Broken and Forgotten  ·  Qualitative Research  ·  n = 4

How users deal with
broken smartphones

Research Question
How do users deal with damaged smartphones, what drives their decision to repair or replace, and how do they respond to different online repair platforms?
University of Klagenfurt Summer Term 2026 4 semi-structured interviews
1
How do users deal with damaged smartphones?
Most replace rather than repair driven by friction, not preference
replaced
when broken
tried DIY
or searched tips
went to
repair shop
Users default to replacing because repair feels complex and time-consuming. Finding a repairer, sending the device, and waiting are seen as friction. Only one participant actively sought repair multiple times.
2
What drives the repair-or-replace decision?
Cost, device age, and downtime in that order
cost as
main factor
age shapes
decision
downtime
a barrier
All 4 said repair makes sense only if cost is clearly below a new device. 3 of 4 weigh device age: newer devices are seen as more worth repairing. 3 of 4 cite waiting time as a key deterrent. Environmental reasons rarely factor in.
3
How do users respond to online repair platforms?
Interested, but trust is the prerequisite
open to
platform idea
trust & data
as concern
split A vs B
preference
3 of 4 found the marketplace concept appealing. But all 4 raised trust and data security concerns. The 50/50 split on verified shops vs. open platform reveals two user segments: security-first vs. price-first.
Device usage & role
3 / 4Smartphone is a central, indispensable daily tool
Used for communication, social media, navigation, and entertainment. Described as inseparable from everyday life.
"Like an extension of my hand." P1
1 / 4Deliberately minimal usage (max. 1–2 h/day)
Phone used mainly for calls and occasional games. No work-related dependency.
Repair vs. replace
4 / 4Cost is the decisive factor
If repair cost approaches the price of a new device, all participants would choose to replace. The cost threshold, not principle, drives the decision.
"If I had to pay almost the same amount, I don't see the point of repairing it." P1
3 / 4Device age strongly shapes the decision
Newer phones are worth repairing; older ones are not. Age acts as an implicit value threshold alongside price.
"The newer the phone, the bigger the chances I would repair it." P2
3 / 4Time without a device is a major barrier
Waiting during repair is repeatedly cited as frustrating. Convenience of immediate replacement is a strong counter-incentive.
"If it would take two weeks, that would be very annoying." P1
1 / 4Proven repair behaviour: battery replaced multiple times
One participant repaired their device 3–4 times rather than replacing it. High satisfaction; would repeat the decision.
Emotional attachment & data
4 / 4Photos and videos are the most valued data
All participants would pay to recover media. Willingness to pay: €100–500. Settings and contacts rated significantly less important.
"I would miss the videos and pictures, there are just a lot of memories." P4
Online repair platform
3 / 4Platform concept received positively in principle
Price and time transparency were the most compelling features. Competitive offers and visible repairer profiles seen as genuinely useful.
"If the repair is fast and cheap enough, I would use it." P3
4 / 4Trust and data security are the primary concerns
Fake reviews, data misuse, and lack of legal accountability named by all. Handing a device to an unknown individual feels riskier than a shop.
"I would be scared someone could go through my gallery." P4
2 / 4Preferred Option A: verified shops
2 / 4Preferred Option B: open platform
Security-first users chose A (data safety, legal accountability). Price-first users chose B (speed, lower cost). Clear segment split.
4 / 4Trust signals needed: verification, guarantees, scale
Suggested mechanisms: ID/passport verification, money-back guarantees, platform establishment/size, and authentic review systems.
Environmental motivation
2 / 4Sustainability is a consideration
2 / 4Environment is not a factor at all
Two participants mentioned resource consumption and worker exploitation as reasons to prefer repair. The other two explicitly dismissed environmental aspects as irrelevant.
"Zero." (on caring about the environment) P3
Answering the research question

What we found

1
How do users deal with damaged smartphones?

Most users default to replacing rather than repairing. The process of finding a repairer, handing over the device, and waiting is experienced as friction. Only one participant had actively repaired multiple times and found it satisfying. The majority reported either replacing immediately or tolerating a damaged device until the cost of a new one felt justified.

2
What drives the repair-or-replace decision?

The decision is primarily economic and situational, not principled. Cost is the universal threshold: all four participants said repair only makes sense if it costs clearly less than a new device. Device age compounds this, as older phones are seen as less worth the investment. Time without a device during repair is a further deterrent for three of four participants. Environmental or ethical motivations play a role for two participants but are explicitly irrelevant for the other two.

3
How do users respond to different online repair platforms?

The marketplace concept resonated with three of four participants, particularly its price and time transparency. However, all four raised trust and data security as concerns before they would use such a platform. The 50/50 split between those preferring verified shops (Option A) and those preferring an open platform (Option B) suggests two distinct user segments: a security-first group that values accountability and a price-first group that prioritises speed and cost. Trust infrastructure, including repairer verification and refund guarantees, emerged as the key prerequisite for broader adoption.

Limitations
  • The sample consists of only four participants, which means the findings cannot be generalised. They reflect tendencies rather than statistically representative patterns.
  • Reactions to the online repair platform were hypothetical. Participants evaluated a concept they had never used, so their stated preferences may differ from actual behaviour in a real situation.
  • The platform scenario was presented verbally during the interview. Without a prototype or live experience, participants could only imagine abstract features rather than respond to a concrete product.
  • Social desirability may have influenced some answers, particularly around environmental motivation, where stated values do not always align with actual decision-making.
  • All interviews were conducted in the Klagenfurt area, limiting geographic diversity. Repair culture, shop availability, and price sensitivity may vary significantly across regions.
Implications
  • A repair platform needs to compete on price and speed, not just availability. If the cost saving over buying new is not obvious and immediate, most users will not engage.
  • Trust cannot be assumed; it must be built into the product. Identity verification for repairers, escrow-style payment, and transparent review systems are not optional features but prerequisites for adoption.
  • The user base is segmented. A single platform experience may not serve both security-first and price-first users equally well. Tiered options or clear repairer categories could address this split.
  • Future research should test the platform concept with a working prototype rather than a verbal description. Behavioural responses to a real product would produce more reliable data than hypothetical preferences.
  • A larger and more geographically diverse sample is needed to identify whether these patterns hold across different repair markets, income groups, and device categories.
Broken and Forgotten · Qualitative Study · 2026
Lorenzo Mazzola Nicolas Toplic Moritz Meyer Alek Šukrija