Planned obsolescence Samsung s25 ultra
flo88 Posted messages 28657 Registration date Status Contributeur Last intervention -
Hello,
Hello, I've had the S25 Ultra for 3 months. Bought it from the Conforama website. The battery life was amazing BUT since yesterday it's draining fast! I haven't changed anything though. I don’t have any apps running in the background, the phone isn’t overloaded, I’m using a Samsung charger, last update was on June 21, 2025. Can anyone shed some light on this? Thanks.
5 réponses
Hello,
Start by checking in Settings > Battery if there is a program or feature that is draining your battery.
If you don’t see anything unusual, contact the seller (Conforama) since your smartphone is still under warranty.
Support your request by including a screenshot showing the discharge graph.
You certainly can't talk about planned obsolescence for a defect found after 3 months of use.
What is well conceived is clearly expressed,
And the words to say it come easily.
(Boileau)
Please;
I can assure you that complaining to consumer associations is an exercise in futility when it comes to a brand like Samsung, let alone proving it.
Yes, I'm sure it is one because since when do manufacturers not hide their tactics to make consumers buy even more? Planned obsolescence exists, I'm not making anything up.
I understand your point of view, but it is important to distinguish between a one-time defect and a practice of planned obsolescence. A battery failure after only 3 months may indeed be related to a manufacturing defect, but it could also indicate a deliberate strategy aimed at reducing the product's lifespan, especially if this becomes a regular trend across multiple units.
Planned obsolescence isn't always limited to isolated malfunctions: it can be integrated into the very design of the product, with components designed to wear out prematurely or a software update that limits the hardware's performance.
It is therefore essential to examine whether this failure is an isolated incident or if it is a trend for certain models, which could suggest a deliberate intent to reduce the product's durability, rather than a simple one-off defect.
I am just disgusted because I thought I was buying a quality device with Samsung and it is very, very disappointing given the price I paid.
Hello,
Planned obsolescence is more subtle than that, and not after just 3 months for a device of this type.
Moreover, it is still under warranty, contact customer service. In electronics, it can happen that a defect occurs very early after the device starts being used. A faulty component that needs to be replaced.
Hello,
If planned obsolescence were only a subtle and long-term practice, it would not manifest so quickly in certain cases, such as a battery failure or other components in just 3 months. These situations often indicate that the product design or the selection of materials was not made to last, which can be a form of disguised planned obsolescence.
I contacted the seller, but he doesn't seem to want to acknowledge the reality of the problem :(
Like all batteries, a smartphone battery is categorized as a consumable part, so there is no planned obsolescence for this type of consumable. Urban legend.
You just need to have the device serviced, that's all.
Hello, as I wrote: "I don't have any applications running in the background" I have already checked, I don't have any applications draining the battery.
Planned obsolescence is, according to French law, "the set of techniques, including software, by which the person responsible for marketing a product deliberately aims to reduce its lifespan."
The battery drains at a fast pace for no reason; it's definitely planned obsolescence!
When I replied, I overlooked the fact that you had already done the verification regarding the apps running in the background. I apologize for that.
Usually, we talk about planned obsolescence when there is proven intent by the manufacturer to shorten the lifespan of the concerned equipment.
I believe that a battery failure after 3 months is just a simple isolated defect.
However, if you are convinced that this is indeed planned obsolescence, do not hesitate to complain to consumer protection associations, so that they can take action against Samsung.
Hello,
This doesn't make sense.
Even if there were planned obsolescence, it would only be the battery that would need changing (and it may not even be manufactured by Samsung) which wouldn't signify the end of the device itself.
The aim of planned obsolescence is for the consumer to repurchase the same device or brand prematurely, otherwise it serves no purpose.
One wonders how technically, and even if we wanted to, we could program the lifespan of a component to 3 months, and even if that were the case, the result would be contrary to the expected goal since the user would go buy from a competitor.
Hello,
I have compiled several studies on the subject but do not intend to provide them on a forum for such a trivial case.
Anyone can claim the duplicity of manufacturers for their own benefit, but I adamantly disagree (for the sake of other readers, having no interest in convincing anyone) with this somewhat hasty, if not unfounded, bias.
On one hand, as Pierr10 says, three months seems a bit short if we assume that planned obsolescence corresponds to a date or expiry period set by the manufacturer in the functioning of their products. It would be more appropriate to consider several years.
These deadlines would apply in the same way to a range or a model since they result from an integrated program.
We should also agree that Samsung, among other manufacturers, would be quite reckless to destroy its reputation by imposing such a sharp cut on its customers, not to mention the inevitable lawsuits that would follow.
Incidentally, I had a Samsung S8 that worked flawlessly for about ten years and have been using an A23 for the past two years.
Your citation of French law overlooks the fact that to invoke planned obsolescence, one must provide evidence before a court, which has only been the case in a few instances (if I recall correctly, Apple, but I don't have the conclusions preserved).
Moreover, the fact that a battery, even a new one, discharges is a clear sign of a failure but in no way constitutes planned obsolescence, implying a malicious intent, but rather a manufacturing defect, covered by the warranty.
Having no intention of defending any manufacturer (their lawyers suffice) nor to engage in a debate on a subject that would require a well-structured argument, I intend to warn the CCM readers of the inappropriateness of using this expression in this particular case and the drawbacks of claiming it without the intent of taking legal action.
Everyone is free to have their opinion, forums allowing for the exchange of viewpoints, within the limits of the facts as noted in case studies and case law.
That said, even if the argument were accepted, CCM members could not invoke this clause for the slightest malfunction of their devices, without rendering useless the help we pride ourselves on, since the manufacturer would have to pay damages to the complainant.
For my part, I would blame it on a battery or charging circuit issue, at best a check by customer service.
I understand your approach, but it downplays some important issues related to planned obsolescence. First, the fact that a study has been conducted and that some manufacturers, such as Samsung, have a solid reputation does not guarantee the absence of disguised or systematic obsolescence practices. A company’s reputation should not hinder a critical analysis of the actual durability of its products, especially when concrete cases and independent studies point to strategies aimed at limiting the lifespan of devices.
Furthermore, the 10-year lifespan for a smartphone, as you mentioned, is exceptional but remains an exception. The majority of current devices, even of high quality, experience failures or a loss of performance within a few years, often before the end of the warranty. This may be linked to components designed to wear out quickly or software that limits performance once the "ideal" lifespan is exceeded.
Regarding proof of planned obsolescence, it should be noted that in several cases, investigations have demonstrated a deliberate design to limit the reparability or lifespan of products. French legislation, notably with the anti-waste law, aims to strengthen transparency and accountability of manufacturers on these issues.
As for battery failure, if it occurs shortly after the warranty expires, it does not necessarily constitute proof of planned obsolescence, but this deliberate practice of reducing the useful life of the product remains a possibility to consider, especially when manufacturing or software update strategies contribute to it.
In conclusion, even if some cases may involve a defect or isolated failure, one should not exclude the possibility that planned obsolescence is part of a commercial strategy for some manufacturers aimed at accelerating device turnover and, consequently, promoting overconsumption. Caution and a critical eye remain necessary.
Would you like me to formulate this response in a shorter or more argumented form according to a specific context?