Verizon Cracking Down on Customers Still Using Faulty Galaxy Note 7 Devices

[Matthew.H]

I had a note 7. I was still using it after the recall. Say what you want about the decision, but it was mine to make. I probably would have held out for an s8 or note 8. When Samsung forced the Kill update, I did stop using the phone. I was also angry enough that I returned a 4k Samsung monitor I'd bought over black friday week after about 10 days of use even though I loved the monitor.

If I buy an item that is recalled, I still own the item and can choose to keep it or not. Samsung deliberately destroying my device is like breaking into my house and taking back a recalled appliance. How is that even legal?

So since I went from being a Samsung customer to never again will I buy a Samsung product, it's not good publicity. If I were a Verizon customer, i'd be cancelling them today.

They were recalled for a reason. The phones have the potential to burst into flames without notice. Samsung hardly want people carrying around a device they recalled due to a dangerous defect. Doesn't help the companies image if another few note 7's go bang and actually end up causing serious injuries.

 

[Analog Kid]

I'm curious what comes out in the report on the 23rd. There's been a lot of talk about how iPhone's have caught fire too, and they have, but there's something very different about the Note 7. There are a lot of companies and agencies, with no real skin in this game, none the less trying quite strenuously to get these devices off the street.

I suppose it could just be how many this has happened to, but it feels to me like someone found the root cause and has convinced themselves that many more devices are vulnerable.

 

[Apple_Robert]

Sorry but I don't get why this is still relevant for Macrumors, there will be people using this phone until they die. They're idiots but why does it matter to us anymore.

It is relevant because the story is about a U.S. phone carrier, which a lot of people in the U.S. use.

By posting about this story, MacRumors might help to inform a person (or his or her family) about the Note 7 problem thus potentially saving physical damage to property and or person(s).

Just because the story is not applicable to you, that doesn't mean that MacRumors should forego any and all site stories you deem unnecessary.

Look beyond yourself.

 

[cmwade77]

That has been lifted by the FAA.

No, they are still banned on flights, just airlines no longer have to announce it before the flights take off.
[doublepost=1484692515][/doublepost]

It's no longer their property as a recall was issued.

So HYPOTHETICALLY I own an illegal weapon (any kind) and since it's my property the police can't charge me? LOL.

Actually, it is still their property, as they paid for it. So until they accept a refund or replacement, it still belongs to them.

Illegal weapons are a different story, they are actually illegal, recalls are not legally binding, but there are restrictions on where you can legally take recalled products, for example, they cannot be brought on planes for safety reasons. That doesn't mean you aren't free to keep and use the recalled product for as long as you like.

 

[DevNull0]

They were recalled for a reason. The phones have the potential to burst into flames without notice. Samsung hardly want people carrying around a device they recalled due to a dangerous defect. Doesn't help the companies image if another few note 7's go bang and actually end up causing serious injuries.

That misses the whole point. You can say what you want about the safety of the phone. I bought it and i should have the right to do as I please with it.

I have much more dangerous things in my home. It should be my choice.

 

[Matthew.H]

That misses the whole point. You can say what you want about the safety of the phone. I bought it and i should have the right to do as I please with it.

I have much more dangerous things in my home. It should be my choice.

Whilst I agree that you can ultimately do what you want with your property you are missing the point to an extent as well. Dangerous goods in someone's home generally only pose a risk to the person and their family. A portable device such as a phone is designed to be used not only in the home but also in public places where defects can put others at risk who may not be overly pleased if they are commuting on public transport for example and the phone catches fire in your pocket/bag or hand.

 

[Wowereit]

It's no longer their property as a recall was issued.

Hahahahaha.
No, it is.

 

[foxconn]

Whilst I agree that you can ultimately do what you want with your property you are missing the point to an extent as well. Dangerous goods in someone's home generally only pose a risk to the person and their family. A portable device such as a phone is designed to be used not only in the home but also in public places where defects can put others at risk who may not be overly pleased if they are commuting on public transport for example and the phone catches fire in your pocket/bag or hand.

Stop being logical.

 

[Flood123]

That misses the whole point. You can say what you want about the safety of the phone. I bought it and i should have the right to do as I please with it.

I have much more dangerous things in my home. It should be my choice.

I agree that you shouldn't have to turn it in. If you own it and you feel like leaving it in an area where it cant potentially cause harm to others or their property then you should absolutely be able to do what you want with it.
That said, Do you feel that if there is potential for the phone to catch fire you should be allowed to bring it into an environment where it could possibly harm others? I just want to understand your position on the issue.

It is my position that if something you have in your position has a proven track record of bursting into flames, I don't really want it by me in the same pressurized aircraft flying at 30k+ ft in the air. I know. I know. I am such a complainer.

 

[elmaco]

They will upgrade the first time they try to fly with those phones. Every Flight I have taken this year ( and there has been a lot of them) they have announced that the Galaxy Note S7 is not allowed on the aircraft.

Must be one of the worst negative campaigns ever.

 

[Thunderhawks]

I guessing that the people that are somehow still using the Note 7 are die-hard Samsung fanboys, or people that, somehow, still haven't heard the news.

Definitely DIE-hard when it happens.

 

[andiwm2003]

I'm confused by this. I can understand that Verizon recalls subsidized phones.

But was it possible to buy the phone outright and run it on another carrier? In that case who can simply say you have to return your property (even when keeping it is stupid). They can ban you from having it on a plane or in public places but they shouldn't be able to destroy your property even if they have good intentions. There are thousands of cars out there that are not street legal anymore but I still can own them. I can't drive them on public streets and it's probably stupid to try. But what would you say if BMW recalls your vintage M1 race edition and forces you to give it back because it's dangerous to drive?

 

[Tubamajuba]

That misses the whole point. You can say what you want about the safety of the phone. I bought it and i should have the right to do as I please with it.

I have much more dangerous things in my home. It should be my choice.

Wait, weren't you the guy that posted this in the Kaby Lake MBP thread yesterday:

Oh maybe don't make it so thin you risk cutting off fingers when you pick it up and you can fit a decent battery and decent hardware?

"Give me my exploding phone and screw everyone else's safety, but Apple better not let out one more thin laptop!"

 

[stoney05]

It's not all ********s that don't care about the safety of themselves or others.

More than a few people used the Best Buy Method to upgrade their UDP and aren't going to return the phone because it will effect their pricing (29.99 -> 49.99) especially now since 2year contracts have been discontinued.

 

[DevNull0]

Whilst I agree that you can ultimately do what you want with your property you are missing the point to an extent as well. Dangerous goods in someone's home generally only pose a risk to the person and their family. A portable device such as a phone is designed to be used not only in the home but also in public places where defects can put others at risk who may not be overly pleased if they are commuting on public transport for example and the phone catches fire in your pocket

I agree with you, and the ban on taking the phone on flights (complete with criminal liability) was quite reasonable. If that were extended to other public places, the subway, sports stadia, etc, I could accept that. I own plenty of things that would be grossly inappropriate to take on airplanes or into larger crowds, and it's quite fair that I not be allowed to. But if they want to say it's too dangerous for me to own these things at all, that's a different story.
[doublepost=1484702014][/doublepost]

Wait, weren't you the guy that posted this in the Kaby Lake MBP thread yesterday:


"Give me my exploding phone and screw everyone else's safety, but Apple better not let out one more thin laptop!"

a) If you want to pretend I believe the laptop is literally a health hazard that might chop off fingers and pretend you don't understand hyperbole, then you're not going to have a very good time participating in web fora.

b) You are deliberately taking what I said out of context. I was not saying that the laptop is razor thin which itself is a problem, but that the problem is they make way too many performance and features tradeoffs for the sake of thinness in a device that is already too thin to hold or use comfortably.

 

[Tech198]

I feel sorry for people who still use this, despite everything, BUT it's their decision...

One would think they do the right thing, but at the end of the day, no one is gonna say "You must recall this phone otherwise u'll get fined"

It's a recall,but your choice still... and u take the consequences if u decide to ignore it..so Verizon is forcing you to... which is not right

 

[AFDoc]

Good. I'm glad that Verizon is cracking down. I work part time in retail, and I honestly will let customers know how stupid and irresponsible it is for them to continue using these phones. There's nothing preventing a customer from returning the phone, after all this time, except stupidity and ignorance.

LoL so you take it upon yourself to tell other people what they should be doing with their lives? That's not your job and if you said anything like that to me I'd surly have your job or at least ensure you're disciplined by your employer....If you work retail just sell what you need to sell and shut up about customers personal lives.
[doublepost=1484704666][/doublepost]

Uhmm.... you work for Verizon? Cuz I do and when I pulled up customers accounts that have or had the note 7... the upgrade was reversed on the account... basically they were getting the refund for the device for those that did the dpp or 2 year. So In Verizon's terms refund meant that their upgrade was reversed. So everyone that has a note 7 now on Verizon.... they still have the phone but they have an upgrade available.

Well renewing the upgrade ISN'T a refund......

 

[Tubamajuba]

a) If you want to pretend I believe the laptop is literally a health hazard that might chop off fingers and pretend you don't understand hyperbole, then you're not going to have a very good time participating in web fora.

b) You are deliberately taking what I said out of context. I was not saying that the laptop is razor thin which itself is a problem, but that the problem is they make way too many performance and features tradeoffs for the sake of thinness in a device that is already too thin to hold or use comfortably.

I apologize for taking your post too seriously, I just think it's interesting that a potentially explosive phone is less bothersome to you than a laptop that doesn't have the features you want.

 

[AFDoc]

It's no longer their property as a recall was issued.

So HYPOTHETICALLY I own an illegal weapon (any kind) and since it's my property the police can't charge me? LOL.

If they paid for said property a recall doesn't mean poo......
[doublepost=1484705074][/doublepost]

You could be charged in an airport, so yes. You can be arrested technically.

Do you think someone walking around with a bomb is okay? (Not referring to the note, an actually explosive)

No, no you can't be arrested for having the phone in an airport... where are you getting this info from? Well it's not reliable so I'd stop accepting info from that source.
[doublepost=1484705257][/doublepost]

It's stupid to even possess a gun. There's no positive purpose to it whatsoever.

Im not a gun nut but I have several guns..... Bad guy walks into your house.... you die. Bad guy walks into my house.... he's filled with holes as my 140lb Boerboel eats his butt..... I like my ending better than your ending.

 

[cocky jeremy]

Anyone still using one knows what they're doing and should be fined.

Fined? By who? The Official Phone Department?

 

[nostresshere]

They will upgrade the first time they try to fly with those phones. Every Flight I have taken this year ( and there has been a lot of them) they have announced that the Galaxy Note S7 is not allowed on the aircraft.

So, the fact that the TSA and Airlines have made their rulings and announcements makes it a "sure thing" that people are not flying with them?

Yea, I guess so. And, every single phone on the plane it turned off when they are told to do so.

 

[hortod1]

That has been lifted by the FAA.

The devices are still banned. The only thing that's been lifted is the requirement to tell people they're banned. Air carries can still say it if they want.

 

[AppleScruff1]

So, the fact that the TSA and Airlines have made their rulings and announcements makes it a "sure thing" that people are not flying with them?

Yea, I guess so. And, every single phone on the plane it turned off when they are told to do so.

And no one drives drunk because it is against the law.

 

[DevNull0]

It's no longer their property as a recall was issued.

It most certainly is still my property. They sold it to me, I paid for it. They have zero right to ask for it back. And sending an update to kill it is deliberate destruction of property which they do not own or have a right to destroy.

If people had the right to recall property, can a new and struggling artist sell you a painting for $100. Then 30 years later when he's internationally renowned and his paintings are worth millions, he can "recall" his earlier works by issuing a refund of your original $100? Once a sale is complete, the seller can't reverse it without the consent of the buyer.

 

[supersteve]

It most certainly is still my property. They sold it to me, I paid for it. They have zero right to ask for it back. And sending an update to kill it is deliberate destruction of property which they do not own or have a right to destroy.

If people had the right to recall property, can a new and struggling artist sell you a painting for $100. Then 30 years later when he's internationally renowned and his paintings are worth millions, he can "recall" his earlier works by issuing a refund of your original $100? Once a sale is complete, the seller can't reverse it without the consent of the buyer.

Also, That painting will randomly burst into flames. Then the artist will be sued and have no money to pay. They will then have to whore themselves out to pay the bills. Oh wait that's pretty much what artists do anyway.