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

71–80 of 478 posts

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

#71

Post by llampx »

kevin_thibedeau wrote: post #28
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.

Millennial audiophools need their 192kHz 32-bit playback. Grandpa's sound system just won't cut it for reproducing those refined ultrasonics.

The same millenials who are buying Bluetooth speakers at unprecedented rates?

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

#72

Post by oh_sigh »

IanCal wrote: post #61
katmannthree wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That sounds like Sonos can easily reactivate them, right? That's not a bricking, is it?

They've refused to remove people from the blacklist who have accidentally put the devices into recycle mode

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

#73

Post by windexh8er »

kristianc wrote: post #67
baybal2 wrote: post #7

Well, this is where the industry is going. The latest buzzword we hear in the industry is called "product as a service" — you buy a product, but still don't own it. You have to keep paying them for using your own property or else they remotely brick the device. First gen Ipods were a prime example, but now everybody seem to want to do the same. We recently had a prospective client who had an idea of very cheap intern…

> You buy a product, but still don't own it, and have to keep your subscription going so the seller don't remotely brick your device. That’s absolutely not what’s happening here. I paid £169 for my Play:1 five years ago, and it’s still working as well as the day I bought it. I haven’t paid them a penny since. This eco trade in may be a bit sketchy but absolutely no one’s device is being bricked without their consent.

Sure, today. But what happens when Sonos decides they "don't want to support your Play:1"? Maybe because it's a "security issue" and they place your Play:1 in "recycle" mode for you and give you so many months to replace it? Think about this from a longer term point of view - this is just an A/B test by Sonos. They can brick your device from remote, so there's no guarantee that at some point they won't.

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

#74

Post by cellularmitosis »

wayoutthere wrote: post #30
reeddavid wrote: post #23

What a total waste. Apparel companies are starting to participate in the secondary market for their used gear, why can't Sonos do something similar? Examples: - Patagonia Worn Wear ( https://wornwear.patagonia.com ) - REI Used Gear ( https://www.rei.com/used/shop/gear ) - Arc'teryx Rock Solid ( https://rocksolid.arcteryx.com ) As it stands, Sonos is effectively buying their old speakers and then throwing them away. C…

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.

For a physical device (ie featured-locked upon shipping), “support” amounts to paying the server bill, which is likely negligible.

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

#75

Post by londons_explore »

rkochman wrote: post #15
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?

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

For high brand value goods, generally no. Goods are crushed to become unserviceable. It's important to do that to maintain brand image, otherwise floods of not-very-old iPhones end up on ebay for $10, and the image of an iPhone as something that lasts and has resale value is shattered.

High end clothing manufacturers will even destroy brand new, never worn clothes to maintain brand image, because they don't want them sitting in the bargain bin looking 'cheap'.

It isn't as bad for the environment as it sounds - the vast majority of the costs in a $1000 iPhone are engineering, IP, licensing, manufacturing, capital and marketing costs. The actual metal and plastic is worth hardly anything, so destroying it isn't a big loss. Even the manufacturing cost is near zero because after launch day of a specific model, the marginal cost to produce one more phone is pretty much zero because production lines are rarely still at capacity.

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

#76

Post by Al-Khwarizmi »

starsinspace wrote: post #19

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...

They seem to be one of the few brands that give good audio quality and modern convenience at the same time.

For example, I was looking for a device that would (1) be placeable on my living room furniture[1], and let me use a couple of trusty Monitor Audio speakers both (2) for playing music (e.g. from my phone, computer or streaming sources like Spotify) and (3) for TV audio, as those speakers sound much better than a modern soundbar. And that (4) could be expandable to surround sound in the future.

I painstakingly examined alternatives in the market. There were many devices that covered the three latter points but the overwhelming majority were AV receivers, which looked great from the audio and flexibility standpoint but were at least 30 cm deep. Not useful for me, as the furniture in my living room is 28 cm deep (wasn't the point of flat screen TVs to no longer need deep furniture taking lots of space in the living room?). I found like 5 or 6 devices that would physically fit. But most of them had no flexibility for surround expansion AND no WiFi, only Bluetooth playback.

Finally, only two devices ticked my boxes and physically fit: HEOS AVR (around €1000, 27.4 cm deep) and Sonos Amp (around €600, 21.69 cm deep) which wasn't even out yet.

Since 27.4 cm deep was still quite dubious for my 28-cm-deep furniture, I finally waited for the Sonos to come out and bought it. Sonos wasn't especially on my radar, as a relatively traditional audio amateur it's not a brand I trusted, but there they were, the only ones offering the product I wanted. And indeed, it works well, it powers my speakers nicely enough and it's very convenient. I'm watching the TV, want to stream something from Spotify: TV audio is automatically muted. I stop listening to Spotify: TV audio comes back.

Why no one else has made a device that can provide good TV audio and good music playback in a shallow form factor still escapes me. I don't think my requirements were so weird, in freaking 2018.

[1] Sorry, I'm missing the specific English word for the specific piece of furniture in the living room where one has a bunch of books, CDs, mixed souvenirs and the TV, so I'll just call it "the living room furniture".

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

#77

Post by nl »

segfaultbuserr wrote: post #51
kevin_thibedeau wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Millennial audiophools need their 192kHz 32-bit playback. Grandpa's sound system just won't cut it for reproducing those refined ultrasonics.

I don't think it's the reason. A pair of good speakers is the most useful equipment in audio. If I'm a millennial audiophool and want 192 kHz / 32-bit PCM, I'll simply put a new DAC in front of the original Hi-Fi amplifier. I won't throw the perfectly usable system away.

I think this was a sarcastic comment. Obviously "reproducing the ultrasonics" don't actually matter for music reproduction....

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

#78

Post by fiblye »

jjtheblunt wrote: post #41
starsinspace wrote: post #19

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...

When expensive devices have to "phone home" to first be enabled, that kills the aftermarket for stolen expensive devices?

People still steal smartphones, despite them being locked down with thumb and face scanners along with being traceable. It seems to be a hard market to kill.

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

#79

Post by rowanG077 »

kristianc wrote: post #67
baybal2 wrote: post #7

Well, this is where the industry is going. The latest buzzword we hear in the industry is called "product as a service" — you buy a product, but still don't own it. You have to keep paying them for using your own property or else they remotely brick the device. First gen Ipods were a prime example, but now everybody seem to want to do the same. We recently had a prospective client who had an idea of very cheap intern…

> You buy a product, but still don't own it, and have to keep your subscription going so the seller don't remotely brick your device. That’s absolutely not what’s happening here. I paid £169 for my Play:1 five years ago, and it’s still working as well as the day I bought it. I haven’t paid them a penny since. This eco trade in may be a bit sketchy but absolutely no one’s device is being bricked without their consent.

Did you read the twitter thread? Recycle mode bricks the device without communicating clearly to customer it's a kill switch for perfectly functioning hardware.

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

#80

Post by clairity »

windexh8er wrote: post #73
kristianc wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You buy a product, but still don't own it, and have to keep your subscription going so the seller don't remotely brick your device. That’s absolutely not what’s happening here. I paid £169 for my Play:1 five years ago, and it’s still working as well as the day I bought it. I haven’t paid them a penny since. This eco trade in may be a bit sketchy but absolutely no one’s device is being bricked without their consent.

Sure, today. But what happens when Sonos decides they "don't want to support your Play:1"? Maybe because it's a "security issue" and they place your Play:1 in "recycle" mode for you and give you so many months to replace it? Think about this from a longer term point of view - this is just an A/B test by Sonos. They can brick your device from remote, so there's no guarantee that at some point they won't.

yah, i had to stop updating the sonos app on my phone so i wouldn't be forced to create a sonos account to use my play:1. i mistakenly updated the app on my ipad, so my ipad can no longer control the play:1.

i won't ever buy another sonos device (even the ikea speakers, which i like otherwise) because of that.

Post reply on HN