Synology Lost the Plot with Hard Drive Locking Move

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Synology’s plan to restrict its 2025 “Plus” NAS models to Synology‑branded hard drives is being widely criticized as an unnecessary vendor lock‑in that undermines one of the platform’s main attractions: flexible, bring‑your‑own‑drive storage. Commenters acknowledge technical arguments around drive validation and past HDD firmware issues, but see disabling features like deduplication and health analysis on third‑party disks as a profit‑driven move that erodes trust. Many long‑time users say this will push them toward more open alternatives such as TrueNAS, Unraid, QNAP, or DIY Linux‑based NAS builds, even if those require more setup and maintenance.

Hardware quality and stagnation

  • Several commenters argue Synology’s hardware has lagged for years: aging CPUs (e.g., 7‑year‑old Ryzen parts in “new” models), 1 Gbit networking on “Plus” units, no true NVMe volumes or NVMe‑only models, and removed USB/codec features.
  • Others report their units (e.g., DS18xx series) as fast and reliable enough for typical SOHO workloads and appreciate the small, quiet, hot‑swap form factor.

Drive locking and vendor lock‑in

  • The new policy for 2025 “Plus” models (only Synology‑branded drives with full performance/features; reduced functionality for others) is widely seen as the tipping point: “betrayal,” “enshittification,” and a deal‑breaker for many long‑time users.
  • People object especially to:
    • Artificially degrading performance or disabling features (deduplication, lifespan analysis, auto‑firmware) with third‑party drives.
    • Obfuscating vendor/firmware info, which makes it harder to avoid same‑batch drives and correlated failures.
  • A minority express some sympathy: vendors got burned by WD’s undisclosed SMR “NAS” drives and don’t want the support burden/blame. Many counter this justifies selling “known‑good” drives or showing warnings, not hard lock‑in.

Software ecosystem vs openness

  • Synology’s DSM and apps are praised for “appliance‑like” reliability and ease: O365/Google backups, Hyper Backup, Active Backup, Synology Drive, simple photo backup, quick setup with almost no admin.
  • Others say the first‑party apps have regressed (loss of HEVC, removal of Video Station, weak photo/gallery UX, slow Docker/kernel updates) and now rely mostly on Docker/SynoCommunity apps like Syncthing, Jellyfin, Immich.
  • Many note that Synology’s only real moat is DSM; drive lock‑in undermines goodwill that made people recommend it at work as well as at home.

Alternatives and migration paths

  • Strong interest in moving to:
    • TrueNAS (Core/Scale) on DIY or vendor hardware.
    • Unraid, Proxmox + ZFS/btrfs, OpenMediaVault, plain Debian/Ubuntu.
    • Ubiquiti’s UNAS, QNAP (sometimes with Debian), Ugreen, Terramaster DAS + mini‑PC, N100/NAS enclosures, used server boards.
  • Some suggest treating the NAS as storage‑only (TrueNAS/UNAS) and running Plex/containers on a separate mini‑PC or NUC.

Broader sentiment

  • Many long‑time Synology users say this single policy moves the brand from “default recommendation” to “avoid,” even if it doesn’t affect current boxes.
  • There’s skepticism that chasing higher margins on drives will succeed: Synology risks alienating the tech‑savvy prosumers who historically amplified its reputation.