If you're going to make this critique, you should grapple with this passage from the article:
> As with any new technology it takes time to iron out early problems. Things break, need to be fixed, improved etc. That’s all fine! I wasn’t angry when the phone broke, I was angry when it wasn’t repaired.
I think the critique and the passage go hand in hand: if Samsung repaired the break for free, they would be the ones bearing the risk of the new technology. Because they didn't, they're making the customer bear the risk.
That the phone might break is inherent in the fact that it's a new technology. The question is who pays for it when it does, the customer or the manufacturer.
> As with any new technology it takes time to iron out early problems. Things break, need to be fixed, improved etc. That’s all fine! I wasn’t angry when the phone broke, I was angry when it wasn’t repaired.