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.
Samsung to Brick Unreturned Galaxy Note7 Devices With Software Update
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Ah. Is that from a Star Wars I didn't see?
At first I thought you meant Error 53, the one that bricked iPhones for a while.
They should just update it so that all the screen will display is a message saying, "This is a time bomb you ****. Return it at once!"
I think this is the right response, I don't think anyone who paid good money for a phone should have it bricked on them, safety issues or not.
Bad news for the guy who paid $700 2 days ago..
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Samsung-Gal...234786?hash=item3f70f7e8a2:g:8pIAAOSwux5YQn1w
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Samsung-Gal...234786?hash=item3f70f7e8a2:g:8pIAAOSwux5YQn1w
You have been camping for a very long time, and if you were using it everyday and charging it since launch, very good change it caught fire by now
Would you prefer the use a device that can burst into fire or have it bricked, I'll choose brick and refund.
Not really. The number of phones that caught fire is very low considering the number that were sold. Your chance is very LOW. But, the chance is still there. But then again, there is a small chance an airliner will crash, but they still sell tickets to fly on them.
The chance was high enough to recall all devices . And EOL on the product, that is farming on how bad it was.
An airliner will never be allowed to fly with a know fault that can cause a crash.
There must be other options than the nuclear option. Why not have the phone display a warning every few minutes, and/or have it turn off requiring the user to finally notice that there is a problem.
Surprised no one has tried to sell a fireproof phone case.
Or maybe one with a triggerable freezing chemical to cool down a runaway lithium battery.
---
Useful side note from watching FAA personal device fire fighting videos: pour anyhing non-alcoholic on an overheating device to cool down the battery. And/or throw it into a metal trashcan.
But! Do not cover it with ice. Apparently ice acts as a blanket and can cause the battery to overheat more and then burst with greater force.
Or maybe one with a triggerable freezing chemical to cool down a runaway lithium battery.
---
Useful side note from watching FAA personal device fire fighting videos: pour anyhing non-alcoholic on an overheating device to cool down the battery. And/or throw it into a metal trashcan.
But! Do not cover it with ice. Apparently ice acts as a blanket and can cause the battery to overheat more and then burst with greater force.
Last edited:
I don't think the wife was too concerned about the possibility of her dick blowing off.
Or one that shoots out a halon cloud if things get too hot
Seriously though, Halon is what passenger airlines have for fire suppression in their cargo holds.
Unfortunately, it's been shown that Halon isn't always effective against lithium ion fires.
Which is why such batteries are now banned from being carried in passenger plane cargo holds. (Cargo planes use special metal containers and fire systems if they're carrying lithium ion batteries.) But they're allowed up in the cabin, where something as simple as a can of Sprite soda can cool them off!
Yeah, but at the speed they release updates it'll be in well into next year.
[doublepost=1481339264][/doublepost]
Episode III
[doublepost=1481339264][/doublepost]
Episode III
Or it's a indication that somebody is willing to pay top dollar for a phone that has the potential to explode. By now everyone knows about the Note fiasco so it's pretty obvious that demand exist for this phone.
By "masterpiece" you mean ignoring battery and slowness/lagginess complaints.
Anyone who hasn't returned their phone yet is just plain stupid or a real fanboy of Samsung.
If Apple issued a recall for an unsafe phone, why would you ignore it?
People ignore recalls all the time, for products of all types. It's a real pain for the companies involved, who get pressured by the government for higher recall compliance.
Heck, since 2001 Apple has recalled over two million hazardous laptop batteries and chargers. No doubt that many owners didn't live near an Apple store, or have time to go to the Post Office, or weren't worried enough to comply.
Thing is all owners know about the recall because the message was displayed on the screen.
Everyone has time to go to the post office.
Isn't the battery issue such that it could happen to any of the phones over time, Samsung don't know which so every phone was being recalled?
Well, some people will just stop using the device. Maybe the money is chump change to them.
Others will figure the odds of a problem happening to them, are too low to spend the effort to comply. After all, we already live with this danger using any lithium ion powered device, albeit with lower odds.
It's unlikely that any recall would ever get 100% compliance. And not everyone lives near services.
Heck, my wife's Jeep has had a safety recall notice for years about the rare possibility of a rear end collision fire, but she's sick and drives it so little (and we live in the boondocks with no easy way to drop off and pick up it at a dealer fairly far away), that it's not been compelling enough to spend a couple of days dealing with it.
Unknown as yet if it was a guaranteed failure. Could be a battery defect that won't affect everyone, but impossible to predict which ones.
Cheers!
Last edited:
That's the thing about this recall, it is impossible to predict, so the phones are on a no fly list, so probably a good thing they can remote brick the thing.
OK, I Am Not A Lawyer but:
Unless its different in the US, Verizon, as the retailer, is the first in line for legal liability for the phones that they sold to customers (those customers' contract is with Verizon), so its reasonable that they get to decide on the risks vs. benefits of remote bricking.
If Verizon get sued by customers who's phones have exploded, they can turn round and sue Samsung (if they don't already have some kind of indemnity clause in their contract with Samsung) to recover their losses.
If Verizon deliberately brick people's phones by knowingly pushing a poison update, any legal comeback from their users could be their problem.
...which should also put them in the clear for any future loss/damage caused by exploding phones. Verizon can double down on this by texting/calling/writing to all their customers. There will already be a shedload of case law on this sort of thing.
Remote-bricking is a rather new prospect, and the way they are doing it: removing the ability to charge, doesn't even sound much like "withdrawing the software license as per the EULA". Sounds a bit like "taking the law into your own hands" really. I don't think anybody knows if this is "right" until a case has gone through the courts and at least 2 appeals...
I think its almost inevitable that there will be some sort of class action over this - I'm not saying I've much sympathy for people stubbornly clinging to their Gn7s, but the underlying "who's phone is it anyway?" argument is interesting. The likes of Verizon have done a lot to undermine consumer rights by stealthily wrapping "goods" in "service contracts" and I'm sure they could do without a huge public and legal debate over whether we still own our possessions, or having the enforceability of all their licenses put under the microscope.