Samsung to Cap Note7 Battery Charging at 30% in UK as Verizon Pushes Back Against Bricking in the US

[MacRumors]

Following the announcement that all Galaxy Note7 devices in the United States will essentially be bricked through an upcoming software update, Samsung recently gave details on how it plans to address the exploding Note7 situation for users in the United Kingdom. The company won't go so far as to completely eliminate the ability to charge the Note7 in the U.K., but instead limit maximum battery charging capacity to 30 percent (via TechCrunch).

The update for users in the U.K. will hit December 15, four days before the update that will come to U.S. Note7 smartphones. Samsung said that it's "designed to further minimize customer risk and reinforce to customers to replace their device...as soon as possible." In the U.S., more than 93 percent of recalled Note7 devices have been returned, but worldwide there are still quite a handful of potentially harmful Note7 smartphones out in the wild, which has lead Samsung to take drastic measures with these software updates.

After the announcement of the U.S. software update last Friday, Verizon confirmed that it won't push the update to its Note7 customers "because of the added risk this could pose to Galaxy Note7 users that do not have another device to switch to." The carrier believes that while solving one problem, rendering the remaining Note7 smartphones useless could lead to even more emergency situations where the users are left without a way to contact help. Verizon also cited the need to keep in touch with family during the holidays as another reason it won't issue the update.

Today, Samsung announced an update to the Galaxy Note7 that would stop the smartphone from charging, rendering it useless unless attached to a power charger. Verizon will not be taking part in this update because of the added risk this could pose to Galaxy Note7 users that do not have another device to switch to. We will not push a software upgrade that will eliminate the ability for the Note7 to work as a mobile device in the heart of the holiday travel season. We do not want to make it impossible to contact family, first responders or medical professionals in an emergency situation.

Every other major U.S. carrier will support the December 19 update from Samsung, including Sprint, AT&T, and T-Mobile. The carriers will be rolling out the software update at different times, with T-Mobile on December 27, AT&T on January 5, and Sprint on January 8.

Article Link: Samsung to Cap Note7 Battery Charging at 30% in UK as Verizon Pushes Back Against Bricking in the US

 

[macs4nw]

Can't blame Samsung. They must do all they can to prevent further injuries or damages to property.

 

[filmantopia]

"because of the added risk this could pose to Galaxy Note7 users that do not have another device to switch to."

Added risk? Sounds like the only thing Verizon is worried about are subtracted profits.

 

[jerry16]

Verizon also cited the need to keep in touch with family during the holidays as another reason it won't issue the update.

Is that a joke?

Issue the update.

 

[cloudness]

Here expecting a rise of Note7 injuries from persistent owners keeping their 30% charge up all the time at bedside under the pillow and on any kind of new/old interior/exterior electrical outlets on the go

 

[vertsix]

Verizon is always late with those software updates.

Tsk tsk tsk.

 

[Kaibelf]

Well, if someone gets hurt this one will be Verizon's lawsuit.

 

[BaccaBossMC]

So now people that like the Note 7 will have to stay attached to a battery pack or the wall, increasing the chances of a fire. Good idea, Samsung.

 

[Kajje]

I call BS.
If a forced OTA firmware update could have solved the issue this would have been done from day one.

 

[Rallison272]

Is that a joke?

Issue the update.

It will be there own fault they should of returned it by now to begin with

 

[nicho]

I call BS.
If a forced OTA firmware update could have solved the issue this would have been done from day one.

do you actually understand what is happening here?

 

[Kajje]

do you actually understand what is happening here?

If there is a sweet spot of cap'ing it at perhaps 75% users could still choose to keep their devices and this would have saved Samsung hundreds of millions.
If this is not the case and the 30% is indeed the absolute max, a forced update at the time of discovery would have prevented a lot of potential injuries.

If Mr. Sung would have called ATT, Verizon, TMo telling listen, these GDSOB's are potential WMD's, we're calling in a full recal, so in the meantime put this firmware in queue ASAP.

 

[frumpy16]

I'm far from a Verizon fan (I switched about two years ago to TMo and haven't looked back) but I like this move from them. Allowing companies to remotely disable equipment that you own is a dangerous precedent. I know this is a dangerous situation as well with the phones but there has to be another way to accomplish the goal of getting the devices out of the wild.

In the future, what's to stop Samsung from bricking devices that are end of support? "Go buy a new phone, we don't support this one any longer and it's a security risk for it to remain active." Not that far fetched.

 

[Kajje]

emergency situations where the users are left without a way to contact help

One needs to be able to call in the fire department when... oh... please ignore this comment.

 

[Porco]

In the future, what's to stop Samsung from bricking devices that are end of support? "Go buy a new phone, we don't support this one any longer and it's a security risk for it to remain active." Not that far fetched.

A huge customer backlash and a nosedive in future sales presumably? I think nearly everyone understands why they're bricking the Note7, because it's an actual physical danger to people and their property - if the user wants to run old insecure hardware (well, unsupported hardware with insecure software more likely), that is up to the user, and there are offline uses for these devices anyway, so I don't think everyone would be so understanding about it.

 

[honglong1976]

Verizon have the mobile numbers of their customers? can't they just ambush them with text's stating the device is to recalled, it could potentially explode?

 

[Penn Jennings]

"because of the added risk this could pose to Galaxy Note7 users that do not have another device to switch to."

Added risk? Sounds like the only thing Verizon is worried about are subtracted profits.

So let me get this right?

If someone pays $800 for a device, you think that that it is OK for the seller to just "brick" it?

The reality is that most people do NOT have an issue with the phone. It is still just a small number that have a problem. A small percent of a millions makes for a lot of new stories but the risk at this point belongs to the person that spent the $800 and decided to keep it.

 

[nicho]

If there is a sweet spot of cap'ing it at perhaps 75% users could still choose to keep their devices and this would have saved Samsung hundreds of millions.
If this is not the case and the 30% is indeed the absolute max, a forced update at the time of discovery would have prevented a lot of potential injuries.

If Mr. Sung would have called ATT, Verizon, TMo telling listen, these GDSOB's are potential WMD's, we're calling in a full recal, so in the meantime put this firmware in queue ASAP.

this is not at all what is happening with this solution. the 30% idea is to "reinforce to customers to replace their device...as soon as possible" - basically, give them **** battery life so that they can't stubbornly hold on to these death traps anymore.

 

[Am3r1ca16]

One needs to be able to call in the fire department when... oh... please ignore this comment.

Haha good one

 

[JackieInCo]

I take Verizons statement to mean that they will issue the software update AFTER the holiday season.

 

[Penn Jennings]

Well, if someone gets hurt this one will be Verizon's lawsuit.

I'm not sure you understand the law very well.

If YOU spent $600 for a phone (I don't recall the actual price) and you had no problems with it, you'd be OK with someone else just bricking it? Most of the phone sold didn't have a problem and it's not like the bricked phone owner receive compensation automatically.

Also, Verizon is right, a lot of people only have a mobile phone. If someone is in a remote area, has an emergency and their phone doesn't work at is 100% Verizon's fault. No jury will think kindly of Verizon, including half the people whinning now on this board.

 

[happyslayer]

So let me get this right?

If someone pays $800 for a device, you think that that it is OK for the seller to just "brick" it?

The reality is that most people do NOT have an issue with the phone. It is still just a small number that have a problem. A small percent of a millions makes for a lot of new stories but the risk at this point belongs to the person that spent the $800 and decided to keep it.

I'm sorry, but no. Just because someone spent $800 does not mean it's okay to keep it, especially when all parties (Samsung and carriers) are bending over backwards to replace it. It's a known potential exploding/fire danger to the person AND the people around them if he/she keeps it and it has a problem. They should replace it, period. Or, it gets bricked.

 

[gnasher729]

A huge customer backlash and a nosedive in future sales presumably? I think nearly everyone understands why they're bricking the Note7, because it's an actual physical danger to people and their property - if the user wants to run old insecure hardware (well, unsupported hardware with insecure software more likely), that is up to the user, and there are offline uses for these devices anyway, so I don't think everyone would be so understanding about it.

I think this is not people who _want_ to run old, insecure hardware, but people who are so out of touch with the news that they still, after all this time, haven't heard of the risk. I hear it's 7 percent in the USA, So 4% of those will go to the shop and complain their phone is broken, 2% will think their phone was rubbish and by a Huawei phone next time, and 1% are unwanted and unopened presents. I suppose the phone is safe if you never open the box.

 

[furi0usbee]

This is one of those times when people must be glad the carrier is interfering with Android OS/system functionality....

 

[69Mustang]

So let me get this right?

If someone pays $800 for a device, you think that that it is OK for the seller to just "brick" it?

The reality is that most people do NOT have an issue with the phone. It is still just a small number that have a problem. A small percent of a millions makes for a lot of new stories but the risk at this point belongs to the person that spent the $800 and decided to keep it.

So let me get this "righter" for you. The percentage of defective devices relative to the total number of devices that were in the wild was completely unacceptable. The number of Note fires from such a limited amount of product,in such a short period time, pointed to an obvious and potentially dangerous problem.

Like them or not, Samsung is doing the right thing. For those who'd want to keep the Notes despite knowing the risks, some would say it's their right to do so. If they were only putting themselves at risk I'd say let 'em. They're dumb as hell, but let 'em. Unfortunately, they don't live on an isolated island of dumbassery where their decision only affects them. I'm not going to go all apocalypse hyperbole but an accidental fire from a Note would not discriminate in who gets hurt from it.

Besides, the $800 would be refunded. Customer doesn't lose their cash. They can use the money to buy something else. The reality is that most people do NOT have an issue with the phone. True. That's because most people were smart enough to return it for a refund.