3 ms·

> But people want to have it both/all three ways: feel good about recycling, get a discount on a future new gadget and sell/give the functioning old device to s

> But people want to have it both/all three ways: feel good about recycling, get a discount on a future new gadget and sell/give the functioning old device to somebody. Amazing. The discount in this case is an incentive against the best possible type of recycling, which is precisely to let someone else reuse it as is. Of course, companies tend to hate the good kind of recycling because it limits their profits. Companies are not entitled to infinite growth, nor should we facilitate that sort of expectation, least we end up destroying our own habitat. Well, we probably will, considering the way things are going... What is actually amazing is that a company would create such an incentive and then pretend to be the good guys, caring about recycling and so on. Even more amazing is that some people are convinced by such low-effort bullshit.

fierarul 7y ago
I'm convinced both the company wrapping this as an eco-friendly move and the eco blow-back from some consumers to be morally equivalent. I didn't see a mob asking for 30% higher prices so Sonos could actually do proper recycling.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- Nasrudith 7y ago
  That is a complete nonsequitior - 30% isn't what they need for proper recycling but what they believe they can afford to give as a sale to promote conversion from those who already sold it. The two offenses are very non-equal and not remotely equatable. One is claiming to help the environment while doing something actively detrimental to it, the other is at most not going for a non-existant hypothetical option which resembled someone trying to sell them the Brooklyn bridge and added sales sleeze. If that caught on without some through and validated accreditation method would rapidly see fly by night "recycling surplus" operations that ran off with the money without any actual recycling.
  - fierarul 7y ago
    Point is, nobody wants to pay. > The two offenses are very non-equal and not remotely equatable. Both sides are pretending to want to be eco-conscious while buying/selling more hardware. > One is claiming to help the environment while doing something actively detrimental to it I'd say something neutral to it as they are promoting recycling. Maybe detrimental as encouraging e-waste but all hardware sellers want you to upgrade so e-waste is part of the modern tech industry. How long does a modern smart phone last? > the other is at most not going for a non-existant hypothetical option which resembled someone trying to sell them the Brooklyn bridge and added sales sleeze. No, the other is wanting to have their cake and eat it too. Which after much scandal, they did! > If that caught on without some through and validated accreditation method would rapidly see fly by night "recycling surplus" operations that ran off with the money without any actual recycling. In the end it was Sonos that did offer a discount, so they couldn't run with any money. It's actually the consumers that decided the deal was not good enough so now they keep the old device and get the money.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

fierarul 7y ago

I'm convinced both the company wrapping this as an eco-friendly move and the eco blow-back from some consumers to be morally equivalent. I didn't see a mob asking for 30% higher prices so Sonos could actually do proper recycling.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
Nasrudith 7y ago
That is a complete nonsequitior - 30% isn't what they need for proper recycling but what they believe they can afford to give as a sale to promote conversion from those who already sold it. The two offenses are very non-equal and not remotely equatable. One is claiming to help the environment while doing something actively detrimental to it, the other is at most not going for a non-existant hypothetical option which resembled someone trying to sell them the Brooklyn bridge and added sales sleeze. If that caught on without some through and validated accreditation method would rapidly see fly by night "recycling surplus" operations that ran off with the money without any actual recycling.
- fierarul 7y ago
  Point is, nobody wants to pay. > The two offenses are very non-equal and not remotely equatable. Both sides are pretending to want to be eco-conscious while buying/selling more hardware. > One is claiming to help the environment while doing something actively detrimental to it I'd say something neutral to it as they are promoting recycling. Maybe detrimental as encouraging e-waste but all hardware sellers want you to upgrade so e-waste is part of the modern tech industry. How long does a modern smart phone last? > the other is at most not going for a non-existant hypothetical option which resembled someone trying to sell them the Brooklyn bridge and added sales sleeze. No, the other is wanting to have their cake and eat it too. Which after much scandal, they did! > If that caught on without some through and validated accreditation method would rapidly see fly by night "recycling surplus" operations that ran off with the money without any actual recycling. In the end it was Sonos that did offer a discount, so they couldn't run with any money. It's actually the consumers that decided the deal was not good enough so now they keep the old device and get the money.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]