
Sonos's “recycle mode” intentionally bricks devices so they can't be reused - gyger
https://twitter.com/atomicthumbs/status/1210662988828442624
======
reeddavid
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](https://wornwear.patagonia.com)) \- REI Used
Gear
([https://www.rei.com/used/shop/gear](https://www.rei.com/used/shop/gear)) \-
Arc'teryx Rock Solid
([https://rocksolid.arcteryx.com](https://rocksolid.arcteryx.com))

As it stands, Sonos is effectively buying their old speakers and then throwing
them away. Could they not recoup their costs and avoid e-waste by simply
selling the used Sonos devices into a market that can't afford the brand new
ones? I thought this is how most phone trade-in programs worked, which seems
like a mature process now.

~~~
wayoutthere
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.

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

~~~
kodachi
Would be great if you could use your own server, and that the server code was
open.

~~~
jjav
That's why I stick with the squeezebox ecosystem.

Open source server which runs locally. The hardware is long since discontinued
(but plentiful and easily available on craigslist etc) and it can never be
obsoleted as everything runs locally.

~~~
greyhair
Plus Squeeze Network (still free, still working) for Pandora, Spotify, or
other network services.

Have you tried squeezeplayer on a RPi with a DAC? It works great. I have one
alongside my original Squuezebox. They sync perfectly for multiroom audio.

With a DAC, it runs fine on a Zero. Cheap.

------
noodlesUK
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.

~~~
userbinator
_I can’t say the same about other tech, but audio just doesn’t age at the same
speed._

People's ears have not changed, and the ability to reproduce sound has been
nearly perfected. If you're not too picky/audiophillic, like most people, the
requirements are even lower.

~~~
jellicle
Literally the only "improvements" that are ever going to happen to audio in
your lifetime will be a) internetifying it and b) adding more restrictions to
how you use it.

We've hit peak audio (best reproduction, no restrictions on usage) and it's
only downhill from here.

I look forward to my 2025 speakers that only work for an hour a day unless I
pay for extra time credits.

"Do you wish to play a) music b) music and local radio c) music, local radio
and podcasts [BEST VALUE]?"

~~~
blackflame
What about things like Dolby atmos that use 3D noise wave
cancellation/amplification technology to effectively do to surround sound what
3D glasses did for the TV

~~~
atomicthumbs
doesn't do a thing for music.

~~~
Dylan16807
It doesn't do anything for "music that happened to be mastered in 2-4
channels".

It does plenty for music.

~~~
tripzilch
_Produced_ , mixed _and_ mastered.

So that's not really plenty of music.

------
crazygringo
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 to Sonos (instead to a local recycler), they have to
trust you're actually recycling it instead of keeping it or selling it. So the
recycle lock is a clever mechanism to ensure that. Otherwise you could "cheat"
by getting the credit AND still using/selling your speakers.

So if you want your speakers to be reused... _don 't take the credit!!_ Donate
or sell them instead! It's _your choice_.

It seems to me like overall it's a good set of incentives. The credit helps
encourage people to recycle them at all instead of just throwing them in the
trash, right? But doesn't prevent people from otherwise selling or donating
them. Since it _gives the consumer all the choice_ , this seems like a win for
all sides, no?

~~~
song
People understand the purpose of it quite well. They just completely disagree
with your analysis.

First, the most environmental form of recycling is for an object to be reused
as is. So, if any item is given to a recycling center, if the recycling center
can just sell it directly to someone else, then it's much more environmentally
friendly.

Second, the credit doesn't encourage people to recycle them at all instead of
throwing it in the trash, there's no verification that they've given it to a
recycling center. The only thing is that after the recycling mode is enable,
the device becomes a useless paperweight.

So it's an extremely environmentally unfriendly policy from a company who
pretends they care about the environment.

~~~
whoisjuan
> So, if any item is given to a recycling center, if the recycling center can
> just sell it directly to someone else, then it's much more environmentally
> friendly.

I think OP's analysis did cover that. You don't have to put it in the recycle
mode. You can sell it yourself or choose not to get the credit so someone else
can "Recycle" it by reusing it.

I do agree with you that people could still put in the trash, but I also think
that's where good recycling programs matter. It shouldn't be hard to recycle
an electronic. It should be as simple as recycling paper or glass, especially
in an age where almost everything is electronic.

~~~
nialv7
If they really want to encourage reuse of their devices, why would they
incentivize the users to turn their devices into unusable trash by giving them
credits for doing that?

> but I also think that's where good recycling programs matter.

However good your recycling program is, it is still going to be _strictly
more_ wasteful than simply reusing the device.

~~~
hanniabu
> If they really want to encourage reuse of their devices, why would they
> incentivize the users to turn their devices into unusable trash by giving
> them credits for doing that?

It's another alternative. Some people just won't bother trying to resell it.

~~~
zeta0134
This is covered in the Twitter thread. Individual consumers might not go
through the hassle, but a recycling center totally will: they tend to have
market connections to refurbish used equipment, and prefer that option because
they know it's more sustainable than scrapping perfectly good hardware for raw
materials.

If the device works, and someone else wants it, then it has been recycled very
efficiently. Sonos policy here is _backwards._

------
baybal2
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 internet
connected Ipod clone, who of course had a "genius business model" of jacking
the price n-fold after sale under a threat of remote bricking.

I'm very glad we refused.

~~~
walrus01
> 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, and have to keep your subscription going so the seller don't
> remotely brick your device.

This is exactly what Cisco has done in the small/medium sized business market
with their acquisition of Meraki. Pay forever or your router and wifi stops
working. It's abhorrent.

~~~
smacktoward
It's also the direction Microsoft has been slowly moving Windows. You think
it'd be bad if your router stopped working when you stopped paying, imagine
the same scenario for your operating system.

~~~
hermitdev
MS is very aggressive with this in their Windows 10 development VM images you
can download. Theyre free, but they only last 3 months. There doesnt appear to
be anyway to activate - even if you have a legit license key through
my.visualstudio.com.

The VM prebuilt with VStudio, Visual Studio Code, WSL w/ Ubuntu and other
goodies in a prebuilt image is attractive and a time saver. But, it's
immediately on a kill switch timer of about 3 months, if you download while
new. Current image expires in Feb 2020.

I was using this to connect to work in a VPN in an effort to keep work and
personal separate, but I'll have to burn a Win10 license key from my
subscription for a new VM.

Caveat: the expiration doesnt render the image entirely worthless, but it will
only stay up for around 90 mins before shutting down without warning.

~~~
ficklepickle
I just take a snapshot then revert after 90 days. Seems to work. I vaguely
remember MS docs suggesting this.

You can also refresh them with a powershell command a limited number of times
IIRC.

~~~
tech234a
I think it was in the instructions for using the Internet Explorer/Edge VMs
(see page 3):
[https://az792536.vo.msecnd.net/vms/release_notes_license_ter...](https://az792536.vo.msecnd.net/vms/release_notes_license_terms_8_1_15.pdf)

------
echelon
This could go very bad for Sonos.

Imagine a virus that looks for Sonos devices on a network and bricks them all
via "recycle mode"!

The API probably isn't even locked down. I think it's unauthenticated
SOAP/UPnP.

An even dumber attack: guests with your wifi credentials can download the
Sonos app and break your gear. It's entirely unauthenticated.

~~~
throwaway100773
Im in the market for sound equipment. I just crossed these guys off my list.

~~~
davidjhall
I'm curious what you would recommend instead. Everyone is listing speakers
they bought decades ago but what are the latest non-sonos speakers that people
like?

~~~
Doji
Don't buy smart speakers. Just buy regular speakers. Then you can plug them
into whatever you like, run whatever software you like (e.g. pi musicbox) etc.
So you actually own them, and they should serve you well for many years, for
whatever you may need.

Also don't buy soundbars. Speakers don't want to be long and skinny. You'll
end up paying a lot more for a lot less sound.

Also consumer grade speakers are often more expensive for crappier sound. Look
into professional models, like studio monitors. For example, JBL 305PMKII. You
may be able to find a local store where you can listen to studio monitors
before purchasing.

~~~
mark-r
I've found Guitar Center to be a good place to check out and buy monitor
speakers and headphones.

~~~
Cougher
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.

~~~
peapicker
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 can work even better for a general
audio situation but tend to cost even more.

Some studio monitors like the popular KRK series are not flat response and are
a bit bass heavy.

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

------
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...

~~~
Al-Khwarizmi
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".

~~~
WiseWeasel
I feel like 30cm max depth is going to be a problem for most audio gear. So-
called compact ones seem to optimize for height, with depth around 40cm [1],
and the shallower ones [2, 3] seem to be around 31-33cm. Get a deeper console?

[1]
[https://www.crutchfield.com/S-JPQM9erNVfS/p_642NR1609/Marant...](https://www.crutchfield.com/S-JPQM9erNVfS/p_642NR1609/Marantz-
NR1609.html)

[2] [https://www.bestbuy.com/site/sony-7-2-ch-with-dolby-
atmos-4k...](https://www.bestbuy.com/site/sony-7-2-ch-with-dolby-
atmos-4k-ultra-hd-a-v-home-theater-receiver-black/6219445.p)

[3]
[https://www.crutchfield.com/S-5ZKPlNFrS4r/p_022RXV585/Yamaha...](https://www.crutchfield.com/S-5ZKPlNFrS4r/p_022RXV585/Yamaha-
RX-V585.html)

~~~
Al-Khwarizmi
So that's precisely my point: convenience. My option was:

\- Bend over backwards to buy from other audio brands, by throwing away my
perfectly functional and nice designer furniture and replacing it with
something deeper, that would take more space, probably be (IMHO) uglier and
fit the room worse, and annoy my partner who doesn't care for audio as much as
I do.

\- Buy the Sonos Amp because it does the job while being small and fitting my
existing furniture without further ado.

It was an easy choice...

I understand and respect that in homes where audio is a really high priority,
they will plan the room around it and have deep enough furniture. On the other
extreme, people who don't care much about audio just are happy buying any of
the multiple sound bars in the market that fit anywhere. But if you are in the
middle ground, i.e. you want a compromise between good audio quality and
convenience, it seems that Sonos is practically the only brand that cares. At
least in the case of an amp/receiver, that's the case, as I explained. And I
suppose this is an important component of Sonos's success (and what surprises
me is that others don't do the same...).

------
tasty_freeze
About 8(?) years ago my wife tasked me to get a whole-house audio system that
was simple to use. After reading a lot, sonos was the clear choice, though
pricey. We started with two play:3's, then added a play:5 and two more
play:3's. And things were good.

But for the past year the system has been a mess. Music stutters, some units
can't be found, some units fail to upgrade through multiple retries/reboots.
I've wasted so many hours relocating them and connecting the misbehaving units
to an ethernet cable trying to get them to update.

Eventually things get working again after hours of blind tinkering, but then a
month or two later it happens again.

My wife looks to me as the tech guy to solve it, but it is far more opaque to
debug then when PCs misbehave. Yes, I know about the secret diag menus and
login, but they don't really help me.

The point is: my wife resents that the system doesn't work, and I resent that
I've wasted so much time and my wife thinks I'm shirking because every time it
comes up I groan and put off the pain of getting it working again.

I won't brick these -- I'll find some use case where they do work, but I'll
get some other system to make my wife happy, even if it means spending another
$1200+.

~~~
haimez
Honestly, sounds like you need a better wireless router or need to add a (few)
repeater(s).

~~~
tasty_freeze
Sonos speakers form an ad-hoc mesh network. Although I know that I get > 50
Mbps to every spot in my house where there is a speaker, it shouldn't matter.
If the router to sonos #1 gets a signal, as long as sonos #2 is in range of
sonos #1, sonos #2 should be served even if it can't see the router.

------
jakobegger
I was going to buy a Sonos speaker, but this changed my mind. I'm not buying a
device that was built to be bricked.

I would have bought a Sonos instead of an Apple Homepod because I thought they
were more "open". But if the manufacturer can just make my device useless, I'm
not interested.

Audio and Hifi gear is extremely versatile and virtually everything is
compatible. High end devices easily last for decades. This feature makes it
clear that Sonos has no intention of following that tradition.

~~~
kristianc
> I would have bought a Sonos instead of an Apple Homepod because I thought
> they were more "open". But if the manufacturer can just make my device
> useless, I'm not interested.

Nope, it’s just iOS updates that brick HomePods.

~~~
kirstenbirgit
That was a bug, not a 'feature' like Recycle Mode.

~~~
kristianc
Incidentally, iOS has a remote kill switch as a feature too.

------
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.

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

~~~
londons_explore
> 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.

~~~
rarecoil
> 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.

A big loss economically, maybe, but in terms of energy/carbon losses, to say
it's more efficient to just crush the thing and make a new one seems false.
You've pushed from number 1 on the Reuse->Reduce->Recycle->Recover->Landfill
to steps 3 and 4, and then created a new iPhone in its place.

Throughout its life, a single iPhone 11 Pro Max is 86 kg CO2e [1]. The XS Max
that existed and is crushed to "preserve brand value" is 77 kg CO2e [2] in
footprint. Just in manufacturing costs alone, you are creating more CO2e
creating the new one than the XS Max did, and taking the XS Max out-of-life
early. We are not taking into account you now get to recycle the XS Max or
just dump it in landfill.

Destruction of an existing item for "brand value" is _not_ the correct
environmental answer.

[1]
[https://www.apple.com/environment/pdf/products/iphone/iPhone...](https://www.apple.com/environment/pdf/products/iphone/iPhone_11_Pro_Max_PER_sept2019.pdf)

[2]
[https://www.apple.com/environment/pdf/products/iphone/iPhone...](https://www.apple.com/environment/pdf/products/iphone/iPhone_XS_Max_PER_sept2018.pdf)

~~~
ClumsyPilot
I am with you on the ethics side, but he is correct, impact is immaterial, and
your numbers confirm it the typical impact of a person, a year, is measured in
tons of CO2, 90 kg amounts to like a few days of heating or a festive dinner,
or filling up your car tank.

However, if they are not recycled and the materials end up in plastic
pollution, heavy metal poisoning, or other damage, that's a whole different
story.

~~~
emayljames
No, I'd say the real elephant in the room is that the vast majority of
pollution is caused by industry. Example: the US military is the worlds
largest polluter.

------
userbinator
If there's a demand, someone industrious will likely figure out a hack --- I
hope. Server-side _blacklisting_ (unlike whitelisting) doesn't stop someone
from simply changing whatever unique ID they have to a different one. I can
even see repair shops doing this service for those who accidentally bricked
their devices.

This reminds me of a related situation I've seen with electric toothbrushes
--- they have instructions on how to remove the battery "for recycling", which
is deliberately designed to make the unit self-destruct in the process (by
e.g. making the plastic thin and fragile, and the wires brittle and easily
broken), but others have figured out how to use those same instructions to
open it up and replace the cells at a fraction of the cost of a new unit. The
fact that nothing needs to be broken to replace them, and that it could be
trivially designed to make that job much easier, clearly demonstrates planned
obolescence.

~~~
Hackbraten
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).

~~~
jstanley
What about an electric toothbrush is unsafe if it is not 100% waterproof?

~~~
jdnenej
You might feel a minor tingle on your tongue if the battery connects to it
somehow

------
jacquesm
Sonos had a fair shot at having me as a customer. I was ready to put down
money on an installation for a house and then I found out it needed
'activation over the internet'. That being _the_ sign of a company to avoid I
walked out again, to the consternation of the sales person who had (his words,
not mine): "Never had a customer decide against Sonos because of that". Looks
like I made the right call.

~~~
foogazi
What setup did you end up with?

>"Never had a customer decide against Sonos because of that"

as long as customers don’t care neither will Sonos

~~~
jacquesm
Homebrew.

------
cissou
Am I misunderstanding something? Once in recycle mode you're supposed to send
them back so that Sonos can actually recycle (or even reuse, nothing stops
them from refurbishing) the old device. Recycle mode seems to simply be a
convenience so that people can get the 30% rebate immediately once they've
shown they're serious about sending back the device. What sucks is that you
have to trade up to recycle, if they offered some buy back program it'd be
near perfect, right?

~~~
JonathonW
Sonos doesn't take back the used devices: they expect users to give them to a
local electronics recycler for recycling, where they essentially _have_ to be
scrapped, because devices in "recycle mode" are blacklisted in Sonos's servers
and can't be resold (even if they're in perfect working order).

------
alkonaut
I wish someone would start making little add-on boards you could put into your
Sonos products to bypass the onboard hardware and use your own. Just re-use
the amp, speakers.

I built my own spotify receiver using an rpi with a hifiberry add on which
worked perfectly. If someone built even simpler custom made Sonos play:5
boards I’d be less reluctant to buy more of them as I fear they may be
expensive bricks if Sonos fails.

------
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.

~~~
squarefoot
"A lot of luxury goods brands destroy their unsold merchandise"

This also happens since probably forever with fruit and vegetables if they're
unsold or in overproduction. The reason is to keep prices fixed by
artificially reducing the offer.

~~~
userbinator
Fruit and vegetables and other perishable goods will effectively self-destruct
if unsold anyway, so I don't see that as being quite as bad as deliberate
destruction of product that would otherwise last indefinitely.

~~~
TeMPOraL
If what I remember about the Great Depression from my history lessons is
correct, the picture becomes quite different when you have farmers and vendors
destroying food to keep the price up next to masses of people starving because
they can't afford the food.

~~~
squarefoot
That was my point. It still happens everywhere, which I find disgusting.

------
S_A_P
Hey everyone. I get that Sonos does have some value add here allowing mesh
networking and encrypted audio. Buuuuuuuuuut, there are tons of alternative
options. I like building speakers and I have built my sound bar using
components from parts express and some reclaimed hard woods. Parts express has
tons of Bluetooth options and the quality is mostly pretty good. I am using
morel and peerless drivers and the 2x50 watt Bluetooth amp. The sound is as
good or better than any sound bar I’ve heard and I don’t have to update
software or deal with obnoxious TOS agreements. My tv connects to it without
issues and while it’s not as elegant as the Sonos experience but I will take
that over planned obsolescence.

------
iforgotpassword
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
because it somehow in some twisted sense means you recycle your old device for
a new one.

I'm speechless.

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

~~~
katmannthree
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.

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

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

~~~
xp84
That really says a lot. I've seen plenty of companies who would have to tell
you tough luck, no exceptions if you have a device which is "accidentally" on
like a stolen blacklist (take iCloud activation lock for example), since if
they have the ability to ever bend the rules, it'll be exploited by thieves --
but the funny part here is that 100% of the devices in "recycled" status are
just there because Sonos gave someone a coupon, so the only "reason" for a
zero-tolerance policy against reactivation in any circumstances is revenue
protection.

Disgusting.

------
allthecybers
This is shocking. Why do I need to have a recycle mode on a speaker? Oh
because it’s a WiFi connected, smart speaker that collects and stores data on
me.

We recently read about Apple devices being bricked in the recycling process
because of Find My, but that makes sense, because it’s a personal computer or
phone where I intentionally store personal data. And I’d much rather err on
the side of that data not getting out.

But seriously Sonos, this is dumb. To intentionally brick devices that could
be perfectly functional for someone else is honestly bad for the planet and
business.

Glad I’ve never bought a Sonos and now I never will.

------
noonespecial
Sounds like an opportunity to score some decent physical hardware for a song.
It could become a brand new hacker brand. "Noson". Fix the device via jag to
talk to an open source server like an own cloud plugin.

------
dcow
The dumbest thing is that if I can sell my old Sonos rather than trash them in
recycle mode then I am _more_ likely to upgrade sooner since the sale of my
used hardware can also help subsidize the upgrade regardless of whether Sonos
offers me credit or not. And now Sonos has an additional user of their product
(which in turn markets the product and is likely to build loyalty assuming the
product isn’t shit) _and_ a new hardware sale. I am willing to bet Sonos needs
both growth of their user base and needs to demonstrate that some core
percentage of their customers regularly upgrade on a ~5yr purchase cycle. And
it doesn’t actually cost Sonos anything (relative to the BOM for a device) to
handle the compute for the extra user so it’s not like the person upgrading is
making off with anything of additional value to Sonos. So take the
environmental concerns out of the picture: this is just short sighted nooby
business.

This smells like some program cooked up by a hot shot MBA type that the
executive team trusts to tweak the business because they don’t shut up about
needing to focus on type of numbers investors care about. Never mind they
don’t know the first thing about building a decent product. And to make it
worse they’re probably actually convinced they’re helping the environment.

------
Trias11
Light bulb manufacturers goes to great extents to artifically shorten
lifestyle of bulbs.

I adjusted to that by keeping bulb receipts. Then buying new ones to replace
failing ones. Then coming 3 weeks later to get refund or credit for failed
ones.

Putting pressure on retailers to stop carrying crappy products.

I know it's not exactly audio stuff but manufacturers engaging in misleading
to the point of fraudulent practices need to be dealt with.

------
dcow
I wonder what’s going to happen after they get a bunch of, “my kid turned on
recycle mode now I have a brick plz halp” support calls...

~~~
jbigelow76
Probably the same thing that happened, and mostly in the same frequency as
happened, 6 months ago. This article highlights the shittiness of Sonos's
"implementation" of a recycle program, not the customer's experience or
results (discounted purchases of new products) of initiating the program.

------
maweki
Why is that not incredibly illegal?

~~~
Eikon
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.

~~~
dogma1138
Customers can’t use this mode when the product is not repairable in most cases
as the SOC which is the only irreparable component needs to be fully
functional.

If your device cannot boot you can’t put it into recycle mode.

This mode is designed for one thing only and that is to disable perfectly
working devices.

IIRC the device also needs to be within its warranty period for you to use
recycle mode.

------
fjni
There was never any appeal to me in a speaker which is so tightly coupled with
software. I don’t see those still working in 10+ years. Whereas there’s plenty
of old hifi setups still being used. The fact that the software has an
intentional bricking mechanism in it just makes this more apparent.

------
lvturner
Not super familiar with Sonos, but why do they 'need' to connect to a server
in order to work at all? Do they bundle in some kind of subscription streaming
service or something?

I always thought they were just wireless speakers that I used locally on my
own network...

------
tripzilch
I experienced a similar thing when I helped a friend install LineageOS on
their bootlooped Android phone.

Apparently, this process would have been 10x easier if they had switched on
"OEM unlocking" in the Developer Options setting (which you can't do from the
boot menu, recovery menu or via adb), which is off by default for a very
stupid reason. We were successful in the end, but it was a LOT of hassle.

So, when you switch on "OEM unlocking", you get a warning that it's "for
protection against thieves". Like, a thief would steal your phone and it's
encrypted and locked, but because "OEM unlocking" is off they can't simply
wipe it and reinstall to re-sell, or something. So to them it's a brick and
therefore they wouldn't have stolen your phone I guess. Except if they spend
some effort they can totally cleanly reinstall the thing, it just takes more
steps.

Maybe I'm missing some part here about how this "OEM unlocking" option
supposedly protects against theft, but for me it was a simple sum. Number of
times my phone got stuck in a boot loop: 3, number of times my phone got
stolen: 0. So I set that to unlocked, now I'll have an easier time if I ever
mess up my phone again.

The only real reason I can think of is that they WANT your phone to stay
bricked/bootlooped when it's bricked, and be unable to fix and repair it. It
has nothing to do with theft, it's just a way to make sure the device stays
disabled when it's disabled, and to make you buy another new phone.

Additionally, I got nothing but happy comments about LineageOS from my friend.
You can really tell in the feel of the entire system the difference between
what it means to be a user (normal software) or to be the product (like in
Android or any of the Google/Facebook/Apple systems). Just by what options
you're given and the fact that applications actually behave _at your service_
instead of nagging you while you're trying to accomplish a task. I'm not
really happy about how Android 9 is running on my moto-g6, so I think I'm
gonna make that switch soon as well. You don't even need to root the phone to
do this, but it's a choice (I think I'm going to root it though).

~~~
jdnenej
I got hit by this same issue. We had a few spare phones at work in a draw and
I wanted to give them to friends in need of a phone. Had permission from the
company but no one knew who owned them or what the password was. I did the
manual factory reset from the recovery but was hit by this "security" feature.

I eventually managed to track down the original owner and had them unlock the
devices. If I hadn't, these phones would be ewaste.

What bothers me is the solution is simple, when a manual factory reset is
done, have the phone ping google and start a 1 week countdown. Google can then
email the original owner and ask if they have had their phone stolen. If they
reply yes then the phone is locked. If they reply no or have no response then
the phone unlocks.

~~~
tripzilch
Apparently you can still wipe and reset and reinstall the phones even with
"OEM unlock" switched off. At least, we managed to pull it off. But it took
about half a day of trying and retrying random things from threads on
forum.xda-developers.com. Sorry I can't be more specific, it becomes a bit of
a blur after the 5th time :-p

~~~
jdnenej
If you do a reset from recovery and not the settings app it locks it down with
android factory reset protection and the phone is bricked until the original
owner enters their google password.

~~~
tripzilch
Oh that might be it then, they still had their google account (or the TFA
backup codes printed). Either way it seems sensible to do the OEM unlocking,
just in case.

Still stupid that it can brick the phone if you don't have that password.

------
wiggles_md
IIRC Logitech used to do this with warranty replacements on Harmony
remotes—don’t know if they still do. It made purchasing one used risky.

~~~
drewg123
They did this, but the blacklist only prevents the remote from getting updates
from the cloud.. it does not brick the device, and it can continue to use its
current config. Or at least that's how it used to be.

I have a harmony that I bought in 2009-ish, and the provided "batteries
included" exploded in the first few days of ownership and made a huge mess. I
wrote them a complaint, and they sent me a new remote. When I activated the
new one, the old one stopped taking updates.

Amusingly, there is an open source tool that can pull a config from one
harmony and flash it to another. The replacement was actually slightly
inferior (mushy keys), and so I'd program the replacement, back up the config,
and restore it to the original.

------
jessriedel
If the devices become useless, how is this any different from Sonos just
offering customers "trade-in" value for their old devices (like for used cars)
and then throwing them out? Just that the device doesn't get physically mailed
to Sonos?

Like if you think it's just spiritually bad to throw working things out, fine.
But how is Sonos doing wrong by the customer?

~~~
atomicthumbs
Used cars don't get thrown out when they're traded in. And it's not
"spiritually bad," it's actively destructive to the environment. Manufacturing
things requires a great deal of energy.

~~~
userbinator
Well, there was this, fortunately short-lived...
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Car_Allowance_Rebate_System](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Car_Allowance_Rebate_System)

------
bborud
I have a sonos speaker at my cabin and while the audio isn’t bad the spotty
wifi coverage and the choppy audio that keeps dropping out when I listen to
Audible at 1.25 to 1.5 speed is annoying.

It just isn’t a very good product in my eyes. I have cheap Bluetooth speakers
that work much better.

So I would be interested in “upcycling” the Sonos with new innards.

Time to watch some teardown videos to see what can be done.

------
sizzle
Is there no way to fake the Sonos server and reauthenticate the bricked device
offline or tear it down and bypass any logic chips and get at the speaker
hardware directly, create an analog 3.5mm jack input and play music from it
manually?

Would love to see the folks at hackaday or somewhere else exploit the recycle
mode hardware.

------
sitkack
Dear lazy web, is there something like the sonos that is open source that
makes the same synchronized sound field (I dont own a sonos, I assume that is
what they do)? I believe I could hack something up using an ESP32, a
microphone and/or a GNSS receiver, but does this already exist?

~~~
SanchoPanda
Logitech media server. Run LMS on one pi or a docker container, and then
onother pi zeros run Squeezelite. The entirety of the installation on the
receiving devices is ` sudo apt install squeezelite`.

It has been game changing for me.

------
jimbob45
To piggyback off this week's hate of MBAs, it seems likely some idiot MBA
determined that the company was losing exorbitant amounts of money from
secondhand sales of their devices such that they had to implement this
ridiculous initiative.

------
martin_bech
Im just reminded that the fashion industry does somewhat the same.. they
litterally set fire to unsold clothes, to protect the brand and margins.

------
layoutIfNeeded
>From what our eBay guy can tell, the bricking isn't even in hardware; you
can't recover it if you're good with JTAG, because it's blacklisted as
"recycled" on their servers.

Yet another reason to never own anything "smart".

I wonder how difficult would it be to strip out the Sonos smart crap from
these speakers and connect a Raspberry W to the preamp?

------
greyhair
I wish they would sell them at a reduced price just as powered speakers, to
people that would just like to use them as powered speakers. No support
provided, just a website where you could click and order.

There are a number of people that would be more than happy and able to
repurpose an old Sonus speaker that no longer operated as a Sonus speaker.

------
throwaway887665
I found out about the perils of depending on specific apps, cloud or something
like that when gave a toy to girlfriend and now we can't play anymore because
the app wasn't updated to the latest Android.

Literally we would tell the manufacturer to introduce it in specific places to
tell us if it is usefull without remote control

------
Jemm
Best reason not to buy a Sonos product.

~~~
mycall
Or mod it

------
chaboud
This seems like it's for a trade-up/upgrade program, which would traditionally
be:

1) Customer boxes up device.

2) Customer mails device to manufacturer.

3) Manufacturer hits it with a hammer, ensuring that they don't have to
compete with their own used device after the customer has been given a credit
for it.

So, instead, we have:

A) Customer starts bricking process.

B) Customer recycles device locally.

C) Local electronics recycler hits device with a hammer because it has self
bricked, ensuring that the manufacturer doesn't have to compete with their own
used device after the customer has been given a credit for it.

So we've removed disposable packaging and fuel for shipping. It seems like a
net win for the environment.

They're going to do their trade in program. They can either do it the
traditional way or do it this way, having a slightly lower adverse
environmental impact. Leaving the device functional is not on the menu, and
acting like it is is intentionally obtuse.

------
tardo99
Yes it's a waste. I also find it genuinely funny. Not sure why. Just tickles
me.

------
tempsy
If there’s one company I’d bet on being acquired next year it’s probably
Sonos. Even with a 30-50% premium it’s a small buy for any of the big cos who
want to increase market share in home device market.

------
philpem
What an absolute and utter waste.

On the other hand: I'd rather like to get hold of a bricked Sonos.

I'd stick a Raspberry Pi, DAC and speaker amp inside it. Be free of the
shackles of the cloud, my child!

------
kevmo
This is a common tactic in America's industrial products.

~~~
antoinevg
Oh believe you me, after decades of this kind of crap us non-Americans have
become quite cautious about buying American products!

------
ivanhoe
I'm very much DIY guy and hate it when companies block users from doing
whatever they want with their equipment, but this is a special case. User gets
the discount from Sonos for recycling the old equipment, and thus user doesn't
own it anymore. It belongs to Sonos now as they bought it back, and of course
they don't want it resold half-price by 3rd party, it's a competition to their
new products. To me it seems perfectly legit, as long as you get a discount
for that. And the equipment can still be recycled and resold for parts, they
don't block that.

~~~
Wowfunhappy
It makes sense for Sonos. It’s also environmentally terrible.

------
mavhc
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

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

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

------
zhrvoj
Ooooo what a sustainable behaviour... Next step is to schedule Recycle mode.
Then we will have to hack the gadget not to do that. My friend she is using
Sony android phone from 2013, she disabled google apps long ago, I did some
things, and for average user like she is, it is perfect, fast and responsive,
Whapp, Viber, calls, camera...spending money on travelling, not on
manufacturer's jerking-gadgets. I presume Sony and other manufacturers don't
like us to much. Frankly, I don't give a damn...

------
kyberias
Sonos speaker owner here. Has there been any efforts in reverse engineering
how the devices work and having an open source firmware?

------
monocasa
Oh man, I would absolutely take one of these off anyone's hands if they have
one to hack on. Would pay for shipping.

------
vkaku
I'll be happy to flash a build of Snapcast on my Sonos speakers and do away
with their software for good.

------
floatingatoll
Is this a violation of US resale rights?

~~~
gruez
Why would it be? It was done in exchange for a 30% discount. Scummy or not, it
has clear elements of a contract.

------
gok
> Someone recycled five of these Sonos Play:5 speakers. They're worth $250
> each, used, and these are in good condition. They could easily be reused.

Then the owner should have sold (given?) them as-is, rather than trying to
double dip by telling Sonos they were going to recycle them for parts (for
which they pay you $120) then not doing so.

~~~
bathtub365
The owner did try to recycle them for parts, by giving them to the recycling
centre.

~~~
gok
I now see what's going on...the OP claims to be running an e-recycling center
but actually takes "donations" and sells them for a profit instead.

~~~
philcrump
My understanding has always been that e-recycling centers have to pay to
responsibly dispose of the junk they collect / are given, and they fund this
by sorting through it for any equipment that can be refurbished or
cannibalised and sold for re-use. There's nothing nefarious about this.

~~~
bathtub365
Me too. I’m dropping stuff off at a recycling centre because I have no use for
it anymore. If they can find a use for it, that makes me happy. It’s the same
reason I’d rather donate stuff to charity or drop it off at a thrift store for
them to sell than throw it in the trash.

------
mrinfinite
sonos is the worst. They sell speakers without an audio input (last time i
checked)... and can only be controlled/used by sonos software... homey dont
play that. but i am disillusioned with itunes as well... wah

------
sm4rk0
That's why I prefer buying hardware and service (if any) unbundled.

------
topmonk
As a programmer, if someone asked me to do this, I would walk out.

------
neya
I am an audio engineer and this is going to be a long thread. TLDR; I hate
companies like Sonos. They add no value to people who know about audio. You
see, everything about speakers is really simple. From the way they work to the
way they're made. There's really just 4 pieces to make a speaker system. The
speaker, power supply, amplifier and a pre-amplifier to modify the sound (eg.
DSP, Equalizer, etc.)

That's why if you search on the used market today, you'll still see equipment
from companies like Aiwa/Sony from the 80s and 90s simply because these
speakers can be re-used even now as you can connect anything to them before
the pre-amplifier and they'll still reproduce your source
(iPod/TV/Computer/whatever). I posses a 40 year old Aiwa system that still
functions flawlessly today like brand new. This is also possible today because
speakers themselves can last so much longer. More than 40 years as you can
tell.

All companies like Sonos do is add just another layer before the pre-amplifier
stage - which is to make the speaker "smart". This is usually all those wifi
chips and bluetooth and Google assistant and what not. This is the proprietary
part of their system. Normally, you are able to throw away this proprietary
part and still use the speaker system. But, in pursuit of more sales, to
reduce the lifespan of a perfectly fine speaker system to simply increase
revenues is the most hardcore, cruel thing one can do.

Sonos' speakers are so bad that many models aren't even serviceable. Meaning,
you can't open them like you could on those Aiwa's and Sony's and put them
back together. Once taken apart, they're useless. They use tons of glue,
proprietary shaped screws sometimes even wire the speakers in such a way that
they'll damage the units if you try to take them off. They purposely do this
so their speakers can't be used anymore without damaging the appearance.

That's why I will any day buy a mediocre music system from Sony or LG than buy
trash like Sonos. First of all, I know the quality of components they use is
not that great. They use ordinary stamped steel, sometimes plastic baskets for
their driver units as opposed to high quality aluminium construction. Paper
diaphragms too. Their units don't even have proper crossover circuitry in some
models. And besides, the drivers they use are actually based off rebranded
generic Chinese, just tweaked a bit. They're very good at fooling people
pretending to be an audiophile company. In reality, they're not even half as
close to the stuff from the 80's and 90's.

So, having ranted this, there's literally no reason to support such terrible
ethics backed company simply for the sake of their profits. Fuck Sonos and get
a Sony (or whatever else you like that doesn't do this). This is not just for
the environment, but to set a full stop to such terrible practices. The audio
land is already so full of snake oil already that the last thing we need is
another snake oil sales man like Sonos.

------
iamaelephant
If you buy a LAN or WAN connected speaker you're a dumb guy. No exceptions.

------
duelingjello
Smdh. Consumerism at it's finest wastefulness.

------
HocusLocus
Gone Missing: mindless rage, scandal, foreboding, nausea and disgust at what
the future may bring if a trend is not stopped in its tracks.

Emerging, Rising: apologist arguments that equate compromise and degeneration
of tools made out of a sense of personal cleverness, finding that one-use case
where the trend might 'save the planet' or at least present it as such,
winning the debate among like minds.

~~~
HocusLocus
It's getting to where if I fail to get downvoted here, I wonder if I've stated
my point clearly.

