Samsung S3 Mini Cracked Screen - Unfit for Purpose

stebiz

Fosterdog wrote: »

Actually no sadly I am unable to have children, however that doesn't mean I don't know about children. I have four step children and am a qualified childcare and education worker and a play worker, plus I have a large extended family that I regularly babysit for along with friends' children.

I have more than enough experience to be 100% certain that it would not be the manufacturers fault if a child broke something.

Maybe I should let my stepson throw stones at a window, then claim from the manufacturer when the window smashes. It is no different to what you are suggesting.

I'm sorry you can't have children. What I'm saying is that in a house it is common for children to switch televisions on/off hundreds of times over a year and sometimes they can be a bit rough. It is therefore not unreasonable to expect a manufacturer to have a button that will not damage easily. Every wonder why they are round, not sharp and only stick out a few mm's. Why not have 1 cm long 2mm wide ones??

Fosterdog

It only happens if the parents let it. Same as children only get hold of and drink bleach if the parents are careless and don't a)store it properly and b)teach the children that some things are not to be touched.

You really do seem like the sort of person who has to be the victim and things are always someone else's fault. All of your scenarios are of people casing damage but you thinking someone else is responsible.

stebiz

Fosterdog wrote: »

You really do seem like the sort of person who has to be the victim and things are always someone else's fault. All of your scenarios are of people casing damage but you thinking someone else is responsible.

I'm really not. I just believe that if a job is done ie roof fixed then a tile shouldn't fall off the next day. Whereas you seem to be the opposite in that there would be a reason ie it was too windy.

If I buy a product I expect it to last. That is why I don't buy cheap and nasty stuff or fakes. If I pay £100 for a pair of shoes I don't expect the sole to come off within 6 months. But according to law the same should apply to a £10 pair of shoes also. 'Fit for purpose'.

boo_star

stebiz wrote: »

So you wouldn't claim off your manufacturers warranty? I take it you've never had kids?

If a child (or an adult for that matter) had been "heavy handed" with an item, then no, I wouldn't dream of it.

I suspect Fosterdog wouldn't either.

marliepanda

A phone has many purposes. It is fit for purpose if it makes calls, (or whatever other million functions they do now) and does not fall apart in your hand or when you breathe on it.

It's purpose is not to be thrown about in bags, or be squashed against keys in pockets.

Just because you feel that's a normal part of a 'mobile' phone use does not mean that it getting scratched and cracked is 'not fit for purpose' laptops are intended to be portable but I wouldn't put it in my car or suitcase, unsecured, and complain if it got jostled and damaged.

TurnUpForTheBooks_2

The main premise of the thread is correct. Mobile phones with fragile screens are unfit for purpose and it is clear why they are built that way.

I have often mused that some kind of class action ought to be possible against the networks who flog them and especially against manufacturers like Apple. Apple in fact tricked their market for the first couple of years of success with iPhone into believing that fragile screens were not a problem because they willingly gave free replacements for the constantly broken screens with few questions asked. But that all changed with the introduction of iPhone 4.

It took decades for the popular car industry to be brought to heel in the late 70s / early 80s and made to stop acting as a cartel using poor grade steel deliberately so it rusted quickly limiting the life of some car bodies ridiculously to considerably less than ten years (thus drumming up repeat business faster than was necessary other than to overcome the "normal" rust problem).

Any other suggestion along the lines of "customers are clumsy and their own worst enemy" is totally naive.

unholyangel

stebiz wrote: »

I'm really not. I just believe that if a job is done ie roof fixed then a tile shouldn't fall off the next day. Whereas you seem to be the opposite in that there would be a reason ie it was too windy.

Would you still expect those tiles to remain unmoved/damaged etc if someone was tap dancing on them though?

Remember, something is of satisfactory quality if it meets the standard a reasonable person would expect taking into account all relevant circumstances.

Screens being scratched/screens cracking isn't a new thing. Just perhaps now its more noticeable/significant to us given most phones tend to have large screens. Bigger area = bigger chance of something hitting it.

stebiz

unholyangel wrote: »

Would you still expect those tiles to remain unmoved/damaged etc if someone was tap dancing on them though?

But is it normal to tap dance on a roof? It is quite normal to have a mobile phone in your pocket or bag.

giraffe69

I have an S3 mini. Thus far no problems although it hasn't been very long since I got it. Although it should, of course, be fit for purpose, not having a case for it seems peculiarly derelict. You can buy them for next to nothing. To keep a phone in your pocket with no protection is bonkers IMO.

stebiz

giraffe69 wrote: »

I have an S3 mini. This far no problems although it hasn't been very long since I got it. Although it should, of course, be fit for purpose, not having a case for it seems peculiarly derelict. You can but them for next to nothing. To keep a phone in your pocket with no protection is bonkers IMO.

Just to clarify. This wasn't kept in a pocket but a handbag.