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

441–450 of 478 posts

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

#441

Post by fuzzfactor »

kbos87 wrote: post #364
LatteLazy wrote: post #327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Patagonia are famously environmental and not really run on a capitalist basis...

I believe that Patagonia cares about the environment and wishes there was more they could do, but I think they are absolutely driven by the forces of capitalism, whether they like it or not, and it’s visible in their current practices. They run holiday ads and promotions, they open new stores, they release a new line each year. Yes they sprinkle in campaigns and messaging to not buy new unless you really need it and…

>They run holiday ads and promotions, they open new stores, they release a new line each year.

These are all things a regular entrepreneur would do whether they were capitalist or not.

Or any of _other peoples' money_ was involved.

Even when the only environment to operate in is recognized as overwhelmingly capitalist, a non-capitalist entrepreneur can still have some unfair advantages.

When you're selling all you can make for a profit long enough, you're supposed to be doing well depending only on business structure after that. Yes, you might have a disadvantage being surely influenced by the forces of capitalism, but it can often be done.

Also without growth as an articulated goal, the pressure of exponential demands can be appropriately moderated and more sustainable growth with better returns can still result compared to alternative leadership approaches which focus on growth most aggressively but still end up wishing they could do as well.

>If you want to understand the entrepreneur, study the juvenile delinquent. The delinquent is saying with his actions, _This sucks. I'm going to do my own thing._

__Yvon Chouinard, founder of Patagonia

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

#442

Post by michaelmrose »

fourthark wrote: post #216
michaelmrose wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So that I would have to chase fewer scumbags who constantly steal to sell tools on craigslist/facebook market/pawn shops to support their drug habits.

Doesn’t seem like a “one time lock that is forever disabled upon purchase“ would work for your use case. You’d need Apple-style Find My / Brick My stuff.

I'm more thinking about the retail end. Any lock which could be used after purchase is a danger to the users freedom. Although a decentralized solution is certainly possible. For example requiring the tool to talk to the users server I cannot imagine it being practical in the context of users today.

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

#443

Post by leni536 »

danShumway wrote: post #280
Hackbraten wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree. Electric toothbrushes need to be 100 % waterproof to be usable safely. If I were a toothbrush manufacturer, I’d at least look into making the brush self-destruct when opened, for safety reasons (and safety reasons alone).

Is this true? My electric toothbrush runs on one double-A battery. That isn't enough power to electrocute me. Of course, high-end electric toothbrushes have rechargeable batteries inside of them, and maybe they have more capacity. But on that note, I think I've needed to replace my battery exactly once in the past year. These things don't take much power, that's one of the reasons it didn't feel worthwhile for me to…

I suspect that the main safety issue is shorting the battery, not electrocution.

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

#444

Post by Cougher »

peapicker wrote: post #407
Cougher wrote: post #337

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know if it still applies, but studio speakers used to be notorious for bad sound. I would also hope that you wouldn't be considering guitar amp-type speakers as well.

Depends on what you spend. Good studio monitors should have fairly flat response across the audio spectrum and most tend to be Near-field monitors which sound absolutely great when you are positioned in front of them as you would for mixing, but don’t sound quite as good when used as a general room speaker. Mind you they are often still better than many peoples setups just the same. The ones that are not Near field c…

This is why I said that studio speakers *used to be notorious for . . .". Recording studios were notorious for having bad sounding speakers.

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

#445

Post by Cougher »

mark-r wrote: post #412
Cougher wrote: post #337

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know if it still applies, but studio speakers used to be notorious for bad sound. I would also hope that you wouldn't be considering guitar amp-type speakers as well.

Speakers (of any kind) can vary tremendously, which is why it's nice to be able to compare them. Guitar Center carries more than just guitar-specific items, which is why I thought it would be helpful to mention them; it's not something many people are aware of. I would never consider guitar speakers for general purpose use.

I never saw a section there for audio equipment, but I probably wasn't really paying enough attenton to that. I still think that for home sound that you're going to live with for a very long time, unless the manufacturer bricks them, it might be best to find a place that specializes in home sound systems.

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

#446

Post by Cougher »

mark-r wrote: post #410
Cougher wrote: post #330

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not to mention all the basement "remixers" who use audacity or whatever to "improve" the sound before they stream it, or max the volume to the point of constant red-lining, nevermind downgrading it to mp3 instead of using a lossless format.

The damage you do to your music is on you. I'm talking about damage inflicted automatically that you may not even be aware of.

That's why I said, "not to mention". That means not specifically to what you were saying, but in addition to it. I think I was also clear about the fact that it's not what I was doing, but what other people were doing. This is simple stuff.

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

#447

Post by mavhc »

rabbidruster wrote: post #267
mavhc wrote: post #204

Step 1: convince your customers to brick their own devices. Step 2: buy back now worthless, and thus cheap, devices. Step 3: unbrick, resell, profit

If they did step two it wouldn't be nearly as bad.

Well, you'd have to do it secretly, buy them back from the recyclers

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

#448

Post by kd5bjo »

fuzzfactor wrote: post #441
kbos87 wrote: post #364

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe that Patagonia cares about the environment and wishes there was more they could do, but I think they are absolutely driven by the forces of capitalism, whether they like it or not, and it’s visible in their current practices. They run holiday ads and promotions, they open new stores, they release a new line each year. Yes they sprinkle in campaigns and messaging to not buy new unless you really need it and…

>They run holiday ads and promotions, they open new stores, they release a new line each year. These are all things a regular entrepreneur would do whether they were capitalist or not. Or any of _other peoples' money_ was involved. Even when the only environment to operate in is recognized as overwhelmingly capitalist, a non-capitalist entrepreneur can still have some unfair advantages. When you're selling all you ca…

I think you may be misusing the term “capitalist”. I always understood that it had more to do with the production side of a business than sales or long-term goals: the capitalist (a founder or investor) provides capital so that a business can acquire production facilities, and is entitled in return to a portion of the proceeds from the enterprise that he or she enabled. The business strategy and long-term vision can be anything the parties agree upon.

The closest thing I can think of to a private non-capitalist business would be one that relies on other companies to do the actual work and haven’t invested in their own production facilities. There are plenty of these around today, but that doesn’t appear to be what you’re referring to.

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

#449

Post by pms »

crazygringo wrote: post #203

It seems like a lot of commenters here (as well as the tweets) are totally missing the purpose of the recycle mode. If you want to sell, give away, or otherwise let someone else reuse your Sonos, then DON'T PUT IT IN RECYCLE MODE . Easy peasy. Recycle mode exists for when you intentionally want to get a Sonos trade-in credit for recycling your speakers for materials . But because you don't send the speakers directly…

Haven't you noticed that the word "recycle" is used here in the exactly opposite way than it should be? https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/recycle

This is purposeful marketing misinformation. The goal here is to incentivize a naive customer, apparently including you, to make their devices non-reusable and to buy new devices. This has nothing to do with recycling, yet Sonos purposefully uses this word, because in this way they achieve their goal.

This isn't even a new technique. Unfortunately, it's widespread. Yet another example of greenwashing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenwashing

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

#450

Post by pms »

asveikau wrote: post #250
hnuser123456 wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would a recycling center want to buy anything? It's a recycling center, not a pawn/thrift shop. How does Sonos not care about the environment unless they do something completely and utterly nonsense?

My understanding was that a lot of times, say you go to a PC recycling center, they will take working, reusable parts and build machines out of them to sell/donate to others. They only recycle raw materials as a last resort. What you and a few others are saying is that a recycling center shouldn't be able to resell parts wholesale if they find a buyer or a good use that the original owner did not. Seems legit to me a…

I think the whole point is that Sonos misleadingly calls the operation of permanent deactivation of a device as "recycling", when the true meaning of recycling is the exact opposite: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/recycle

Sonos uses the word "recycling" as a marketing tool to increase their sales by giving naive customers discounts, who fall for this marketing stunt or don't care at all but like being associated with a (false) "environment-friendly" company. Yet another case of greenwashing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenwashing

Post reply on HN