Samsung Will Remotely Kill All Unreturned Galaxy Note 7 Units This Month

Megalith

Megalith

24-bit/48kHz
Staff member
Joined
Aug 20, 2006
Messages
13,000
The scandalous phablet is truly finished, as Samsung plans to permanently handicap all Note 7 units that are still in the wild. A software update that prevents the phones from charging will be rolling out, which will practically make them unusable and merely a collector’s item.

The only way users will be able to use the handset after this update is by keeping it plugged into the wall at all times. The company has already released a similar update in markets like the United States where the last few remaining units were effectively taken out of circulation by disabling the ability to charge the battery. Another method Samsung adopted in certain countries was to work with mobile carriers to shut off mobile network access to the Galaxy Note 7.
 
Not saying that these phones should be swapped..

BUT....... curious... I take it there is no option to refuse updates?
 
It should not be forced if you buy something no one should be able to remotely kill it. If you keep uessing it and it blows up that is on you.
 
madweazl said:
Fear mongering? They're being responsible and preventing dipshits from continuing to use something that has a significant problem.
Click to expand...
Exactly this. Not to mention other problems, you know, blowing up flights, trains, etc. you know, causing more issues than just terrorism. No big...
 
I'm a bit confused with the article since Samsung pushed the update that disabled charging through AT&T on January 5. Is this a different update than the update released earlier?
 
piscian18 said:
Whatd you get for actually returning it? credit or a RMA note 7?
Click to expand...

Its a nightmare. Id say a good percentage of people cant even return the notes. Even if you can get through and get the baggie sent to you in the mail, and get a replacement phone from your carrier (or if you bought it outright, float $700 for god knows how long), some people cant even get the notes to the original country of purchase to return them, since no fly.
 
Rizen said:
Okay so we just wait until it blows up on an airplane or in someones home and people die, THEN we take action? Yeah, that seems responsible.
Click to expand...

Yes. In a free society that is EXACTLY what you do.

The spirit of America is that people have the right to do whatever they please. When it becomes a gross abuse of others we have penalties in place to deal with it AFTER the fact. I can't make a law that prevents you from burning down an apartment. I can only make laws that deal with you after you do so.

How many cases have there been? 10? 20?

Samsung said Monday that 96% of about 3 million Note 7 devices have been returned.
Click to expand...

20 out of 3 Million is a 0.000007% chance of doom. 96% of these phones have been removed from the market according to Samsung. And yet you still want to FORCE this legally purchased product to be made inoperable?

Freedom is dangerous. Oppression is safe.
 
This isn't an issue of government oppression LOL. Samsung is disabling the device, the police aren't breaking down your door to steal your phone.
 
Rizen said:
This isn't an issue of government oppression LOL. Samsung is disabling the device, the police aren't breaking down your door to steal your phone.
Click to expand...

For a forum that is so pro-consumer "rights", the idea that it's ok for a company to arbitrarily disable a product which consumers own is bewildering to me. This would be akin to during the whole Toyota Prius "unintended acceleration" fiasco, if Toyota sent out a patch over the radio waves that disabled the car. No questions. No rights, no legal objection, just disabled. For your safety. Even with the Volkswagen diesel thing, the car will always be completely usable, you may just not be able to register it some states.

I'm sorry, I just cannot get on board with the idea of companies, or anyone else, having the authority to permanently damage something, at their discretion, that I own. Ownership means something.

Oppression is not exclusive to government. But at the same time I don't see the government stepping and saying hold on. Elizabeth Warren prides herself on consumer protection, where is she?
 
westrock2000 said:
For a forum that is so pro-consumer "rights", the idea that it's ok for a company to arbitrarily disable a product which consumers own is bewildering to me. This would be akin to during the whole Toyota Prius "unintended acceleration" fiasco, if Toyota sent out a patch over the radio waves that disabled the car. No questions. No rights, no legal objection, just disabled. For your safety. Even with the Volkswagen diesel thing, the car will always be completely usable, you may just not be able to register it some states.

I'm sorry, I just cannot get on board with the idea of companies, or anyone else, having the authority to permanently damage something, at their discretion, that I own. Ownership means something.

Oppression is not exclusive to government. But at the same time I don't see the government stepping and saying hold on. Elizabeth Warren prides herself on consumer protection, where is she?
Click to expand...

Tell you what, how about instead of Samsung killing devices, irresponsible owners agree to accept liability for any deaths and damages that result from keeping it. Manslaughter charges would be nice.

Samsung are doing what needs to be done to protect the public from stupid dipshits who think using a phone is more important than someones safety.

Samsung are not in the wrong, they are offering exchanges, refunds etc. Its the users fault if they are too stupid to take it up.

It does not matter how small the percentage is, the device has a design flaw that will get worse with age and must be recalled.
 
This shouldn't even be an argument. The fact that people think they should be able to keep their defective possibly exploding phone just because they paid for it is moronic. Samsung is offering returns, almost every cell carrier is offering returns. There is no excuse for keeping such a dangerous device. You think Samsung wants to be the product of every lawsuit for someones death or home burning down or having a 3rd degree burn on their thigh because irresponsible electronic owners said they want to keep it? Not to mention the horrible PR they've already received, they don't need that coming up again in the future.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rizen
like this
aokman said:
Tell you what, how about instead of Samsung killing devices, irresponsible owners agree to accept liability for any deaths and damages that result from keeping it. Manslaughter charges would be nice.

Samsung are doing what needs to be done to protect the public from stupid dipshits who think using a phone is more important than someones safety.

Samsung are not in the wrong, they are offering exchanges, refunds etc. Its the users fault if they are too stupid to take it up.

It does not matter how small the percentage is, the device has a design flaw that will get worse with age and must be recalled.
Click to expand...
Bingo, this ain't exactly rocket science.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rizen
like this
westrock2000 said:
Yes. In a free society that is EXACTLY what you do.

The spirit of America is that people have the right to do whatever they please.
Click to expand...

Completely agreed.

However, for this ideal to work as intended those same people have to also be willing to take responsibility for the things that they do. Unfortunately, it has been demonstrated over and over that people are NOT willing accept that responsibility.

Let's assume that someone to decides to keep their Note 7, against all advice and risk, and, in a repeat incident, their Note 7 explodes and burns their car to cinders. We know their car insurance won't cover it, thanks to the owner keeping their recalled Note 7 in the car against multiple warnings. This means the owner is now on the hook for buying a new car, which they may or may not be able to afford.

In the ideal scenario the owner would bite the bullet, accept that they fucked up, and go about buying a new car or going without one (temporarily or permanently). No punitive measures will be taken since only the owner was inconvenienced, but this still fits with the "spirit" of freedom. The owner took a risk, lost, and suffered the consequences. His neighbors will see what he did and use him as an example of what not to do the future. Awesome.

Except, in the real world, this is not the most likely scenario. Instead, the owner will be angry, frustrated, and unwilling to take on the significant expense of obtaining a new vehicle (if they're able to at all).

If they're creative, they'll go through the usual mental gymnastics of trying to justify why they shouldn't be responsible for what happened. In this case, Samsung should never have allowed him to keep such a dangerous device (cheerfully and willfully ignoring all the warnings and recall notices that went out). So, clearly, this is Samsung's responsibility, so they should be the ones to pay for the damage. The owner will file a lawsuit, forcing Samsung to react and further tarnishing their company image.

If they're NOT creative, all it will take is some lawyer looking for a payday to approach them, tell them they can join this class action lawsuit they set up with other Note 7 owners (who also ignored the warnings and recalls, which won't be mentioned), and potentially walk away with a big fat check (90% of which will go to the lawyer, which won't be mentioned). The lawyer will file the class action, forcing Samsung to react and further tarnishing their company image.

This has happened over and over and over. We see commentary on such incidences all the time on this very forum. People won't take responsibility if they don't have to. This is incompatible with the "spirit" of freedom that we all SHOULD be respecting.

Freedom is dangerous. Oppression is safe.
Click to expand...

Freedom isn't free. The problem is that too many people aren't willing to pay the price for it.
 
On a different, note (hehe). I wonder if these deactivated, or perhaps pre-deactivated, Note 7's could be picked up dirt cheap and have their batteries replaced and software hacked by XDA, etc. to avoid the shutdown. I doubt it, but really the entire hazard would be completely avoided by simply installing a slightly smaller battery to allow the necessary expansion room.
 
Samsung has gone above above and beyond "good faith" in trying to fix the problem. I do not see any court finding them reasonably in the wrong. I greatly commend their actions up until the point of disabling the device. I'm even totally fine with the device being banned from any US carrier. It can still be used even if not on a cellular network.

A consumer can purchase and replace the battery on the Note 7. It's the battery itself that is the issue, not the phone. Samsung is affecting the phone, not the battery.

 
westrock2000 said:
Samsung has gone above above and beyond "good faith" in trying to fix the problem. I do not see any court finding them reasonably in the wrong. I greatly commend their actions up until the point of disabling the device. I'm even totally fine with the device being banned from any US carrier. It can still be used even if not on a cellular network.

A consumer can purchase and replace the battery on the Note 7. It's the battery itself that is the issue, not the phone. Samsung is affecting the phone, not the battery.
Click to expand...
It was phone design in relation to battery placement. Any direct replacements would be subject to the same issue (just like the attempted fix from Samsung the first time). I don’t disagree that the device killing is bad, but there is no way Samsung can completely absolve itself from liability until they're all gone.

On a personal note, if I designed a product that killed someone or could bring down a plane I would feel pretty responsible for each action and do Everything in my power to prevent it from happening.

Anyone smart enough to replace the battery with one that is safe to it's design can probably custom rom it and work around it.
 
tunatime said:
It should not be forced if you buy something no one should be able to remotely kill it. If you keep uessing it and it blows up that is on you.
Click to expand...
No, it's also on other people. What if it happens while you drive? While you're in an apartment? Elevator?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top