3 ms·
Samsung had existing repair partnerships. Many were run by other Koreans, and very much had the feeling of a big family run conglomerate. Of course iFixit is go
by epakai 2y ago
Samsung had existing repair partnerships. Many were run by other Koreans, and very much had the feeling of a big family run conglomerate. Of course iFixit is going to get the short end of the stick unless they're providing real value to Samsung.
For Samsung, repair services are valuable to keep carrier customers happy so that the carriers keep pushing their phones. External repair services don't have that tie in. They probably even reduce sales of new phones. iFixit's partnership just doesn't offer the same value proposition.
- mrgoldenbrown 2y agoThen why did Samsung pretend they wanted this to happen?
- newaccount74 2y agoPresumably someone from marketing said "we should make our phones more repairable than the competition" and after the program was announced someone from finance said "making phones repairable is too expensive and selling parts isn't making us money"
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- epakai 2y agoPretend what? Samsung already had the parts infrastructure. They added another parts customer who had less to offer them in return. I looked back at the partnership announcements, and that's really all Samsung was offering: parts and repair guides. It also happened at a time when right to repair was proving pretty popular so there's the obvious PR aspect to it. The iFixit post just makes it sound like Samsung wasn't interested in subsidizing their repair parts, and their construction methods haven't changed much in 2 years.
- Dylan16807 2y ago> wasn't interested in subsidizing That's a weird way to spell "wasn't interested in overcharging less".
- initplus 2y agoIt's not about subsidizing the repair. Samsung placed a limit of 7 official repair parts every 3 months per repair shop being supplied by ifixit. How is a phone repair shop meant to operate when they can only get 2.3 parts per month?