That----->
Samsung to Galaxy Note 7 users: Turn it off. Now
Samsung has instructed all partners worldwide to stop both sales and exchange of its Galaxy Note 7 while it works out what went wrong. The news of a manufacturing halt landed yesterday from Korean newswire Yonhap, and is now backed by an announcement from Samsung. Sammy says it's “working with relevant regulatory bodies to …
COMMENTS
-
-
-
-
Tuesday 11th October 2016 01:33 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: Bet you....
Sincerely hope so!
I've been quietly savouring the schadenfreude of the spectacle of Sammy being hoisted aloft by their own nasty little obsolescence petard... but I like Sammy and their stuff in general, as much as it's possible to like a gargantuan corporation... and don't wish them any real harm. Wasn't the glued-in lithium time-bomb ruse originally an invention of the Apple Corporation Inc anyway? Like rounding the corners of icons. Perhaps Apple should sue for infringement of their glued-in incendiary device scheme and claim some of the losses.
Dear Sammy,
Glueing those shitty Li battery things into your uber-expensive (or any) devices is bad. Mmmmmkay? They're unreliable and disposable and must be easily removable/replaceable. Gluing them into those uber-expensive devices in order to make them prematurely disposable really is unacceptably shitty behaviour. Wouldn't you agree, now, you money grubbing little shits?
Perhaps you've learned your lesson?..
REMOVABLE batteries.
REMOVABLE storage.
Got it now? A duff battery would be a hell of a lot cheaper to replace than an entire phone... but then, that was always the point, wasn't it? Hhahhahahh a ha ahhhaha ha ha hahhahah!
Our bottoms & your bottom line ---->
-
Tuesday 11th October 2016 05:07 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: Bet you....
Those were in-house developed Sammy batteries. Replacing them with other, certified, Sammy batteries quite likely wouldn't help unless standardized size, even if user him/her/itself could do so. Neither would replacing them with knockoffs as it would be about as dangerous as we have learned in the past (and you've probably forgotten).
On the other hand, it would be easier for the company to muddle the waters by stating non-certified batteries were used.
Should some other reports be true (those reporting problem with battery connection), then replacing battery wouldn't help altogether bar being safer while in the process of taking out the garbage.
-
Tuesday 11th October 2016 05:56 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: Bet you....
As soon as an alternative pack was available, replaceable batteries would certainly have made the recall a hell of a lot cheaper and easier! In fact, they wouldn't have had to recall the phones at all. Just the batteries.
Victims would also have had a simple method to safely diffuse their phones.
Lithium ion batteries should NEVER be fixed: Regardless of whether they are extra-dangerously defective at the time of manufacture, or just entirely-predictably defective a couple of years later (and conveniently quickly after the guarantee expires).
Sauce for the goose...
-
Tuesday 11th October 2016 07:23 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: Bet you....
This doesnt automatically mean we'll get removable batteries again since we dont know the problem is with the battery.
My money is on fast charging being knackered.
Why manufacturers cant stick to standards beggars belief.
There is an open spec for fast charging via USBC ... As far as I am aware nobody uses it. Most phones have a proprietary fast charging tech.
The only one that works sensibly seems to be DASH on the OP3. Which quite sensibly puts the tech in the charger not the phone. They did this to reduce heat generated while charging. Clearly they did proper testing and reaolved the issue...Samsung dont appear to have bothered.
-
-
Tuesday 11th October 2016 08:43 GMT Arctic fox
Re "You make it sound like no phone has ever successfully....."
Your Galaxy S6 has a conventional micro USB 2 port the techonology of which reputable producers thoroughly understand and have considerable experience with in the area of rapid charging. I wrote "I also wonder (my added emphasis ed.) whether a lack of/limited experience with correct implementation of the USB type C standard..." I was scarcely being didactic old chap and my comment was specific to the context of USB type C.
-
Thursday 13th October 2016 07:12 GMT Adam JC
Re: Re "You make it sound like no phone has ever successfully....."
Apologies Mr Fox, didn't mean to come across quite how I did, I completely forgot they'd moved to Type-C now. I've seen all sorts of shenanigans on the interwebs about dodgy cables, not adhering to standards and some manufacturers completely flaunting the standards and making it up as they go with regards to charging. I wonder if Samsung did the same!
(Obligatory XKCD: https://xkcd.com/927/ )
-
-
-
-
-
-
Tuesday 11th October 2016 07:23 GMT Arctic fox
Re: "Sincerely hope so!"
I entirely agree with the points you have made. I also wonder whether a lack of/limited experience with correct implementation of the USB type C standard (currently true of all producers) may also have exacerbated the situation. The behaviour of that port has to be very precisely regulated or the device will end up in trouble - particularly when when we are of course by definitition talking about rapid charging which can under certain circumstances lead to battery damage (if incorrectly regulated) with, potentially, the kind of problems we have seen with the Note 7.
-
Tuesday 11th October 2016 22:04 GMT Captain DaFt
Re: Bet you....
"Gluing them into those uber-expensive devices in order to make them prematurely disposable really is unacceptably shitty behaviour."
To be fair, gluing all the innards into the phone was a cost saving method pioneered by Apple.
It eliminates all the fiddly design headaches of screw hole placement, reduces case parts (no battery lid!), plus it can easily be assembled by a robotic glue gun more quickly than aligning those costly screws properly in the case and tightening them.
Hastening the phone's obsolescence was just a happy plus for the phone makers.
-
-
Tuesday 11th October 2016 08:35 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: Bet you....
All the people going on about removable batteries are grossly oversimplifying the problem !
For example, but not limited to, the fact that removable batteries :
- Do not do much for you in the event of your battery catching fire (it would not be wise to risk your heath trying to remove an overheated/smoking/flaming battery from your phone once the process has started).
- Do not do much if (like Samsung) you ship out a second batch of batteries that are also dodgy.
- Do not do much for avoiding lazy / unwilling / ignorant consumers not realising they have to replace said batteries. And the same lazy/unwilling/ignorant consumers being unwilling to NOT use or charge their phones until such time as said batteries have been replaced.
- Do not do much for getting the batteries into hands of said consumers (as we have seen with Samsung, some of their channel partners have been - whether deliberately or not - a bit "difficult" shall we say)
etc. etc. etc.
-
Tuesday 11th October 2016 09:55 GMT paulf
Re: Bet you....
@ Anonymous Coward Re: Bet you.... "All the people going on about removable batteries are grossly oversimplifying the problem !"
I'm all for removable batteries but I'd offer an extra entry for your list. I'm not sure if the charging circuit is implicated here (or if it really is just shitty batteries) but if the charging circuit hardware is the problem a removable battery doesn't help you much as the batteries will keep exploding and the phone still needs to be recalled.
-
-
Tuesday 11th October 2016 10:48 GMT Robert Carnegie
On Star Trek -
Standard procedure is to eject the starship or shuttle's warp engine core before a core breach occurs. The core breach involves antimatter.
I do not seem to remember a single successful ejection of the warp core. So I'm not sure that a removable battery helps in the situation being discussed.
In first season episode "Court Martial", Captain Kirk ejects an "ion pod", but that appears to be something else. A sort of external observatory, a disposable one. Awkward for anyone who is in the observatory at the time.
-
-
-
Tuesday 11th October 2016 01:03 GMT JeffyPoooh
If the battery is internally shorting-out...
If the battery is internally shorting-out, then the phone can be not plugged in, not turned on, the battery can be removed from the phone and placed gently onto a bed of peacock feathers, and the battery might still decide to internally short-circuit, smolder and burn.
Or maybe it's something else...
-
Tuesday 11th October 2016 05:52 GMT Voland's right hand
Yesterday in my Inbox from Vodafone
An email from Voda with a subject <redacted>name</redacted>, win the new Samsung Galaxy S7 with our Big Prize Grab
So whatever Sammy is talking, its "partners" in retail are not walking. In fact, they are continuing to push the phone down our throats despite knowing that it is defective and dangerous.
-
-
-
Tuesday 11th October 2016 12:47 GMT Dave 126
Re: Yesterday in my Inbox from Vodafone
That link only mention one reported G7 fire:
"It’s not clear whether the battery issues affect other handsets, including the Galaxy S7 Edge; Samsung has not issued any guidance or statements regarding other phone models. As such, we can’t say for sure whether the Galaxy S7 Edge is affected by any faults. "
- http://www.trustedreviews.com/news/samsung-galaxy-s7-edge-overheating-catch-fire
-
Tuesday 11th October 2016 19:03 GMT Anonymous Coward
S7 Edge fires
A low single digit number of reports for something that has been out for a while and probably has 10 million plus phones in the field is not indicative of a serious systemic flaw like the Note 7 suffered from. The Note 7 was burning up at a rate probably 1000x greater based on how few it had sold and how short of a time it had been around.
If you recalled every model of phone that ever caught on fire even once, we would all be switching phones every few months - unless you bought some wildly unsuccessful model that only sold 10,000 worldwide (i.e. rely on statistics to keep your model "safe")
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Tuesday 11th October 2016 10:14 GMT Anonymous Coward
Were it an Apple unit behaving this way
Yes. Wrong type of atmosphere.
Your point?
Besides, I read on BGR, a site I completely trust for rational, truthful, non-sensationalist, non click-baity reporting of the highest calibre, that a couple of iPhone 7s have also swelled hotly, presumably to protracted fanboi onanism sessions. Luckily there were certain 'fluids' available to quench any flaming.
-
-
Tuesday 11th October 2016 06:24 GMT oneeye
Sabotage ???
I'm starting to think someone has been playing at industrial sabotage. There could be a hidden malware that was injected into the software at some point in the development or building process. To have the new refurbished phones with different batteries ( if that's what Samsung did) then, I think it's time to do a security check on employee's, and audit the software.
-
Tuesday 11th October 2016 07:42 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: Sabotage ???
The charging is controlled by a dedicated, standalone chip which you can't affect with software. Software can change how the hardware uses that power, but the charging process is AFAIK independent.
That said, sabotage is not as unlikely as I first thought, because given the volume it is inconceivable to me that these problems did not show up in QA - unless that was rigged or not done, and I don't see the latter happening in a company like Samsung.
Something stinks here, and it's not just a burning battery.
-
Tuesday 11th October 2016 12:53 GMT Dave 126
Re: Sabotage ???
>That said, sabotage is not as unlikely as I first thought, because given the volume it is inconceivable to me that these problems did not show up in QA - unless that was rigged or not done, and I don't see the latter happening in a company like Samsung.
Some pundits suggest the development of the Note 7 was sped up, in order to take advantage of the then upcoming (and predicted to be lacklustre) iPhone 7 launch.
-
-
Tuesday 11th October 2016 09:26 GMT Doctor_Wibble
Sweaty palms, define 'waterproof'?
Maybe it's the sweaty palms reacting to the waterproofing glue or because people are inadvertently rubbing sweat into the join (fnarr) - though the theory might fall down if they all explode from the same side regardless of handedness. Or it the stats haven't been collected on that, then obviously there's some kind of cover-up. Also when people whine about their exploding phone, you get to accuse them of sweaty-palm activities.
Less un-seriously, did their waterproofing tests include sweaty palms or just assume clean water and that someone would towel it off (fnarr, sorry) before use?