Samsung may remotely disable your Note 7

[VerticalDiscussions]

45 minutes ago, dlink377 said:

-snip-

Such sarcasm was understood, but, i dont think it was funny enough to become a meme.

[Zodiark1593]

3 hours ago, Derangel said:

Normally I'd agree with you, but the phones catching fire presents a potential danger for people other than the owner of the device. In that case I have no problem with Samsung disabling them. HOWEVER what Samsung should do prior to that is send out notices to every Note 7 owner on their own telling them to turn in the phone or it's going to be disabled. Samsung sends enough fucking ads to phone owners the least they could do is send something useful for once.

Even so, the capability to render a device completely useless remotely is not a capability I believe any manufacturer should have to begin with. 

 

Recalls can be enforced with fines via legal channels if need be, or even a mass IEMI ban by mobile network providers (as a ban does not directly effect the functionality of the device itself), however, even for a safety recall, I am adamantly against giving manufacturers any sort of additional power to enforce the recalls on their own. 

[o0Martin]

57 minutes ago, zMeul said:

that would've meant immediate cease of Note 7 sales until every last defect was remedied and people got replacements units

They did cease sales immediately? On the 31st after a small number of reports they delayed shipments in certain regions as they wanted to run additional tests, the NEXT DAY they made an official announcement that they were preparing to recall devices, then the very day after that the recall started and ALL sales by all official retailers were halted, and Samsung announced a worldwide product exchange program on the same day! 

This is all before the Note 7 even got a chance to launch properly in the UK/Russia/Netherlands and a load more countries. 

What more did you want? A day one recall before people even reported the issue lol? 

 

57 minutes ago, zMeul said:

they also downplayed the issue saying that only 0.x percent of devices were affected

That's because only 0.x % of devices have been affected... What's your point? Samsung only ever said that's how many have been affected so far, they never said that only 0.x% have the potential to be affected... I don't think there is any downplay about the whole situation at all, every news outlet posts a new update/story about the whole situation every day, I don't know a single non techie or techie that doesn't know about the whole situation, and I'm in the UK where you don't even see people with the Note 7 because they weren't even released here yet, yet everyone still knows that having one is a risk.

[Noctus]

24 minutes ago, o0Martin said:

I'm in the UK where you don't even see people with the Note 7 because they weren't even released here yet, yet everyone still knows that having one is a risk.

I ordered (well i guess pre-ordered) mine from affordablemobiles.co.uk on the 22nd. Now i refresh my order page almost daily so it goes from "awaiting stock" to "awaiting delivery". Sad times =[

[o0Martin]

12 minutes ago, Noctus said:

I ordered (well i guess pre-ordered) mine from affordablemobiles.co.uk on the 22nd. Now i refresh my order page almost daily so it goes from "awaiting stock" to "awaiting delivery". Sad times =[

I feel your pain lol, I pre ordered mine too, straight from Samsung! But on the day it was meant to arrive they said 'delivery issues', then when it came round to the 2nd they refunded and cancelled my order 

Guess my cracked iPhone 6 will have to do for a little while longer 

[DevilishBooster]

FOR REAL!? I'm gonna get a Gear VR for FREE!?!? Hot damn!!! 

[Noctus]

1 minute ago, o0Martin said:

I feel your pain lol, I pre ordered mine too, straight from Samsung! But on the day it was meant to arrive they said 'delivery issues', then when it came round to the 2nd they refunded and cancelled my order 

Guess my cracked iPhone 6 will have to do for a little while longer 

I'm sitting on a cracked note Edge lol. 1st generation edge adopter here

[Rune]

Good. Though a part of me wishes that people who don't follow safety recalls would learn the hard way.

[ThinkWithPortals]

Hello 911, what's your emergency?

Oh thank God! My toddler, he was just run over by a car, you have to help us, he's not breathing and-

 

--- WE'RE SORRY, YOUR PHONE HAS BEEN DEACTIVATED ---

[dtaflorida]

Ha ha ha, I've said it before... this is turning exactly into the NVIDIA Shield tablet recall.

 

Which for ppl that root and remove the auto updater, means they get a free device coming in the mail, and you'll be asked to dispose of your device responsibly on your own. At least that's what NVIDIA did for everyone outside of the US. (I have 2 Shield Tablets, one is rooted  )

[zMeul]

20 hours ago, o0Martin said:

That's because only 0.x % of devices have been affected... 

my point?! Samsung downplayed it

they reported only 35 incidents right, guess what? http://healthycanadians.gc.ca/recall-alert-rappel-avis/hc-sc/2016/60168r-eng.php

Quote

Samsung has received over 70 reported cases in the United States.

 

[o0Martin]

3 hours ago, zMeul said:

my point?! Samsung downplayed it

they reported only 35 incidents right, guess what? http://healthycanadians.gc.ca/recall-alert-rappel-avis/hc-sc/2016/60168r-eng.php

 

Yeah that's clearly an updated number, 35 was when the recall was first announced by Samsung on 2nd of Sept. 

But where do you assume they got the updated number of over 70 from? Probably from Samsung themselves seeing as it's reported incidents that they received. 

 

You can even see on the site, that number is updated as of yesterday, the 12th. Within those 10 days you didn't think the only cases were the 4 'big' news ones did you? (The jeep, house, hotel in aus and the 6 year old kid.) People are still using the device, that's why you see new news stories warning people not to use the device EVERY DAY. In the spoiler is a screen shot of what happens when I google Note 7, then click on the news tab. In the last 24 hours alone there were updates from the major newspapers in the UK and big tech news sites, and it's like that everyday. 

Spoiler

And it's like that all the way back to the 2nd/1st when it was made official. 

 

1 hour ago, zMeul said:

-snip-

 

Wait.... what lol? Of course they said 35 devices had been affected so far, because at the time that was the truth.... And of course more devices exploded, because people didn't stop using them, despite all the warnings, the halt of sales and the global recall.

[zMeul]

23 minutes ago, o0Martin said:

-

matey, do you even recall what I said originally? I'm gonna quote myself because ... fuck logic

Quote

they also downplayed the issue saying that only 0.x percent of devices were affected - that doesn't mean devices that are already out there won't spontaneously combust, and guess what ...

airlines had to issue warning, someone had to lose their house and other one their car for Samsung to issue a new warning for people to shut down their devices and return them?!

 

---

 

if you were a Samsung employee, I'd understand you - but you aren't

[o0Martin]

49 minutes ago, zMeul said:

airlines had to issue warning, someone had to lose their house and other one their car for Samsung to issue a new warning for people to shut down their devices and return them?!

And before all of that happened all device owners were contacted by the company they purchased their Note 7 from, or by Samsung (Even I was contacted by Samsung and they didn't even fulfil my order lol) and on top of that all news outlets/radio/tech sites/national tv ect had reported that Samsung had issued a recall for the Note 7 device because battery issues had caused devices to explode. And that's just my experience from the UK where like I said before the phone wasn't even released yet. If everyone in the UK knew about the issue before all the things you mentioned then how has it been downplayed? 

 

You are the only person who thinks people see this: 

"35 reported cases of devices affected by battery issues causing explosions" and react like this, "Oh great, only 35 devices, that means no more will explode"... what?

(And by the way Samsung never used the words 'Only 35', that would be downplaying it slightly, maybe some sites did, but Samsung didn't.)

 

The fact that devices are still being used by consumers is inevitable, it's still a great phone, and people don't want to downgrade while the recall is happening, they want to wait until they can get another Note 7. And if anything it was tech sites and youtubers who downplayed the issue, they were the ones who pointed out how small the amount of devices reported is, only 0.0035% of total devices sold ectect, and they were the ones who said they were willing to take the risk because the risk is so small, and this influences a lot of people. (Even if the number went up to 70, that's still 0.007% of total devices that were sold so far, it's just that when it goes wrong, it can go wrong badly.)

 

Samsung played the whole thing off very well, it was a huge fuck up from their battery subsidiary, and it sucks for them because the Note 7 was extremely well praised before this and it will affect sales after the Note 7 is re-launched. But pretty much everyone agrees that Samsung handled this well and that they responded quickly to the issue and took the proper course of action. 

[zMeul]

18 minutes ago, o0Martin said:

And before all of that happened all device owners were contacted by the company they purchased their Note 7 from

no they weren't

where is the proof to back up your claim?

 

the guy who's house burned down had no fucking clue a Note 7 recall was even in effect - the recall still isn't in effect

 

and, more to the point, the official recall in the US hasn't started even a week + after Consumerist slammed them for not doing it officially via CPCS: 

• https://consumerist.com/2016/09/02/samsung-will-recall-galaxy-7-note-after-reports-of-battery-explosions-fires/
• https://consumerist.com/2016/09/09/federal-safety-commission-urges-samsung-galaxy-note-7-owners-to-stop-using-charging-devices-still-no-official-recall/
• https://consumerist.com/2016/09/12/galaxy-note-7-reportedly-explodes-in-hand-of-6-year-old/

note the dates

[o0Martin]

1 minute ago, zMeul said:

no they weren't

where is the proof to back up your claim?

Well here's part of the email I got, dated the 2nd of Sept, from Samsung themselves; this is before they even knew exactly what the issue was, on the day they issues the stop of sales.

 

[zMeul]

7 minutes ago, o0Martin said:

Well here's part of the email I got,

yeah, you got it from Samsung directly

while you claimed, and I quote:

Quote

all device owners were contacted by the company they purchased their Note 7 from

no they weren't

 

---

 

and PS: a exchange program is not a recall - the official US recall, via CPCS, hasn't started as of yesterday: https://consumerist.com/2016/09/09/federal-safety-commission-urges-samsung-galaxy-note-7-owners-to-stop-using-charging-devices-still-no-official-recall/

[o0Martin]

27 minutes ago, zMeul said:

the guy who's house burned down had no fucking clue a Note 7 recall was even in effect

 

and, more to the point, the official recall in the US started about a week after Consumerist slammed them for not doing it officially via CPCS: 

• https://consumerist.com/2016/09/02/samsung-will-recall-galaxy-7-note-after-reports-of-battery-explosions-fires/
• https://consumerist.com/2016/09/09/federal-safety-commission-urges-samsung-galaxy-note-7-owners-to-stop-using-charging-devices-still-no-official-recall/

note the dates

Of course there will be a couple idiots out of the 1 million people who got the Note 7... It's just statistics. 

 

And yeah, no 'Official' as in done through the CPSC, all that means is no legal action could be taken to stop people using the device, there was still a recall and exchange program, it was just left up to people to decide where and how they wish to use their device, and left up to air lines to allow or ban the device from their flights. And it made it still legal for people to sell their device over ebay or w/e. But so what? Even if there were a recall done through the CPSC it would have been the SAME outcome, people would have the same awareness about the issue either way.

 

Edit: Oh and by the way, the CPSC is a US thing, not very effective for world wide...

 

17 minutes ago, zMeul said:

yeah, you got it from Samsung directly

while you claimed, and I quote:

Well I can't show you an email from every supplier because I don't have one, but here's one from Vodaphone (big UK supplier)

http://forum.vodafone.co.uk/t5/Vodafone-Announcements/Samsung-Galaxy-Note-7/td-p/2513767?dfacid=1&cid=aff-aw-default-78888&callwinid=78888&awc=1257_1473769704_9c67fa3ecae638ea550719583be6f1e9

They said the day before the recall, and the day before I even got my email: 

Quote

Vodafone is aware of reports about a very small number of battery cell issues reported by people using the Samsung Galaxy Note 7. Quality and customer safety are absolute priorities for Vodafone and therefore the launch of the Samsung Note 7 will be delayed in the UK.

 

All affected customers will be notified about this issue and their options.

On this thread here on the EE forums (EE Being the merger of Orange and T-Mobile who were the biggest 2 before, EE being probably the biggest in the UK now): https://community.ee.co.uk/t5/Android/Samsung-Galaxy-NOTE-7-Recall/td-p/470155

An EE Community Support Team member says that they getting in touch with people and arranging the return of their phone. 

 

I'm not going to go through each and every carrier or phone selling company, but you get the idea, it's basic customer service to get in contact and warn them of the issue, so you can bet that they all did it. 

[zMeul]

12 minutes ago, o0Martin said:

-

yes, because posting on a forum constitutes as a individual issued warning

Quote

All affected customers will be notified

not that have already been notified

 

----

 

it took Samsung a week to change their stance: http://www.androidauthority.com/samsung-now-advising-power-note-7-715685/

[Sauron]

On 9/12/2016 at 4:17 AM, Zodiark1593 said:

I do feel Samsung is overstepping it's bounds here as the phones are technically no longer their property.

So you think Samsung should have no legal responsibility on their fire hazard defective units? Do you mean next time they should just ignore it and tell their customers the phone is their property and if it blows up they should suck it up and deal with it? That if they accidentally sell a time bomb and the customers don't return it, they should just let it happen? Be careful when you say something like this, you never know who might take it seriously.

 

These devices have been recalled for being dangerous, not just for the customers but for those around them as well. If they won't be voluntarily returned it is absolutely correct to force their return or at least make them completely safe, which in this case means bricking them remotely. Since every customer gets a free replacement, not returning it is just laziness or stupidity (or more likely both).

[SImoHayha]

On 9/11/2016 at 8:01 PM, Zodiark1593 said:

I'm on the side of the owners having the power over their devices, even if they do make poor decisions, though that tends to be my viewpoint in many things.

Then when your phone blows up don't come bitching to samsung.

[Zodiark1593]

4 hours ago, Sauron said:

So you think Samsung should have no legal responsibility on their fire hazard defective units? Do you mean next time they should just ignore it and tell their customers the phone is their property and if it blows up they should suck it up and deal with it? That if they accidentally sell a time bomb and the customers don't return it, they should just let it happen? Be careful when you say something like this, you never know who might take it seriously.

 

These devices have been recalled for being dangerous, not just for the customers but for those around them as well. If they won't be voluntarily returned it is absolutely correct to force their return or at least make them completely safe, which in this case means bricking them remotely. Since every customer gets a free replacement, not returning it is just laziness or stupidity (or more likely both).

I am fully aware of the implications and harshness of my stance here in regards to the power manufacturers should and shouldn't have. 

 

I do agree 100% with the recall, and these phones should be fixed or returned. That is not the part I take issue with. The part I disagree with is the power for manufacturer to brick phones remotely. Better or worse, I do not believe manufacturers should have that capability at all. 

 

Of course, there are other means to approach this in the future if one desires. If one feels strongly about safety recalls, one could push for laws that would prohibit possession or use of a recalled device. (ie, enforcement is not to be done by the oem). 

[Sauron]

Just now, Zodiark1593 said:

I do agree 100% with the recall, and these phones should be fixed or returned. That is not the part I take issue with. The part I disagree with is the power for manufacturer to brick phones remotely. Better or worse, I do not believe manufacturers should have that capability at all.

Fair enough, but we live in a world where most widely used software is not actually the user's property but rather something the real owner allows you to use. Especially with cloud and subscription based services. Yes, in this case the phone itself (meaning hardware) is being made useless, but let's be honest, would it make a difference if android refused to boot while leaving the phone completely functional? You could conceivably install a custom rom, but aside from the fact there probably are none or almost none at the moment, 99.9% of customers won't do that and instead they'll return the phone as they should. I'm sure if Samsung decided to randomly brick certain devices without providing a replacement or a very, very good reason to do so, the backlash would be tremendous.

[Zodiark1593]

1 hour ago, Sauron said:

Fair enough, but we live in a world where most widely used software is not actually the user's property but rather something the real owner allows you to use. Especially with cloud and subscription based services. Yes, in this case the phone itself (meaning hardware) is being made useless, but let's be honest, would it make a difference if android refused to boot while leaving the phone completely functional? You could conceivably install a custom rom, but aside from the fact there probably are none or almost none at the moment, 99.9% of customers won't do that and instead they'll return the phone as they should. I'm sure if Samsung decided to randomly brick certain devices without providing a replacement or a very, very good reason to do so, the backlash would be tremendous.

Even if we don't agree, I'm satisfied my point is understood.

 

This is a rapidly ballooning disaster for Samsung, so it is understandable they're acting as hastily as possible. I simply wish they'd work with government bodies and network providers (IMEI banning would be quite effective without direct device/software tampering) to assist in getting the defective devices out of consumer hands instead of taking matters (and potentially the law) into their own hands. 

[Sauron]

18 minutes ago, Zodiark1593 said:

Even if we don't agree, I'm satisfied my point is understood.

 

This is a rapidly ballooning disaster for Samsung, so it is understandable they're acting as hastily as possible. I simply wish they'd work with government bodies and network providers (IMEI banning would be quite effective without direct device/software tampering) to assist in getting the defective devices out of consumer hands instead of taking matters (and potentially the law) into their own hands. 

That is an idea as well, but imei banning does not prevent you from turning the phone on, charging it, and using it for videos and apps on local networks. Which is exactly what they don't want people to do, because it may blow up. Bricking it ensures that it is not used in any way before being returned for replacement.