4 ms·

> What they’re doing currently is forcing their early-adopter customers to bear the risks of the new technology. We generally call this "being an early adopter

> What they’re doing currently is forcing their early-adopter customers to bear the risks of the new technology. We generally call this "being an early adopter."

EarthIsHome 5y ago
Yup, they're paying for the privilege to test their product
rvz 5y ago
There you go. Never buy the first edition of a new product innovation or technology. It is guaranteed to end in disappointment and they are essentially beta testing. Better to wait for it to mature first in newer versions than to jump into the hype squad and leave disappointed.
- gruez 5y ago
  >There you go. Never buy the first edition of a new product innovation or technology. But the model number mentioned in the post resolves to "Samsung Galaxy Z Flip3 5G" which sounds not "first edition"? According to wikipedia samsung's first foldable phone came out in 2019.
- scarface74 5y ago
  Was the first iPod, iPhone, or iPad a disappointment? The first ARM Macs have gotten rave reviews. Now the first Apple Watch…
- dotancohen 5y ago
  > There you go. Never buy the first edition of a new product innovation or technology. I'm fully vaccinated but this was my biggest concern. mRNA tech is still in the first-edition of large-scale deloyment.
bmicraft 5y ago
The real problem I see here is that they are legally required to warranty the device but aren't doing it
corndoge 5y ago
What a ridiculous notion. The device costs over a thousand fucking euros! Samsung doesn't sell it with a warning that says "this device is for early adopters and won't be repaired should it fail due to a manufacturing defect." Any decent company would fix it, full stop.
- gonzo41 5y ago
  There's plenty of times in Apples history where looking cool has won out over practical concerns. People have more money than sense and will happily ignore that they could buy a rock solid (literally) feature phone for <50 dollars, if in doing the opposite they can look trendy.
  - Syonyk 5y ago
    > There's plenty of times in Apples history where looking cool has won out over practical concerns. I'm not even sure "looking cool" was a factor in some of the worst ones. "Winning industrial design awards for being thinner than possible" stands out to me. In pursuit of that, they had four years worth of laptop keyboards that didn't work long term, and got rid of the most amazing feature ever for laptop charging (MagSafe), to thin things out further with USB-C. Not a bad connector, but definitely a bad charging connector compared to MagSafe for people with kids, pets, etc. I'm glad they've gone back to a laptop that seems to work, but... I've lost interest.
  - scarface74 5y ago
    Apple’s history goes back over 45 years. Was it the Apple // era, Macs, iPods, iPhones, iPads, Watches, AirPods, etc? What feature phone in 2021 has anything that a modern consumer would find acceptable?
    - projektfu 5y ago
      Assuming you want a feature phone because you want something small that isn’t going to monopolize your attention, the Nokia 6300 4G probably fits the bill.
raverbashing 5y ago
"risk of a new technology" oh you mean the thing that has the most failures in any electronic design that includes it? Yes, I think vendors should not have put this out on the market, but it seems people were very happy to pay for such a gimmick. To me it was obvious this was a giant failure point. It's not risky when you know it's going to fail. Maybe a tradeoff is a better name for it.
senectus1 5y ago
this is the 3rd generation... hardly early adopter
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- meragrin 5y ago
  No, 3rd gen for bendable screens is still preview stage. I would consider 5th gen pre-production. It really won't be mainstream until 8+.
rectang 5y ago
If you're going to make this critique, you should grapple with this passage from the article: > As with any new technology it takes time to iron out early problems. Things break, need to be fixed, improved etc. That’s all fine! I wasn’t angry when the phone broke, I was angry when it wasn’t repaired.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- boffinism 5y ago
  I think the critique and the passage go hand in hand: if Samsung repaired the break for free, they would be the ones bearing the risk of the new technology. Because they didn't, they're making the customer bear the risk. That the phone might break is inherent in the fact that it's a new technology. The question is who pays for it when it does, the customer or the manufacturer.
avs733 5y ago
there's a difference here. I was an early adopter of a Chumby (damn I loved that thing). The risk I took was that they would go out of business and no longer support the eco system - that risk proved real. I can accept taking a risk and it not working out, this is taking one risk and having the company try and pin other risks on you. Blaming the customer for your weak ass product is not the early-adopter risk, its the caveat emptor / screw you risk. I reject the idea that early adopter means accepting bad quality. I recently had an issue with my car (A volvo for what it matters) with some painted plastic pealing. It was the first model year, I wasn't surprised, things need to get worked out...the early adopter risk is from them working things out. I took it in and they initially rejected the warranty claim and blamed me. I offered to have a paint chemist friend look at it and do an analysis - that changed their tune quickly. The early adopter risk I took was to my time that there might be some manufacturing quirks...not to them being sleazy about standing by their products.
maccard 5y ago
No, being an early adopter is dealing with issues like the seam being noticeable, or the lifetime of the hinge mechanism maybe being underspecified, not a manufacturer shirking a warranty repair 3 months after the device was purchased.

> What they’re doing currently is forcing their early-adopter customers to bear the risks of the new technology. We generally call this "being an early adopter."

EarthIsHome 5y ago

Yup, they're paying for the privilege to test their product

rvz 5y ago

There you go. Never buy the first edition of a new product innovation or technology. It is guaranteed to end in disappointment and they are essentially beta testing. Better to wait for it to mature first in newer versions than to jump into the hype squad and leave disappointed.

gruez 5y ago
>There you go. Never buy the first edition of a new product innovation or technology. But the model number mentioned in the post resolves to "Samsung Galaxy Z Flip3 5G" which sounds not "first edition"? According to wikipedia samsung's first foldable phone came out in 2019.
scarface74 5y ago
Was the first iPod, iPhone, or iPad a disappointment? The first ARM Macs have gotten rave reviews. Now the first Apple Watch…
dotancohen 5y ago
> There you go. Never buy the first edition of a new product innovation or technology. I'm fully vaccinated but this was my biggest concern. mRNA tech is still in the first-edition of large-scale deloyment.

bmicraft 5y ago

The real problem I see here is that they are legally required to warranty the device but aren't doing it

corndoge 5y ago

What a ridiculous notion. The device costs over a thousand fucking euros! Samsung doesn't sell it with a warning that says "this device is for early adopters and won't be repaired should it fail due to a manufacturing defect." Any decent company would fix it, full stop.

gonzo41 5y ago
There's plenty of times in Apples history where looking cool has won out over practical concerns. People have more money than sense and will happily ignore that they could buy a rock solid (literally) feature phone for <50 dollars, if in doing the opposite they can look trendy.
- Syonyk 5y ago
  > There's plenty of times in Apples history where looking cool has won out over practical concerns. I'm not even sure "looking cool" was a factor in some of the worst ones. "Winning industrial design awards for being thinner than possible" stands out to me. In pursuit of that, they had four years worth of laptop keyboards that didn't work long term, and got rid of the most amazing feature ever for laptop charging (MagSafe), to thin things out further with USB-C. Not a bad connector, but definitely a bad charging connector compared to MagSafe for people with kids, pets, etc. I'm glad they've gone back to a laptop that seems to work, but... I've lost interest.
- scarface74 5y ago
  Apple’s history goes back over 45 years. Was it the Apple // era, Macs, iPods, iPhones, iPads, Watches, AirPods, etc? What feature phone in 2021 has anything that a modern consumer would find acceptable?
  - projektfu 5y ago
    Assuming you want a feature phone because you want something small that isn’t going to monopolize your attention, the Nokia 6300 4G probably fits the bill.

raverbashing 5y ago

"risk of a new technology" oh you mean the thing that has the most failures in any electronic design that includes it? Yes, I think vendors should not have put this out on the market, but it seems people were very happy to pay for such a gimmick. To me it was obvious this was a giant failure point. It's not risky when you know it's going to fail. Maybe a tradeoff is a better name for it.

senectus1 5y ago

this is the 3rd generation... hardly early adopter

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
meragrin 5y ago
No, 3rd gen for bendable screens is still preview stage. I would consider 5th gen pre-production. It really won't be mainstream until 8+.

rectang 5y ago

If you're going to make this critique, you should grapple with this passage from the article: > As with any new technology it takes time to iron out early problems. Things break, need to be fixed, improved etc. That’s all fine! I wasn’t angry when the phone broke, I was angry when it wasn’t repaired.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
boffinism 5y ago
I think the critique and the passage go hand in hand: if Samsung repaired the break for free, they would be the ones bearing the risk of the new technology. Because they didn't, they're making the customer bear the risk. That the phone might break is inherent in the fact that it's a new technology. The question is who pays for it when it does, the customer or the manufacturer.

avs733 5y ago

there's a difference here. I was an early adopter of a Chumby (damn I loved that thing). The risk I took was that they would go out of business and no longer support the eco system - that risk proved real. I can accept taking a risk and it not working out, this is taking one risk and having the company try and pin other risks on you. Blaming the customer for your weak ass product is not the early-adopter risk, its the caveat emptor / screw you risk. I reject the idea that early adopter means accepting bad quality. I recently had an issue with my car (A volvo for what it matters) with some painted plastic pealing. It was the first model year, I wasn't surprised, things need to get worked out...the early adopter risk is from them working things out. I took it in and they initially rejected the warranty claim and blamed me. I offered to have a paint chemist friend look at it and do an analysis - that changed their tune quickly. The early adopter risk I took was to my time that there might be some manufacturing quirks...not to them being sleazy about standing by their products.

maccard 5y ago

No, being an early adopter is dealing with issues like the seam being noticeable, or the lifetime of the hinge mechanism maybe being underspecified, not a manufacturer shirking a warranty repair 3 months after the device was purchased.