9 ms·

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:

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.

LatteLazy 7y ago
Patagonia are famously environmental and not really run on a capitalist basis...
- kbos87 7y ago
  I believe that Patagonia cares about the environment and wishes there was more they could do, but I think they are absolutely driven by the forces of capitalism, whether they like it or not, and it’s visible in their current practices. They run holiday ads and promotions, they open new stores, they release a new line each year. Yes they sprinkle in campaigns and messaging to not buy new unless you really need it and they facilitate recycling/reuse of their past products, but capitalism still forces them to seek growth, relevance, and sales to survive, which they do. Not faulting them for it, just wishing it wasn’t that way.
  - fuzzfactor 7y ago
    >They run holiday ads and promotions, they open new stores, they release a new line each year. These are all things a regular entrepreneur would do whether they were capitalist or not. Or any of _other peoples' money_ was involved. Even when the only environment to operate in is recognized as overwhelmingly capitalist, a non-capitalist entrepreneur can still have some unfair advantages. When you're selling all you 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
    - kd5bjo 7y ago
      I think you may be misusing the term “capitalist”. I always understood that it had more to do with the production side of a business than sales or long-term goals: the capitalist (a founder or investor) provides capital so that a business can acquire production facilities, and is entitled in return to a portion of the proceeds from the enterprise that he or she enabled. The business strategy and long-term vision can be anything the parties agree upon. 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.
      - fuzzfactor 7y ago
        Good to get your message. Just using terminology more precisely as it applies to a natural environment over a lifetime. The one constant is the structure which enables other people's money to be used for pure financial leverage. No requirement for free enterprise which I truly care for as well. Heck, before they were united, some States of America were founded by royal capitalist corporations, about the furthest thing from free enterprise. So capital as other people's money is a resource, but not every resource is capital unless it actually belongs to somebody else with their conditions attached as agreed. Not so much means of production, or hard assets, but whenever an investor provides capital to a founder so that >The business strategy and long-term vision can be anything the parties agree upon. Regardless of whether you build or acquire any facilities they are >entitled in return to a portion of the proceeds from the enterprise that he or she enabled. So I think we can agree that type of thing is it for sure. But I do think it's actually some of the uber-capitalist corporations which have done the most damaging outsourcing. And I don't see how I could rightfully be a capitalist without any capital. Well, it might just be best to be able to change at any time, if you really do know how to perform for shareholders. A founder without any of other people's money, and without enough prosperity to enable their investment in other people's ventures, just doesn't seem to be actually handling capital, yet, even if the cash flow gets fairly large. Even if they are very agressive entrepreneurs this does not put them in the catagory of funded ventures, and opportunity to well exploit a capitalist market might remain out of reach even while it still must be operated within. When the economic system is structured so that capital alone can yield more than many labor approaches, terms become more critical than ever for outfits seeking leverage so they can become capitalist in difficult or uncertain conditions. Without extraordinary terms an operation might be better off which could take place whether there was other people's money or not. Capitalism can enable wonderful things and not-so-wonderful things but the foundation is basically the other people's money aspect of it.
- gwright 7y ago
  What definition of "capitalism" are you using? Patagonia certainly seems to exist in a world of private ownership, private investment decisions, and voluntary exchanges in a free market.
- Reedx 7y ago
  Patagonia was started by a rock climber who sold his hand-made climbing gear into the free market. He was well rewarded for doing so and from that was able to grow into the Patagonia many of us know and love today (indeed my favorite clothing company). 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.
nullc 7y ago
Sonos could immediately cure the worst of these image problems by setting up something so you could re-license a recycled device for the $120 value (or whatever the amount is) someone got for hitting recycle.
wayoutthere 7y ago
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.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- asdff 7y ago
  You can already buy louis vuitton at the nordstrom rack. 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.
  - gwright 7y ago
    "highly disposable"? I think if you consider the average useable lifetime of an Apple product they aren't as expensive as they may seem. 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.
    - hootbootscoot 7y ago
      How does that viewpoint square with 1) Deliberately slowed-down hardware (claimed concern about "older device batteries" don't wash with reality either...) 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.
      - 7y ago
TeMPOraL 7y ago
Wonder how long these apparel companies will keep it up. I remember reading not so long ago that some well-known clothes companies realized that people are interested in buying used high-quality clothes, and so they started manufacturing new clothes using worse materials and process but to the same design as quality ones, and then sell these fake-used clothes as "worn".
- bostik 7y ago
  Stone-washed jeans have been a thing since at least 1980's, from around the same time that "worn in" look became fashionable.
- armandhammer 7y ago
  Isn't that basically the "Outlet Store" model? New clothes made to lower standards but ostensibly sold under the illusion of being "last season's overstock" of the high quality normal version?
shawnz 7y ago
It's not clear to me from the information here that Sonos themselves can't refurbish a device that's been put into recycle mode. This seems to be a technique to block third party refurbishers only.
- hkh28 7y ago
  It appears they can, but choose not to. This way they can ensure that less used units are available on the market, forcing people to buy a new unit instead.
  - shawnz 7y ago
    In the thread it was explained how support agents would refuse to do it remotely for a customer's device, but what I'm saying is that Sonos probably retains the ability for themselves to refurbish and resell the units when they are physically returned to Sonos.
    - Lammy 7y ago
      They encourage you to recycle it yourself rather than send it back to them. From their support page: https://support.sonos.com/s/article/3573 https://support.sonos.com/s/article/3573 “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.”
Godel_unicode 7y ago
They are literally doing exactly that. You can take your old speaker into a Sonos store or ship it (on Sonos dime) back to them. They then refurbish and resell, and you get a discount. This story is at best lazy reporting with many facts left out or unresearched. https://www.sonos.com/en-us/shop/certified-refurbished https://www.sonos.com/en-us/shop/certified-refurbished https://www.sonos.com/en-us/tradeup https://www.sonos.com/en-us/tradeup
- XMPPwocky 7y ago
  From the FAQ on https://www.sonos.com/en-us/tradeup https://www.sonos.com/en-us/tradeup - > Do you resell recycled devices? > No.These devices are permanently deactivated and cannot be resold.
- ladon86 7y ago
  I already replied to your other comment but in the interest of correcting this misinformation, you can neither ship your bricked device to Sonos nor bring it into a Sonos store. https://twitter.com/sonossupport/status/1179459927624036357?s=21 https://twitter.com/sonossupport/status/1179459927624036357?... https://twitter.com/sonossupport/status/1198204183335309313?s=21 https://twitter.com/sonossupport/status/1198204183335309313?... https://twitter.com/sonossupport/status/1196142002406133761?s=21 https://twitter.com/sonossupport/status/1196142002406133761?...
  - hyperman1 7y ago
    In Belgium, any electronics vendor has 'aanvaardingsplicht', the duty to accept your old device when selling you a new one. So sonos shops here have to accept them. In fact, you can bring in your old 20kg tube radio and claim your new sonos is replacing it.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]

LatteLazy 7y ago

Patagonia are famously environmental and not really run on a capitalist basis...

kbos87 7y ago
I believe that Patagonia cares about the environment and wishes there was more they could do, but I think they are absolutely driven by the forces of capitalism, whether they like it or not, and it’s visible in their current practices. They run holiday ads and promotions, they open new stores, they release a new line each year. Yes they sprinkle in campaigns and messaging to not buy new unless you really need it and they facilitate recycling/reuse of their past products, but capitalism still forces them to seek growth, relevance, and sales to survive, which they do. Not faulting them for it, just wishing it wasn’t that way.
- fuzzfactor 7y ago
  >They run holiday ads and promotions, they open new stores, they release a new line each year. These are all things a regular entrepreneur would do whether they were capitalist or not. Or any of _other peoples' money_ was involved. Even when the only environment to operate in is recognized as overwhelmingly capitalist, a non-capitalist entrepreneur can still have some unfair advantages. When you're selling all you 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
  - kd5bjo 7y ago
    I think you may be misusing the term “capitalist”. I always understood that it had more to do with the production side of a business than sales or long-term goals: the capitalist (a founder or investor) provides capital so that a business can acquire production facilities, and is entitled in return to a portion of the proceeds from the enterprise that he or she enabled. The business strategy and long-term vision can be anything the parties agree upon. 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.
    - fuzzfactor 7y ago
      Good to get your message. Just using terminology more precisely as it applies to a natural environment over a lifetime. The one constant is the structure which enables other people's money to be used for pure financial leverage. No requirement for free enterprise which I truly care for as well. Heck, before they were united, some States of America were founded by royal capitalist corporations, about the furthest thing from free enterprise. So capital as other people's money is a resource, but not every resource is capital unless it actually belongs to somebody else with their conditions attached as agreed. Not so much means of production, or hard assets, but whenever an investor provides capital to a founder so that >The business strategy and long-term vision can be anything the parties agree upon. Regardless of whether you build or acquire any facilities they are >entitled in return to a portion of the proceeds from the enterprise that he or she enabled. So I think we can agree that type of thing is it for sure. But I do think it's actually some of the uber-capitalist corporations which have done the most damaging outsourcing. And I don't see how I could rightfully be a capitalist without any capital. Well, it might just be best to be able to change at any time, if you really do know how to perform for shareholders. A founder without any of other people's money, and without enough prosperity to enable their investment in other people's ventures, just doesn't seem to be actually handling capital, yet, even if the cash flow gets fairly large. Even if they are very agressive entrepreneurs this does not put them in the catagory of funded ventures, and opportunity to well exploit a capitalist market might remain out of reach even while it still must be operated within. When the economic system is structured so that capital alone can yield more than many labor approaches, terms become more critical than ever for outfits seeking leverage so they can become capitalist in difficult or uncertain conditions. Without extraordinary terms an operation might be better off which could take place whether there was other people's money or not. Capitalism can enable wonderful things and not-so-wonderful things but the foundation is basically the other people's money aspect of it.
gwright 7y ago
What definition of "capitalism" are you using? Patagonia certainly seems to exist in a world of private ownership, private investment decisions, and voluntary exchanges in a free market.
Reedx 7y ago
Patagonia was started by a rock climber who sold his hand-made climbing gear into the free market. He was well rewarded for doing so and from that was able to grow into the Patagonia many of us know and love today (indeed my favorite clothing company). 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.

nullc 7y ago

Sonos could immediately cure the worst of these image problems by setting up something so you could re-license a recycled device for the $120 value (or whatever the amount is) someone got for hitting recycle.

wayoutthere 7y ago

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.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
asdff 7y ago
You can already buy louis vuitton at the nordstrom rack. 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.
- gwright 7y ago
  "highly disposable"? I think if you consider the average useable lifetime of an Apple product they aren't as expensive as they may seem. 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.
  - hootbootscoot 7y ago
    How does that viewpoint square with 1) Deliberately slowed-down hardware (claimed concern about "older device batteries" don't wash with reality either...) 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.
    - 7y ago

TeMPOraL 7y ago

Wonder how long these apparel companies will keep it up. I remember reading not so long ago that some well-known clothes companies realized that people are interested in buying used high-quality clothes, and so they started manufacturing new clothes using worse materials and process but to the same design as quality ones, and then sell these fake-used clothes as "worn".

bostik 7y ago
Stone-washed jeans have been a thing since at least 1980's, from around the same time that "worn in" look became fashionable.
armandhammer 7y ago
Isn't that basically the "Outlet Store" model? New clothes made to lower standards but ostensibly sold under the illusion of being "last season's overstock" of the high quality normal version?

shawnz 7y ago

It's not clear to me from the information here that Sonos themselves can't refurbish a device that's been put into recycle mode. This seems to be a technique to block third party refurbishers only.

hkh28 7y ago
It appears they can, but choose not to. This way they can ensure that less used units are available on the market, forcing people to buy a new unit instead.
- shawnz 7y ago
  In the thread it was explained how support agents would refuse to do it remotely for a customer's device, but what I'm saying is that Sonos probably retains the ability for themselves to refurbish and resell the units when they are physically returned to Sonos.
  - Lammy 7y ago
    They encourage you to recycle it yourself rather than send it back to them. From their support page: https://support.sonos.com/s/article/3573 https://support.sonos.com/s/article/3573 “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.”

Godel_unicode 7y ago

They are literally doing exactly that. You can take your old speaker into a Sonos store or ship it (on Sonos dime) back to them. They then refurbish and resell, and you get a discount. This story is at best lazy reporting with many facts left out or unresearched. https://www.sonos.com/en-us/shop/certified-refurbished https://www.sonos.com/en-us/shop/certified-refurbished https://www.sonos.com/en-us/tradeup https://www.sonos.com/en-us/tradeup

XMPPwocky 7y ago
From the FAQ on https://www.sonos.com/en-us/tradeup https://www.sonos.com/en-us/tradeup - > Do you resell recycled devices? > No.These devices are permanently deactivated and cannot be resold.
ladon86 7y ago
I already replied to your other comment but in the interest of correcting this misinformation, you can neither ship your bricked device to Sonos nor bring it into a Sonos store. https://twitter.com/sonossupport/status/1179459927624036357?s=21 https://twitter.com/sonossupport/status/1179459927624036357?... https://twitter.com/sonossupport/status/1198204183335309313?s=21 https://twitter.com/sonossupport/status/1198204183335309313?... https://twitter.com/sonossupport/status/1196142002406133761?s=21 https://twitter.com/sonossupport/status/1196142002406133761?...
- hyperman1 7y ago
  In Belgium, any electronics vendor has 'aanvaardingsplicht', the duty to accept your old device when selling you a new one. So sonos shops here have to accept them. In fact, you can bring in your old 20kg tube radio and claim your new sonos is replacing it.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]