Blog

Between Galaxy AI and an industry-leading seven years of updates, Samsung gave us plenty of good reasons to buy the Galaxy S24 series at launch. Best of all to some ears, especially those looking to hold on to their investment for the long haul, it looks like Samsung is also getting serious about the right to repair, partnering with iFixit to make it easier and more affordable to keep your phones running over.

However, iFixit and Samsung ended their partnership, with the former not convinced that Samsung was “serious about embracing repair” due to high component costs. In addition, reports suggest that at least some of Samsung’s repair contracts contain questionable Apple-style terms regarding third-party components. After a promising start, it wasn’t a positive outcome if you were hoping to get your Galaxy phone repaired.

Conversely, Samsung has done a solid job using its five- and seven-year update policies for older phones. One UI 6.1 is making its way to older devices just a few months after debuting in the Galaxy S24 series, complete with some (though not always all) of the latest AI features. Although most of these phones are still near the beginning of their update, the signs are good that the latest Galaxy S and Z flagships will still feel fresh many years later.

So, good news and bad news, but taken together, this is an extremely controversial state of affairs. Seven years of software support is a long time for any gadget, but the hardware is unlikely to last that long as a whole for many users. Even if you never drop your phone and protect the screen like your life depends on it, smartphone batteries are rated to last about three years or so before degradation occurs.

I feel like I’m beating an old drum at this point: long-term software support requires long-term hardware support that isn’t subject to restrictive terms and conditions or outrageous costs. Apple’s first-party-only fix approach is notoriously anti-consumer. This prevents consumers from shopping around for the best prices or doing repairs in regions where component stocks are low or out of date. It’s disappointing to say the least to see Samsung potentially go the same way.

No one is going to keep their phone for seven years when faced with replacing batteries that cost up to $160 or new screens at the price of the phone’s aging trade-in value. Even if consumers will absorb the cost, jumping through hoops to find “proven” parts or repair centers is a step too far for many who just want a working phone. Ultimately, consumers will buy new ones if the burden of repair is too high. Samsung, like Apple, is raising that barrier.

Maybe these brands are intentionally getting in the way. After all, there’s not much money in $40 batteries or cheap USB-C fixes. Long-term software support also costs money; maybe Apple, Samsung, etc. rely on small profits from expensive repairs to make these software schemes viable (or to keep shareholders in the money). Who knows, but this won’t work if customers avoid repairs to begin with.

Regardless, it’s a joke to offer seven years of software on the one hand and take it away with restrictive and expensive repair policies on the other. It’s bad for us consumers and it also makes a mockery of eco-identification claims. 50% more recycled packaging means nothing when you’re mining more precious metals for new phones instead of repairing otherwise working ones.

Apple, Samsung and other big players in the industry have not yet managed to create smartphones that are durable and combine profitability with the right to repair. This latest failure by Samsung suggests that we still have a long way to go before someone finally gets to grips with perhaps the industry’s biggest environmental problem and impact.