iFixit Cancels Partnership With Samsung Over Shitty Repair Practices
from the walk-the-talk dept
Two years ago, the independent repair advocates over at iFixit launched a partnership with Samsung in the hopes of making Samsung phones and other tech easier and cheaper to repair.
It didn’t work out.
In an announcement issued this week, iFixit states that Samsung did very little to contribute to the partnership, and that its efforts toward making tech repair easier were largely decorative. The organization lamented that “flashy press releases and ambitious initiatives don’t mean much without follow-through”:
“As we tried to build this ecosystem we consistently faced obstacles that made us doubt Samsung’s commitment to making repair more accessible. We couldn’t get parts to local repair shops at prices and quantities that made business sense. The part prices were so costly that many consumers opted to replace their devices rather than repair them. And the design of Samsung’s Galaxy devices remained frustratingly glued together, forcing us to sell batteries and screens in pre-glued bundles that increased the cost.”
While iFixit says it will still offer guides to help consumers repair Samsung products, they’ll no longer be Samsung’s designated third-party parts and tools distributor, and the company won’t be working closely with them on repair manuals (the org’s repair guides are extremely helpful if you’ve never perused them, and can help save you from spending big bucks to mail things off for repair).
There are plenty of companies like Samsung that talk a good game on right to repair but then simply don’t follow throw.
John Deere has repeatedly promised to do a better job on making its tractors easier and cheaper to repair, then just ignored those promises. Apple also gets lauded for its improved repair efforts, but will then turn around and lobby against state laws making life easier for consumers, while embracing practices (like parts pairing) that drive up repair costs for their customers.
Filed Under: consumers, independent, repair, repair shops, right to repair, wireless
Companies: ifixit, samsung
Comments on “iFixit Cancels Partnership With Samsung Over Shitty Repair Practices”
“follow through” maybe? Or is there a pun-y thing in there I am not seeing?
Also Samsung is doing another you-own-nothing:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWQ5hPN1tT4
Re:
That was actually a good video until the moment the guy called APK Pure “some random website.” I’ve been to that site and it’s the only one I find trustworthy enough to regularly get apps for sideloading.
Follow the money!
Samsung is making more money on new phones than they do on repairs. So, of course, they’re gonna short-change the repair aspect. And that will work … until customers learn that they can get a better experience elsewhere.
Unfortunately, it seems that most of the major manufacturers are doing the same shitty repair practices, so it may be a while before the customer can find a better experience.
Re:
So here’s a thing: Samsung demands of “authorized repair centers” that they report each and every device, IMEI, customer information.
They also tell them, that if they find aftermarket parts already in the device, to destroy it and report.
Re: Re:
Funny how intentionally destroying someone else’s property is legally frowned on, so I would like very much to see a citation for that practice you describe.
Re: Re: Re:
TBF, AC only said that Samsung tells its authorized repair centers to destroy phones with non-Samsung parts in, not that the centers actually comply (the practice of which you complain).
Re: Re: Re:2
So to summarize, that Samsung allegedly tell repair centers to destroy aftermarket parts isn’t a big deal since repair centers doesn’t need to comply with that order and there are no legal ramifications for Samsung to issue such an instruction in the first place even if some repair centers follow it.
Now translate that practice to cars and brand-authorized mechanic shops, people would go ballistic and the brand would be embroiled in court-battles all over the country and most likely a class-action suit.
The thing is, intentionally destroying another party’s property is considered vandalism and if Samsung is encouraging their authorized repair-shops to commit vandalism they are as liable as the shop.
If anyone want to prove me wrong here, they can just supply a verifiable citation.
Re: Re: Re:3
If I tell you to beat someone up because I believe them to have stolen from me, are you forced to comply in violation of the law? Ion think so. Nice attempt at rebuilding your strawman, though.
Re: Re: Re:4
The only strawman here is yours.
But lets take your stupid strawman and modify it a bit to reflect the situation at hand: If your business hinges on my good graces and I suggest you should beat someone up, what are the chances you think that it is something you must do?
I’m still waiting for someone to provide a verifiable citation while people like you make comments devoid of any connection to reality.
Re: Re: Re:5
Zero. Fearing falling out of your good graces isn’t the same as having a gun against my head, criminal excuser.
Re: Re: Re:6
Talk about making shit up and trying to pass it off as an argument. You are kind of stupid, aren’t you?
Re: Re: Re:7
Every accusation a confession.
Re: Re: Re:5
So, not only have you built the same strawman twice, you’ve now moved the goalposts. Nice admission that there’s no basis to your argument whatsoever.
Re: Re: Re:6
What is my strawman? Please be specific.
If you don’t understand the issue, let me explain: If Samsung set up rules for a repair-shop and the shop breaks them it is entirely possible Samsung will terminate the contract with them which can be financially catastrophic for the shop.
Are you so stupid you don’t understand the difference in leverage Samsung has vs what the shop has?
Re: Re: Re:7
AC already told you what your twice-built strawman is. If you don’t know what was said, then your accusations regarding others’ reading comprehension are hypocritical, to say the least.
Re: Re: Re:8
No, he didn’t. Who was the one that equated ending up on Samsung’s shit-list which implies financial repercussions with “beating someone up” or “putting a gun to their head” ?
The above is typical examples of using false equivalence to construct strawman arguments and but I guess that kind of escaped your galaxy-brain.
Re: Re: Re:9
Nice demonstration of your lack of reading comprehension. Free clue: saying you’re not forced to do something in violation of the law except in certain narrow circumstances and providing said circumstances is not at all comparing apples to oranges, and only a mendacious troll like you could claim otherwise.
Re: Re: Re:3
Nobody said it was okay or legal; don’t make inferences based on nothing. “Shitty Repair Practices” were explicitly mentioned in both this story and the first comment of this thread. And, yeah, intentionally destroying someone else’s property would qualify.
Re: Re: Re:4
Some random dude claimed that Samsung has instructed repair-shops to destroy aftermarket parts, I’ve yet seen any evidence that is actually happening.
It seems you and others are a bit confused here, because it sounds you think I’m defending Samsung when in reality I’m questioning the whole claim of “destroying aftermarket parts” and why it would foolish to do so legally, both for Samsung and any shop doing it, shitty repair practices or not.
Re: Re: Re:5
The random dude was quoting 404 Media as well as SAMSUNG’S OWN FUCKING CONTRACT, which you can also view on 404 Media: https://www.404media.co/samsung-requires-independent-repair-shops-to-share-customer-data-snitch-on-people-who-use-aftermarket-parts-leaked-contract-shows/
Learn to fucking google, Rocky.
Re: Re: Re:6
Then you should be able to quote the relevant part where the contract says the shop should destroy aftermarket parts found in Samsung products, right?
Let me save you some time and rhetorically ask “Why do you think I asked for a citation for that destruction-claim since it was nowhere to be found in the contract?”
Details matter, if you want to use other peoples opinions and words as the basis for what’s in a contract without actually reading the contract don’t be surprised when someone who actually read the contract questions that.
Learn to fucking read, mick.
Re: Re: Re:7
Every accusation a confession. Either you didn’t bother to follow the link mick posted in response to your demand for evidence, or you’re unable to read what it says.
Re: Re: Re:8
You say I’m wrong, doesn’t prove it, points to what another rando said and refers to a link which you assuredly didn’t actually read or the contract that can be found at that link.
You can keep screaming “you’re wrong” like a blathering idiot how many times you want, and I will treat you as such until you actually prove I’m wrong, like providing the specific citation that proves me wrong.
And since I have actually read the contract in question you’ll have a very hard time proving me wrong. But go ahead, I dare you.
Re: Re: Re:9
Every accusation a confession.
Re: Re: Re:10
You accused me of being wrong…
Re: Re: Re:11
Because, as multiple ACs have already said, you’re completely wrong, especially when you keep doubling down as you are.
Re: Re: Re:11
As AC said, you clearly didn’t read the contract while claiming they didn’t, all while the evidence they did is in their comment(s).
Re: Re: Re:5
I have absolutely no idea how you can manage to infer such a meaning from my message. Similarly, what you claimed to be a “summary” of preceding messages included several points not found in any reasonable reading of those messages.
While I had no information on whether the property-destrution claims were true, and thus didn’t comment on that, another anonymous commenter has since provided a detailed response. Compliance with that contract would almost certainly be illegal in Europe, and I expect we’ll be hearing more about that (unless they were smart enough to avoid trying it there).
Re: Re: Re:6
My apologies; the commenter was actually “mick”.
Re: Re: Re:6
That is not necessarily true since 3.6.2 can be read as only applying to the repair-shop, ie if the shop have used unauthorized parts they need to remove them, not that they have to remove parts someone else installed.
As I said in my response to mick, details matter and especially so when it comes to legal matters and as the contract is written it allows Samsung an out since they can just claim that the repair-shop misunderstood the contract as I outlined above if they ever get sued.
Re: Re: Re:7
I was more thinking about the privacy aspects: “Most consumers would be very surprised to learn that their personal information and details about their devices are being shared with the manufacturer. And I doubt there is any meaningful disclosure of or consent to sharing that data. So this looks like a substantial and unexpected invasion of consumer privacy.”
Even ignoring 3.6.2, which you’re right is ambiguous, there’s still this: “The contract also requires the ‘daily’ uploading of details of each and every repair that an independent company does into a Samsung database called G-SPN ‘at the time of each repair,’ which includes the customer’s address, email address, phone number, details about what is wrong with their phone, their phone’s warranty status, details of the customer’s complaint, and the device’s IMEI number, which is a unique device identifier.” No real ambiguity here.
Expect lawyers to be looking into the GDPR-related aspects of that. The device-destruction, if it actually happens, is comparatively uninteresting. I mean, it’s obviously illegal, and any small-claims court should be able to reach that conclusion with no lawyers involved.
Re: Re: Re:8
Yes, the data-sharing part will definitely run into problems with the GDPR. The contract is obviously written for the US market, and possibly other markets with equally poor to none-existing privacy laws.
Re: Re: Re:7
The highlighted part of the contract linked to says:
Take your own advice, Rocky, and learn to fucking read, you hypocrite.
Re: Re: Re:8
You know what they say about people who quotes text out of context to make an argument, right? They are either a disingenuous asshole or someone who doesn’t know what they are talking about.
Just FYI: A contract clause is read in its entirety because yanking one sentence out of it looses its context. Now, read the sentence before the one you quoted and it will give you part of the context which makes what you quoted ambiguous in its meaning.
Always interesting seeing people like you making a fool out of themselves because they don’t understand how to read legalese.
Re: Re: Re:9
You mean like you have, and regularly do, right?
Re: Re: Re:9
Every accusation a confession.
In these discussions you don’t usually hear about cameras but I have a Sony RX10 MkIV that cost $1700 new that had these two tiny plastic parts break, they’re concentric ring cams/switches that go around the shutter button, one is the on/off switch the other for zoom. They couldn’t cost more than pennies to make but the cheapest I could find to get the camera fixed was about $500, $600 if I went with the Sony approved route. You had to replace the whole top assembly.
I have a Samsung Galaxy Note 20 and I’ve been wanting to leave Samsung for the Google Pixel. I just wish their phones were better quality, especially the battery life. Not sure how they do on the right to repair though either
Re: Samsung vs Pixel
historically, I have had some severe problems with the quality of pixel hardware, but they do score very well when it comes to right to repair.