4 ms·

Based on the post, the high price of parts from iFixit was Samsung's fault.

Iulioh 2y ago
And to be fair high end samsung phones have the best display in the market, period. I would really dubt thwt they sell the best stuff to Apple (possible but...)
- throwaway48476 2y ago
  Apple only uses old cheap technology. They resisted putting OLEDs in the iPhone for many years.
epakai 2y ago
The high price is probably just reality. Samsung's display assemblies have always been expensive. I've seen the real inventory values back in the Note 6 era, and the component cost at repair time. Repair services were probably getting a few dollars from their markup. I'm not even sure the the consumer facing part of their repair operations was profitable. It seemed like most of the focus was on bulk refurbishment where they rebuilt hundreds of $model at once. Building a 500ppi 120Hz AMOLED display with a hole punched in it, and bonded perfectly to fancy glass is just expensive.
- EasyMark 2y ago
  i think the point is that you start with repairability from the start, otherwise you are just reverse engineering how to take it apart.
  - dialup_sounds 2y ago
    I'm skeptical that you could design a repairability-first phone without introducing more ways for it to break in the first place.
    - MostlyStable 2y ago
      I realize that I'm a non-central example of a phone customer, but I'd be more than willing to give up thinness for more repairability, and I loathe hole punch/cutout screens, so I would actively pay more money to get the simpler rectangular screen, which would presumably come with ease of repair benefits (assuming that were an option. Unfortunately, it appears that almost no one except Sony still makes rectangle displays for phones anymore). It's absoultely true that making a phone more repairable comes with tradeoffs. Thinness being the most obvious one, but It's also likely true that a truly repairable phone would be more expensive. I do not think that performance, reliability, or longevity are necessary tradeoffs though.
    - fransje26 2y ago
      In a moment of reflection, transpose that idea to cars or planes. Commercial aircraft fly for 30 years or more, (with some flying since WW2) because they are repairable, not despite the fact that they are repairable. The case could also be made for consumer white goods. Let's not confuse enshitification with reliability.
      - dialup_sounds 2y ago
        Nobody wants a phone with the utilization rate or maintenance cost proportional to a commercial airliner. They do not "fly for 30 years": they fly for a few thousand hours a year at most, amidst hundreds of man-hours of maintenance. A high level of repairability is a requirement for them to even operate for their intended purpose. Phones are not aircraft. (Or cars, etc.)
        fransje26 2y ago
        Let's deconstruct that take. > They do not "fly for 30 years": they fly for a few thousand hours a year at most, amidst hundreds of man-hours of maintenance. By 2021, N309US, a Delta Air Lines Airbus A320, had flown 89,638 hours in 31 years. That's an average of 2891 hours per year, or just short of 8 hours per day, every day, over 31 years. The mean-time between overhaul of a CFM56 aircraft engine is 10,000 hours. Or, if you would drive at an average of 60 km/h, 600,000 kilometers. And that's for one of the most highly stressed part of an aircraft. > Nobody wants a phone with the utilization rate or maintenance cost proportional to a commercial airliner. So, to hit the same utilization rate as N309US, you would need to use your shiny iPhone 8 hours a day, every day of the year. Good luck with that. > Phones are not aircraft. Indeed. As we just discovered, they have a long, long, long way to go to come anywhere close.

And to be fair high end samsung phones have the best display in the market, period. I would really dubt thwt they sell the best stuff to Apple (possible but...)

throwaway48476 2y ago
Apple only uses old cheap technology. They resisted putting OLEDs in the iPhone for many years.

epakai 2y ago

The high price is probably just reality. Samsung's display assemblies have always been expensive. I've seen the real inventory values back in the Note 6 era, and the component cost at repair time. Repair services were probably getting a few dollars from their markup. I'm not even sure the the consumer facing part of their repair operations was profitable. It seemed like most of the focus was on bulk refurbishment where they rebuilt hundreds of $model at once. Building a 500ppi 120Hz AMOLED display with a hole punched in it, and bonded perfectly to fancy glass is just expensive.

EasyMark 2y ago
i think the point is that you start with repairability from the start, otherwise you are just reverse engineering how to take it apart.
- dialup_sounds 2y ago
  I'm skeptical that you could design a repairability-first phone without introducing more ways for it to break in the first place.
  - MostlyStable 2y ago
    I realize that I'm a non-central example of a phone customer, but I'd be more than willing to give up thinness for more repairability, and I loathe hole punch/cutout screens, so I would actively pay more money to get the simpler rectangular screen, which would presumably come with ease of repair benefits (assuming that were an option. Unfortunately, it appears that almost no one except Sony still makes rectangle displays for phones anymore). It's absoultely true that making a phone more repairable comes with tradeoffs. Thinness being the most obvious one, but It's also likely true that a truly repairable phone would be more expensive. I do not think that performance, reliability, or longevity are necessary tradeoffs though.
  - fransje26 2y ago
    In a moment of reflection, transpose that idea to cars or planes. Commercial aircraft fly for 30 years or more, (with some flying since WW2) because they are repairable, not despite the fact that they are repairable. The case could also be made for consumer white goods. Let's not confuse enshitification with reliability.
    - dialup_sounds 2y ago
      Nobody wants a phone with the utilization rate or maintenance cost proportional to a commercial airliner. They do not "fly for 30 years": they fly for a few thousand hours a year at most, amidst hundreds of man-hours of maintenance. A high level of repairability is a requirement for them to even operate for their intended purpose. Phones are not aircraft. (Or cars, etc.)
      - fransje26 2y ago
        Let's deconstruct that take. > They do not "fly for 30 years": they fly for a few thousand hours a year at most, amidst hundreds of man-hours of maintenance. By 2021, N309US, a Delta Air Lines Airbus A320, had flown 89,638 hours in 31 years. That's an average of 2891 hours per year, or just short of 8 hours per day, every day, over 31 years. The mean-time between overhaul of a CFM56 aircraft engine is 10,000 hours. Or, if you would drive at an average of 60 km/h, 600,000 kilometers. And that's for one of the most highly stressed part of an aircraft. > Nobody wants a phone with the utilization rate or maintenance cost proportional to a commercial airliner. So, to hit the same utilization rate as N309US, you would need to use your shiny iPhone 8 hours a day, every day of the year. Good luck with that. > Phones are not aircraft. Indeed. As we just discovered, they have a long, long, long way to go to come anywhere close.