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

[Zaren]

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?

These users will not be out any money, since they have been offered a full refund or a full no-cost exchange with another handset. Considering that there was a WORLDWIDE mandatory recall on these phones - since they are known to BURST INTO FLAMES - yes, I am perfectly OK with Samsung trying to render the 7% of them still in the wild incapable of doing so. That's roughly 175,000 BOMBS that Samsung is trying to remotely disable. If you're NOT okay with that, what the hell is wrong with you?

 

[Leonard1818]

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.

Uh, yes.... yes, I would be fine with "someone else" (you mean the designer and manufacturer) bricking my phone if it were deemed a potential hazard to my personal safety, that of my family, or of the general public. How damn selfish are you? Also, what do you mean "...the bricked phones owner doesn't receive compensation automatically"? Are you looking for a "no *** sherlock" reply? What alternate reality do you live in where recalls are magical events and everything is made right without any exertion of effort by anyone? King Takata waves a wand and suddenly all airbags in all vehicles are fixed!!! No, here in "reality" screw-ups happen and sometimes it takes effort to fix. But you're probably one of those "I need compensated for you wasting my precious time" kind of guys, huh?

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.

You open your post by criticizing someone's understanding of the law but end your comment by suggesting that Verizon is responsible for one of their customers choosing to live remote and not having a landline. You truly believe that if BillyBob McMountainman doesn't give up his precious Samsung Explodey7 and Verizon forcefully shuts it down and BillyBob breaks his leg and can't call for help that Verizon is liable? Did Verizon force BillyBob to be a recluse? Did they force him to not get a landline in case the cell phone breaks or dies? No. Verizon had no hand in those decisions being made and therefore are not liable if BillyBob can't call someone.

But let's say BillyBob decides he needs to go into town to get some snacks because even the most remote of mountain men could use a slim jim from time-to-time.... and he goes in and his phone catches fire and burns down the gas station, killing a herd of sheep being kept behind the gas station and giving the employees bronchitis (ain't nobody got time for that)! Do you think Verizon's negligence in refusing to push out an update that could have prevented the slaughter-itis puts them on the hook at least a little bit or nah? Cause I'll betcha you could find a jury that says it does...

 

[SBlue1]

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.

Hell yeah brick that damn thing! They are a danger not only for the dumbass that decides to keep it. Imagine being in a bus going overnight and some idiot has his unbricked phone in the suitcases catching fire and killing you all while asleep.

 

[konqerror]

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.

Wrong. By law, automakers must notify state DMVs of safety and emissions related recalls. The DMVs may refuse to renew your registration, making it illegal to operate on public roads, "bricking" your car. California does in fact do this for emissions, you are issued a certificate of correction when you get it done, and if their electronic reporting is out of date, you have to present it to the DMV.

 

[Kajje]

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

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

I'm not a lawyer but I think @Kaibelf does have a point.

- There is a solution to this problem, bricking it.
- Verizon choosed another solution, the 30% method.
- This solution takes as much action of Verizon compared with the bricking solution
- Or Verizon choosed not to issue any solution at all

Basically Verizon decided they had the solution to this sad case and they therefore take responsibility for the result of their decision. If a Verizon Note7 customer gets hurt, I think that customer does have a case against them.

Again, I'm not pretending to know the law, but I'm sure there will be a nice lawfirm to be found that'd love to jump on this case. But then again, the UK isn't the US.

 

[nicho]

I'm not a lawyer but I think @Kaibelf does have a point.

- There is a solution to this problem, bricking it.
- Verizon choosed another solution, the 30% method.
- This solution takes as much action of Verizon compared with the bricking solution
- Or Verizon choosed not to issue any solution at all

Basically Verizon decided they had the solution to this sad case and they therefore take responsibility for the result of their decision. If a Verizon Note7 customer gets hurt, I think that customer does have a case against them.

Again, I'm not pretending to know the law, but I'm sure there will be a nice lawfirm to be found that'd love to jump on this case. But then again, the UK isn't the US.

would be nice if you could pretend to understand the article, if not the law. the "30% method" is samsung's fix for phones in the UK and nothing to do with Verizon. Verizon is saying they will not push any update at all.

 

[Penn Jennings]

Uh, yes.... yes, I would be fine with "someone else" (you mean the designer and manufacturer) bricking my phone if it were deemed a potential hazard to my personal safety, that of my family, or of the general public. How damn selfish are you? Also, what do you mean "...the bricked phones owner doesn't receive compensation automatically"? Are you looking for a "no *** sherlock" reply? What alternate reality do you live in where recalls are magical events and everything is made right without any exertion of effort by anyone? King Takata waves a wand and suddenly all airbags in all vehicles are fixed!!! No, here in "reality" screw-ups happen and sometimes it takes effort to fix. But you're probably one of those "I need compensated for you wasting my precious time" kind of guys, huh?



You open your post by criticizing someone's understanding of the law but end your comment by suggesting that Verizon is responsible for one of their customers choosing to live remote and not having a landline. You truly believe that if BillyBob McMountainman doesn't give up his precious Samsung Explodey7 and Verizon forcefully shuts it down and BillyBob breaks his leg and can't call for help that Verizon is liable? Did Verizon force BillyBob to be a recluse? Did they force him to not get a landline in case the cell phone breaks or dies? No. Verizon had no hand in those decisions being made and therefore are not liable if BillyBob can't call someone.

But let's say BillyBob decides he needs to go into town to get some snacks because even the most remote of mountain men could use a slim jim from time-to-time.... and he goes in and his phone catches fire and burns down the gas station, killing a herd of sheep being kept behind the gas station and giving the employees bronchitis (ain't nobody got time for that)! Do you think Verizon's negligence in refusing to push out an update that could have prevented the slaughter-itis puts them on the hook at least a little bit or nah? Cause I'll betcha you could find a jury that says it does...

It appears that making the phone so that it only charges to 30% will make it reasonably safe. That what the UK is doing. bricking little over board. Before anyone says that bricking is the only answer, please explain why the UK has a different solution?

There is risk with Advil, gasoline, fireworks, and a thousand other products we purchase and use every day. While we all buy gas every day, you can't buy gas and take it on a plane. If you do no one will go after the gas station. You go after the dumb ass that took the gas on the plane. If you purchase a case of beer at the store and the next day you get drunk and crash, no one sues the store. We all assume the risks and responsibly for the products that own. Yet people think that this 1 device has to be reduced to zero risk. I suggesting that the risk does not need to be reduced to zero and people need be responsible for their actions.
[doublepost=1481600935][/doublepost]

Wrong. By law, automakers must notify state DMVs of safety and emissions related recalls. The DMVs may refuse to renew your registration, making it illegal to operate on public roads, "bricking" your car. California does in fact do this for emissions, you are issued a certificate of correction when you get it done, and if their electronic reporting is out of date, you have to present it to the DMV.

I'm not talk "what if", I'm talking what actually happened. Ford did NOT go looking for those tires and force people to replace them. Neither did GM with the ignitions. In both cases owner were strongly encouraged to replace the defective products for free.... And in all cases you could register those cars. I don't think any DMV ever even asked if you have the bad ignition or faulty tires.... Or in the case of the air bags that killed people.... No one shows up to "brick" your stuff.

I'm all making them safer bricking though?

 

[kdarling]

I thought that all Note 7 got a 60% charge limit pushed to them a month ago... Including Verizon models.

Not sure why UK is going further with 30% unless it's just a slow squeeze to get people to return the phones.

 

[Penn Jennings]

These users will not be out any money, since they have been offered a full refund or a full no-cost exchange with another handset. Considering that there was a WORLDWIDE mandatory recall on these phones - since they are known to BURST INTO FLAMES - yes, I am perfectly OK with Samsung trying to render the 7% of them still in the wild incapable of doing so. That's roughly 175,000 BOMBS that Samsung is trying to remotely disable. If you're NOT okay with that, what the hell is wrong with you?

No, Bombs explode. Catching fire and exploding are very different.

If you place that phone on your granite kitchen counter, even if it catches fire your house will not burn down. It will stink, there might be smoke damage but assuming that there is nothing else around it, thats the extent of the problem. I have not heard of them exploding like a bomb. If there are cases of them actually exploding like a bomb then I stand corrected.

Based on a CNET article, your numbers on potential "bombs" is probably off by a factor 175 as well.

"According to an unnamed Samsung official who spoke to Yonhap News, the Note 7's manufacturing defect affects less than 0.01 percent of all Note 7 handsets sold. Some quick back-of-the-envelope math, and you're potentially looking at fewer than 1,000 defective phones. "It is a very rare manufacturing process error," a Samsung rep told CNET."


But I have news for you guys.... ALL batteries can catch fire under the right conditions.

EDIT:
I think 93% of these had been returned. So if there were 1,000 phone that were bad and 93% (930) of those have been return and some have already burned, are talking about chasing down less than 70 phones? Is my math right based on the information available?

 

[bkaus]

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.

I believe the US recall legislation is that your not allowed to sell a recalled item. You can keep it and the risk is on you (assuming manufacturer followed approved recall notification process).

 

[flyinmac]

"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.

That's ok. Sounds like Verizon can just pay the extreme cash settlements that come when someone dies because Verizon chose not to allow Samsung to deactivate an explosive product.

 

[Penn Jennings]

I'm going to say this and let the topic.

Allow me to recap this, just so I get this right:

• 2,700,000 Note 7's sold
• 1,000,000 (approx) Note 7 sold in the US (USA Today).
• Less than 1,000 in total are estimated to have the issue according to Samsung
• 93% of all Note 7s have been returned in the US.
• <70 affected phones left in US.
• 70,000 in the US phones will be bricked to prevent the remaining 70 from being an issue.
• UK not bricking any.

Contrary to Zaren's statement, they catch fire. They are not "Bombs" like in The Kingsmen. There are not 170,000 affected devices. According to Samsung is there are less than 1,000 bad devices. That leaves less than 70 phones!

If you purchased a $850 phone from Best Buy, everyone is OK with the carrier bricking or allowing your phone to be bricked? You can't sue Comcast because your kids watch porn. The carrier exposure is small in court so I applaud Verizon and eschew the rest. Why is the UK not bricking them?

This doesn't seem like more of a way to put the issue to bed than a safety issue. Lithium batteries ALL risk catching fire, it's why you can't put them on planes in bulk. Search for "iphone catch fire" on Youtube. iPhone, laptops, anything with a lithium battery is a fire risk, not just Note 7s and hover boards.

I'm amazed at how so many don't feel like the owners are the ones that should held responsible if there is a problem.

Lastly, the righteous indignation is little scary too when in some case people have the facts all wrong.


EDIT: I change this to go with the large estimate of 70 phones.

EDIT2: OK, the implants blew up in the Kingsman, not the phones but it's still a nice visual

 

[kdarling]

No, Bombs explode. Catching fire and exploding are very different.

If you place that phone on your granite kitchen counter, even if it catches fire your house will not burn down. It will stink, there might be smoke damage but assuming that there is nothing else around it, thats the extent of the problem.

You're correct.

As the US safety agency CPSC puts it in the official recall notice, the phones can "overheat and catch fire."

They don't "explode" into pieces like a bomb or grenade. Rather, they can burst into intense flame, like lighting a box of matches all at once.

Pouring water on it cools down the battery's thermal runaway. Dropping it into a metal trashcan is another option. (Airline crews also use metal coffee pots for this kind of situation. That provides both a metal and liquid container in one.)

Clickbait articles of course use "explode" for more attention, and so they apply the word to Apple products as well. Just Google "iphone explodes" for examples.

 

[charlituna]

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

Yep. Which is why I'm more angry at Verizon. They are more worried about someone bitching about their phone service than getting set on fire. Really? How about a compromise. Work with Samsung to issue a charging update similar to the UK now and come Jan 1, a full shut down. And then issue warnings to all users that that is what is going to happen so if you don't like it, get your butt to a verizon store to get a new phone (waived activation fees, full trade in etc).
[doublepost=1481648943][/doublepost]

I'm going to say this and let the topic.

Allow me to recap this, just so I get this right:

• 2,700,000 Note 7's sold
• 1,000,000 (approx) Note 7 sold in the US (USA Today).
• Less than 1,000 in total are estimated to have the issue according to Samsung
• 93% of all Note 7s have been returned in the US.
• <70 affected phones left in US.
• 70,000 in the US phones will be bricked to prevent the remaining 70 from being an issue.
• UK not bricking any.

You missed the part about Samsung issuing a full safety recall. That means legally they have to consider every unit as having the same safety risk. So 70K not 70. It's how the game is played.
[doublepost=1481649468][/doublepost]

Pouring water on it cools down the battery's thermal runaway.

I'm curious where you got that info from cause I was taught in multiple chemistry classes to never use water on a material that is reactive with oxygen (such as lithium) because it actually increases the reaction.

 

[kdarling]

I'm curious where you got that info from cause I was taught in multiple chemistry classes to never use water on a material that is reactive with oxygen (such as lithium) because it actually increases the reaction.

Good question. You're correct about lithium metal, but lithium-ion batteries actually have very little of it, using a lithium salt solution instead.

That's why the FAA recommends pouring a (non-alcoholic) drink on an Li-Ion fire to cool it down.

E.g.

"If the fire occurs in an airplane cabin, the FAA instructs flight attendants to use water or soda pop. Water-based products are most readily available and are appropriate since Li-ion contains very little lithium metal that reacts with water. Water also cools the adjacent area and prevents the fire from spreading. Research laboratories and factories also use water to extinguish Li-ion battery fires. "

- http://batteryuniversity.com/learn/article/safety_concerns_with_li_ion

 

[Penn Jennings]

Yep. Which is why I'm more angry at Verizon. They are more worried about someone bitching about their phone service than getting set on fire. Really? How about a compromise. Work with Samsung to issue a charging update similar to the UK now and come Jan 1, a full shut down. And then issue warnings to all users that that is what is going to happen so if you don't like it, get your butt to a verizon store to get a new phone (waived activation fees, full trade in etc).
[doublepost=1481648943][/doublepost]
You missed the part about Samsung issuing a full safety recall. That means legally they have to consider every unit as having the same safety risk. So 70K not 70. It's how the game is played.
[doublepost=1481649468][/doublepost]

I'm curious where you got that info from cause I was taught in multiple chemistry classes to never use water on a material that is reactive with oxygen (such as lithium) because it actually increases the reaction.

Well, I guess I'm more interested in reality than being sensational. Bricking 70,000 phones because LESS than 70 are estimated to be bad, even though the owners have been given repeated warnings for months and ample opportunity to return is simply out of proportion to precedence given that the threat is extremely easy to mitigate, as shown in the UK.

charlituna, 69Mustang said in a post yesterday "The percentage of defective devices relative to the total number of devices that were in the wild was completely unacceptable." The percent of phones that are bad is:

Less than .01%. If less than .01% (70 out of 70,000) is absolutely unacceptable, even though the owners have accepted the risk, it is a product CAN be used without health risk (even IF it catches fire, they get hot first. They don't burst into flames. If it gets hot, you laugh and throw it on the ground), even though there is NO precedence for this then OK.

We agree to disagree.
[doublepost=1481655754][/doublepost]

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.

The fix in no way alleviated the danger to life! The point was Ford tires killed, GM Ignitions killed, the bad Air Bags killed, no one ever forced people to stop using the product!

EDIT: Those car with bad air bags are still on the road. everyone know which cars they are, did anyone go brick those? 11 dead, 134 injuries reported. (Car and Driver 12/12/2016). There is a fix, and that helps how?

EDIT: According to Car and Driver (12/12/2016) There have been 134 injuries and 11 deaths report due to the Takata Air bags. Those cars are still on the road.

[doublepost=1481655838][/doublepost]

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 percent of phones that are bad is:

Less than .01%. If less than .01% (70 out of 70,000) is absolutely unacceptable, even though the owners have accepted the risk, it is a product CAN be used without health risk (even IF it catches fire, they get hot first. They don't burst into flames. If it gets hot, you laugh and throw it on the ground), even though there is NO precedence for this then OK.

We agree to disagree.


EDIT: Opps, I said .1%.... It is .01% 35 reported cases world wide (CNET) https://www.cnet.com/news/why-is-samsung-galaxy-note-7-exploding-overheating/