I agree. Users know by now that the Note7 could be dangerous. If they decide to continue using this device they know the potential consequences. This is not on Verizon.
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 Cap Note7 Battery Charging at 30% in UK as Verizon Pushes Back Against Bricking in the US
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I agree. Users know by now that the Note7 could be dangerous. If they decide to continue using this device they know the potential consequences. This is not on Verizon.
That's about as far fetched as you can get. Companies want to stay in business. That idiocy would put them out of business in short order.
Far fetched is trying to conflate getting a potentially dangerous product off the market with intentionally bricking older hardware just to stimulate new phone sales.
Principles are all well and good, but life safety should come first. Worry about precedents when it's not a genuine life-endangering situation.
I can't even understand why anyone would still own one of the handsets. The recall process is relatively painless, and at no financial cost to the owner. Do people really think their own personal safety is not worth the slight inconvenience of returning a phone?
The liability to Samsung is enormous. Since this is a public safety risk I think bricking these phones is warranted. Note 7 owners are able to get a replacement phone of their choice or a full refund so your argument about the device being $800 is moot.
This^ The Note 7 users are not out anything, except some slight inconvenience to return the device for a new one or be refunded. But the Current Note 7 users who still own and operate their device are the only risk takers, who clearly don't think and value safety.
Last edited:
If you look at precedent for dangerous products, this is rare.
Ford had documented deaths caused by their product, they knew who owned those tires, they never showed up at someones house and "bricked" their car.
GM had documented deaths caused by ignitions, they never showed up at peoples house and "bricked" their car.
Their have been documented crib deaths, the sellers never showed up at someone house.
Even when people die, and no one has died here that I know of, and the seller knows where the products are, no one shows up and "bricks" your product. It is always voluntary at the customers discretion. I think it's a little crazy to keep the phone but it is up to the person that spent the money to make that call.
I thought the US has a product recall legislation for when a product is dangerous - basically you don't have a right to keep it and not give it back. Nobody is losing anything, you give up a potentially dangerous product that will not be supported with OS updates and now can't go upon 30% of charge and in return you get a phone you can use safely and are allowed to take on an aeroplane.
Saying otherwise is just being stubborn and argumentative for those who like to shout 'I know my rights' several times a day. It's the way it is, the product isn't fit for purpose and they will replace it with one that is, that seems more than fair, why would anyone want to keep one of these around their home? Especially if they have children, it's negligent at best.
Bad comparison. Those Ford and GM products had fixes. Ford and GM also knew what the problem was. Samsung has no fix and they don't even know what causes the problem.
This is not a slippery slope situation. Humans do stupid things all the time like stay in the path of a cat 5 hurricane. This issue has been all over the news media and social networks for months. My 71 year old mother, who is the least tech savvy person knows about this recall. Samsung is just forcing Darwin Award candidates to turn in potential dangerous devices.
Nope.
Think about all the food recalls you hear about, for example. Nobody polices your refrigerator except yourself.
Likewise, for manufactured products, it's up to the user. Heck, Jeep has had a recall out for three years, yet 30% of owners still have not brought their vehicles in for repair. And there have been over 50 related deaths!
So the very high compliance that Samsung has gotten for a historically far less deadly hazard is actually pretty amazing.
Last edited:
That's not their reasoning though. And the "holiday travel" rationale is so nonsensical when they obviously could issue the update afterwards, like the other majors are. Kind of seems like a publicity move, "looking out" for their customers' travel safety -- or perhaps, cynically, to avoid having to exchange more phones and keep supplies for new customers to buy this holiday season. And like other replies have said, market forces would prevent them from bricking to force an upgrade.
Honestly, Verizon is doing the right thing. Additionally, with portable power bricks so readily available, I think this update will simply be an annoyance to most of the people that are keeping the devices and they will simply always be plugged in and ultimately this will result in a more dangerous situation than ever.
Additionally, many people may opt to root their phones and install a custom ROM that will prevent this update.
The problem here is there are no great answers:
The current phones ARE dangerous, there is no doubt about that, but people keep saying, well I never have had an issue, so it must not be a problem.
Samsung says 93% have been returned, but the rest haven't, so we are going to prevent people from being able to charge phones that they paid around $800 for. The backlash that this will cause is obvious and just, a manufacturer shouldn't be able to disable a device that you OWN just because they feel it is unsafe. They could push an update telling you that it is unsafe and that it should be returned. This is actually sets a very dangerous precedent, lets say Toyota finally admits that their cars do indeed have problems with unintended acceleration and that they should all be brought in immediately, do they have a right at some point to push an update that will make the car fail to work? Seriously, where does this stop?
Additionally, A LOT of the people who have not yet returned the phones are getting the run around about being able to return the device either directly to Samsung or to the carriers and even when they do get someone to accept the return, it usually takes well over an hour to process the return/exchange.
Additionally, many people may opt to root their phones and install a custom ROM that will prevent this update.
The problem here is there are no great answers:
The current phones ARE dangerous, there is no doubt about that, but people keep saying, well I never have had an issue, so it must not be a problem.
Samsung says 93% have been returned, but the rest haven't, so we are going to prevent people from being able to charge phones that they paid around $800 for. The backlash that this will cause is obvious and just, a manufacturer shouldn't be able to disable a device that you OWN just because they feel it is unsafe. They could push an update telling you that it is unsafe and that it should be returned. This is actually sets a very dangerous precedent, lets say Toyota finally admits that their cars do indeed have problems with unintended acceleration and that they should all be brought in immediately, do they have a right at some point to push an update that will make the car fail to work? Seriously, where does this stop?
Additionally, A LOT of the people who have not yet returned the phones are getting the run around about being able to return the device either directly to Samsung or to the carriers and even when they do get someone to accept the return, it usually takes well over an hour to process the return/exchange.
I think the customers holding on to these phones need to get a clue. My first Note 7 seemed fine, but I had it barely a month after all. My second one seemed fine at first, too. Then in the last week I had it, right before the second recall was about to happen, it started going nuts. I was just trying to take photos and some videos. By now I have had enough ownership experience with various models of phones to discern what was normal warming up due to processor use and what was odd. That Note 7 was heating up abnormally high when I was recording a family party for just short video clips at a time and a few pictures. Really hot to hold, and unlike anything my S7 Edge does now under much more intensive use. My S7 Edge really rarely gets more than slightly warm.
Then that Note 7 started overheating randomly during any kind of use. I let the battery drain and packed it away and had it back to AT&T even before a formal recall was worked out by them or Samsung. I consider myself lucky that the overheating was ramping up and giving me some warning there could be a problem. I feel for any folks who had no warning their phone was about to become molten slag.
But prior to that last week, it worked fine, beautifully.
These things don't explode like bombs but even without that, they get intensely hot. It is not something you want on your nightstand. I think these folks are nuts, especially if Verizon offers them a trade. If they love Samsung that much, the Edge 7 is a fine place holder until a Note 8 gets released. The S Pen is fabulous, but jeez, not worth burning your hand or your house over.
Then that Note 7 started overheating randomly during any kind of use. I let the battery drain and packed it away and had it back to AT&T even before a formal recall was worked out by them or Samsung. I consider myself lucky that the overheating was ramping up and giving me some warning there could be a problem. I feel for any folks who had no warning their phone was about to become molten slag.
But prior to that last week, it worked fine, beautifully.
These things don't explode like bombs but even without that, they get intensely hot. It is not something you want on your nightstand. I think these folks are nuts, especially if Verizon offers them a trade. If they love Samsung that much, the Edge 7 is a fine place holder until a Note 8 gets released. The S Pen is fabulous, but jeez, not worth burning your hand or your house over.
Verizon finance department probably calculated the risk vs benefit.
If they pushed the update to brick devices, there will be cost associated with customer support and replacement.
If they don't go with the update, there's a risk of catastrophic accident.
Verizon simply calculated that the support cost is too large vs the risk of the latter, so they opted for the latter.
If they pushed the update to brick devices, there will be cost associated with customer support and replacement.
If they don't go with the update, there's a risk of catastrophic accident.
Verizon simply calculated that the support cost is too large vs the risk of the latter, so they opted for the latter.
You're acting as if Samsung is refusing give them a refund. Yes they paid $800 the device and yes they will get a full refund. So yes it's okay for brick a device that can take down a plane, burn down a house and potentially kill many people.
I'm surprised the federal government hasn't found a way to force this through already. Anybody that brings one to my house this Christmas will be leaving it outside on the walkway.
Nope. It is illegal to sell a recalled product. It may be illegal to transport a recalled product. But there is no requirement to give it back. In fact, you can't get a refund on some recalled products because the manufacturer has gone bankrupt.
This issue is that the customer isn't taking responsibility for the risk of the recalled device. If it causes a fire Samsung is still liable. Unless you can transfer the full liability of the device to the customer, it is fair to disable it.
I'm not sure that bricking the phones is the wrong. I don't have any actual numbers, maybe the problem is much worse than I know. However, if the problem is 1 phone per 1,000 I'm not a fan of the precedent that it is OK to brick a phone that statistically has a low chance of a problem, when the customer has clearly accepted the risk with very short notice notice AND an option clearly exists to make the phone much safer. In the UK they are making them safer by not allowing them to charge past 30%. The US solution seems more about Samsung wanting to be done with he issue than an a 100% safety issue. Unless someone is implying that the UK doesn't care about safety. I'd be willing to be that once you can't charge it past 30% that the risk is pretty small.
[doublepost=1481565671][/doublepost]
Why is the UK option of stopping it from charging past 30% acceptable there as a means of reducing the risk but the US phones are getting bricked, other than Samsung simply wanting to burry all the bodies?
Last edited:
Exactly. And perhaps even more.
Plane, no. House, yes.
From the documented experience of dozens of Li-Ion powered devices catching fire in passenger planes over the years... including iPhones and laptops with far larger batteries... we already that know a smartphone battery fire in the cabin is not going to bring down an airline. Not even close. Sometimes they don't even bother to divert, if the crew gets the device cooled off before generating too much smoke.
--
A house fire is more likely, because homes have less fire retardant materials, and are big enough that a device can overheat somewhere without anyone noticing.
I notice on the internet that Note 7 owners who have kept their device, say they only charge it on marble table tops etc. I guess they figure they've cut their risk enough to feel safe.
Last edited:
So long as Samsung is the legally responsible party, it should be their call as to how the risk should be mitigated.
If a customer were to get a notoriety signed contract stating that they are personal accepting all liability for the device, then go ahead and keep it.
For now, I guarantee that if one of these phones causes a fire the owner will demand that Samsung pay for it.
Last edited:
Well they're obviously more at risk keeping it. But I suppose anything that helps remove a few stupid people from the gene pool is got to be good for humanity.