Yeah, they know it’s cheaper to refund the purchase price rather than to provide a replacement. Why would they ever take the bigger loss to them? They’re businesses, not people with a conscious. They are legally required to make the most profit possible for their shareholders as they are both public entities. Publicly traded businesses are by definition lawful evil because this is the kind of world humanity gravitates towards.
I’m sure the warranty terms are worded in such a way that is most hostile to consumers and most beneficial to themselves. There’s always a half dozen legal gotchas that rarely apply in cases where they would lose a penny more than is typical like market shortages caused by AI infrastructure spend. The only time it makes financial sense for them to honor the warranty is if it’s cheaper than providing a refurbished replacement, and a refurb of these drives is likely worth much, much more than the original.
I’d say the play here is to buy a new one and return the old one but do a label swap. It’s certainly fraud, but then amazon or sandisk get to eat it instead of you. If you are concerned about how hard it hits their bottom lines, check out their stock valuation over the last year.
Samsung will, at its option, either: (1) repair or replace the Product with new or refurbished Product of equal or greater capacity and functionality; or (2) refund the then current market value of the Product at the time the warranty claim is made to Samsung if Samsung is unable to repair or replace the Product.
Samsung’s costs haven’t inflated 3x, and they’re the fab, therefore there’s a real strong argument that they should replace rather than refund. The error in your argument is it being cheaper, it’s instead less profitable for Samsung to give refunds at the new purchase price.
I would be willing to bet that a letter from a lawyer along the lines of “refund at purchase price or send replacement, otherwise meet us in court and incur lawyer fees” will get a replacement sent. They’re chasing profits, paying lawyers hurt profits, especially since a single lawyer for a day just to review the situation probably costs them more than their current profits.
They certainly have the capability of replacing the hardware but they know they have you over a barrel because they choose the winner, which is them!
They would just eat a few hundred bucks in unrealized profits… which they’re never gonna do willingly. They probably have an arbitration clause to prevent class action suits too because that’s what everybody lawful evil does these days.
I’d say the play here is to buy a new one and return the old one but do a label swap.
Louis addressed this in his video. He pointed out that he’s suing in large part because Samsung is penalizing the honest way of doing things. He wants to promote the honest way by setting an example, and good for him.
I’d say the play here is to buy a new one and return the old one but do a label swap. It’s certainly fraud, but then amazon or sandisk get to eat it instead of you. If you are concerned about how hard it hits their bottom lines, check out their stock valuation over the last year.
you’re also kinda screwing whatever customer ends up with it. For lost time troubleshooting and returning at the very least.
In my experience essentially all amazon fraud returns that go into circulation end up getting a free replacement.
If you’re not returning a brick in place of a GPU and instead return the actual hardware, the next guy simply gets a DOA that looks like a DOA, quacks like a DOA, and returns like a DOA for another one… so the odds of this causing an actual issue for a normal human is extremely low.
Yeah, they know it’s cheaper to refund the purchase price rather than to provide a replacement. Why would they ever take the bigger loss to them? They’re businesses, not people with a conscious. They are legally required to make the most profit possible for their shareholders as they are both public entities. Publicly traded businesses are by definition lawful evil because this is the kind of world humanity gravitates towards.
I’m sure the warranty terms are worded in such a way that is most hostile to consumers and most beneficial to themselves. There’s always a half dozen legal gotchas that rarely apply in cases where they would lose a penny more than is typical like market shortages caused by AI infrastructure spend. The only time it makes financial sense for them to honor the warranty is if it’s cheaper than providing a refurbished replacement, and a refurb of these drives is likely worth much, much more than the original.
I’d say the play here is to buy a new one and return the old one but do a label swap. It’s certainly fraud, but then amazon or sandisk get to eat it instead of you. If you are concerned about how hard it hits their bottom lines, check out their stock valuation over the last year.
Read for yourself!
Samsung’s costs haven’t inflated 3x, and they’re the fab, therefore there’s a real strong argument that they should replace rather than refund. The error in your argument is it being cheaper, it’s instead less profitable for Samsung to give refunds at the new purchase price.
I would be willing to bet that a letter from a lawyer along the lines of “refund at purchase price or send replacement, otherwise meet us in court and incur lawyer fees” will get a replacement sent. They’re chasing profits, paying lawyers hurt profits, especially since a single lawyer for a day just to review the situation probably costs them more than their current profits.
They certainly have the capability of replacing the hardware but they know they have you over a barrel because they choose the winner, which is them!
They would just eat a few hundred bucks in unrealized profits… which they’re never gonna do willingly. They probably have an arbitration clause to prevent class action suits too because that’s what everybody lawful evil does these days.
I need you to realize that you’re 100% wrong. Their warranty states that the refund will be the market price at the time the warranty case is opened.
You don’t even need a lawyer to win this one.
Louis addressed this in his video. He pointed out that he’s suing in large part because Samsung is penalizing the honest way of doing things. He wants to promote the honest way by setting an example, and good for him.
you’re also kinda screwing whatever customer ends up with it. For lost time troubleshooting and returning at the very least.
In my experience essentially all amazon fraud returns that go into circulation end up getting a free replacement.
If you’re not returning a brick in place of a GPU and instead return the actual hardware, the next guy simply gets a DOA that looks like a DOA, quacks like a DOA, and returns like a DOA for another one… so the odds of this causing an actual issue for a normal human is extremely low.
i’d still be pissed if i got one.
make sure to double check the labels before the swap
my stupid ass would 100% return the working unit by accident
deleted by creator