Synology Lost the Plot with Hard Drive Locking Move

Post by alt227 » Tue, Apr 22, 2025, 1:13 PM UTC

aucisson_masque wrote: post #164

I never understand these kind of short sighted decisions. It takes a long time to build a brand, this could potentially hurt their customer willingness to recommend and even buy their brand. People aren't stupid, they know that yet they do it. I believe Amazon became so popular because it treated its customer fairly well until recently, now that they are in extremely dominant position. But Synology is far from it.

Post by yupyupyups » Tue, Apr 22, 2025, 1:14 PM UTC

Post by kstrauser » Tue, Apr 22, 2025, 1:20 PM UTC

brookst wrote: post #315

yurishimo wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t think anyone would care if Synology gave priority to their own drives. A checkbox during setup that says “Yes, I know I’m using these drives that have not been validated blah blah blah” would be plenty. That’s not what Synology did however and that’s the main reason everyone is pissed.

But those people would call support when the array couldn’t rebuild. And many of them would blame Synology, and demand warranty replacement of the “defective” device, and generally cost money and stress. As long as Synology is up front in the requirement and has a return policy for users who buy one and are surprised, I think they’re well within their rights to decide they’re tired of dealing with support costs from…

Post by kstrauser » Tue, Apr 22, 2025, 1:25 PM UTC

MortyWaves wrote: post #222

jjcob wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

WD Red drives. They released a new version of their WD Red drive, and the only difference they stated in the specs was that it had more cache. So I thought, great, this is their updated model with more cache, it's going to be faster. After some time, people started to post about problems with the new WD Red drives. People had troubles restoring failed drives, I had a problem where I think the drives never stopped rew…

For future reference which WD drives are actually suitable for NAS? I remember someone saying you need to look for a specific more expensive type.

Post by kstrauser » Tue, Apr 22, 2025, 1:27 PM UTC

izacus wrote: post #269

jjcob wrote: post #183

There is one argument for Synology doing this: There have been cases where hard drive companies mislead their customers. I personally fell victim to this when Western Digital started selling SMR drives as WD Red, without labelling them as SMR drives. So lots of customers thought they were buying a drive that's perfect for NAS, only to discover that the drives were completely unsuitable and took days to restore, or fa…

I heard its about EU CYA directive, which requires IoT companies to deploy security patches in firmware within X months of those patches being released. This would explain why they'd only want to support HDD models the Synology OS can flash firmware updates to. (It's also convenient to get more margins.)