Hacker News Reader

Comment by derekp7 | Hacker News Reader

I'd like to know what the statistics are of people replacing their smartphones due to a broken screen. If it is significant, then this could hurt them in the long run.

View on HN

I've seen more people using a shattered phone for the remainder of their contract than I've ever seen replacing a shattered phone right away.

To be fair, you probably wouldn't know...

I recently busted the screen on my Nexus 4 -- and I was planning on still using it, but I guess I was one of the unlucky ones -- the touch screen wouldn't work at all afterwards.

Same here, and it was a pretty light drop (onto wood). Actually, the back glass broke without any cajoling whatsoever--I put it in my pocket after I took it out of the box, and fifteen minutes later when I took it out the rear glass was cracked.

I now have a non-functional N4. I'll see what the N5 looks like, but I'm not too thrilled with the prospect of another LG phone.

Same here, just recently broke my Nexus 4's display. Doesn't seem to be easy to get it repaired either...

Repair it yourself. All the parts are purchasable on the web, the touch screen plug in with a ribbon cable, and there are youtube instruction videos for any conceivable brand.

Hard to justify spending $120[1] to fix a $199 phone.

[1]http://www.ebay.ca/sch/sis.html?_nkw=LCD%20DISPLAY%20Touch%2...

Of course you have months to notice all the broken screens and possibly days to see the ones that get fixed/replaced immediately. Survivor bias towards the surviving unfixed screens.

If broken screens are indeed a big problem and this is effective in preventing that problem then this would be a huge competitive advantage for them, no doubt far outweighing any small loss from people replacing their phones less frequently. Competition drives far more than attempts to milk the installed base, at least at any sane company.

That assumes that people factor in the probability of dropping a phone and breaking it's screen into their buying decisions.

It depends. Do most customers actually care about how easy it is to break their screen before they have actually broken it? Will it be on their mind when they are standing in the store looking at smartphones?

It strikes me as the sort of thing nobody cares about until that one moment where they need it, and then it's too late.

Apple marketed the Gorilla Glass strength pretty hard. And phone cases seem really popular: (random link I dug up) https://www.npd.com/wps/portal/npd/us/news/press-releases/pr...

But yeah, I'm not sure that people care very much, they'll probably just get a case for whichever phone instead of caring that much about how strong the screen is.

There are a lot of people out there who don't particularly want a case, but feel that they need it in order to protect the phone.

I'd say this depends on the target audience. For myself, I'd certainly choose a shock-resistant, unshatterable, water-resistant smartphone over another one simply because I hate the hassle of repair and replacement. In the same vein, I'd expect the military to be interested in this.

If they were monopolists, then this could be a problem for them. But in a competitive market, being able to differentiate yourself is much more important than repeat sales due to shorter MTBF.

Empirically, I know 3 people who use a cracked-glass phone right now.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com