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

71–80 of 128 posts

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

#71

Post by JohnFen »

DowagerDave wrote: post #66
JohnFen wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> while lawyers only think about how something goes very wrong and the company ends up in court. To be fair to the lawyers -- that's primarily what companies hire them to do.

Maybe a lot of executives and lawyers start from this perspective, but if so it's a bad position. Lawyers are supposed to be educated risk mitigators, working to maximize value not just minimize risk. I see so much CYA that they adopt a "better safe than sorry" attitude that doesn't accurately blend likelihood and impact, to the detriment of the company. They also rely on thin case law and current events which is bas…

> Lawyers are supposed to be educated risk mitigators, working to maximize value not just minimize risk.

Not so sure I agree with this. Lawyers are supposed to provide an analysis of the legal risks of things the company wants to do. It's the job of management to take that information and weigh it against the other business factors to determine if the risk is worth taking or not.

If a company is too risk-averse, legally speaking, that's a fault of management, not the lawyers.

That said, good lawyers won't just give a binary "recommend/don't recommend" answer. They'll also provide various options for other ways of doing something that have different risk profiles.

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

#72

Post by JohnFen »

xeromal wrote: post #61
malfist wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a very cynical take. People and organizations can be neutral with ulterior motives

> People and organizations can be neutral with ulterior motives Doesn't this mean exactly what the person you're replying to said?

I assume they meant "without" instead of "with".

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

#73

Post by JohnFen »

brookst wrote: post #16
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

Why would people boycott a company with a strong market position that is operating within the bounds of what it can get away with? This reads like suggesting people should boycott their favorite restaurants because reasons.

If people find "what they can get away with" to be objectionable, what's wrong with avoiding doing business with them?

Just because something is legal doesn't mean it's acceptable.

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

#74

Post by brookst »

ilaksh wrote: post #20
brookst wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would people boycott a company with a strong market position that is operating within the bounds of what it can get away with? This reads like suggesting people should boycott their favorite restaurants because reasons.

Because what they get away with is abusive and shows no regard for consumers. Your comment reads like you ignored all of the context of my comment. It's like if your favorite restaurant served really good burgers for $1000, but if the pickles and lettuce fell out and you tried to put them back in, the waiter would come over and slap the burger out of your hand and make you spend another $1000 to get a whole new burge…

I guess we have different ideas about "context".

You're telling me that something very popular, with high brand loyalty, is actually abusive and the people who are loyal to it should not only stop buying but organize some kind of boycott. Which is just strange.

In your hypothetical, nobody would go there. Nobody buys $1000 burgers, nobody likes abusive service. But, in your hypothetical, somehow this is not just a successful restaurant but one of the most successful in the world. Because... people are forced to go there?

I honestly am trying to be as charitable as possible and I just can't see any sense in your position. As far as I can tell you just dislike some brands and are angry that other people like them and refuse to stop buying their products, even though you think they should for their own good. It's very convoluted.

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

#75

Post by brookst »

JohnFen wrote: post #73
brookst wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would people boycott a company with a strong market position that is operating within the bounds of what it can get away with? This reads like suggesting people should boycott their favorite restaurants because reasons.

If people find "what they can get away with" to be objectionable, what's wrong with avoiding doing business with them? Just because something is legal doesn't mean it's acceptable.

Absolutely. My reaction was to the idea that throngs of current customers who are happy enough with the deal to keep buying "should" not just stop buying but organize a boycott. Feels like a classic "those sheeple think they're happy but they aren't" take.

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

#76

Post by noboostforyou »

Anecdotal only but I've had to buy very obscure Samsung replacement parts twice in recent years and definitely noticed how expensive it was.

One was a proprietary cable for a tv and another was a specific-length ignition wire for a stove top pilot light. Both times I was able to find a no-name brand replacement part on amazon but reviews were mixed and there was no guarantee of fitment. And it wasn't that much of a discount compared to Samsung's direct parts store which was quite pricey. I paid over $60 for that pilot light wire.

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

#77

Post by robnado »

dangus wrote: post #60
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. iFixit offering original OEM spare parts for the Steam Deck is amazing. It's mutually beneficial: iFixit handles a service business that Valve would rather not be in, and customers get a more repairable product. It's also a source of revenue for iFixit that is probably more reliable than depending on advertising or selling tools. A similar deal with Samsung or another phone maker would be amazing.

This works for Steam because the Steam Deck is a low margin device they sell to ensure they can’t be shut out of their profitable business of selling games by microsoft and apple. To Steam, having a customer use the same steam deck for 10 years is not a big loss of revenue and supports their business goals. Meanwhile, Samsung making repairs cheaper means they are cannibalising the sale of new devices which is their main source of profit and growth.

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

#78

Post by wccrawford »

TRiG_Ireland wrote: post #45
wccrawford wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's invading everything, too. Ninja warrior used to be a show about amazing athletes conquering the courses, with a quirky backstory thrown in sometimes. Now, almost everyone has a lengthy backstory that is told at least once per season, and it's a significant amount of the runtime of the show. It's gotten to the point that even athletes that have basically no backstory still end up with a lengthy segment on themsel…

Which is why World Ninja League (an actual sport) is better than American Ninja Warrior (a TV show with a sporting element). See also World Chase Tag vs Ultimate Tag, which has basically the same distinction.

I had never heard of it. Thanks!

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

#79

Post by wccrawford »

mynameisvlad wrote: post #70
wccrawford wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's invading everything, too. Ninja warrior used to be a show about amazing athletes conquering the courses, with a quirky backstory thrown in sometimes. Now, almost everyone has a lengthy backstory that is told at least once per season, and it's a significant amount of the runtime of the show. It's gotten to the point that even athletes that have basically no backstory still end up with a lengthy segment on themsel…

Or maybe, just maybe, it’s because viewers tested more positively to the backstories and the connection helps them choose someone to root for and therefore be more invested in the show. The showrunners didn’t do it for shits and giggles, they did it because it makes them more money. If you want just the sport bits, you can always watch Sasuke, the original, which I believe has less backstory interstitials.

I imagine it's the same thing that caused the comment here about not liking it. I don't care if it "tested well", I don't like it.

And yes, I watch Sasuke when I get a chance. Also, Australian Ninja Warrior. The British one isn't as good, IMO, but we watch that, too.

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

#80

Post by Zak »

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…

Selling parts for a profit is inconsistent with an order limit of 7 parts per repair shop per quarter. A likely explanation is that Samsung hopes people who cannot get their old Samsung device repaired will buy a new Samsung device.

Samsung seems insufficiently concerned customers will hold Samsung responsible for the problem and buy a device from another manufacturer. I call this behavior market leader syndrome.

Post reply on HN