Think you'd better have a read of this:
Samsung knew a third replacement Note 7 caught fire on Tuesday and said nothing - The Verge
https://apple.news/A2AZHu55aQYWhzcoNTUkDwA
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
AT&T Considering Halting All Samsung Galaxy Note 7 Sales and Replacements
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Samsung knew a third replacement Note 7 caught fire on Tuesday and said nothing - The Verge
https://apple.news/A2AZHu55aQYWhzcoNTUkDwA
Samsung should just admit the Galaxy Note 7 is a flawed design, recall every phone permanently, and either offer a full refund or exchange them for Galaxy S7 Edge phones with a free 128 GB Micro SDXC memory card and protective case.
7 galaxy note explosion in 12 days.
All with the safe batteries.
#1 China
Samsung Galaxy Note 7 smartphone catches fire in China - Sep. 27, 2016
#2 Louisville/Southwest Airlines
Replacement Samsung Galaxy Note 7 phone catches fire on Southwest plane - The Verge
#3 Taiwan
#4 Minnesota
Alleged replacement Note 7 catches fire in Minnesota | Android Central
#5 Nicholasville, KY
Nicholasville man injured by replacement Samsung phone
#6 S Korea Burger King
#7 (S Korea Life Eagle Park)
https://www.youtube.com/shared?ci=TZt7UBYsOb0
All with the safe batteries.
#1 China
Samsung Galaxy Note 7 smartphone catches fire in China - Sep. 27, 2016
#2 Louisville/Southwest Airlines
Replacement Samsung Galaxy Note 7 phone catches fire on Southwest plane - The Verge
#3 Taiwan
#4 Minnesota
Alleged replacement Note 7 catches fire in Minnesota | Android Central
#5 Nicholasville, KY
Nicholasville man injured by replacement Samsung phone
#6 S Korea Burger King
#7 (S Korea Life Eagle Park)
https://www.youtube.com/shared?ci=TZt7UBYsOb0
Given the gross negligence shown by Samsung so far and them knowing these phones are fundamentally flawed and still risking the lives of customers, I'd say these folks deserve at minimum a FULL refund and a FREE Galaxy S7 Edge. Don't do that and the legal consequences could end up being significant. Their explosive potential may be less but the situation is no better than the Takata airbags.
The Internet is not saying it's "cheap" batteries, the Internet is saying it's a design defect in the chassis. Have some backup for that? And yes, "cheap" may have to be defined.
Holy crap! Ok Samsung needs to get fined and sued massively over this. Pull the devices off the market!
How much is too much to spend on rarely used but potentially life saving equipment? If we could spend an extra $1BB per aircraft (along with $150k per domestic flight in additional costs related to fuel consumption and reduced capacity for larger seat footprints) to develop and fit them all with non-explosive utilizing ejection technology potentially reducing fatalities by 90% is that a worthwhile investment? What if we can hypothetically spend $10BB per aircraft to create indestructible bubbles we all ride in? How about $20BB per aircraft and we guarantee that no one ever dies on a plane ever again?
"Low-quality battery cells are susceptible to overheating and failing when charged and used heavily. An early report by Korean regulators indicated that "an error in production that placed pressure on plates contained within battery cells. That in turn brought negative and positive poles into contact, triggering excessive heat."
How about low quality and expensive batteries? Will that work for you . See in my mind i have a relationship between quality and price , have bought after makert batteries in practice the price aka how cheap they are , reflects the quality . Hence in my mind a cheap battery equals low quality , which is the behaviour we are seeing here.
Though this is all irrelevant as the point is about how short cuts were done on the risk assessment to get the device to market , whatever the price of these batteries is, so can I ask why your fixated with the price of the battery ? As neither of us know its price? And the issue here is testing the batteries . Aka if testing was done, why was it altered for the final batch and not retested.
Now what were you saying about deflecting the discussion as we are now fixated on "cheap" if it makes you feel better I'll change that to appropriately priced to really expansive battery .....that behaves like a low quality battery, happy?
So back to my original topic before we went on a irrelevant deflection, samsung have themselves to blame as they took risks to push the note 7 to meet a deadline before the device was ready/tested . As with anything , risk management and mitigation is present with a product launch , here the flag is, let's skip testing the battery or its a small change to the final batch , but being so tiny should be an "acceptable" risk. Trust me in the development process there was a tester flagging this risk, the risk was deemeded acceptable ....
FYI : buy a "official battery" off eBay, excellent chance it will be cheap, come
Probably the same factory the official battery is made, but has not passed QC, insert into you device at your own risk....of it explodes , no surprises. No one is selling quality items for cheap prices.
The even more disturbing part of that story is how Samsung is actively trying to cover up the incidents. The CPSC needs to slam Samsung hard and fast with some extremely serious sanctions for this.
That "early" report was it corroborated and verified and held up to scrutiny as all things around this forum?"Low-quality battery cells are susceptible to overheating and failing when charged and used heavily. An early report by Korean regulators indicated that "an error in production that placed pressure on plates contained within battery cells. That in turn brought negative and positive poles into contact, triggering excessive heat."
How about low quality and expensive batteries? Will that work for you . See in my mind i have a relationship between quality and price , have bought after makert batteries in practice the price aka how cheap they are , reflects the quality . Hence in my mind a cheap battery equals low quality , which is the behaviour we are seeing here.
Though this is all irrelevant as the point is about how short cuts were done on the risk assessment to get the device to market , whatever the price of these batteries is, so can I ask why your fixated with the price of the battery ? As neither of us know its price? And the issue here is testing the batteries . Aka if testing was done, why was it altered for the final batch and not retested.
Now what were you saying about deflecting the discussion as we are now fixated on "cheap" if it makes you feel better I'll change that to appropriately priced to really expansive battery .....that behaves like a low quality battery, happy?
So back to my original topic before we went on a irrelevant deflection, samsung have themselves to blame as they took risks to push the note 7 to meet a deadline before the device was ready/tested . As with anything , risk management and mitigation is present with a product launch , here the flag is, let's skip testing the battery or its a small change to the final batch , but being so tiny should be an "acceptable" risk. Trust me in the development process there was a tester flagging this risk, the risk was deemeded acceptable ....
FYI : buy a "official battery" off eBay, excellent chance it will be cheap, come
Probably the same factory the official battery is made, but has not passed QC, insert into you device at your own risk....of it explodes , no surprises. No one is selling quality items for cheap prices.
Your original post mentioned "cheap" batteries. I simply asked how you know it was a "cheap" battery vs an "expensive" battery? Or was that it was a "cheap" battery an assumption on your part based on an early report? And since that deflection and subsequent claim of subsequent deflection, are we mired in deflections?
However, Samsung did say it wanted to get a jump on the iphone 7 so some shortcuts may have been made to the process.
Well considering they've had to recall the phone, airports are not allowing people to use or charge them, and the government had to intervene on the recall........yes I did bring up another one exhibiting the same behavior after it was supposed to be safe.
And see below. Stop defending Samsung on this. It doesn't matter what company you get your phone from or who you like. These phones need to stop being sold. End of story.
I have had 4 flights in the last 13 days in 4 different airports. EVERY one of them has announced multiple times before and when boarding that these phones cannot be on and cannot be charged. They are not safe.
Not defending Samsung - just pointing out the contradiction of your statement that one iPhone meltdown could be dismissed but not one Samsung meltdown. At this juncture the point is moot since more post-recall Notes have had meltdowns so that's likely the end of commercial viability for the model.
I still think my suggestion is the best: a full refund or a new Galaxy S7 Edge with 128 GB Micro SDXC card and new protective case.
That "early" report was it corroborated and verified and held up to scrutiny as all things around this forum?
Your original post mentioned "cheap" batteries. I simply asked how you know it was a "cheap" battery vs an "expensive" battery? Or was that it was a "cheap" battery an assumption on your part based on an early report? And since that deflection and subsequent claim of subsequent deflection, are we mired in deflections?
However, Samsung did say it wanted to get a jump on the iphone 7 so some shortcuts may have been made to the process.
To me... cheap can mean poorly designed/engineered, and with inadequate quality assurance testing. Doesn't necessarily have to do with cost, though that may be correlated.
It might be best for Samsung short term financially, but they'll still burn bridges that way. They have to do something MORE now to put out the fire, and their Note 7 user base are amongst their most loyal users.
Airlines won’t ban battery powered devices because of this. The devices are too ubiquitous. Instead, passengers will be required to stow their devices in fireproof containment pouches if safer battery technology doesn’t make that precaution unnecessary sooner.
The silver lining is that manufacturers will have to deliver better, safer batteries because of this. The batteries probably already exist but are awaiting a financial trigger to implement.
The silver lining is that manufacturers will have to deliver better, safer batteries because of this. The batteries probably already exist but are awaiting a financial trigger to implement.
Oh yeah, because a bendy phone and a phone with the potential to kill and maim are comparable!
There are very good reasons why people hate Samsung so much - i.e. a company who steals other company's ideas and treats customer and employee safety with such disregard is more than enough reason. I'm absolutely perplexed as to why anyone would defend them, in the past with their blatant stealing (not just Apple), but especially now!
[doublepost=1476030809][/doublepost]
Deplorable perhaps, but completely understandable given the wretched company we are dealing with here.
That "early" report was it corroborated and verified and held up to scrutiny as all things around this forum?
Your original post mentioned "cheap" batteries. I simply asked how you know it was a "cheap" battery vs an "expensive" battery? Or was that it was a "cheap" battery an assumption on your part based on an early report? And since that deflection and subsequent claim of subsequent deflection, are we mired in deflections?
However, Samsung did say it wanted to get a jump on the iphone 7 so some shortcuts may have been made to the process.
I have seen reports that Samsung put too large a battery in the Note 7 which also contributed to the issue.