Samsung blames AI features for Galaxy S25 resale slump, sees sales dip

Samsung’s resale‑value plunge appears tied to the company’s aggressive AI positioning, according to data from UK refurbisher Compare and Recycle. The firm reports that a Galaxy S25 fetched only 37 percent of its original price after twelve months, a 63 percent drop that reverses a multi‑year trend of Samsung flagships holding value longer than competing Android devices. Compare and Recycle’s analysis attributes the decline to the “Galaxy AI” suite introduced with the S24 and expanded on the S25, which includes on‑device large‑language‑model (LLM) assistants, generative photo editing, live translation and cloud‑based AI search. Lee Elliott, chief product officer at Samsung, told The Register that the company “heavily marketed” these features as core selling points, a strategy that now seems to have backfired in the second‑hand market.

Industry analysts echo the resale data but differ on the root cause. Gartner’s research director Ranjit Atwal told The Register that Samsung’s AI premium “holds up with early adopters” but “fails in the refurbished market, where mid‑range buyers prioritize value over AI branding.” Atwal adds that beyond price, “trust” is a secondary issue: users are comfortable with AI for narrow tasks such as photo editing but remain wary of broader, more intrusive applications. This sentiment is reflected in a recent UK consumer poll cited by Samsung’s internal research, which found only 42 percent of respondents willing to trust AI, while 80 percent called for regulation. The lack of confidence appears to depress demand for used AI‑heavy devices, forcing resale prices down.

Not all commentators see AI as the sole culprit. Ben Wood of CCS Insight points out that heavy AI integration is now standard across premium smartphones, making it difficult for consumers to avoid the technology altogether. A CCS Insight survey cited in The Register shows that 47 percent of new‑phone buyers would actually pay more for a device with AI features, though the willingness to pay a premium does not extend to the second‑hand segment. Wood argues that the market is “hard for consumers to find premium devices that don’t have a significant AI angle,” suggesting that broader industry trends, rather than Samsung’s branding alone, are influencing resale dynamics.

Samsung’s response has been to double down on AI for its upcoming S26, positioning it explicitly as an “AI phone” rather than a conventional smartphone. Elliott warns that this framing may be commercially risky, noting that “research shows just 42 percent of people in the UK are willing to trust AI.” The company appears to be betting that the long‑term value of AI‑driven differentiation will outweigh short‑term resale concerns, but the current data from Compare and Recycle suggests the market is already penalising devices that lean heavily on AI as a headline feature. If the resale‑value trend continues, Samsung could see a broader sales dip, as consumers weigh the cost of a new AI‑centric phone against the diminished return on trade‑ins and upgrades.