, you can render your sonos device unusable voluntarily and in turn get a new sonos device for a little cheaper. This happens by marking the serial number of your device on the sonos servers as "recycled" making reactivation impossible. And they're somehow marketing this "feature" as environmentally friendly bec…

Seems ripe for a hacking attempt. Being able to kill hardware with software always seems dangerous.

According to the twitter thread their ``recycle mode'' works by blacklisting the device's serial number in the mfg's database to prevent it from working, so depending on what you want to do with them they might be perfectly functional.

Re: Sonos's “recycle mode” intentionally bricks devices so they can't be reused

#19

Post by starsinspace »

So Sonos devices need "activation" via some server on the internet? Why? If I just want to stream audio within my own home, why is internet even necessary? And what happens when Sonos goes out of business and the servers are shut down?

I just don't understand why people keep buying such things...

Re: Sonos's “recycle mode” intentionally bricks devices so they can't be reused

#20

Post by maweki »

egdod wrote: post #9
maweki wrote: post #4

Why is that not incredibly illegal?

Why would it be illegal? And what’s the difference between illegal and incredibly illegal anyway?

There's "illegal but we'll do it anyway since any penalty is less than what we made because of it" and there's "it's illegal so let's not do it as it puts our CEO in jail".

I thought this was obvious.

Post reply on HN