4 ms·

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, pr

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.

MrStonedOne 7y ago
The key piece you're missing is that there is no trade up part. You get the discount for putting it in recycle mode, but you do not send it to them. They basically give you discount to brick your old device as a way to kill off the secondary market.
rkochman 7y ago
I assume Apple and other companies sell the used products to liquidators who refurbish and resell them. Is that not true?
- Skunkleton 7y ago
  it is worth noting that there is enough profit in a new iPhone to eat the discount they are giving you, even if your old phone ends up in a crusher.
- londons_explore 7y ago
  > 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.
  - asveikau 7y ago
    > 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. So it seems like you're defining "good for the environment" as "low dollar costs to Apple". This is very strange.
  - freewilly1040 7y ago
    Low end clothing retailers also destroy never worn merchandise if it doesn't sell, but it has more to do with how expensive it is to store / transport
  - xp84 7y ago
    Sure, many things do get destroyed for branding reasons. This is an overgeneralization though to say that's definitely what Apple or someone else normally does with electronics. Plenty of the devices Apple gets back (or significant components from them) do end up on the refurbished channel. And the same goes for all their competitors. Tons of phones are refurbished. Go on eBay or Amazon or Groupon etc and there are hundreds of models available in quantity. These come from phone trade-in programs.
    - caf 7y ago
      Sometimes if you send your device for repair to Apple you get a refurbed unit back instead.
  - rarecoil 7y ago
    > 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_11_Pro_Max_PER_sept2019.pdf https://www.apple.com/environment/pdf/products/iphone/iPhone... [2] https://www.apple.com/environment/pdf/products/iphone/iPhone_XS_Max_PER_sept2018.pdf https://www.apple.com/environment/pdf/products/iphone/iPhone...
- baybal2 7y ago
  See my comment below. Apple actually pays recyclers for not refurbishing their goods, and shredding them instead. Of course, the recyclability of the resulting shredded mixed mess is near zero.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
legopelle 7y ago
They tout "sustainability is non-negotiable" on their page, while encouraging recycling over more sustainable reuse. I mean, they're allowed to do that, but be honest about it.

MrStonedOne 7y ago

The key piece you're missing is that there is no trade up part. You get the discount for putting it in recycle mode, but you do not send it to them. They basically give you discount to brick your old device as a way to kill off the secondary market.

rkochman 7y ago

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

Skunkleton 7y ago
it is worth noting that there is enough profit in a new iPhone to eat the discount they are giving you, even if your old phone ends up in a crusher.
londons_explore 7y ago
> 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.
- asveikau 7y ago
  > 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. So it seems like you're defining "good for the environment" as "low dollar costs to Apple". This is very strange.
- freewilly1040 7y ago
  Low end clothing retailers also destroy never worn merchandise if it doesn't sell, but it has more to do with how expensive it is to store / transport
- xp84 7y ago
  Sure, many things do get destroyed for branding reasons. This is an overgeneralization though to say that's definitely what Apple or someone else normally does with electronics. Plenty of the devices Apple gets back (or significant components from them) do end up on the refurbished channel. And the same goes for all their competitors. Tons of phones are refurbished. Go on eBay or Amazon or Groupon etc and there are hundreds of models available in quantity. These come from phone trade-in programs.
  - caf 7y ago
    Sometimes if you send your device for repair to Apple you get a refurbed unit back instead.
- rarecoil 7y ago
  > 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_11_Pro_Max_PER_sept2019.pdf https://www.apple.com/environment/pdf/products/iphone/iPhone... [2] https://www.apple.com/environment/pdf/products/iphone/iPhone_XS_Max_PER_sept2018.pdf https://www.apple.com/environment/pdf/products/iphone/iPhone...
baybal2 7y ago
See my comment below. Apple actually pays recyclers for not refurbishing their goods, and shredding them instead. Of course, the recyclability of the resulting shredded mixed mess is near zero.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]

legopelle 7y ago

They tout "sustainability is non-negotiable" on their page, while encouraging recycling over more sustainable reuse. I mean, they're allowed to do that, but be honest about it.