this post was submitted on 21 Apr 2025
145 points (98.7% liked)
Technology
69343 readers
3064 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I don't support this decision in any way, but I can at least think of some legitimate motivation for it (assuming the Synology branded ones aren't marked up from the equivalent Seagate/Toshiba ones). I imagine Synology has to deal with a lot of service calls and returns for issues that are caused by shoddy drives (like those Seagate drives with the fudged lifespan numbers), not by anything that they can directly control.
In reality, the above was probably what sparked the idea, but I'm betting that they're going to jack up the price of those drives just to squeeze out a little more profit for this quarter.
They could've just had approved disks and a one time warning when not using them that performance may be degraded and that you wouldn't get support for questions related to it.