Samsung to Brick Unreturned Galaxy Note7 Devices With Software Update

[smacrumon]

But a real Amerikkkan would know that the ONLY amendment worth defending is the second one...

The fourth amendment will be the next one to bite the dust.
[doublepost=1481479900][/doublepost]And yet they totally bow down to big tobacco and are not banning the e-cig threat...

Yep, so backwards on cigarettes, old and next gen.

 

[KPOM]

You're new, so you get some slack for not knowing that the whole airliner thing was hyped up, starting with the Transportation Secretary apparently pushing the FAA to issue the ban, and his saying that it was because "even one fire" was too much... incredible hypocrisy considering how often such fires occur and are safely taken care of by airliner crew.

If he really meant that, then we wouldn't get to take ANY lithium ion battery powered games, phones, laptops, etc on board.

That's the reason Li-ion batteries aren't supposed to be checked in. If they are in the cabin the crew can deal with a fire. However, since the Note 7 batteries were failing at 400 times the rate of normal batteries it was just too great a risk.

 

[AFDoc]

Looks like Verizon is refusing to push out this update, now! Ha!

http://www.verizon.com/about/news/verizon-statement-regarding-samsung-galaxy-note7

Good for them! Not sure I like the idea of a company disabling something I own.

 

[kingtj]

Actually, there's quite a bit known about the details with the Samsung phone failures, but the company isn't real keen on explaining the techie details to everyone and making itself look bad in the process.

Over on Slashdot, an engineer was talking about how he did a tear-down of his Galaxy Note 7. On most smartphones out there, the manufacturer chose to regulate the charging of the battery via the phone's OS / software. These lithium-ion high capacity batteries absolutely must have their charging voltage regulated, because they go from safe to a ticking bomb just by overcharging them or trying to charge them faster than they're designed to accept a charge. The software method is usually the cheapest and easiest, because after all -- if mistakes are found in the code, it can be corrected with a firmware update over the air, and all is well again.

In Samsung's case, they opted to go the hardware route, using a custom version of a chip that's designed to manage the battery's charge levels. Because the Note 7 has an "oddball" part number, very similar to but not the same as the standard-issue chip that can be found for sale in electronic part supplier catalogs? That indicates Samsung had a whole new variant of the chip custom fabricated for the Note 7 and its particular battery pack. (When you go this hardware route, you have to have the chip designed to know the characteristics of the battery you're using with it. It's not a "one size fits all" thing. Samsung must have had new enough requirements for the Note 7 that the existing chip needed more modification than just a configuration with appropriate values.)

When these batteries first started exploding, Samsung assumed what everyone else did -- that it was the result of defective or out of spec batteries. So they recalled them and replaced the batteries. Except the problems kept happening -- which meant Samsung was looking at getting another redesign done of that custom chip, if they wanted to fix this properly. That's not something easy to just solder on in place of the old one you pull out, AND isn't something you can just cough up quickly to fix the problem for all the buyers of the phone!

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!

 

[Neepman]

The snake in the grass here is that they CAN brick your device. And everyone should be outraged or at least a bit disturbed by that.

 

[kdarling]

Actually, there's quite a bit known about the details with the Samsung phone failures,

More like everyone has a theory. Some are better than others

but the company isn't real keen on explaining the techie details to everyone and making itself look bad in the process.

That makes no sense. I would think the contrary would be true. An explanation allows people to believe that it won't accidentally happen again.

Over on Slashdot, an engineer was talking about how he did a tear-down of his Galaxy Note 7.

Thanks! Link please? Or can you copy and paste the relevant parts?

In Samsung's case, they opted to go the hardware route, using a custom version of a chip that's designed to manage the battery's charge levels.

ChipWorks says the Note 7 uses a Maxim MAX77854 PMIC. And it's programmable.

That indicates Samsung had a whole new variant of the chip custom fabricated for the Note 7 and its particular battery pack.

Not only does it not necessarily mean that, but far more importantly, the S7 Edge apparently uses the same chip without a problem.

Perhaps the Slashdot fellow was talking about some other chip, though.

--

I prefer theories where something is different in the Note than other models. For example, one difference is that it has an additional charging current boost chip that the other models are missing.

 

[fyun89]

Unless you had your hand on his phone, you should be okay.

Definitely NOT True. Imagine in a situation where it catches fire in a closed environment (e.g subway, plane, elevator).

 

[kdarling]

Definitely NOT True. Imagine in a situation where it catches fire in a closed environment (e.g subway, plane, elevator).

No need to imagine what it's like. Real life lithium ion phone fires are not that unusual an event, especially in places like China where many people use cheap, dangerous chargers.

Heck, open another browser tab right now and Google for "iphone fire". For extra credit, next add "airplane".

Perhaps the media's dramatic use of the word "explosion" has made you imagine the worst. Devices don't usually fly apart. "Burst into flames" is a better description.

About four out of five times there's no injury at all, either because the device was being charged on a table or the user felt it begin to overheat and moved it away from themselves. Still, some bad burns have happened to phone users who were slow to recognize that something unusual was happening in their pocket, or who fell asleep on top of their phone.

But no, normally nobody nearby gets burned unless they grab the phone themselves (or the owner mistakenly tosses it at them). The greater risk in a closed environment would be from smoke inhalation, and even that goes away.

 

[Lancer]

I don't get the mentality of people not returning something they is a proven fire risk after all this time. Just wondering I have my iPhone set so I have to approver any updates to the iOS, could Apple get around that if they needed to do something like this?

 

[bmot]

Such a masterpiece of a phone, if you ever tried it out actually. But Samsung had to rush it because of the iPhones. Unbelievably stupid of them. I hope they have learned their lesson.

Masterpiece? It's running android, where is the coherence here?

 

[kdarling]

I just read an article saying that Note 7 owners in New Zealand were so reluctant to give them up, that the carriers had to block the phones from their cell network.

Apparently other countries are also using that method.

 

[bmot]

What are those in the 7% thinking? Why are they holding on to the device?

I know one of them, he stored the phone safely and just likes the idea of it working.

 

[kingtj]

I'd love to provide the relevant Slashdot link, except I read this at least a month ago and got all of this information from a message posted in response to one of the stories -- not a "headline story" itself. I don't have an easy way to go back now and find it.

That's also why I can't recall exactly what chip part number he was talking about? But that MAX77854 PMIC sounds like the one he referred to, as in "the 77854 is the standard part number and one Samsung used in the past, but the Note 7 actually has a slightly different variation in it". (He might have claimed it was a MAX77855 or something like that?)

That was the basis of his argument though... that despite the chip being "programmable", it apparently wasn't programmable enough to do everything needed for the Galaxy Note 7 scenario (maybe quick charging being a part of the problem there?) -- so they had a custom version of the chip fabbed for it.

More like everyone has a theory. Some are better than others



That makes no sense. I would think the contrary would be true. An explanation allows people to believe that it won't accidentally happen again.



Thanks! Link please? Or can you copy and paste the relevant parts?



ChipWorks says the Note 7 uses a Maxim MAX77854 PMIC. And it's programmable.



Not only does it not necessarily mean that, but far more importantly, the S7 Edge apparently uses the same chip without a problem.

Perhaps the Slashdot fellow was talking about some other chip, though.

--

I prefer theories where something is different in the Note than other models. For example, one difference is that it has an additional charging current boost chip that the other models are missing.

 

[fyun89]

No need to imagine what it's like. Real life lithium ion phone fires are not that unusual an event, especially in places like China where many people use cheap, dangerous chargers.

Heck, open another browser tab right now and Google for "iphone fire". For extra credit, next add "airplane".

Perhaps the media's dramatic use of the word "explosion" has made you imagine the worst. Devices don't usually fly apart. "Burst into flames" is a better description.

About four out of five times there's no injury at all, either because the device was being charged on a table or the user felt it begin to overheat and moved it away from themselves. Still, some bad burns have happened to phone users who were slow to recognize that something unusual was happening in their pocket, or who fell asleep on top of their phone.

But no, normally nobody nearby gets burned unless they grab the phone themselves (or the owner mistakenly tosses it at them). The greater risk in a closed environment would be from smoke inhalation, and even that goes away.

Thanks for extended explanation.

But I do know exactly what happens when the battey "explodes". Right. It dont explode like grenades.

It can do the following:
1. Heats up and burn on carpet inside plane or other environment with carpet.

2. Catch fire on clothes while in pocket

3. When battery get exposed to air, it WILL release toxic chemical in to the air

4. Even when the phone dont catch fire, it will heat up and the user will throw it somewhere away and cause trouble

5. When the problem happen and dont cause damage, people around will be disturbed

I can list way more scenarios. Public safety peope who are much smarter than me sees the problem and the phone is banned ALL AROUND THE WORLD.

It doesnt matter whether it cause injury or not. Causing DISTURBANCE is the most important thing--which would not have happen if it wasnt being carried.