Synology to require branded hard drives for future NAS models

[Alfonso Maruccia]

Certified Overspending: Synology is known for its NAS appliances (network-attached storage) and other related products. While the company doesn't manufacture its own disk drives, it is now selling a "certified" line of HDDs for "maximum" reliability and compatibility.

The next high-end NAS line from Synology will require the use of the company's branded hard disk drives. The manufacturer announced the change in a recent press release, stating it will increasingly rely on a proprietary ecosystem for upcoming storage products. This new requirement will affect NAS models in the Plus series launching in 2025 and beyond, Synology said.

NAS appliances using Synology-branded hard drives will reportedly offer customers several benefits, including higher performance, improved reliability, and more efficient support. However, the Plus Series line of 3.5-inch HDDs are essentially standard drives sourced from established manufacturers like Toshiba and Seagate. These drives use conventional magnetic recording technology to ensure consistent performance during I/O operations.

Plus series NAS models released before 2025 will remain compatible with traditional, non-certified hard drives – though this does not apply to XS Plus or rack-mounted models. Even hard drives already in use with older Plus NAS appliances should continue to function "without restrictions," but they may lose access to certain features in the future.

Some of these restrictions include the inability to create storage pools and the loss of access to official support. Synology has indicated it will not assist customers using "incompatible" storage media. Additional features that will soon be limited to Synology-branded drives include volume-wide deduplication, lifespan analysis, and automated firmware updates.

Also see: QNAP and Synology buying recommendations in our Best Storage 2025 list

Synology has confirmed the need for branded drives, stating that its "Product Compatibility List" will be updated with additional hard drive models. These drives have been "thoroughly vetted" through extensive testing and a rigorous validation process designed to minimize failures and compatibility issues over time.

Customers will also be able to submit third-party drives for testing, offering a chance for those units to meet Synology's "stringent" standards and be validated for use. This, the company believes, provides a flexible enough ecosystem for users unwilling to pay a premium for Synology-branded drives, though the company presents this new proprietary approach as a significant improvement for the sake of reliability.

Permalink to story:

Synology to require branded hard drives for future NAS models

 

[Theinsanegamer]

And sinology will lose more business then they would ever make with HDDs. Hope they go bankrupt.

 

[ScottSoapbox]

Doing this as "recommended" would be smart (reduce customers blaming Synology for crap HDDs), but requiring it seems like it would lose you sales more than anything.

 

[toooooot]

What is so ridiculous is that they do not even make their own, those are generic drives from Seagate or Western Digital

 

[psycros]

You can buy a teeny-tiny desktop case, slap 32gb of storage in it and throw a minimal Linux build on the boot volume for less than a Synology box with half as much storage included.

 

[Kashim]

Synology is another scumbag company like Broadcom or Oracle who are always looking to increase profits by ripping off their clients. Synology has been pushing their own branded hard drives for years for their NAS boxes. I guess their overpriced drives didn't catch on, so now they're making it mandatory for all their products.

I hope there is a swift backlash and clients start moving away from Synology. The idea that you have to pay a hefty premium for a hard drive just because Synology slapped their logo on there is ridiculous. Synology doesn't manufacture hard drives, they just re-brand drives made by others.

They'll have you believe these vetted/certified drives somehow justify a massive premium. You can buy the exact same drives much cheaper, but because Synology modifies the firmware on their own drives the standard drives will not work with their products now. It's absolutely ridiculous what they're doing.

 

[Kashim]

Doing this as "recommended" would be smart (reduce customers blaming Synology for crap HDDs), but requiring it seems like it would lose you sales more than anything.

They've been "recommending" their own overpriced drives for YEARS, but I don't think most clients were falling for it. Now they've changed their policy to FORCE everyone to use their drives. I hope it blows up in their face.

 

[Kashim]

You can buy a teeny-tiny desktop case, slap 32gb of storage in it and throw a minimal Linux build on the boot volume for less than a Synology box with half as much storage included.

I just looked on Newegg.ca and their 12-bay NAS costs $2,800 + $50 shipping CDN, when the box is made of less than $300 material/hardware. The largest HD they seem to have is 20TB for $1,100 each. Meanwhile, you can buy a regular 24TB drive for $600-700 depending on sales.

To fill a 12-bay NAS with 12x20TB Synology drives would cost $13,200 compared to 12x24TB regular drives at ~$7,200.

 

[candle86]

What advantage do they have vs me buying my own tower or 4u rack mount chassis, mounting my own core i3 or xeon equivalent, a good sas controller and my own sas drives?

 

[Aus spot]

What advantage do they have vs me buying my own tower or 4u rack mount chassis, mounting my own core i3 or xeon equivalent, a good sas controller and my own sas drives?

The same advantages as any assembled NAS box from any maker.

That is the wrong question.


What real advantages does the branded hdds provide is the question, and the answer is none.

 

[Anton Longshot]

The same advantages as any assembled NAS box from any maker.

That is the wrong question.


What real advantages does the branded hdds provide is the question, and the answer is none.

Not so. The advantage is that Synology makes more money. A pile!
Without doing any actual work. Zero advantage for us but for them it's a Dream Deal. If I didn't have a conscience I'd want to be in on it too!
Anyway they're off my possible-supplier list now. Will I put them back if they reverse course? Hahaha of course not, their ploy proves these people cannot be trusted!

 

[Aus spot]

Not so. The advantage is that Synology makes more money. A pile!
Without doing any actual work. Zero advantage for us but for them it's a Dream Deal. If I didn't have a conscience I'd want to be in on it too!
Anyway they're off my possible-supplier list now. Will I put them back if they reverse course? Hahaha of course not, their ploy proves these people cannot be trusted!

That’s not what he asked. He asked what advantage for himself, and any reasonable person would know this.

 

[Skully]

I've always been a proponent of building/using my own NAS. This just re-enforces that line of thinking.

 

[brucek]

Hard pass from me and I'm someone who has found Synology's ready-to-go supported convenience worth paying for in the past (not everyone / every use case is a DIY hobby project.) But crippling a NAS by locking it to a small fraction of the available drives on the market is scary enough to me that I'd feel I couldn't chance it (nor justify having done so to anyone else if it became a problem.) Even if I liked the available drives and prices on day one, who knows that the future might bring.

 

[Theinsanegamer]

What advantage do they have vs me buying my own tower or 4u rack mount chassis, mounting my own core i3 or xeon equivalent, a good sas controller and my own sas drives?

The near idi0t proof software setup VS installing and configuring FreeNAS (and last time I used it, FreeNAS still wasnt as stable as a prebuilt NAS) and having the support of the company if something goes wrong. \

BUT synology is not the only option, so this type of walled garden will hopefully fail outright.

 

[TooQik]

QNAP says "thanks" Synology.

 

[Liranan]

You can buy a teeny-tiny desktop case, slap 32gb of storage in it and throw a minimal Linux build on the boot volume for less than a Synology box with half as much storage included.

My server runs Mint with 8x3TB drives in SnapRAID, 256GB NVME as boot and a BX500 as backup. I'm replacing the drives with 12TB drives due to running out of room and the drives aging. There's no way I'd replace this with any of these so called NAS devices.

 

[candle86]

That’s not what he asked. He asked what advantage for himself, and any reasonable person would know this.

No because my current nas does just fine no issues, it's not rocket science

 

[Zintin]

Synology in 2025 : "Why are our sales down?! Someone think of the share holders!"

 

[llamapanda]

I assume these walled-garden drives will be certified to survive the almost constant thrashing they'll get even when under no load. The poor critters in my Synology unit are chuntering away almost the entire time the NAS is powered up despite there being no traffic or scheduled activity. The iffy software they provide already makes me question jumping ship next time and this daft attempt at a cashgrab just nudges the decision that little bit harder away from the devil I know.

 

[mgwerner]

Ah, well, just emptied my NewEgg cart. I won't buy from any company that wants to lock me into only their options.

 

[dangh]

What advantage do they have vs me buying my own tower or 4u rack mount chassis, mounting my own core i3 or xeon equivalent, a good sas controller and my own sas drives?

software. it is the best software for NAS on market. Other issue is performance and hardware tailored to run 24/7. Nevertheless, the stupidity they are doing rn just destroys them. I went with Asustor nvme and while it is not as fancy on os level, I'm happy with that. Synology is just Apple in the NAS world, and as apple they as well making walled garden stuff.

 

[candle86]

software. it is the best software for NAS on market. Other issue is performance and hardware tailored to run 24/7. Nevertheless, the stupidity they are doing rn just destroys them. I went with Asustor nvme and while it is not as fancy on os level, I'm happy with that. Synology is just Apple in the NAS world, and as apple they as well making walled garden stuff.

I'm currently using an i5 9400F, on a z370 board, with a SAS Controller I bought on ebay, running 4x8tb HDD's in raid 10 currently, it runs Windows 11 on it currently doing all my NAS duties, including SMB 1.0 shareing so my Windows 3.1 and 9x systems can access it for retro computer needs, using windows storage managment tools including the included windows file history. It's current uptime is 193 days, 194 days the power went out so I powered it down when the ups started beeping at me till power was restored, this whole setup cost me $800 to setup.

At the end of the day all a NAS is, is a basic file share on the network

 

[ZedRM]

Congrats Synology! You just became trash! All of your new products are e-waste before they've been opened. Well done! ..rolls eyes..

When will predatory business practices like this be outlawed?

 

[Yppah]

What is so ridiculous is that they do not even make their own, those are generic drives from Seagate or Western Digital

How is it ridiculous? Manufacturing HDD's is a costly business. Theres less of those makers than silicon chip makers! Its very specialist. The HDD they label are done and signed off to a standard that Synology have defined. Calling something Generic has to be in the correct context. It can not be used here. <-- You doing so was the only ridiculous part when only 3 HDD manufacturers exist in the World (Seagate, Western Digital and Toshiba). And to be exacting - I'm quite sure Synology drives are made by Toshiba - exclusively.