iFixit tells the sad story of how Samsung “ruined” its upcycling program
1–10 of 54 posts
Re: iFixit tells the sad story of how Samsung “ruined” its upcycling program
#2This seems like one of those ideas that got floated, but then they realized it could cut into sales. If an open source ecosystem came along that ran on no longer supported hardware, there could be a reason for people to not upgrade that device.
Re: iFixit tells the sad story of how Samsung “ruined” its upcycling program
#3This seems like one of those ideas that got floated, but then they realized it could cut into sales. If an open source ecosystem came along that ran on no longer supported hardware, there could be a reason for people to not upgrade that device.
I find it amusing that Samsung couldn't even bring themselves to commit to the lazy alternative to providing OS updates for a reasonable amount of time. Simply unlocking the bootloader and letting the community maintain your product after the paltry 18 month support window seems like the absolute bare minimum.
I'm sure Apple made this same calculation, and still decided that directly supporting devices for 5+ years was worth the investment. It might lead to users upgrading less frequently, but it builds brand loyalty. A user that doesn't feel screwed over is more likely to be a repeat customer.
Re: iFixit tells the sad story of how Samsung “ruined” its upcycling program
#4Looks like the linked article is a rewrite of the original iFixit post: https://www.ifixit.com/News/50450/samsung-galaxy-upcycling-u...
Re: iFixit tells the sad story of how Samsung “ruined” its upcycling program
#5> Samsung, like every manufacturer, should set their old phones free. Open up their bootloaders. Let people use their [...]
They aren't Samsung's phones. They're yours and mine and whoever traded money to own a device and now OWNS THAT DEVICE. We shouldn't be okay with this new world where we're begging companies to LET us use our OWN devices for whatever the hell we want.
Re: iFixit tells the sad story of how Samsung “ruined” its upcycling program
#6Conflict-of-interest.
If your business model is based on artificial obsolesence and 100% of the cost of e-waste and disposal is externalized, then anything that truly encourages effective continued use of older models is directly opposed to the business model.
And while it's something to have marketable trust-building by taking some responsibility for the waste and longer life-span, that also invites people to start thinking about how bad the fundamental business model is. If you get people to actually care about this stuff, that's building demand for a different business model, something closer to Fairphone.
At this point, the only really scalable way to solve repairability and e-waste is probably to mandate it legally. Force the costs to be internalized. Require a deposit on all electronics, like some states do with bottles. Adjust the numbers at each end to actually discourage waste and to actually cover real-world recycling costs.
And figure out how to require companies to unlock unsupported devices.
It doesn't work to have one company do these things while others don't. That puts the one company at a competitive disadvantage.
Re: iFixit tells the sad story of how Samsung “ruined” its upcycling program
#7This seems like one of those ideas that got floated, but then they realized it could cut into sales. If an open source ecosystem came along that ran on no longer supported hardware, there could be a reason for people to not upgrade that device.
I find it amusing that Samsung couldn't even bring themselves to commit to the lazy alternative to providing OS updates for a reasonable amount of time. Simply unlocking the bootloader and letting the community maintain your product after the paltry 18 month support window seems like the absolute bare minimum. I'm sure Apple made this same calculation, and still decided that directly supporting devices for 5+ years w…
How many users own an iPhone from launch for 5 years? Based on the robust resale market, it seems that users who want to always have the latest model fund that habit by reselling their used device into the secondhand market. If anything, this long support enables higher turnover for the latest models.
Re: iFixit tells the sad story of how Samsung “ruined” its upcycling program
#8This seems like one of those ideas that got floated, but then they realized it could cut into sales. If an open source ecosystem came along that ran on no longer supported hardware, there could be a reason for people to not upgrade that device.
I find it amusing that Samsung couldn't even bring themselves to commit to the lazy alternative to providing OS updates for a reasonable amount of time. Simply unlocking the bootloader and letting the community maintain your product after the paltry 18 month support window seems like the absolute bare minimum. I'm sure Apple made this same calculation, and still decided that directly supporting devices for 5+ years w…
It doesn't hurt that Apple has some financial incentives for keeping older devices working, as it means those devices are still able to purchase apps from the App Store, sign up for new Apple subscription services, and use new Apple accessories. Since Samsung is only a hardware manufacturer, they don't see the benefits of up-to-date devices to the same degree that Apple does.
That isn't to say that keeping old devices running is pure selfish self-interest on Apple's part, though. This isn't a zero-sum game; everyone wins when hardware gets a long support life cycle.
Re: iFixit tells the sad story of how Samsung “ruined” its upcycling program
#9> Samsung, like every manufacturer, should set their old phones free. Open up their bootloaders. Let people use their [...] They aren't Samsung's phones. They're yours and mine and whoever traded money to own a device and now OWNS THAT DEVICE. We shouldn't be okay with this new world where we're begging companies to LET us use our OWN devices for whatever the hell we want.
I wish we owned the software when we bought the hardware.
Re: iFixit tells the sad story of how Samsung “ruined” its upcycling program
#10Conflict-of-interest. If your business model is based on artificial obsolesence and 100% of the cost of e-waste and disposal is externalized, then anything that truly encourages effective continued use of older models is directly opposed to the business model. And while it's something to have marketable trust-building by taking some responsibility for the waste and longer life-span, that also invites people to start…
[deleted]