Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Story of Samsung's failed deal with iFixit, as told by iFixit's CEO

androidauthority.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 128 posts

Re: The Story of Samsung's failed deal with iFixit, as told by iFixit's CEO

#21

Post by NoboruWataya »

daghamm wrote: post #8

I really liked the plans Samsung employees had to give old phones a new life. I have a box of mostly working phones from different companies and I often wish there was an easy way to use them for different automation tasks around the house. Anyway, I'm not surprised it didn't work. Engineers see possibilities while lawyers only think about how something goes very wrong and the company ends up in court.

In other words, lawyers also see possibilities, albeit maybe not the same possibilities as the engineers.

(That's assuming that this was shut down by Samsung legal. I didn't see that in the article, though I skimmed a bit so maybe I missed it.)

Re: The Story of Samsung's failed deal with iFixit, as told by iFixit's CEO

#22

Post by anoncow »

GeekyBear wrote: post #10

In my opinion, if you are going position yourself as a neutral arbiter of device repairability, it does not pass the smell test to enter into for-profit business relationships with the companies manufacturing the devices you rate. Providing consumers with information on where to find reputable companies selling repair parts would be a much more palatable alternative to selling them yourself. > “I don’t know why Samsu…

I disagree. We need more companies like iFixit who advocate for repair. If they are for profit, so be it. A non profit doing the same would also be good, but more the merrier.

Re: The Story of Samsung's failed deal with iFixit, as told by iFixit's CEO

#23

Post by indymike »

brookst wrote: post #15
GeekyBear wrote: post #10

In my opinion, if you are going position yourself as a neutral arbiter of device repairability, it does not pass the smell test to enter into for-profit business relationships with the companies manufacturing the devices you rate. Providing consumers with information on where to find reputable companies selling repair parts would be a much more palatable alternative to selling them yourself. > “I don’t know why Samsu…

Agreed that for-profit relationships are inappropriate, and I also think iFixit’s business selling repair tools and parts is inappropriate. The whole thing comes across as self-promotion for their tools/parts business. Add in their dabbling in lobbying for regulations to force manufacturers to make devices that you can buy ifixit (and other) kits for… and it starts to feel as disingenuous as Epic’s “pro-consumer” int…

> dabbling in lobbying for regulations to force manufacturers to make devices that you can buy ifixit (and other) kits... feel as disingenuous

Availability of parts and tools is critical to being able to repair anything and iFixit's entire business is based on repair.

Strategies restricting parts and tools as a moat protecting repair and secondary (used) markets should rightfully be illegal. Lobbying for this, especially when your business is repair and repair supplies, is self-preservation, and not lobbying against forces trying to put your business out of business is... irresponsible.

Re: The Story of Samsung's failed deal with iFixit, as told by iFixit's CEO

#24

Post by igornadj »

wordofx wrote: post #4

> Wiens sips a Diet Coke and settles in as I start explaining the framework of our conversation. He interrupts me politely to get a big caveat out of the way related to confidentiality terms iFixit still has with Samsung. I really struggle to read these types of interviews. If I wanted to read the novel I would buy the book… but if I’m reading an article I don’t want the fluff…

Generally I agree, but this is one single paragraph of colour followed by the rest being straight reporting below, and adds important context.

Re: The Story of Samsung's failed deal with iFixit, as told by iFixit's CEO

#25

Post by rob74 »

GeekyBear wrote: post #10

In my opinion, if you are going position yourself as a neutral arbiter of device repairability, it does not pass the smell test to enter into for-profit business relationships with the companies manufacturing the devices you rate. Providing consumers with information on where to find reputable companies selling repair parts would be a much more palatable alternative to selling them yourself. > “I don’t know why Samsu…

Well yeah, you have to read between the lines a bit, but it's pretty obvious: Samsung prefers customers throwing away old phones (especially cheaper ones) and buying new phones (preferably Samsung, and preferably more expensive ones), that's why replacement parts are more expensive (and disproportionately more expensive for cheaper phones). Of course they are glad if they can have some positive press releases about sustainability thanks to a gullible repairability website, but when it comes to actually put it into practice, their enthusiasm evaporates very quickly...

Re: The Story of Samsung's failed deal with iFixit, as told by iFixit's CEO

#26

Post by RobotToaster »

ilaksh wrote: post #11

There are many companies that just do whatever they can get away with and because of their market position, this is a lot. Maybe someday there will be a movement to boycott these abusive companies or something. Check out https://futo.org

futo, the company that keeps trying to hijack open source with their proprietary licence?

Re: The Story of Samsung's failed deal with iFixit, as told by iFixit's CEO

#27

Post by [deleted] »

diffeomorphism wrote: post #14
GeekyBear wrote: post #10

In my opinion, if you are going position yourself as a neutral arbiter of device repairability, it does not pass the smell test to enter into for-profit business relationships with the companies manufacturing the devices you rate. Providing consumers with information on where to find reputable companies selling repair parts would be a much more palatable alternative to selling them yourself. > “I don’t know why Samsu…

I would argue the opposite. They are not aiming to be a neutral arbiter but an active advocate for better repairability. For that they should have for-profit business relationships with basically all companies manufacturing such devices. In particular, that would allow them to pressure or drop any one misbehaving company. > Providing consumers with information on where to find reputable companies selling repair parts…

[deleted]

Re: The Story of Samsung's failed deal with iFixit, as told by iFixit's CEO

#28

Post by chuckadams »

GeekyBear wrote: post #10

In my opinion, if you are going position yourself as a neutral arbiter of device repairability, it does not pass the smell test to enter into for-profit business relationships with the companies manufacturing the devices you rate. Providing consumers with information on where to find reputable companies selling repair parts would be a much more palatable alternative to selling them yourself. > “I don’t know why Samsu…

Seems much simpler than that to me: iFixit isn’t an advocacy group, they’re in the business of selling parts directly to consumers, and they’re calling out what looks to be an outrageous markup from the sole supplier. Any advocacy they do is in support of their business. They’re a free market solution demanding a freer market.

Re: The Story of Samsung's failed deal with iFixit, as told by iFixit's CEO

#29

Post by chuckadams »

michaelt wrote: post #5

> “I don’t know why Samsung insists on charging so much for service parts,” Wiens says, visibly frustrated. “The prices that we see are out of line with what we know components actually cost to manufacture.” Wiens starts to elaborate but stops himself. He clarifies that he would love to discuss this more, but his contract with Samsung prevents him from doing so. I mean, it's pretty easy to guess: They want to run the…

If Samsung were straight with everyone and actually said as much as you did, that would go a long way toward rebuilding the relationship. But we all know that isn’t the real reason for the markup, or at least not the full reason.

Re: The Story of Samsung's failed deal with iFixit, as told by iFixit's CEO

#30

Post by tempfile »

brookst wrote: post #15
GeekyBear wrote: post #10

In my opinion, if you are going position yourself as a neutral arbiter of device repairability, it does not pass the smell test to enter into for-profit business relationships with the companies manufacturing the devices you rate. Providing consumers with information on where to find reputable companies selling repair parts would be a much more palatable alternative to selling them yourself. > “I don’t know why Samsu…

Agreed that for-profit relationships are inappropriate, and I also think iFixit’s business selling repair tools and parts is inappropriate. The whole thing comes across as self-promotion for their tools/parts business. Add in their dabbling in lobbying for regulations to force manufacturers to make devices that you can buy ifixit (and other) kits for… and it starts to feel as disingenuous as Epic’s “pro-consumer” int…

What is disingenuous about being a repair parts company that lobbies for devices that are easier to repair? From where I'm standing they are being completely genuine: They profit when people are able to buy repair parts, and they advocate for more repairability in electronics. To me that seems like just good alignment of values.
Post reply on HN