[HN Gopher] The Story of Samsung's failed deal with iFixit, as t...
___________________________________________________________________
The Story of Samsung's failed deal with iFixit, as told by iFixit's
CEO
Author : thunderbong
Score : 210 points
Date : 2024-08-06 03:51 UTC (2 days ago)
(HTM) web link (www.androidauthority.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.androidauthority.com)
| ChrisArchitect wrote:
| Related iFixit blog post from 3 years ago:
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27885176
| ChrisArchitect wrote:
| Related from 2 months ago:
|
| _We 're ending our Samsung collaboration_
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40456107
| wordofx wrote:
| > Wiens sips a Diet Coke and settles in as I start explaining the
| framework of our conversation. He interrupts me politely to get a
| big caveat out of the way related to confidentiality terms iFixit
| still has with Samsung.
|
| I really struggle to read these types of interviews. If I wanted
| to read the novel I would buy the book... but if I'm reading an
| article I don't want the fluff...
| magicalhippo wrote:
| Same, really annoys me. Guess writer has a word-count target to
| meet and adding such fluff is an easy way to get there.
|
| Guess one could train an LLM to de-fluff articles?
| abdusco wrote:
| I usually ask for ChatGPT for a 1000 word summary. Works
| quite well for getting rid of unnecessary details.
| Mistletoe wrote:
| https://ea.rna.nl/2024/05/27/when-chatgpt-summarises-it-
| actu...
| CoastalCoder wrote:
| Same for me. I'm sure that commercial writers these days face
| all kinds of pressure regarding their writing styles.
|
| But usually I just want pyramid-style writing for the news.
| wccrawford wrote:
| It's invading everything, too. Ninja warrior used to be a show
| about amazing athletes conquering the courses, with a quirky
| backstory thrown in sometimes.
|
| Now, almost everyone has a lengthy backstory that is told at
| least once per season, and it's a significant amount of the
| runtime of the show.
|
| It's gotten to the point that even athletes that have basically
| no backstory still end up with a lengthy segment on themselves.
| For fairness, I guess?
| TRiG_Ireland wrote:
| Which is why World Ninja League (an actual sport) is better
| than American Ninja Warrior (a TV show with a sporting
| element). See also World Chase Tag vs Ultimate Tag, which has
| basically the same distinction.
| wccrawford wrote:
| I had never heard of it. Thanks!
| mynameisvlad wrote:
| Or maybe, just maybe, it's because viewers tested more
| positively to the backstories and the connection helps them
| choose someone to root for and therefore be more invested in
| the show. The showrunners didn't do it for shits and giggles,
| they did it because it makes them more money. If you want
| just the sport bits, you can always watch Sasuke, the
| original, which I believe has less backstory interstitials.
| wccrawford wrote:
| I imagine it's the same thing that caused the comment here
| about not liking it. I don't care if it "tested well", I
| don't like it.
|
| And yes, I watch Sasuke when I get a chance. Also,
| Australian Ninja Warrior. The British one isn't as good,
| IMO, but we watch that, too.
| joncrocks wrote:
| Or it could be cheaper to make.
|
| i.e. It's cheaper per unit-airtime to have a small crew
| interviewing people for backstory (+ editing) than
| recording people doing the course. They can pad-out the
| expensive bit (holding the events) with filler/b-roll.
| igornadj wrote:
| Generally I agree, but this is one single paragraph of colour
| followed by the rest being straight reporting below, and adds
| important context.
| pdar4123 wrote:
| Folks agreeing with this take should take a hard look at their
| attention spans and ability to focus and comprehend - it's
| honestly really shocking to see how many people can't handle
| sitting still and reading for 10 minutes (or fewer!) straight!
|
| I should say I've struggled with this too, I have to be super
| mindful otherwise I'll flip and skim and find myself
| distracted. But it is interesting there's an embracing of this
| by many - "I always ask ChatGPT to summarize xyz."
| thaumasiotes wrote:
| > Folks agreeing with this take should take a hard look at
| their attention spans and ability to focus and comprehend
|
| It's not a complaint about the text being long. It's a
| complaint about the text being content-free.
| michaelt wrote:
| _> "I don't know why Samsung insists on charging so much for
| service parts," Wiens says, visibly frustrated. "The prices that
| we see are out of line with what we know components actually cost
| to manufacture." Wiens starts to elaborate but stops himself. He
| clarifies that he would love to discuss this more, but his
| contract with Samsung prevents him from doing so._
|
| I mean, it's pretty easy to guess:
|
| They want to run the spare parts division at a profit, they know
| they've got no competition (except used parts off recycled
| phones) and like some car makers, they know that means they can
| charge through the nose.
|
| Wikipedia tells me [1] Samsung released 17 distinct model numbers
| in 2023, and 30 in 2022. Presumably a lot of those have custom,
| nonstandard screens with rounded corners and curved edges and
| camera notches and folding and fingerprint readers and whatnot.
| So presumably the minimum order quantity is huge - they can't
| just hold a few spare screens and make more on demand, they
| probably have to buy (and pay for) several years of spares
| upfront.
|
| And of course every phone will have multiple parts, different
| subassemblies (do you want to order the screen with or without
| the fingerprint reader?) and maybe different colour schemes as
| well. And any spare parts you make and don't sell are wasted.
|
| So it's very easy for a spare parts division to be very
| inefficient, if it's not well managed. If they're determined to
| run the division at a profit - that inefficiency gets passed
| right along to the end user.
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samsung_Galaxy#Release_history
| altdataseller wrote:
| Its also easy for me to see as a 3rd party. Perhaps ifixit
| should manage the whole manufacturing and logistical aspect of
| maintaining all those spare parts themselves?
|
| Too unprofitable? Too much hassle? Oh..
| michaelt wrote:
| ifixit might be able to do a better job, yes. It's their core
| business rather than an afterthought, after all.
|
| But part of the problem can only be solved by Samsung.
| They're the ones releasing 30 phone models in a single year -
| and the ones making design decisions like having six
| different screens available for the same phone because the
| coloured bezel is glued to the screen.
|
| And of course if Samsung buys screens for $50 and sells them
| to ifixit for $100, holding 1000 in stock requires half the
| capital outlay if Samsung does it.
| chuckadams wrote:
| If Samsung were straight with everyone and actually said as
| much as you did, that would go a long way toward rebuilding the
| relationship. But we all know that isn't the real reason for
| the markup, or at least not the full reason.
| Zak wrote:
| Selling parts for a profit is inconsistent with an order limit
| of 7 parts per repair shop per quarter. A likely explanation is
| that Samsung hopes people who cannot get their old Samsung
| device repaired will buy a new Samsung device.
|
| Samsung seems insufficiently concerned customers will hold
| Samsung responsible for the problem and buy a device from
| another manufacturer. I call this behavior market leader
| syndrome.
| initplus wrote:
| This is a rod Samsung has made for their own back though. Fewer
| SKU's, and more shared parts between models would be better for
| consumers and for the planet.
| daghamm wrote:
| I really liked the plans Samsung employees had to give old phones
| a new life. I have a box of mostly working phones from different
| companies and I often wish there was an easy way to use them for
| different automation tasks around the house.
|
| Anyway, I'm not surprised it didn't work. Engineers see
| possibilities while lawyers only think about how something goes
| very wrong and the company ends up in court.
| NoboruWataya wrote:
| In other words, lawyers also see possibilities, albeit maybe
| not the same possibilities as the engineers.
|
| (That's assuming that this was shut down by Samsung legal. I
| didn't see that in the article, though I skimmed a bit so maybe
| I missed it.)
| JohnFen wrote:
| > while lawyers only think about how something goes very wrong
| and the company ends up in court.
|
| To be fair to the lawyers -- that's primarily what companies
| hire them to do.
| DowagerDave wrote:
| Maybe a lot of executives and lawyers start from this
| perspective, but if so it's a bad position. Lawyers are
| supposed to be educated risk mitigators, working to maximize
| value not just minimize risk. I see so much CYA that they
| adopt a "better safe than sorry" attitude that doesn't
| accurately blend likelihood and impact, to the detriment of
| the company. They also rely on thin case law and current
| events which is basically just anecdotal evidence; they
| rarely look at data or have the skills to interpret it.
| You're better off hiring an actuary to run your GRC team.
| JohnFen wrote:
| > Lawyers are supposed to be educated risk mitigators,
| working to maximize value not just minimize risk.
|
| Not so sure I agree with this. Lawyers are supposed to
| provide an analysis of the legal risks of things the
| company wants to do. It's the job of management to take
| that information and weigh it against the other business
| factors to determine if the risk is worth taking or not.
|
| If a company is too risk-averse, legally speaking, that's a
| fault of management, not the lawyers.
|
| That said, good lawyers won't just give a binary
| "recommend/don't recommend" answer. They'll also provide
| various options for other ways of doing something that have
| different risk profiles.
| supergeek133 wrote:
| One frivolous lawsuit destroys the revenue from multiple happy
| customers. Unfortunately.
| dctoedt wrote:
| > _One frivolous lawsuit destroys the revenue from multiple
| happy customers._
|
| And there's little or no downside for freelancing plaintiffs'
| lawyers to file questionable lawsuits in the hope of
| extracting a nuisance-value settlement. So the mentality
| tends to be, _what the hell, let 's give it a shot._ (A.k.a.
| "moral hazard.")
| kwiens wrote:
| It was a fantastic idea! We had the prototype software and it
| worked great.
|
| Take your old phone, put Docker on it, and do anything!
|
| Phones, even very old phones, are incredibly capable devices:
| cameras, antennas, accelerometers, large touchscreen. They just
| need a new purpose.
| thaumasiotes wrote:
| Well, the other thing I'd want from a repurposed old phone is
| to remove the battery. Having it glued to the screen would be
| a problem.
| VHRanger wrote:
| If its rooted you can put a charging controller on it.
|
| The battery is not dangerous or even particularly
| perishable if its always kept between 30% and 60% charge.
| mark_undoio wrote:
| I've heard if the company really wants stuff to get done
| efficiently then they need to put a lawyer on the product team
| - i.e. change the incentive from "prevent engineering creating
| risks, even at the cost of them failing" to "help engineering
| manage risk whilst succeeding".
| VHRanger wrote:
| I mean, its positioning them to enable rather than block.
|
| We also see devops and netsec often play the lawyer role,
| where they feel their job is to block others from deploying
| anything that's not a golden cathedral.
| tombert wrote:
| I had an idea and even basic prototype a million years ago
| where I was going to get a bunch of used cheap Android phones
| for free or very cheap, and make a transcoding cluster out of
| it and make a ton of money. I figured that no one wants old
| phones, and Android phones are relatively powerful and utilize
| a relatively small amount of power, so I'd be able to undercut
| competitors, and I thought it would be a good idea to get more
| life out of these computers and reduce e-waste.
|
| I got ahold of most of my friends and family's "old phones
| living in a drawer", and I did more or less get the prototype
| working with a message queue, but I never really figured out a
| good way to utilize the built in h264 encoding chips, so it was
| always extremely slow software encoding, slow enough to where I
| don't think anyone would have actually paid me for it, and I
| lost interest in it.
|
| I don't think it was a dumb idea, and it's not something I've
| completely given up on doing eventually, but I don't think it
| was as clever as 23 year old me thought it was either. If
| anyone here disagrees feel free to take it and run with it.
| GeekyBear wrote:
| In my opinion, if you are going position yourself as a neutral
| arbiter of device repairability, it does not pass the smell test
| to enter into for-profit business relationships with the
| companies manufacturing the devices you rate.
|
| Providing consumers with information on where to find reputable
| companies selling repair parts would be a much more palatable
| alternative to selling them yourself.
|
| > "I don't know why Samsung insists on charging so much for
| service parts," Wiens says, visibly frustrated. "The prices that
| we see are out of line with what we know components actually cost
| to manufacture." Wiens starts to elaborate but stops himself. He
| clarifies that he would love to discuss this more, but his
| contract with Samsung prevents him from doing so.
|
| In this case, the for-profit business relationship with Samsung
| also stands in the way of advocating for consumers.
| diffeomorphism wrote:
| I would argue the opposite. They are not aiming to be a neutral
| arbiter but an active advocate for better repairability. For
| that they should have for-profit business relationships with
| basically all companies manufacturing such devices. In
| particular, that would allow them to pressure or drop any one
| misbehaving company.
|
| > Providing consumers with information on where to find
| reputable companies selling repair parts would be a much more
| palatable alternative to selling them yourself.
|
| That does not really make sense. They are a repair company and
| the only company selling specialized parts is, of course, the
| manufacturer.
|
| > also stands in the way of advocating for consumers.
|
| That is much too bleak. They made a deal happen in the first
| place, which is large progress even if it did not quite work
| out, and compromises are a fact of life.
| brookst wrote:
| Agreed that for-profit relationships are inappropriate, and I
| also think iFixit's business selling repair tools and parts is
| inappropriate.
|
| The whole thing comes across as self-promotion for their
| tools/parts business. Add in their dabbling in lobbying for
| regulations to force manufacturers to make devices that you can
| buy ifixit (and other) kits for... and it starts to feel as
| disingenuous as Epic's "pro-consumer" interest in outlawing the
| razors/blades business model that game consoles use.
| bayindirh wrote:
| Unfortunately finding high quality repair tools for these
| class of devices is very hard, and iFixit provides pretty
| high quality sets with great reusability.
|
| While working on small screws like torque or pentalobe, you
| either have crappy drivers or Wera. iFixit is the provider of
| "good but not Wera" class tools which most DIYers and even
| professionals can use without any problems.
|
| Wera is "The Purveyor of Top Notch Tools", so that even
| companies like Apple and BMW use/supply their tools in their
| factories and repair centers, however they're out of reach
| for many people.
| mauvehaus wrote:
| This 100%. Common tools you can at least find in a couple
| different grades. Klein, for example, makes Philips
| screwdrivers that are hugely better than commodity ones and
| are available anywhere that sells to electricians (hint: go
| to the electrical aisle at Home Depot for the Kleins).
|
| Allen wrenches are easier to screw up than you might think,
| but you can usually find some with a cut end rather than a
| sheared end if you look. Get into Torx, and you still have
| choices in the sizes used for construction screws. Get
| beyond that and you've got very little.
|
| iFixit fills that void. You're ordering anyway, and it's
| nice to have some options that are quality without being
| super expensive professional grade. Like, I'll use a
| pentalobe screwdriver a couple times in my life. I need it
| to work, but it doesn't have to be Wera levels of good or
| ergonomic. Interchangeable bits are totally ok for my use
| case; I don't need dedicated drivers in every size.
| indymike wrote:
| > dabbling in lobbying for regulations to force manufacturers
| to make devices that you can buy ifixit (and other) kits...
| feel as disingenuous
|
| Availability of parts and tools is critical to being able to
| repair anything and iFixit's entire business is based on
| repair.
|
| Strategies restricting parts and tools as a moat protecting
| repair and secondary (used) markets should rightfully be
| illegal. Lobbying for this, especially when your business is
| repair and repair supplies, is self-preservation, and not
| lobbying against forces trying to put your business out of
| business is... irresponsible.
| tempfile wrote:
| What is disingenuous about being a repair parts company that
| lobbies for devices that are easier to repair? From where I'm
| standing they are being completely genuine: They profit when
| people are able to buy repair parts, and they advocate for
| more repairability in electronics. To me that seems like just
| good alignment of values.
| MadnessASAP wrote:
| I agree with you, iFixit is a tool & parts company for
| personal electronics that targets DIYers and independent
| shops. They have a strong interest in ensuring they're
| target market is as large as possible.
|
| That means cooperating with and occasionally coercing OEMs
| into playing ball.
| lupusreal wrote:
| > _I also think iFixit's business selling repair tools and
| parts is inappropriate._
|
| Good grief, I hope you phrased that poorly and don't actually
| mean what you seem to mean.
| jccalhoun wrote:
| > iFixit's business selling repair tools and parts is
| inappropriate.
|
| But isn't that why they exist? I have always seen the
| teardowns and repairability scores as advertising. If they
| didn't sell repair tools then what would they make money on?
| addandsubtract wrote:
| The same way Wikipedia makes money. I would donate to a
| crowd sourced repair wiki.
| anoncow wrote:
| I disagree. We need more companies like iFixit who advocate for
| repair. If they are for profit, so be it. A non profit doing
| the same would also be good, but more the merrier.
| rob74 wrote:
| Well yeah, you have to read between the lines a bit, but it's
| pretty obvious: Samsung prefers customers throwing away old
| phones (especially cheaper ones) and buying new phones
| (preferably Samsung, and preferably more expensive ones),
| that's why replacement parts are more expensive (and
| disproportionately more expensive for cheaper phones). Of
| course they are glad if they can have some positive press
| releases about sustainability thanks to a gullible
| repairability website, but when it comes to actually put it
| into practice, their enthusiasm evaporates very quickly...
| chuckadams wrote:
| Seems much simpler than that to me: iFixit isn't an advocacy
| group, they're in the business of selling parts directly to
| consumers, and they're calling out what looks to be an
| outrageous markup from the sole supplier. Any advocacy they do
| is in support of their business. They're a free market solution
| demanding a freer market.
| kevin_thibedeau wrote:
| The sole supplier is using the free market to set its
| pricing, limit its warehousing overhead, and drive sales of
| new products. Don't like it, buy something else.
| pixl97 wrote:
| There are multiple options that can be explored at the same
| time. Sticking with an absolutists idea is far more apt to
| end in failure.
|
| Support right to repair!
| edmundsauto wrote:
| This results in less repair ability and more waste. It also
| probably boosts economic activity.
|
| Withholding any moral judgement, I do think these current
| incentives contribute to a direction we don't want society
| to go. Feels like we should fix the incentives here to
| encourage reuse.
| Suppafly wrote:
| >Don't like it, buy something else.
|
| Sure, but you're allowed to not be happy about it and to
| criticize the supplier.
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| It sounds like you're saying "buy something else, and
| that's all you should do", but loudly discussing these
| things is part of making "buy something else" have a chance
| of being effective.
|
| Also, I like repairability laws here too even if some
| people don't.
| cloudsec9 wrote:
| > sole supplier > free market
|
| I'm sensing some contradiction in that.
|
| Pricing and packaging parts in a way that ensures its
| cheaper to buy a different phone is the opposite of a free
| market. Breaking your screen or wearing out your battery
| shouldn't mean you have to replace both, but it does if you
| own a Samsung and want genuine Samsung parts.
|
| Did this approach get disclosed when consumers bought the
| phones, or only when something happened?
| barryrandall wrote:
| Access to parts and repair information usually requires
| entering in to some sort of business relationship. Especially
| when highly regulated components (radios, telephones) are
| involved.
| snapcaster wrote:
| I want my advocates to have skin in the game, I assume
| "neutral" just means "undisclosed private agenda". Put your
| money on the table!
| malfist wrote:
| This is a very cynical take. People and organizations can be
| neutral with ulterior motives
| xeromal wrote:
| > People and organizations can be neutral with ulterior
| motives
|
| Doesn't this mean exactly what the person you're replying
| to said?
| JohnFen wrote:
| I assume they meant "without" instead of "with".
| malfist wrote:
| Typo and too late to edit. I meant to say without
| thevillagechief wrote:
| They _can_. But more often than not, you end up with
| OpenAI. I 'd rather we just straight-up skip to business,
| and go the Anthropic Public Benefit route.
| fallat wrote:
| wtf, for-profit business absolutely has the potential for
| proper incentive alignment to achieve a goal.
| dangus wrote:
| I disagree. iFixit offering original OEM spare parts for the
| Steam Deck is amazing.
|
| It's mutually beneficial: iFixit handles a service business
| that Valve would rather not be in, and customers get a more
| repairable product. It's also a source of revenue for iFixit
| that is probably more reliable than depending on advertising or
| selling tools.
|
| A similar deal with Samsung or another phone maker would be
| amazing.
| robnado wrote:
| This works for Steam because the Steam Deck is a low margin
| device they sell to ensure they can't be shut out of their
| profitable business of selling games by microsoft and apple.
| To Steam, having a customer use the same steam deck for 10
| years is not a big loss of revenue and supports their
| business goals. Meanwhile, Samsung making repairs cheaper
| means they are cannibalising the sale of new devices which is
| their main source of profit and growth.
| dangus wrote:
| I disagree that Samsung's main source of profit and growth
| for their smartphone business is the smartphones
| themselves, at least if we zoom out to the long term. Those
| are commoditized hardware devices. Each new generation of
| phone is less compelling than the current one because the
| product is essentially "done," much like a microwave or
| toaster.
|
| Samsung will make more money from you if they can sell you
| cloud services and other ecosystem stuff, just like Apple
| does with their platform.
|
| Just look at how much revenue Apple's services business
| brings in as a proportion of their business, at a much
| better margin than hardware sales.
|
| https://www.statista.com/statistics/382260/segments-share-
| re...
|
| Services are rapidly growing as a proportion of Apple's
| electronics business and I suspect that Samsung is similar
| if they're playing their cards right.
|
| There's going to be a point where Samsung really doesn't
| care if you have an old phone or not, as long as you are
| using Samsung services for your digital life.
| kroolik wrote:
| Link requires premium account to read the actual data
| Suppafly wrote:
| >A similar deal with Samsung or another phone maker would be
| amazing.
|
| Exactly. I usually use ifixit's guides but often by the parts
| on amazon or ebay because generic parts are generic parts,
| but if ifixit could certify that their parts are OEM
| certified, I'd definitely consider paying the extra that they
| charge to buy from them.
| robertlagrant wrote:
| > it does not pass the smell test to enter into for-profit
| business relationships with the companies manufacturing the
| devices you rate
|
| This is too shallow. Yes, it's possible that this can go wrong.
| Doesn't mean it will. If they're showing you on video how easy
| or hard it is to repair something, that doesn't leave a lot of
| room for the sort of thing you're hinting at.
| ilaksh wrote:
| There are many companies that just do whatever they can get away
| with and because of their market position, this is a lot.
|
| Maybe someday there will be a movement to boycott these abusive
| companies or something.
|
| Check out https://futo.org
| brookst wrote:
| Why would people boycott a company with a strong market
| position that is operating within the bounds of what it can get
| away with?
|
| This reads like suggesting people should boycott their favorite
| restaurants because reasons.
| ilaksh wrote:
| Because what they get away with is abusive and shows no
| regard for consumers.
|
| Your comment reads like you ignored all of the context of my
| comment.
|
| It's like if your favorite restaurant served really good
| burgers for $1000, but if the pickles and lettuce fell out
| and you tried to put them back in, the waiter would come over
| and slap the burger out of your hand and make you spend
| another $1000 to get a whole new burger.
| 3np wrote:
| To be fair, you do have the option of buying a replacement
| lettuce+sauce kit for $800 coupled with pickles for $300.
| brookst wrote:
| I guess we have different ideas about "context".
|
| You're telling me that something very popular, with high
| brand loyalty, is actually abusive and the people who are
| loyal to it should not only stop buying but organize some
| kind of boycott. Which is just strange.
|
| In your hypothetical, nobody would go there. Nobody buys
| $1000 burgers, nobody likes abusive service. But, in your
| hypothetical, somehow this is not just a successful
| restaurant but one of the most successful in the world.
| Because... people are forced to go there?
|
| I honestly am trying to be as charitable as possible and I
| just can't see any sense in your position. As far as I can
| tell you just dislike some brands and are angry that other
| people like them and refuse to stop buying their products,
| even though you think they should for their own good. It's
| very convoluted.
| samatman wrote:
| It's not like that at all, because a restaurant which did
| that would rapidly go out of business, and these companies
| are quite profitable, because people like what they're
| getting.
|
| Repairability is treated like a terminal good around HN,
| and that's understandable, but it doesn't reflect the
| values of the general public. Most civilians who crack
| their screen are going to put up with it until they can buy
| a new phone, because they were going to get a new phone
| anyway.
|
| The fact that a repair is expensive is in a feedback loop
| with this sort of behavior. If consumers wanted to keep
| phones for five years and have an affordable battery or
| screen swap during that time, they'd demand it, and they'd
| get it. There are a lot of Android phone vendors.
|
| That isn't to say that the status quo is ideal, and I do
| expect it to change as Moore's Law starts to level out,
| with smartphone design following the same curve. I would
| even say we're starting to see that happen.
|
| But if consumers thought Samsung was abusive and showed no
| regard for them, they wouldn't buy phones from Samsung. But
| they do buy phones from Samsung, so they don't think that.
| JohnFen wrote:
| If people find "what they can get away with" to be
| objectionable, what's wrong with avoiding doing business with
| them?
|
| Just because something is legal doesn't mean it's acceptable.
| brookst wrote:
| Absolutely. My reaction was to the idea that throngs of
| current customers who are happy enough with the deal to
| keep buying "should" not just stop buying but organize a
| boycott. Feels like a classic "those sheeple think they're
| happy but they aren't" take.
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| > Feels like a classic "those sheeple think they're happy
| but they aren't" take.
|
| It's not that at all. It's "those people could negotiate
| a better deal if they acted together".
|
| > not just stop buying but organize a boycott.
|
| The goal isn't to not buy, the goal is to get a better
| deal and then keep buying.
| RobotToaster wrote:
| futo, the company that keeps trying to hijack open source with
| their proprietary licence?
| 3np wrote:
| These?
|
| https://gitlab.futo.org/keyboard/latinime/-/blob/master/LICE.
| ..
|
| https://gitlab.futo.org/videostreaming/grayjay/-/blob/master.
| ..
|
| Yeah, that's.. Unfortunate. I hope they don't attempt to
| relicense immich (AGPL), at least..
| CivBase wrote:
| Didn't they start saying "source first" instead of "open
| source"? What's wrong with that?
|
| Nothing about their current licenses stand out as
| unreasonable to me. Even though their licenses aren't
| technically "open source" - i.e. not an OSI approved license
| - their license is clearly in the same spirit and I would
| absolutely refer to it as "open source" in casual discussion.
|
| They did the wrong thing at first, but their intent was
| obviously not malicious and they corrected it. Why let that
| undermine the rest of the good things they're doing?
| capitainenemo wrote:
| At least the samsung phone I bought scores pretty well on
| repairability in this review
| https://m.gsmarena.com/samsung_galaxy_xcover6_pro_scores_hig...
|
| Although I'd love to know what iFixit thinks, esp since I'm
| hoping to hang on to it for a few more years at least. Was hoping
| to find a general database of phones, but it looks like they
| don't do a ton of reviews. Only 21 smartphones listed here,
| including both apple and android.
| https://www.ifixit.com/repairability/smartphone-repairabilit...
| Of which only 3 were samsung.
| bdcravens wrote:
| Click the View Legacy Scores link. They have several older
| Samsungs (probably 20-25), dating back to the Samsung S 4G in
| 2011.
|
| https://www.ifixit.com/repairability/legacy-smartphone-score...
| capitainenemo wrote:
| Well, this phone was released late 2022 so I'd be surprised
| to find it in a legacy list already. And indeed there was
| nothing in the legacy list more recent than 2020.
|
| I bought it the instant it was released so I've gotten 2
| years out of it so far with just a few scratches from
| constantly forgetting and putting it with my keys in my
| pocket. I have a 2nd battery for quick swapping, but that
| also helps with battery longevity. I protected the USB port
| with one of those magnetic connectors so hopefully that will
| last a while too.
| bdcravens wrote:
| In the case of that specific phone, it seems to be a bit
| more niche (not that I obsess over the phone industry, but
| this is the first time I've heard of it, and as a frequent
| phone shopper, I'm not sure that I've seen it offered by
| any of the US carriers, but again, my perspective is
| limited). It does seem that given the amount of effort they
| put into a teardown, they limit their teardowns (which is
| way more comprehensive than a typical "review") to some
| sort of mass market threshhold.
| wkat4242 wrote:
| The Xcover is more of an enterprise product. It's not
| really interesting for consumers because the bang for the
| buck is low, due to the price being aimed high so that
| they can offer bigger discount to the enterprises buying
| 10k of these in one go. They aim these at front line
| workers, eg warehouses, public service etc.
|
| For consumers they had the galaxy S Active line which
| sadly has been discontinued..
| bdcravens wrote:
| In the sense that most enterprise products are company-
| issued, the likelihood of self-repair is probably pretty
| low.
| wkat4242 wrote:
| Well funnily enough these phones are quite easy to
| repair, they even have removable batteries :) That's one
| really easy thing that often comes up (especially with
| the amount of work these devices do every day on the
| manufacturing line and warehouse) that can definitely
| easily be "repaired" in-house.
| capitainenemo wrote:
| Well, they clearly report on niche phones that they feel
| have a decent repairability. For example they call out
| the Fair Phone (which is awesome, but according to
| wikipedia they've only sold 400k phones across all
| models).
|
| It seems if they have limited resources they should focus
| on the most repairable models of all major phone
| manufacturers and tip the needle that way.
| bdcravens wrote:
| The niche phones I see, as you've mentioned, tend to
| stand out in some way (open source based, new foldable
| models, etc), rather than being a variant of a brand
| they've covered dozens of times.
|
| I'm willing to bet that Samsung has hundreds of different
| SKUs, across their different categories: rugged
| enterprise phones, S class, A class, etc.
|
| At my local Microcenter, they literally have 27 different
| phones across about a dozen model number of Samsung (A05,
| A15, A25, etc). Most of them are all built on similar
| manufacturing processes, so I'm guessing that the
| repairability of a closely related one is comparable.
| capitainenemo wrote:
| Yeah, the XCover6 is unique on repairability due to its
| design, thus the good score in the report I linked.
| Replaceable battery (one of the more common things that
| needs replacing as a phone ages). But also: "Everything
| else is relatively easy too, Samsung used standard
| Phillips screws and didn't go wild with the glue. Also,
| not only does this phone have a 3.5mm headphone jack, it
| is a separate module held by a screw. It does take some
| disassembly to get to it, but it is not soldered to the
| board. The USB-C charging port is on a separate PCB, the
| pogo pins (which can also be used for charging) are below
| that and the speaker assembly."
|
| So, I feel if they'd call out FairPhone (which rightly
| deserves the 10 out of 10) they could also highlight this
| effort from Samsung to encourage things like this, one
| that maybe warrants an... 8? Just guessing :)
|
| 'course, thanks to the EU replaceable batteries will
| probably be a lot more common, although maybe not as
| easily swappable as this one. The other things are fairly
| unique too - perhaps they were aiming for easier repair
| since it was a business/military phone.
| adamc wrote:
| Hideous, unreadable number of ads on the desktop.
| ffhhj wrote:
| Having owned a Z Flip that cracked I can tell you that managers
| at Samsung use iPhones or any other brand, because they never
| noticed that all the modal windows are centered in the screen
| directly on the fold making it difficult to see and click it when
| you sit the phone at 90deg.
| noboostforyou wrote:
| Anecdotal only but I've had to buy very obscure Samsung
| replacement parts twice in recent years and definitely noticed
| how expensive it was.
|
| One was a proprietary cable for a tv and another was a specific-
| length ignition wire for a stove top pilot light. Both times I
| was able to find a no-name brand replacement part on amazon but
| reviews were mixed and there was no guarantee of fitment. And it
| wasn't that much of a discount compared to Samsung's direct parts
| store which was quite pricey. I paid over $60 for that pilot
| light wire.
| FireBeyond wrote:
| I have a Samsung fridge that has an integrated water pitcher
| setup (keeps it full inside the door). It's actually pretty
| cool. Nice pitcher too.
|
| However, I made the mistake of putting it in the dishwasher on
| a Sanitize cycle (normal cycle is meant to/should be okay).
|
| The heat deformed the pitcher (just plastic).
|
| I did some various heating myself to make the top sit right
| again, but it just never did, and it being very slightly off-
| kilter was enough to not trip the fill mechanism.
|
| So I went to buy a new one.
|
| Holy hell.
|
| One hundred and twenty dollars.
|
| For this:
|
| https://www.amazon.com/Samsung-DA97-17395A-Refrigerator-Rese...
|
| And this is not someone on Amazon gouging. Indeed Samsung
| themselves want $140.
|
| https://samsungpartsusa.com/products/da97-17395a
|
| for a _plastic water pitcher_.
|
| > I paid over $60 for that pilot light wire.
|
| Not Samsung, but I had a double oven whose circuit board died.
| The manufacturer wanted more than the cost of the oven for a
| new circuit board (was an older oven). That one thankfully
| ended up being a fairly common and simple fix (some capacitors
| and some other things - there was someone on eBay selling
| repair service - "$59, send me your board, and I'll send it
| back in three days repaired").
| gknoy wrote:
| My LG refrigerator had similarly priced replacement parts for
| the removable shelves in the doors, several of which cracked.
| It was bonkers. Is this partly because the demand for these
| specific parts is relatively low?
| pessimizer wrote:
| It's entirely because the demand for replacement parts
| cannibalizes the demand for new refrigerators. If they can
| sell you a plastic shelf for $100 with a 99% margin, for
| them that's like selling you half a refrigerator.
| gosub100 wrote:
| You're not paying for the plastic pellets and energy it takes
| to melt them for injection molding. You're paying for the
| shipping and storage and interest on the money it took to
| make and store for you. It's a very specific shape and it
| doesn't seem that expensive to me.
| Suppafly wrote:
| >And this is not someone on Amazon gouging. Indeed Samsung
| themselves want $140.
|
| It's almost understandable if it's a one off part that not
| many people will buy because it costs money to make extras
| and keep them stocked, but something like a pitcher, you
| could imagine that lots of people would like to have multiple
| of them.
| pessimizer wrote:
| > And this is not someone on Amazon gouging. Indeed Samsung
| themselves want $140.
|
| The one from Amazon is probably going to be counterfeit, was
| manufactured for $1, and doesn't fit quite right.
|
| That being said, the stock one was probably manufactured for
| 25C/.
| Suppafly wrote:
| >One was a proprietary cable for a tv
|
| My dad's tv is like that, the weird proprietary cable that
| connects the external control box to the actual screen, except
| the cable is literally not for sale and even the connectors
| aren't available if you wanted to try and make your own. They
| have to baby the existing one and hope it doesn't completely
| break.
| oneepic wrote:
| Offtopic: on mobile I get a really awful ad that puts borders on
| the whole screen, and cuts off the article's words on the far
| left and right. I'd say I will never go to this site again, but
| then again, I may as well never read news on mobile again, right?
| (As this ad might just pop up on another site anyway) Still, it's
| a shameful practice.
| shrx wrote:
| Firefox on android supports installing uBlock Origin.
| doytch wrote:
| This site turned my phone into a radiator (and knocked off four
| percent of battery), so it's just stuffed to the gills with
| this stuff.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-08-08 23:01 UTC)