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

451–460 of 478 posts

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

#451

Post by pms »

kstenerud wrote: post #269
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…

How can it be that this is the top voted comment, with such a glaring logic flaw? There is literally no way for them to verify that you didn't just throw your device in the landfill after enabling recycling mode and pocketing the cash. So this "functionality" does no good at all, other than to recruit the customer into their planned obsolescence program while praising the company for their "green" policy. And it work…

Welcome to marketing in capitalism, in particular greenwashing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenwashing

It's a common marketing stunt and techniques with similar harmful effects were applied to other things as well, e.g., nicotine or prescription drug marketing. Public good is only a secondary objective in the american-style capitalism.

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

#452

Post by pms »

danShumway wrote: post #277
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…

> But because you don't send the speakers directly to Sonos (instead to a local recycler), they have to trust you're actually recycling it instead of keeping it or selling it. And to be clear, either keeping it or reselling it would be better for the environment than recycling the device. It's completely backwards to design an environmental program around making sure that people don't secretly do the right thing behi…

Please stop using word "recycling" in the wrong way. Sonos used this word purposefully to promote the deactivation of their devices, which has nothing to do with real recycling: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/recycle

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

#453

Post by pms »

sm4rk0 wrote: post #334
taneq wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course Sonos wants to remove speakers from the second hand market. That doesn't make it remotely good for anyone else or for the environment.

You are not forced to take the incentive. You can always sell the device on a second hand market and get more money than that incentive.

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

#454

Post by [deleted] »

SquishyPanda23 wrote: post #170
foxrob92 wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I inherited a pair of speakers my dad bought in the early 80s. They still work well, though the amp died last year and I wasn't able to repair it.

You can get a number of small amps these days that will plug into the speakers and sound great. Many will also support Bluetooth so you can stream to your stereo.

[deleted]

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

#455

Post by AshamedCaptain »

mark-r wrote: post #243
SquishyPanda23 wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can get a number of small amps these days that will plug into the speakers and sound great. Many will also support Bluetooth so you can stream to your stereo.

Bluetooth is the biggest joke foisted on audio. Even at its best there is mandated compression, which means the highest quality signal will be mashed into a lowest common denominator piece of garbage.

By the same logic that there's mandated compression when you are forced to encode your stream as PCM. Bluetooth mandates compression, sure, but it's been repeatedly proven to be transparent at the bitrates used by even crappy hardware...

Just Google for 'SBC codec transparent' if curious.

Bluetooth's A2DP only real problem is the unspecified latency requirements.

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

#456

Post by danShumway »

pms wrote: post #452
danShumway wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But because you don't send the speakers directly to Sonos (instead to a local recycler), they have to trust you're actually recycling it instead of keeping it or selling it. And to be clear, either keeping it or reselling it would be better for the environment than recycling the device. It's completely backwards to design an environmental program around making sure that people don't secretly do the right thing behi…

Please stop using word "recycling" in the wrong way. Sonos used this word purposefully to promote the deactivation of their devices, which has nothing to do with real recycling: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/recycle

It's not clear to me from that link what my error is. Would you be willing to expand?

The commonly used definition of recycling I've heard is the first one listed on the linked page: "to process (something, such as liquid body waste, glass, or cans) in order to regain material for human use."

That's why the phrase is "reduce, reuse, recycle", right? Yes, technically you could say reuse is a form of recycling, but we distinguish between reusing something outright, and breaking it down into component parts that can be partially recovered -- because we want to point out that the first option is better than the second.

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

#457

Post by mark-r »

Cougher wrote: post #445
mark-r wrote: post #412

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There are fewer and fewer places that specialize in home sound systems, particularly the ones that let you compare numerous choices before you buy. The place that sold me most of my audio gear has been closed for 20 years.

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

#458

Post by mark-r »

Cougher wrote: post #446
mark-r wrote: post #410

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Sorry if I wasn't clear, what I meant is that messing with your sound files should make it obvious that you're changing the sound - there's no surprise. BT is different because the expectation is that it works just like a wire.

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

#459

Post by wayoutthere »

legopelle wrote: post #146
wayoutthere wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then they would have to continue supporting those devices, which isn’t part of the planned obsolescence business model. It would also dilute the luxury brand halo that Sonos has tried to cultivate. It’s more like Louis Vuitton getting into the secondhand market. They too would (and do) destroy merchandise rather than let it get sold at a discount and dilute the brand value.

But still, why not say so directly? Why lie about sustainability? It seems extremely dishonest.

Because they’re an “old” Silicon Valley company still sticking to the rhetoric of “technology always makes the world a better place!!!”

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

#460

Post by fuzzfactor »

kd5bjo wrote: post #448
fuzzfactor wrote: post #441

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

Good to get your message.

Just using terminology more precisely as it applies to a natural environment over a lifetime.

The one constant is the structure which enables other people's money to be used for pure financial leverage.

No requirement for free enterprise which I truly care for as well.

Heck, before they were united, some States of America were founded by royal capitalist corporations, about the furthest thing from free enterprise.

So capital as other people's money is a resource, but not every resource is capital unless it actually belongs to somebody else with their conditions attached as agreed.

Not so much means of production, or hard assets, but whenever an investor provides capital to a founder so that

>The business strategy and long-term vision can be anything the parties agree upon.

Regardless of whether you build or acquire any facilities they are

>entitled in return to a portion of the proceeds from the enterprise that he or she enabled.

So I think we can agree that type of thing is it for sure.

But I do think it's actually some of the uber-capitalist corporations which have done the most damaging outsourcing.

And I don't see how I could rightfully be a capitalist without any capital.

Well, it might just be best to be able to change at any time, if you really do know how to perform for shareholders.

A founder without any of other people's money, and without enough prosperity to enable their investment in other people's ventures, just doesn't seem to be actually handling capital, yet, even if the cash flow gets fairly large.

Even if they are very agressive entrepreneurs this does not put them in the catagory of funded ventures, and opportunity to well exploit a capitalist market might remain out of reach even while it still must be operated within.

When the economic system is structured so that capital alone can yield more than many labor approaches, terms become more critical than ever for outfits seeking leverage so they can become capitalist in difficult or uncertain conditions.

Without extraordinary terms an operation might be better off which could take place whether there was other people's money or not.

Capitalism can enable wonderful things and not-so-wonderful things but the foundation is basically the other people's money aspect of it.

Post reply on HN