Apparel companies are starting to participate in the secondary market for their used gear, why can't Sonos do something similar?
- 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. 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.
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.
That makes this even more puzzling.
* It was the CR100 Controller they updated to no longer be able to control devices it previously could.
AFAIK they've never EOLed any speakers. Older speakers sometimes don't get newer features (like AirPlay 2), but they still work and can even play back AirPlay 2 audio if grouped with a newer speaker.
The model for highly disposable luxury technology is Apple. Apple is also the model for refurbished goods. These things aren't mutually exclusive. You can tuck away a refurbished part of the site just out of the eyes of the majority just like Apple does.
Of course there are people who want a new model phone every year but that is their choice, certainly not something forced by the nature of the product.
2) Planned obsolescence in the forms of
A) Removing/altering physical ports, preferring proprietary "standards" to actual standards
B) Irreversible OS upgrades, Internet Recovery Mode notwithstanding, and the deliberately hobbled functionality "older" hardware endures, see leaked employee info on deliberate unnecessary version flags purpose built into software, etc.
Not that this makes their current actions ok, but at least they had been trying until now. I think they are now realizing that having a product that doesn't have built-in planned obsolescence may be hurting their profits
Devices that used to be smart way before all this "dumb home" stuff appeared.
You can put a DAC on a RPi, install squeezeplayer, and attach to the squeeze network for free today. I have done that exact thing in the last six months.
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.
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.
Who wants to join my git repo?
“Once your Sonos product has been deactivated, you can safely recycle it by bringing it to your local e-waste recycling center. You can also send your deactivated Sonos product back to us and we’ll handle the recycling.”
The company is not only run on a capitalist basis, it's the reason it exists in the first place.
But yeah, it's true they're more conscious and environmentally friendly than most. And I think they play an important role in pushing back against fast fashion, which is incredibly polluting and wasteful.
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
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.
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.
Patagonia certainly seems to exist in a world of private ownership, private investment decisions, and voluntary exchanges in a free market.
This story is at best lazy reporting with many facts left out or unresearched.
> Do you resell recycled devices?
> No.These devices are permanently
deactivated and cannot be resold.
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.
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]?"
Modern digital technology makes this so much easier and more. There are excellent digital power amps, where you have power amplification on one chip integrated with the DAC.
Just looking at some of the features of a simple Homepod, there are exciting technologies involved, which could improve also higher end audio. First is driving the bass speaker in a feedback loop. In classical audio technology, you would have a power signal and have to rely on the speaker to transfer this into motion with as little as possible of distortion. Which required the speaker to behave like a perfect spring for different frequencies. So this is a very difficult task, making the speaker expensive and often imperfect. Homepods drive their bass speakers in a feedback loop, the desired position of the membrane is calculated and an electric circuit drives it into that position. It does no longer depend on the mechanical properties of the membrane, also allowing for much higher motion range than in a classical speaker.
Also, the active monitoring of the room acoustics with several directional microphones is an improvement vs. classical set up amplifiers, even if they had a microphone input for set up.
So I don't see us hitting peak audio at all yet, that makes for exciting times for music lovers.
Distortion levels from speakers are still far from negligible-- by negligible I mean so low as to be extremely likely to be inaudible.
High power amplifiers are just now reaching a point where there are efficient amplifiers with negligible distortion; though they've been pretty good for a fairly long time.
There is a lot that can be done in terms of immersive spatial audio, unfortunately the trouble and cost of installing an array of speakers ... limits deployment. :)
There is also a lot that can be done to use DSP to ameliorate poor room acoustics, this stuff exists, but it isn't super widely deployed.
Nah, there are plenty of other things, like positional audio. I remember (through a pleasant haze of nostalgia) my old A3D-based sound card in the 90s as being even better than modern EAX stuff.
Potential improvement in that area can be both through simply adding speakers, and through tuning per-speaker output to forge better audio-cues. (To wit, Head Related Transfer Functions applied to headphones, possibly even with custom parameters for different peoples' heads.)
So, nothing, at the end of the day?
It does plenty for music.
So that's not really plenty of music.
The response curve from speakers has also reflected that, a lot of them are bass boosted in the amplifier or are designed with a bass boost in them.
I have some fairly nice speakers from the 70's (a couple of different sets, one homebuilt), and Pink Floyd and Jefferson Airplane sound a lot better from them than Katy Perry or Tiesto.
If you want good speakers, you don't buy a device that's 50% streaming audio circuitry, you buy a same-priced speaker that's actually a good speaker.
If you look at the S/N and distortion specs on a new affordably priced receiver, they won't be meaningfully better than a mid-range unit from the late 70s/early 80s. All the new HDMI and 20.7 Dolby Surround does nothing for two-channel MP3s or CDs.
Because the performance is equal, it's allowed build quality to shine. 15kg of heatsinks, capacitors the size of Coke cans, and big old TO-3 transistors are probably going to outlast propriatery digital doodads and amp-on-a-module designs built to minimize costs.
I'm more of a JVC fanboy myself, but I've been working on a Kenwood KR-6200 recently. 45 years old and one dead bulb. Unacceptable!
I retired many computers in the 80's and 90's in perfect working order. None of them will power up today.
Nothing I've bought in the last 25 years sounds remotely as good as them.
And plugging in a Chromecast audio has given it immortality.
My current living room setup is a Chromecast Audio connected to an AVR via the optical out connection, which powers my speakers, but I'm curious if there's any alternatives. The eBay sellers are really starting to price-gouge, and I'm not naive enough to believe that my Chromecast Audio will last forever.
Btw, Snapcast works great.
Pulseaudio can stream to multiple speakers and audio devices simultaneously. Switching to JACKd instead of gstreamer for the pulseaudio backend allows for a much more powerful audio processing subsystem (at the expense of resources since jackd likes a real-time kernel). Using mpd allows for a lightweight low latency server/client to stream audio to remote destinations. It’s not quite plug and play (DLNA doesn’t care about synchronization) but dropping mpd onto a raspberry pi is the simple fix (and simulates the hardware inside of a sonos speaker)
I’m sorry I’m on mobile or i would make a diagram showing this in detail. I’ve been thinking of what an open source Sonos clone would look like for a long time. Maybe it’s time to open up that git repo to the public
The latency you think I have is not there.
Or use a Chromecast Ultra and connect to the hi-fi with a hdmi to audio (spdif, 3.5", ...) or hdmi to vga+audio (and don't bother connect the vga to anything)
A boutique outfit from Shenzhen makes that.
Yep. I picked up a massive old high-end Denon receiver with pre-amp inputs and use a cheap newer receiver to decode surround digital audio and pump it through that 40 pound beast. Sounds incredible.
Many will also support Bluetooth so you can stream to your stereo.
Just Google for 'SBC codec transparent' if curious.
Bluetooth's A2DP only real problem is the unspecified latency requirements.
Several companies make all-in-one bluetooth speakers that have amps built in, but they tend to be lower quality in my experience.
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.
"Reproducing the ultrasonics" here is a sarcastic reference to any sampling rate higher than 24 kHz (it actually backs back well before digital music). Audiophiles often prefer it because it's claimed that it has a wider frequency response, a lower quantization noise by oversampling, increased transparency after recording and remixing, while critics believe it's a point of diminishing return, and increases the odds of unwanted distortion that actually decreases the fidelity.
His point is that once oversampling and filtering is done in hardware, the final output only needs to be encoded in a low sampling rate for its benefits, and all high-quality DAC and ADC already oversample the signal under the hood. Using 192 kHz for its output or music distribution is unnecessary, and only introduces drawbacks like additional IMD and wasted space.
What makes you think I am unfamiliar with the background?
Was it the polite way I pointed out that you had clearly missed the sarcasm?
Either way, the hostility is unnecessary.
> the polite way I pointed out that you had clearly missed the sarcasm?
That wording makes your comment just as hostile as theirs. If that's the intent you had in your first comment, well, you went first. Not much room to complain about low-level tit-for-tat hostility at that point.
But I think tone on the internet is difficult to read.
And I had no negative intent in noting the sarcasm. I didn't think the replier realised it, and I'm still not convinced they do.
- Christopher "Monty" Montgomery, the original author of the Ogg codec, founder of the Xiph.org Foundation, a real audio engineer.
It was to scare away the stone marter family that had made themselves a home under my parents' roof tiles. They are a protected animal where I live, so you can't just do anything to get rid of them. But they also tend to chew on cables in your car (they really do), making them dangerous. Also make a LOT of noise when they go hunting at night.
Looking up various ways to get rid of these animals (apparently they also really dislike the smell of toilet fresheners, which you can place under your car hood or something), I found an ultrasound device but it was kinda expensive for single use.
So I generated a bunch of high frequency tones, to make it extra annoying I had it do random(10,20) seconds of beep, then random(10,20) seconds of silence.
I burned this to a CD, made three tracks at 15kHz, 17kHz and 19kHz. I didn't go higher because I had no way to find out if the speakers would be able to reproduce that tone :) I could clearly hear 15k, and my parents a little. I could nearly hear 17k, and my parents swore they heard nothing. Neither of us could hear the 19k, even at the loudest volume.
Since I don't live there, we decided to put the 17k track on repeat, at max volume, because at least we knew it made a sound (that I could barely hear). The CD player was placed next to an open window close to the nest.
That very night, the stone marter family got up and left. We assumed they probably just moved a few houses over, or something. However ...
Just to be sure they wouldn't return, my parents left the CD player on repeat for an entire week. After that week when my dad turned off the CD, five minutes later, he walked into the garden ...
"Hey, the birds are back!"
(... and to think there's a popular route close to their house for people walking their dogs ...)
So yeah, that definitely worked. It's just not very specific :-P
Drove the dogs a little crazy until I found it.
FWIW, I have a cat myself, and I'm not the kind of person to annoy animals on purpose.
I dunno how hard they are to build (that guy was pretty skilled), but I think you can also just buy these devices ready made. Probably called "bat detectors" or something.
In fact I actually have a 192khz, 32 bit dac connecting my PC to a Technics stereo amp from the 80s.
Pithy snark only really works when you actually understand what you're talking about.
I have an Apple USB-C to Headphone jack (named the AppleDAC by some of the people I know online) at the core of my setup- it goes from an HTPC (with a type-A to C adapter) to an older Akai amp. Works great for what I need it to, and for $8.99 + adapter, the thingies are lovely- if you have a TRRS headset, the AppleDAC will enumerate as a headset and it just works, too.
Melding new and old tech is where it's at, IMO.
That is a big deal unless it's a system 100% dedicated to vinyl.
Who ever would have thought labeling three decades worth of people across the whole globe with a single label AND THEN trying to draw generalisations from it was a fools errand?
"The average Millennial annual salary is $35,592. Pew Research found that more millennial households are in poverty than any other generation and that millennials accounted for most of the nation’s renters."
We aren't close to peak audio, yet.
Show some damn respect for others interest.
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?
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.
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.
> 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.
It's another alternative. Some people just won't bother trying to resell it.
If the device works, and someone else wants it, then it has been recycled very efficiently. Sonos policy here is backwards.
Anyway, what Sonos is incentivizing through their credit is to make people choose the option "recycle or trash". They have no incentive to make people choose one over the other. And as already mentioned elsewhere in the thread, many recycling centres won't take a completely bricked device, so I think it's pretty fair to say that in practice what Sonos is incentivizing is for people to first brick, then TRASH the device in exchange for these credits.
Either way, Sonos is actively dis-incentivizing the "re-use" option, which is the most environmentally friendly one.
And the only reason they do this is their profit.
This was what was described in the grandparent comment.
In the case of Sonos the only thing the recycling center receives are bricks.
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 and perfectly within their rights and my expectations of what they do. I think there is an argument here about the definition of a recycling center.
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:
Just a nit: it’s useful to think of reusing as distinct from recycling. Recycling breaks the object into its raw material.
Recycling effectively is the same as throwing them in the trash in this case. There is no need for this. Sonos could just as easily offer an upgrade discount to people who bought their gear originally but they are scared that this would affect their ability to sell to other people so they create what is called artificial scarcity.
And that should not happen with things that are still serviceable, especially not for a company that claims to have sustainability as their motto.
"To add insult to injury, there are complaints on Sonos' support forums from people who've managed to accidentally put their devices into recycling mode, and been told by Sonos support that there's no way to stop the countdown, forcing them to buy new devices after 21 days."
"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. There's nothing stopping these things from working except Sonos says they can't."
> you can't recover it if you're good with JTAG, because it's blacklisted as "recycled" on their servers. There's nothing stopping these things from working except Sonos says they can't.
These two points are not compatible with each other. If the only effect of recycle mode is that the device gets blacklisted on a Sonos server, then Sonos is trivially able to undo the effects.
You should of course be cautious about assuming a cursory look from a 3rd party is enough to know for certain how the device is bricked, but it's not abnormal or weird for a business like Sonos to use a half-baked technical strategy to brick their devices, and then to just stonewall anyone who calls into support.
Half of the time that a company says, "there's no way for us to do X", what they really mean is, "please go away now."
It's purely our own cynicism on the respectability of companies that we assume it probably really means "won't".
We can accept that when customer support says "can't", it means "won't". But we can also hold them to some, any kind of standard.
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 worked like a charm. Just look at how many people upvoted this comment, signifying their praise of the company for this terrible program!
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.
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 behind your back.
The fact that there are multiple highly-rated comments on HN looking at resellers and saying, "well, obviously they shouldn't get Sonos credits" shows how poor of a job our society is doing educating people about how reduce-reuse-recycle actually works. You don't have to check for people abusing the system. The people abusing the system are the environmental success stories. If a bunch of people participate in the trade-up program and then secretly resell their devices, that is a good thing that should be celebrated.
If anything, Sonos should be offering more credit to those people, not less.
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.
A complete deception to sound green, with zero cost to Sonos with zero attempt to be green, and just causing a waste stream. Nice one Sonos.
That said, permanently disabling good devices still seems like vandalism.
As others have commented, the most environmentally friendly way to ‘recycle’ is to reuse.
The purpose of this recycle mode is not to encourage recycling, but to kill the second hand market.
The linked tweet says the recycled Sonos would have been worth $250 on the secondhand market if not recycled.
It's extremely doubtful that the recycle credit is intended to prevent a second-hand market, and far more likely accidental. It does seem like a trade-in credit would work better, but nothing prevents third parties from offering a trade-in credit above $100.
And it's not even a setting they put in to care about the environment, because they don't give a shit if you actually give the device to a recycler or not. So, my conclusion, it's some fucking douchebag manager's idea.
If they actually cared about the environment they'd take the old devices and use the parts for warranty repairs, and even have a refurb store (but noo, we sell fancy rich people toys, we can't tarnish our store with selling environmentally friendly but other people's discarded gadgets).
I wish Greta Thunberg would tweet about this, their sales would nosedive.
We absolutely understand what the intention of the button is.
I do not understand the actual sane incentive for anybody in this transaction.
How would Sonos be worse off if those machines weren't wasted?
You get a sale either way; you reward a loyal customer for an upgrade either way.
If it weren't a large company, I'd say they do it out of spite - but in reality, it's just the bizarre, surreal method large corporations end up with ridiculous policies through a set of seemingly logical steps.
>>they have to trust you're actually recycling it instead of keeping it or selling it
Why? What is the benefit to them (Sonos)? What is the harm if you DID keep it?
>>The credit helps encourage people to recycle them at all instead of just throwing them in the trash, right?
There's absolutely positively nothing about this mode / button that prevents people from throwing it in the trash. In fact, by any logic I can see, it does the opposite and encourages them to chuck it in the garbage - since it's now a worthless non-functioning brick.
>>the recycle lock is a clever mechanism to ensure that.
Let us please NOT call this travesty "Clever". At least not outside of SV tech-bro blinders culture :O. It does NOTHING to ensure recycling.
>>Otherwise you could "cheat" by getting the credit AND still using/selling your speakers.
Wait.. HOW would Sonos be at all worse off? How would ANYbody be impacted for the worse?
>>this seems like a win for all sides
Sonos didn't get anything out of it. Recycling company got less out of it. Earth got less out of it. And there's no reason I can understand why consumer has to go through that hoop to get an upgrade credit.
Seems like a lose-lose for all sides.
I'm not going to downvote, because you made a lucid argument and downvotes are for those who do not contribute to conversation, not for disagreements. I'd say your post contributed a lot to conversation, seeing the number of comments:).
But I fail to understand the argument you're trying to make and the framework / world outlook where it makes sense.
I'm willing to be persuaded otherwise but need a lot more to even begin changing my mind :-/. Just because consumer "have choice", doesn't make one of the options automatically sane.
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
You've said this a few times, but I don't understand what you're trying to say.
In your dictionary definition I guess you're referring to item 3, but that's already given an alternative which is "re-use".
When talking about environmental waste the word "recycle" does not include "reuse", which is why the slogan is "reduce, reuse, recycle". When talking about waste the word reuse is distinct from recycle. https://www.buschsystems.com/resource-center/knowledgeBase/g...
They literally get nothing, except to make their devices more rare by having old ones bricked. Which is WRONG, in this world of increasing waste.
Your idea that this somehow overall is a good set of incentives seems to be based on two things: One, that people would otherwise just throw them in the trash, which isn't true. Two, that it's somehow a good thing to give customers the choice to brick it for no other reason than Sonos credit.
This isn't even a new technique. Unfortunately, it's widespread. Yet another example of greenwashing:
The second hand market is very good for the environment. By going after it, Sonos is actively hurting the environment.
That people have a choice doesn't exonerate Sonos. They are making it a lot easier for people to make the wrong choice.
Many things in this world is a win for both parties involved but still an awful thing to do (due to externalities).
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.
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.
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.
You can also refresh them with a powershell command a limited number of times IIRC.
Unfortunately, you can also make a profit by following the environmentally destructive route of making the user buy themselves a brand new device and bricking it when they don't keep paying the separate subscription.
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.
i won't ever buy another sonos device (even the ikea speakers, which i like otherwise) because of that.
Based on the language used online from sonos, this whole recycle mode seems to be to pay users to give up old hardware so they can EOL'd it without leaving users with useless hardware.
If a company wants to EOL hardware, paying users to give it up seems to be an ethical way to do it (from a consumer perspective, if not a environmental one)
So, you were dead in the water without Itunes that kept the fairplay key for that particular player
FairPlay was never applied to MP3 (or, later, AAC) files you loaded onto the device yourself -- you could pull them back off the device with little difficulty.
I think it wasn't until later generations they made this more difficult.
With my latest MacBook Pro, I already know that there are no upgrades, the keyboard is almost broken, and that its lifetime is determined through policy. Question is; will it be the hardware or software which determines end of life?
They don't make it easy, but you can download older OSX images from apple's servers (Sierra, Yosemite, etc..) and install them with some effort.
I don’t feel it’s fair to expect a vendor to actively develop major feature upgrades for a seven-year-old computer.
What keeps you from downloading and installing macOS High Sierra or Mojave on your 2012 hardware? Both versions still receive security updates, don’t they?
That's so 2019 :-P
Today it's "consumer as a product" -- you buy a product, they own YOU.
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.
I have been a user since 2014, and I emphatically will not continue to be their customer once my existing devices bite the dust.
But then they started removing functionality from their app, and the Play 1s don’t even work with the iPhone anymore unless you have a streaming service or you set up a music service. The ability to just play music and then play it on your speakers is gone. And they don’t give a fuck. They are completely unapologetic and they just forget about their older speakers like a bad habit and that’s why I will never buy another one again.
And their app is getting worse, they are forcing logging in to monitor your usage, etc. It’s infuriating. Their technology was amazing 5 years ago but now it’s annoying.
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.
From a practical perspective, my home simply doesn't have room for anything but a soundbar for my TV. My options are built-in TV speakers, or a soundbar.
Some studio monitors like the popular KRK series are not flat response and are a bit bass heavy.
Wharfdale Diamonds are much changed and developed, but still a well thought of small bookshelf speaker, though the range now includes floor standing and 7.1 multimedia systems.
In short, look to the budget hifi makes rather than smart or tech gimmicks. Many of the Japanese brands make speakers for the home market, but use Wharfdale, Tannoy or one of the other Western makes selling systems here. The Denon compact system I bought 30 years ago came with a pair of Wharfdale Diamonds, with a Denon badge. Technics used to ship badged Tannoy speakers -- not sure if they still do. When I had to replace it a year or two ago, the comparable modern Denon compact system had no option for included speakers. Mine now uses those 30 year old Denon badged Diamonds.
A few years ago I bought a TEAC amp + speakers , still very happy with both.
I had the 305's one generation before (mk 1, vs mk 2) and they're the best sounding speakers I've yet owned.
Only had two of them (stereo, front left and right), with an old logitech 5.1 system making up the rest of a 7.1 system. Over time I was intending on replacing those logitech speakers with further 305's. :)
but “powered stereo speakers” are speakers with a built in amp. Most have analog inputs and Bluetooth (some even have turntable input). They can range in price up to almost 1000$.
I feel those analog inputs are important in making the device future proof.
Crutchfeild is a catalog seller but has good examples of this class of speaker:
How could it? It's all server side. If such a virus existed, they'd just undo all the 'recycling' after the day it started circulating.
Edit: I reread the thread and now I'm not so sure. It might be entirely software blacklisting.
But if that's the case, can't you ip blackhole Sonos' servers and still have it all work?
If your Sonos can access the API to mark a device as recycled, so can you. So if you can predict serial numbers or just bruteforce them (depending on how complex they are) you might be able to brick every single Sonos out there...
I highly doubt they assign unique keypairs etc. to every single device...
This would be an incredible public service. Unfortunately I don't have the skills to do it so I won't.
And otherwise it would just piss off Sonos owners?