I love this guy, he's on point and I'm always waiting impatiently for his next video.
Samsung Imposes Questionable Rules on Independent Repair Shops
- Thread starter KleinesSinchen
- Start date
- Views 1,493
- Replies 24
- Likes 2
yeah i agree with my fix and your original comment also (sorry just pointing out samsung 's unofficial ceo is Satan
Post automatically merged:
pretty sure it's illegal in 9/10's of the civilized world you have EU's GDPR if they took customers medical records here (the US) i'd love to see them squirm out of HIPPA violations by the thousands
Last edited by chrisrlink,
Recently made the switch from Motorola to Samsung devices, and all-in-all I'm very satisfied with the change.
The first time I've used Motorola I loved the all-clean Android option and refused to use personalized UI's at all.
Then Motorola ruined the experience with a low end Moto C device that made me hate the brand as it wasn't able to keep the RTC running properly, the clock and alarms weren't working completely.
Samsung blinked its eyes on me and did the switch and I'm using an A51 with pure joy with plans on getting a Samsung high-end cell phone soon.
Samsung imposing rules on their certified repair shops is something I would do if I want to ensure customers get the best of my brand, including repair quality and warranty.
While most people see their contract requirements as a hurdle in their way, I see it as a plus for the brand and their products.
But yes, there are some parts of the "contract" that turn the red lights on. Like requesting to report if the customer used third party repair parts on their devices.
The most important part of this all is the certified part of the argument, if you want to be certified, you must comply to certain rules or else, do third party repairs.
We all know many third party repair shops use (re-use actually) second hand parts and sell them as new, or third party repair parts as originals (not everyone does it but you know the drill), that's something that hurt customers' pockets and brand credibility.
The first time I've used Motorola I loved the all-clean Android option and refused to use personalized UI's at all.
Then Motorola ruined the experience with a low end Moto C device that made me hate the brand as it wasn't able to keep the RTC running properly, the clock and alarms weren't working completely.
Samsung blinked its eyes on me and did the switch and I'm using an A51 with pure joy with plans on getting a Samsung high-end cell phone soon.
Samsung imposing rules on their certified repair shops is something I would do if I want to ensure customers get the best of my brand, including repair quality and warranty.
While most people see their contract requirements as a hurdle in their way, I see it as a plus for the brand and their products.
But yes, there are some parts of the "contract" that turn the red lights on. Like requesting to report if the customer used third party repair parts on their devices.
The most important part of this all is the certified part of the argument, if you want to be certified, you must comply to certain rules or else, do third party repairs.
We all know many third party repair shops use (re-use actually) second hand parts and sell them as new, or third party repair parts as originals (not everyone does it but you know the drill), that's something that hurt customers' pockets and brand credibility.
1) If Samsung attempts to stop third parties from providing Samsung-compatible replacement parts, it is anticompetitive.
2) If Samsung attempts to force independent repair shops to use only Samsung replacement parts, it is anticompetitive.
Take your pick. The hilarious privacy violation they layered on top of maybe one of those is just icing.
Not to knock right to repair, but antitrust is theoretically sufficient in situations like either of the above.
The only scenario where it isn't is where the independent repair shop chooses to exclusively buy Samsung replacement parts pursuant to this contract, and along with all the requirements, instead of available third party replacement parts - which may be a bet by the repair shop that customers value Samsung branding/certification more than all of the things being sold in exchange for it.
Mind you, it's not a bad bet. The repair shop isn't being illegally coerced there, it's selling out its customers to buy the branding it wants, it thinks, to attract more customers.
2) If Samsung attempts to force independent repair shops to use only Samsung replacement parts, it is anticompetitive.
Take your pick. The hilarious privacy violation they layered on top of maybe one of those is just icing.
Not to knock right to repair, but antitrust is theoretically sufficient in situations like either of the above.
The only scenario where it isn't is where the independent repair shop chooses to exclusively buy Samsung replacement parts pursuant to this contract, and along with all the requirements, instead of available third party replacement parts - which may be a bet by the repair shop that customers value Samsung branding/certification more than all of the things being sold in exchange for it.
Mind you, it's not a bad bet. The repair shop isn't being illegally coerced there, it's selling out its customers to buy the branding it wants, it thinks, to attract more customers.
Similar threads
-
- Portal
-
- Portal
