Thread

Owners mourn spoiled food after firmware update bricks Samsung smart fridges

323 points · 336 comments · nonfamous

100percentjake · 1790258905 · focus · HN ↗
Samsung smart appliances in general seem to occupy a similar place in the market to vehicles like the Chevy Traverse or Nissan Altima, where people with technical knowledge in that area know them to be absolute horrific maintenance and repair liabilities and yet the consumer base places them second to God.
Obviously the review of a brand-new device or vehicle with 100 miles on it is going to have a disconnect from the realities of 60k miles of rocky ownership but I remain baffled when people buy a 7 year old used V6 Traverse, a vehicle extremely well known for catastrophic engine failure, and if I question their decision I get a "the reviews were good!". It seems like journalistic malpractice to not retroactively update reviews with a warning when critical widespread shortcomings are found later in a products life.
1. DanielHB · 1790259064 · focus · HN ↗
  Haha, so true, even when I was a kid I thought Samsung LCD monitors were a bit shiet compared to the alternatives.
  Goes to show how long brand name goes, especially on appliances.
  1. naasking · 1790271410 · focus · HN ↗
    My Samsung 3D TV is still going strong after 13 years.
2. torben-friis · 1790259437 · focus · HN ↗
  People's algorithm for purchases is usually "what's the best bang for the buck where the name rings a bell".
  I'm guilty of it as well, if forced to choose blindly I'd pick Sony over WMFSENSY. But I'm beggining to wonder, with the recent casualness with which brands lower quality, whether they'll be a generational change and people will start ignoring brands entirely.
  I'm starting to change my mind myself. My last Nike shoes weren't even the same size/shape (apparently they make left and right shoes in different countries now). At that point might as well go for the knockoffs.
  1. pjc50 · 1790260005 · focus · HN ↗
    > (apparently they make left and right shoes in different countries now)
    This feels like a joke about just in time inventory and globalization, but I'm worried that it might be true.
    yread · 1790261124 · focus · HN ↗
    It probably significantly reduces theft by employees though
    inanutshellus · 1790261791 · focus · HN ↗
    I'm curious of source on this being more than anecdotal?
    The most natural way for shoe mismatches is from the showroom. Customer grabs 5 pairs, tries some on, they get mixed up when returning to stock. Same shoe and size (hopefully, lol), but different production number and different factory/origin.
    wolrah · 1790269316 · focus · HN ↗
    How often do you really expect a customer is grabbing multiple pairs of the same size/model/color of shoe to try on? Maybe it's just where I shop but it's rare that there's even more than one example of the size I need in the style/color I want to allow such a scenario to occur.
    inanutshellus · 1790271677 · focus · HN ↗
    I looked (briefly) online for evidence of the factory claim and found none.
    GP didn't give enough context ("MY shoes are weird so I extrapolated" vs "I know this is true; here's proof."), but the casual one-off scenario is absolutely a showroom level of "random happens".
    Babysitting all those individual shoes and styles and sizes seems ... expensive, logistically.
    In fact, if this were a thing, I'd imagine they'd start offloading them as though it were a cool feature. "Want to mix-n-match shoes? buy just a left!"
    0cf8612b2e1e · 1790324278 · focus · HN ↗
    All the time? I don’t know if it is still true, but at one point Zappos had free returns. I know a few women who would buy a range of sizes, keep the one that fits, return the rest.
    There was a Seinfeld joke to this effect that men just take whatever clothing, even if it barely fits. Women are likely to be choosier and insist on a good match. Some might intentionally mix and match shoe sizes if one foot is bigger than the other (leaving the store with a mismatched pair)
    lostlogin · 1790360700 · focus · HN ↗
    When you find a style or size you like, it’s so great being able to just grab another without having trawl shops or malls.
    torben-friis · 1790261856 · focus · HN ↗
    I wish it was a joke, I was being serious. I guess it keeps them from the factory producing extra to sell as knockoffs, or the product being "lost in transit" or whatever.
    ndsipa_pomu · 1790342105 · focus · HN ↗
    I find it amusing that they go to those lengths rather than just using factories/employees that they can trust. I suppose you don't get loyalty if you treat people like crap.
    gmjn · 1790261937 · focus · HN ↗
    imagine the overhead of an extra location to box pairs of shoes. Where these employees steal these boxed pairs. good joke.
    Scoundreller · 1790267954 · focus · HN ↗
    It’s really not that unusual to manufacture in bulk at one facility and package in another.
    Also let’s multiple “competitors” consolidate packaging into one big operation. Or localized to destination. Also a space thing: can ship more in bulk and make it all fluffier closer to point of sale.
    Shoeboxes, among other packages, are a lot of air, why fill your truck/container/aircraft “unit load device” with it.
    Lammy · 1790271482 · focus · HN ↗
    That would be easily noticed when units-in != units-out: <a href="https://www.messynessychic.com/2021/07/08/the-secret-world-of-ghost-shift-midnight-manufacturing/" rel="nofollow">https://www.messynessychic.com/2021/07/08/the-secret-world-o...
    mlok · 1790291921 · focus · HN ↗
    Wild guess : It might be to make it harder to steal a pair from the factory if you can only get half of it ?
  2. pessimizer · 1790260341 · focus · HN ↗
    > if forced to choose blindly I'd pick Sony over WMFSENSY.
    Only at the same price. If there's a big discount, I'm going to prefer the random letter jumble from China because it's probably a standard design that a lot of factories are producing because it works well enough.
    The only reason I lean towards Sony all things being equal is because I know that Sony gets sued when things go wrong, and won't just drop the brand and close up shop like the random letter jumble.
    Also I would prefer Sony if lead would be a problem somewhere in the thing I'm buying.
    Dan_- · 1790260633 · focus · HN ↗
    And then you find you’re powering a residential proxy bot net.
    pessimizer · 1790261124 · focus · HN ↗
    Oh, definitely nothing that goes on the network whose firmware that I'm not in control of. But that goes double for Sony.
    edit: I must add - except for this cheap Android phone from the carrier. But I head it off at the router.
    nkrisc · 1790262186 · focus · HN ↗
    You know that. Most people don’t.
    bitwize · 1790263857 · focus · HN ↗
    I bought a "mini retro TV" device from China. It's basically a cheap motherboard from an Android TV device MacGyvered into a case with its own small LCD display. It's got two old-timey toggle switches in the back: one for power and one for input select which doesn't work. I figured out what device it originally came from and put a build of Armbian for that device on it. I won't let its stock Android OS connect to the internet or my network for all the tea in—er, well...
    marcosdumay · 1790264696 · focus · HN ↗
    Yes, Sony has a known history of respecting the user's security...
    vel0city · 1790266527 · focus · HN ↗
    Yeah, I'd never want to do business with a company known for their products hacking your home equipment.
    <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_BMG_copy_protection_rootkit_scandal" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_BMG_copy_protection_rootk...
    subscribed · 1790267505 · focus · HN ↗
    Phew, thankfully we're safe buying a big brand device: <a href="https://krebsonsecurity.com/2026/07/lg-to-ban-residential-proxies-from-smart-tv-apps/" rel="nofollow">https://krebsonsecurity.com/2026/07/lg-to-ban-residential-pr...
    :)
  3. dieselgate · 1790261230 · focus · HN ↗
    To be fair mentioning Nike is kind of a straw man here — unless being explicit with the model/style. They manufacturer to many different price points, more than an auto maker.
  4. 100percentjake · 1790264421 · focus · HN ↗
    I'm not immune. I recently bought some New Balance shoes from Sheels, figuring I'd be getting reasonable quality footwear. Both sets had hole damn near worn through the soles and delamination in multiple locations after ~6 months of wearing them as an office worker who does no abnormal amount of walking or exercise in them. Come to find out their "non flagship" models are cheaply made garbage as opposed to the quintessential white leather model that costs, iirc, the upper $300 range and is made in America.
    steveBK123 · 1790283826 · focus · HN ↗
    There's so many companies reputation-tarnishing themselves by doing this "we sell a lesser line thats actually terrible" thing. Why do you think I will now trust you with more money for an upgraded model? You've just made me skeptical of your brand entirely.
    I've sworn off Bosch appliances after a 2 year fiasco of service calls with one of their dishwashers. The thing was still about $900 plus install. At what price point am I to believe it's not the worse-on-purpose line, as they cheapen the product every year. They seem to have models from $700 to $2000.
    A bad $900 model sours me on gambling that the $1200, $1500 or $2000 model is the good one this year.
    bombcar · 1790287485 · focus · HN ↗
    “Selling the brand” or whatever it’s called. Lots of money to be made.
    schiffern · 1790327527 · focus · HN ↗
    Exactly. To a ruthless MBA, what good is a reputation if you can't get rich ruining it?
    It's called liquidation for a reason. You don't have the asset afterwards.
    sgarland · 1790305721 · focus · HN ↗
    The Bosch 800 series dishwashers are god-tier, or at least they were as of 5 years ago, when I last bought one. I've had one in the last 3 houses, and went so far recently as to swap my new house's dishwasher (I think a Whirlpool something-or-other) with my old house's Bosch 800, because it was a cross-town move, and I could.
    BobbyTables2 · 1790305141 · focus · HN ↗
    I don’t understand modern shoes.
    Seems like almost everything moderately priced has soles made of a extremely lightweight, squishy soft plastic that neither has much traction nor any toughness — worse than cheap flip-flop material.
    Shoe companies should be embarrassed to put their name on such crap, yet they try to pass it off as premium.
  5. m4tthumphrey · 1790265600 · focus · HN ↗
    Enshittification is only going to get worse just like everything else.
  6. tacon · 1790265982 · focus · HN ↗
    A more likely scenario is that display shoes of the same nominal size/model can be made in different factories, and when they are reboxed to be sold, they end up in a box from the wrong factory. Different factories make the same model but can have differences in processes so the shoes are noticeably different. Having left and right made in separate factories, much less countries, would be a total nightmare of inventory management.
  7. m463 · 1790275240 · focus · HN ↗
    > and people will start ignoring brands entirely
    One problem is that business forces keep turning brands into rugpulls.
    After enough of this nonsense, brands are less of a reliable indicator.
    Amazon pushed that to its inevitable endgame, where each product is a unique look-at-reviews situation. (and coincidentally the amazon advertising business is there while you run the product choosing guantlet)
  8. catlikesshrimp · 1790277175 · focus · HN ↗
    Older brands have a motive to care for their reputation, because if people know *oldbrand* is bad. they will avoid *oldbrand* and it dies.
    On the contrary, *insertanynonenglishnamebrand* (*newbrand*) doesn't need to have any care in the world. If the product is trash, they would replace the name next year, bonus points if they declare bankrupcy and don't pay their obligations.
    lmz · 1790339071 · focus · HN ↗
    There's a gap between "old brand makes bad product" and "people knowing old brand is bad". There lies the short term profits.
  9. yonatan8070 · 1790296487 · focus · HN ↗
    > My last Nike shoes weren't even the same size/shape
    This is something that frustrates me to no end. How are clothing item sizes not standardized yet?
    For example, I recently went to buy new Jeans, so I went to the same store where I got my current Jeans, asked for a size 28, and tried it on. How is it possible that my size 28W Basic Straight Jeans from Fox fit me, while a pair that fits the exact same description is too small?
    I later went to a different branch, and there I found another pair which fits the exact same description, and it did fit me!
    I have encountered this type of thing inany places, like when buying shoes one of the employees at the store told me "We don't have this in size 42 in stock, but we do have 41 and our sizes are larger".
    Imagine if you went to McMaster Carr and asked for an M3 screw, and being told "We are out of M3, but our M2.5 is larger so it should work for you"
    necovek · 1790311567 · focus · HN ↗
    Someone shopping for an M3 screw would not be interested it trying out a smaller one, but research has shown that people are interested in trying on a smaller size with clothes ;)
    However, clothes are nearly impossible to simultaneously standardize and commoditize: people (and their feet) come in all shapes and sizes, so different brands in particular, but also different lines of those brands, will have different proportions.
    As a tall guy, I hate that clothes keep growing in width with larger sizes, but rarely grow in length (pants/trousers included), but only because you can't get things without trying them on in multiple sizes.
    If you do not understand why standardized sizes are not mandated or something similar, just look at any bespoke garment creation and all the variable measures being taken for a shirt, pants or jacket — just make realistic combination of all of them in different sizes, and you are looking at ~1000 "standard sizes" or more.
    iosjunkie · 1790344064 · focus · HN ↗
    > clothes keep growing in width with larger sizes, but rarely grow in length
    Humans have this same problem, which I suspect is the root cause.
  10. [deleted] · 1790309419 · focus · HN ↗
    [deleted]
3. pjc50 · 1790259456 · focus · HN ↗
  > extremely well known for catastrophic engine failure
  The problem with this is it's a bit hard to put "well known" in a news article about a negative piece of news, because the manufacturers tend to threaten to sue you unless you have some kind of source or some kind of actual numbers. So this ends up just circulating as received wisdom within the car-knower community but not to the general public. Unless they get lucky with Reddit search results.
  I noticed today that Autotrader.co.uk have recall warnings for certain cars, though.
  1. 100percentjake · 1790264504 · focus · HN ↗
    This is fair. I should have been more explicit that my wonderment is how something that is gospel in the car guy/mechanic community has somehow completely avoided filtering into the greater consumer discussion with regards to catastrophic failure and reliability.
4. quickthrowman · 1790259738 · focus · HN ↗
  > I remain baffled when people buy a 7 year old used V6 Traverse, a vehicle extremely well known for catastrophic engine failure
  I’m puzzled as well, buying a car that depreciates 60-70% in 7 years seems like a horrible idea, you could spend roughly the same on a Toyota Highlander or Honda Pilot and only face 30-40% depreciation after 7 years. This information is freely available if you google “[vehicle model] depreciation curve”.
  Nissan (and Stellantis, Mitsubishi) decided to stop making better cars and focus almost exclusively on subprime lending, the rest of the story tells itself once you have that information.
  1. pessimizer · 1790260669 · focus · HN ↗
    > This information is freely available if you google “[vehicle model] depreciation curve”.
    That's just one of those secrets that you need to know, though. It's like knowing to ignore the unemployment rate (in the vast majority of cases) and instead to look at the prime-age employment rate. People rarely think of something like that without being told.
    dam_jackalopes · 1790264559 · focus · HN ↗
    Cars are also one of those things that can be an emotional purchase and people do weird things. I spent way more than I needed to in order to get the car I wanted and I wanted it because it's a cool vehicle that, when I squint, still fits my needs. It wasn't smart financially but I'm extremely happy I did it. My wife could not care less about a vehicle outside of it being ergonomic and not having a payment. We'll be looking at depreciation curves and the like during that exercise.
  2. [deleted] · 1790261411 · focus · HN ↗
    [deleted]
5. dominicrose · 1790260165 · focus · HN ↗
  I bought a car that seemed cheap for what it was. Turns out is was unpopular because of the timing belt in oil. Can't say I've had any issue with it though (with basic maintenance) but it's only 8 years old.
  1. dieselgate · 1790261344 · focus · HN ↗
    Can you possibly elaborate on the timing belt in oil? I’ve only known of dry timing belts or lubricated timing chains/gears
    alexfoo · 1790261779 · focus · HN ↗
    Certain models of the Mk3 Ford Focus (2011-2018) have a wet timing belt.
    Needs changing at 100,000 to 150-000 miles or every 10 years.
    The 10 year service is a spendy one.
    lelanthran · 1790265758 · focus · HN ↗
    > Can you possibly elaborate on the timing belt in oil? I’ve only known of dry timing belts or lubricated timing chains/gears
    Ford's recently designed engines were designed with a timing belt internally that operated in an oil bath.
    They are currently walking that decision back and attempting to make it look as if it wasn't planned obsolescence (dry cambelt engines or proper timing chains means that the engine would last almost longer than the person who bought it if they did the regular maintenance. A cambelt that cannot be changed because its internal means that there is a limit to how long the engine would last.)
    anakaine · 1790284791 · focus · HN ↗
    Cheap and poor decision by a company not acting in good faith. Right up there with the globally popular Ford Ranger whose oil change needs to be completed in under 10 minutes because thats how long it takes the oil pump to drain residual oil and it has no self priming capability, so itll run dry and seize the engine despite the oil sump being full.
    dieselgate · 1790444599 · focus · HN ↗
    It seems like wet timing belts were common in europe among more auto makers than Ford, not that I am vouching for them in any capacity.
    pvaldes · 1790332071 · focus · HN ↗
    > Ford's recently designed engines were designed with a timing belt internally that operated in an oil bath.
    Is not designed by Ford. Those are (most probably) the same as the infamous Puretech motors developped by PSA. Is a Peugeot car disguised as Ford (or a Ford car with a Peugeot motor if you prefer). Several brands use it, under different names. Most probably they bought them under a big discount.
    That motor was durable, tested and approved, But... Europe said: You must adjust this and that for the new legislation, and the change made a little bit of gasoline to mix in the oil and reach the belt. Problem: Gasoline eats rubber over time, and the timing belt is made of rubber.
    The real problem was not so much that the timing belt could root entirely and break, leading to a catastrophic failure.
    Much before that, the pump that sucks oil into the motor gets slowly clogged with rubber bits, triggering a "pressure oil failure" warning. Also the computer reacts to a slow lubrication reducing the power to protect the motor, so you have a car with random power failures and alarming warnings. If you ignore this, eventually the rubber dust accumulated could block entirely the oil from entering into the motor. And then your motor is destroyed in no time.
    Nobody suspected that when Peugeot sold thousands of cars. A few years later, many cars that were still basically new, started to die or require expensive reparations. The makers warned on the manual that the belt must be changed often and this avoids entirely the problem. Second problem: Only car freaks follow the manual specifications. Every common owner expected the timing belt to last for the same as a traditional one (160,000 to 240,000Km or so), when it must be changed at 60,000 or so. Changing the time belt is not cheap and they ignored the warning as a grabbing cash trick.
    For a while, common people were still buying cars with big discounts that mechanics didn't wanted to touch with a teen foot pole. Spanish influencers started to rebrand the pure-tech motors as pudre-tech (in Spanish: it-rots-tech), and the term slowly reached the public opinion.
    Even following the specifications, you are stuck with a car that is more expensive to maintain.
    Peugeot fixed the issue changing the belt material, but the reputational damage was done and was eventually absorbed into Stellantis, a superbrand created with Chinese, Italian and American investors.
    If your car uses gasoil you don't have this problem. Only gasoline. Peugeot declared in jun 2026 that those family of gasoline motors are about to be finally discarded and replaced by a new motor (with a chain belt and designed for better integration with hybrid systems).
    lelanthran · 1790349946 · focus · HN ↗
    > That motor was durable, tested and approved, But... Europe said: You must adjust this and that for the new legislation, and the change made a little bit of gasoline to mix in the oil and reach the belt. Problem: Gasoline eats rubber over time, and the timing belt is made of rubber.
    The surface-level problem, sure. The root cause is that the "engineers" (and I lose that term loosely) decided that running a rubber belt in an oil bath internal to the engine was a good idea.
    It obviously isn't a good idea, even if you could guaranteed that petrol will never mix with the oil. In the best case scenario, when the belt starts degrading (because all belts degrade), you're throwing pieces of rubber into the oil pump.
    Even in the best-case scenario, the effect of that design was to reduce the cap on engine life.
    LgWoodenBadger · 1790268624 · focus · HN ↗
    <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48776185">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48776185
  2. RobotToaster · 1790262014 · focus · HN ↗
    Ford EcoBoom?
  3. rpcope1 · 1790313254 · focus · HN ↗
    All I can imagine is they must be on massive amounts of drugs at Ford given the FCA level or worse crap to come out if there in recent history.
  4. AngryData · 1790360512 · focus · HN ↗
    Just make sure that belt gets changed on time if not a bit before. Its unpopular because if that belt breaks before replacement the motor will self destruct and you can't put off the not insignificant cost of it.
    Now interference engines detonating when the timing belt breaks isn't new, but putting a belt in a bath of dirty and burnt oil that makes it a mess and expensive to replace and basically impossible to inspect is pretty silly. A chain would not have had such problems and become an efficiency and running issue from a stretched chain instead of sudden and catastrophic failure of a broken belt.
    It also has the problem of rubber belt pieced clogging up the oil system.
    Its fine for people that get all the regular maintence and oil changes strictly on time. But not everyone does it so diligently. And if you buy it as a random used car you have no way of really knowing how good that belt is without a list of every oil and belt change and how hard they drove it.
6. engineer_22 · 1790260233 · focus · HN ↗
  > Nissan Altima
  OK, that's a fair statement, but!
  My 2017 Altima has been great. Comfortable to drive, bluetooth connection that doesn't drive me crazy, space for passengers and cargo, manageable maintenance, I even use it to tow a small trailer with lawn equipment, no issues! I'm up to 190,000 mi with only minor repairs that I could do myself. I got my money's worth out of this one.
  That said... I do avoid smart appliances, especially LG and Samsung. The additional features do not seem to add enough value to overcome the potential problems.
  1. joshheitzman · 1790263989 · focus · HN ↗
    Must be the more recent models. My main complaint with my 2012 Altima is the sunroof drainage hoses leaking in the winter. I've had zero mechanical or electronics problems with it.
  2. 100percentjake · 1790264272 · focus · HN ↗
    Google "jatco CVT nissan altima" and realize how extremely lucky you have gotten.
  3. lelanthran · 1790266616 · focus · HN ↗
    > My 2017 Altima has been great.
    You don't have the CVT, do you?
    engineer_22 · 1790271465 · focus · HN ↗
    yea, it's awesome, super smooth acceleration from stop to highway speed
    seabird · 1790308547 · focus · HN ↗
    Those CVTs were fucking terrible for years. They were so bad that loads of them ended up on buy-here-pay-here lots after the transmission blew and the Altima is now widely known as the highway missile of choice for drivers with a credit score in the 400s and no insurance. You lucked out.
    lelanthran · 1790331541 · focus · HN ↗
    > yea, it's awesome, super smooth acceleration from stop to highway speed
    TBH, I have heard that a small number of those JATCO transmissions didn't shit themselves soon after the warranty expired; congratulations :-)
    I've got the exact transmission in a Renault SUV (2.5 NA petrol engine), and at 160000km the belt started jittering. Not noticeable to the passengers or driver, and no codes thrown up on the dashboard, but the OBD2 tool I use shows that the belt was, in fact, starting to fail.
    AngryData · 1790361358 · focus · HN ↗
    If they get the fluid changed on time and drive like a granny I don't think they are that bad. But a lot of people overlook/skip the cvt fluid change and others drive them hard because "Wow CVT can pull pretty hard!"
    I know atleast one dealership that never even mentioned a cvt fluid change despite the schedule for it being only 1000 miles away, but it was the last service before being paid off and if you don't come back and replace it on yoir own dime thats a potential new sale in 2 years.
    The CVT is a steel belt though so that fluid should be replaced sooner rather than later because metal particles build up in oil. And at some point its not far from throwing a handful of sand inside of it and it will eat itself alive.
7. rurp · 1790261675 · focus · HN ↗
  Interesting. I've never heard that about Altimas but I used to own one and it was hands down the worst vehicle I've ever owned. It had more issues in two years, including leaving me stranded multiple times in the middle of the night, than I've had in a decade with any other vehicles.
8. giantg2 · 1790266175 · focus · HN ↗
  Some of that might just be bleed over from their non-smart devices. My dumb Samsung washer, monitor, etc have been great. And yes, part of my decision involves the ratings/reviews. They are point-in-time and wont catch an issue 5 years from now, but they will help you avoid models that have immediate issues.
9. wizardforhire · 1790266501 · focus · HN ↗
  I’ve taken to sharing this clip [1] with anybody expressing the kind consumer behavior you outline… once they’re done laughing I simply say “now replace wa’er with [insert item of debate]” if they’re still arguing with me I share this clip [2]…
  Maybe cruel, but I haven't found a better way to get someone to realize the error of their ways… because logic has obviously failed them.
  [1] <a href="https://youtu.be/GceNsojnMf0" rel="nofollow">https://youtu.be/GceNsojnMf0 [2] <a href="https://youtu.be/-fC2oke5MFg" rel="nofollow">https://youtu.be/-fC2oke5MFg
  1. igleria · 1790267295 · focus · HN ↗
    [1] "Video unavailable It was blocked due to the claimed content by Zodiak Entertainment."
    someone did not like you linking that!
10. tclancy · 1790269688 · focus · HN ↗
  This feels unfair given this is clearly the work of the state actor what defrosted all them military freezers last month. <a href="https://signalandsilence.substack.com/p/i-think-someone-hacked-the-commissary" rel="nofollow">https://signalandsilence.substack.com/p/i-think-someone-hack...
  1. iam-TJ · 1790272566 · focus · HN ↗
    Thank-you that link - it is very interesting. The cause I wonder about is another A.I. agent attack.
  2. alpaca128 · 1790279890 · focus · HN ↗
    That doesn't seem very "clear" to me. The article you linked mentioned those were made to go into defrost mode (and it didn't mention any brand). Meanwhile the affected Samsung devices are located in Korea and Samsung admitted it was due to their firmware update.
    Also I don't see how it's unfair to expect refrigerators that cost a grand to do their one job without firmware.
    tclancy · 1790300533 · focus · HN ↗
    Stay frosty, sheep. Or otherwise woolen mammal.
11. damowangcy · 1790270399 · focus · HN ↗
  My guess is that the main culprit might be marketing. We underestimate how advertisement shown to us online can shape our reality.
  Last I checked Samsung had the most engagement on Facebook just behind Netflix. This means that they are spending tons of money to put their products in front of their customers via social media marketing. Go out and ask any normies for the top 3 brands for electronics, especially that of home appliances, Samsung will definitely be up there somehow, because most people think that big brand = good. How do they know it's big? Well, you see them everywhere!
  So I imagine that, "the reviews were good!" is just the surface. The truth is that they ignored all the writings on the wall. In the reality created by the constant exposure, the manufacturer is a big brand, thus they make good cars. Unless someone runs a counter advertisement to tell them about the critical problem the same amount of time or more than when they're shown the car whooshing through multiple scences sytlishly.
12. nunez · 1790273158 · focus · HN ↗
  More like buying a Range Rover if you get a high-end Samsung/LG. Beautiful, packed with features, terrible reputation for reliability.
13. rsynnott · 1790335250 · focus · HN ↗
  I've only ever bought one thing from Samsung, a small TV about 10 years ago which, it turns out, has a _variable audio lag_ bug; the audio lag changes seemingly at random, so impossible to compensate for. I can't imagine how that even _happens_. As a result of that experience, I'll never buy anything from Samsung again.

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.