Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.mobile.android > #35220 > unrolled thread

Samsung just recalled the Galaxy Note 7 without using the word recall

Back to article view | Back to comp.mobile.android

Contents

  Samsung just recalled the Galaxy Note 7 without using the word recall Enzo Dubois <EnzoDubois2@bouyguestelecom.fr> - 2016-10-11 02:36 +0200
    Re: Samsung just recalled the Galaxy Note 7 without using the word recall JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2016-10-10 21:43 -0400
    Re: Samsung just recalled the Galaxy Note 7 without using the word recall Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2016-10-11 08:15 +0000
      Re: Samsung just recalled the Galaxy Note 7 without using the word recall nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-10-11 13:03 -0400
        Re: Samsung just recalled the Galaxy Note 7 without using the word recall Adrian Caspersz <email@here.invalid> - 2016-10-13 23:00 +0100
      Re: Samsung just recalled the Galaxy Note 7 without using the word recall "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-10-12 04:44 +1100
      Re: Samsung just recalled the Galaxy Note 7 without using the word recall Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2016-10-11 22:49 +0000
        Re: Samsung just recalled the Galaxy Note 7 without using the word recall Algeria Horan <algeriahoran@algeriahoran.net> - 2016-10-11 22:57 +0000
      Re: Samsung just recalled the Galaxy Note 7 without using the word recall JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2016-10-11 22:29 -0400
        Re: Samsung just recalled the Galaxy Note 7 without using the word recall "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-10-12 17:31 +1100
        Re: Samsung just recalled the Galaxy Note 7 without using the word recall Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2016-10-12 09:30 +0100
          Re: Samsung just recalled the Galaxy Note 7 without using the word recall nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-10-12 11:40 -0400
          Re: Samsung just recalled the Galaxy Note 7 without using the word recall Algeria Horan <algeriahoran@algeriahoran.net> - 2016-10-12 19:11 +0000
            Re: Samsung just recalled the Galaxy Note 7 without using the word recall Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2016-10-12 20:38 +0100
              Re: Samsung just recalled the Galaxy Note 7 without using the word recall Algeria Horan <algeriahoran@algeriahoran.net> - 2016-10-12 21:14 +0000
      Re: Samsung just recalled the Galaxy Note 7 without using the word recall "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> - 2016-10-12 19:58 +0200
        Re: Samsung just recalled the Galaxy Note 7 without using the word recall nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-10-12 14:21 -0400
          Re: Samsung just recalled the Galaxy Note 7 without using the word recall Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2016-10-12 20:23 +0000
            Re: Samsung just recalled the Galaxy Note 7 without using the word recall nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-10-12 16:43 -0400
            Re: Samsung just recalled the Galaxy Note 7 without using the word recall Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2016-10-12 21:50 +0100
              Re: Samsung just recalled the Galaxy Note 7 without using the word recall Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2016-10-13 06:32 +0000
          Re: Samsung just recalled the Galaxy Note 7 without using the word recall JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2016-10-13 02:55 -0400
            Re: Samsung just recalled the Galaxy Note 7 without using the word recall Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2016-10-13 08:23 +0000
            Re: Samsung just recalled the Galaxy Note 7 without using the word recall "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-10-13 19:34 +1100
            Re: Samsung just recalled the Galaxy Note 7 without using the word recall nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-10-13 07:45 -0400
              Re: Samsung just recalled the Galaxy Note 7 without using the word recall Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2016-10-13 06:19 -0700
                Re: Samsung just recalled the Galaxy Note 7 without using the word recall nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-10-13 11:22 -0400
                Re: Samsung just recalled the Galaxy Note 7 without using the word recall "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-10-14 03:55 +1100
              Re: Samsung just recalled the Galaxy Note 7 without using the word recall JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2016-10-14 02:37 -0400
                Re: Samsung just recalled the Galaxy Note 7 without using the word recall "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-10-14 20:12 +1100
                Re: Samsung just recalled the Galaxy Note 7 without using the word recall nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-10-14 11:57 -0400
                  Re: Samsung just recalled the Galaxy Note 7 without using the word recall JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2016-10-14 13:35 -0400
                    Re: Samsung just recalled the Galaxy Note 7 without using the word recall Algeria Horan <algeriahoran@algeriahoran.net> - 2016-10-14 19:08 +0000
                      Re: Samsung just recalled the Galaxy Note 7 without using the word recall "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-10-15 10:51 +1100
                        Re: Samsung just recalled the Galaxy Note 7 without using the word recall tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> - 2016-10-14 21:47 -0400
                          Re: Samsung just recalled the Galaxy Note 7 without using the word recall "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-10-15 13:49 +1100

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#35220 — Samsung just recalled the Galaxy Note 7 without using the word recall

Samsung just recalled the Galaxy Note 7 without using the word recall
http://www.theverge.com/2016/10/10/13236532/samsung-galaxy-note-7-stop-sale-recall

"Samsung will ask all carrier and retail partners globally to stop sales
and exchanges of the Galaxy Note 7 ... Consumers with an original Galaxy
Note 7 or replacement Galaxy Note 7 should power down and take advantage of
the remedies available, including a refund at their place of purchase."

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news@netfront.net ---

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#35222

On 2016-10-10 20:36, Enzo Dubois wrote:
> Samsung just recalled the Galaxy Note 7 without using the word recall
> http://www.theverge.com/2016/10/10/13236532/samsung-galaxy-note-7-stop-sale-recall

Canadian statement:

“At Samsung Canada we remain committed to working diligently with
regulatory authorities, carriers and our retail partners to take all
necessary steps to resolve the situation. Canadian consumers with either
an original Galaxy Note7 or replacement Galaxy Note7 device should power
down and stop using the device. Details of the remedies available for
Note7 customers, which will include a full refund at their place of
purchase, will be announced shortly. For more information, Canadian
consumers should contact 1-800-SAMSUNG.”

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#35228

Enzo Dubois <EnzoDubois2@bouyguestelecom.fr> wrote:
> Samsung just recalled the Galaxy Note 7 without using the word recall
> http://www.theverge.com/2016/10/10/13236532/samsung-galaxy-note-7-stop-sale-recall
> 
> "Samsung will ask all carrier and retail partners globally to stop sales
> and exchanges of the Galaxy Note 7 ... Consumers with an original Galaxy
> Note 7 or replacement Galaxy Note 7 should power down and take advantage of
> the remedies available, including a refund at their place of purchase."

Ouch. That's going hurt Samsung.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#35238

In article <nti73u$kck$2@dont-email.me>, Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com>
wrote:

> > Samsung just recalled the Galaxy Note 7 without using the word recall
> >
> > http://www.theverge.com/2016/10/10/13236532/samsung-galaxy-note-7-stop-sale-
> > recall
> > 
> > "Samsung will ask all carrier and retail partners globally to stop sales
> > and exchanges of the Galaxy Note 7 ... Consumers with an original Galaxy
> > Note 7 or replacement Galaxy Note 7 should power down and take advantage of
> > the remedies available, including a refund at their place of purchase."
> 
> Ouch. That's going hurt Samsung.

going to hurt even more:

<https://techcrunch.com/2016/10/11/samsung-kills-the-galaxy-note-7-for-g
ood/>
  Update: Samsung has now provided the following statement to
  TechCrunch:

  For the benefit of consumers¹ safety, we stopped sales and exchanges
  of the Galaxy Note7 and have consequently decided to stop production.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#35301

On 11/10/16 18:03, nospam wrote:

>   Update: Samsung has now provided the following statement to
>   TechCrunch:
>
>   For the benefit of consumers¹ safety, we stopped sales and exchanges
>   of the Galaxy Note7 and have consequently decided to stop production.
>

Update: (allegedly)

"We have decided to issue advice that users concerned about their phone 
randomly exploding, should place the device in a bucket of water and 
return it straight back to the place of purchase"

-- 
Adrian C

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#35240

"Chris" <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:nti73u$kck$2@dont-email.me...
> Enzo Dubois <EnzoDubois2@bouyguestelecom.fr> wrote:
>> Samsung just recalled the Galaxy Note 7 without using the word recall
>> http://www.theverge.com/2016/10/10/13236532/samsung-galaxy-note-7-stop-sale-recall
>>
>> "Samsung will ask all carrier and retail partners globally to stop sales
>> and exchanges of the Galaxy Note 7 ... Consumers with an original Galaxy
>> Note 7 or replacement Galaxy Note 7 should power down and take advantage 
>> of
>> the remedies available, including a refund at their place of purchase."
>
> Ouch. That's going hurt Samsung.

Current gestimate is $17B now that it has been cancelled permanently. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#35246

In message <nti73u$kck$2@dont-email.me> 
  Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:
> Enzo Dubois <EnzoDubois2@bouyguestelecom.fr> wrote:
>> Samsung just recalled the Galaxy Note 7 without using the word recall
>> http://www.theverge.com/2016/10/10/13236532/samsung-galaxy-note-7-stop-sale-recall
>> 
>> "Samsung will ask all carrier and retail partners globally to stop sales
>> and exchanges of the Galaxy Note 7 ... Consumers with an original Galaxy
>> Note 7 or replacement Galaxy Note 7 should power down and take advantage of
>> the remedies available, including a refund at their place of purchase."

> Ouch. That's going hurt Samsung.

Karma for wholesale copying of the iPhone, that's what it is.


-- 
What would be the point of cyphering messages that very clever enemies
couldn't break? You'd end up not knowing what they thought you thought
they were thinking... --The Fifth Elephant

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#35247

On Tue, 11 Oct 2016 22:49:04 -0000 (UTC), Lewis wrote:

> Karma for wholesale copying of the iPhone, that's what it is.

I was unaware that Samsung halted production "permanently" (I had thought
it was only temporary), although Samsung apparently did copy the iPhone
(based on the most recent Supreme Court actions), so, perhaps it is Karma.

Now about that Google phone.... 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#35254

On 2016-10-11 04:15, Chris wrote:

> Ouch. That's going hurt Samsung.

The Note 7 is basically dead as a product. And because Samsung hard
glued the battery onto casing, recycling will not yield much value. And
from what I read, the recyling outfits that have to deal with glued
batteries tend to have a lot of fires (due to batteries).


Ironic that it was just a year or two ago that Samnung had replaceable
batteries and had ads mocking iPhone users without them, needing to sit
on floors at airports to recharge (wall huggers).


The danger here is that it took decades to have airlines OK the use of
electronic devices in flight and this may get much worse if they must be
turned off during flight AND all power outlets removed (since recharging
is one of the problem areas with those batteries).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#35255

"JF Mezei" <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote in message 
news:57fda029$0$25211$c3e8da3$e408f015@news.astraweb.com...
> On 2016-10-11 04:15, Chris wrote:
>
>> Ouch. That's going hurt Samsung.
>
> The Note 7 is basically dead as a product. And because Samsung hard
> glued the battery onto casing, recycling will not yield much value. And
> from what I read, the recyling outfits that have to deal with glued
> batteries tend to have a lot of fires (due to batteries).
>
>
> Ironic that it was just a year or two ago that Samnung had replaceable
> batteries and had ads mocking iPhone users without them, needing to sit
> on floors at airports to recharge (wall huggers).

> The danger here is that it took decades to have
> airlines OK the use of electronic devices in flight

For other reasons.

> and this may get much worse if they must be turned
> off during flight AND all power outlets removed (since
> recharging is one of the problem areas with those batteries).

Taint gunna happen. Its easy enough to use
a fire extinguisher if the phone does catch fire. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#35257

JF Mezei wrote:

> The Note 7 is basically dead as a product.

What is so specific about the Note7's battery that makes it more 
vulnerable to catching fire?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#35263

In article <e66ak9FhrbpU1@mid.individual.net>, Andy Burns
<usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:

> 
> > The Note 7 is basically dead as a product.
> 
> What is so specific about the Note7's battery that makes it more 
> vulnerable to catching fire?

nobody knows yet and samsung ain't talking.

it's suspected that it's something in the charging circuitry, because
the same battery manufacturers make batteries for many other devices,
including other samsung phones.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#35273

On Wed, 12 Oct 2016 09:30:20 +0100, Andy Burns wrote:

> What is so specific about the Note7's battery that makes it more 
> vulnerable to catching fire?

I read every article I could find on that topic yesterday.
The jury is still out on what the cause is.

Samsung put "hundreds" of testers on the task and they have not reported
any results to the media, although leaked documents said that the testers
were told to NOT use electronic media (e.g., email) while communicating,
which is clearly an issue for regulators to ponder in the future.

Meanwhile, the pundits claim that maybe they stuff a little too much
battery into too small a space, by compromising on the insulation between
the plates. 

Noting that most of the just under a hundred cases in the US happened when
the phone was on slow charge, and noticing that the initial VW-like fix by
Samsung was to prevent charging higher than 60%, some pundits theorized
that crystals that normally form during the charging process "punctured"
the "too thin" insulation, causing shorts between the anode and cathode.

Most intimated that the "rush" to out engineer Apple caused some kind of
manufacturing screwup, and all noted that Samsung switched battery makers
at one point, after testers noticed irregularities in "pressure"
(especially at the corners) which may have increased the chance of the
plates short circuiting through the thin insulation.

That's all off-the-cuff from what I gleaned reading up on it yesterday, but
the net is that Samsung intimated what the problem was, switched batteries,
and then killed the project - so - at this point - Samsung isn't saying.

Here are two representative references, one from yesterday and the other
from a month ago:

Here's why Samsung Note 7 phones are catching fire (October 10)
https://www.cnet.com/news/why-is-samsung-galaxy-note-7-exploding-overheating/

Samsung Explains What Went Wrong With the Galaxy Note 7 Battery (in Sept)
http://wccftech.com/samsung-galaxy-note-7-battery-explanation/

Here's a new one from today (that I haven't read yet):
3 theories that explain what might have caused the Galaxy Note 7 to explode
http://bgr.com/2016/10/12/galaxy-note-7-battery-explosions/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#35276

Algeria Horan wrote:

> the initial VW-like fix by
> Samsung was to prevent charging higher than 60%

I didn't realise that was the first [attempted] fix.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#35280

On Wed, 12 Oct 2016 20:38:18 +0100, Andy Burns wrote:

> I didn't realise that was the first [attempted] fix.

Yeah, this article says that they, at first, thought the batteries from
their first supplier were "too large", causing them to "crimp the corner".
http://bgr.com/2016/10/12/galaxy-note-7-battery-explosions/

So they changed batteries from Samsung SDI to batteries from the TDK
subsidiary, Amperex Technology. Bloomberg said the second set of batteries
had a different flaw than the first set.

This article explains the software patch that only allows charging to 60%:
http://www.theverge.com/2016/9/13/12900970/samsung-note-7-patch-software-bad-battery
Samsung software patch for Note 7 caps charge at 60 percent

Time will tell as to the real reason, but, the net is that this one iPhone
killer is off the table (luckily, two more are in hot pursuit). 

The great news is that hardware competition causes manufacturers to build
better devices - the bad news is that they can't push the technology too
far.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#35271

On Tue, 11 Oct 2016 08:15:59 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote:

> Ouch. That's going hurt Samsung.

According to some, it won't hurt them one bit.

-- 
s|b

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#35272

In article <e67btcFq5v6U3@mid.individual.net>, s|b <me@privacy.invalid>
wrote:

> 
> > Ouch. That's going hurt Samsung.
> 
> According to some, it won't hurt them one bit.

they'd be wrong. 

it will definitely hurt, but they'll recover, especially since they
make other products than just phones, such as washing machines.

oh wait. those explode too:
<http://money.cnn.com/2016/09/28/news/samsung-cpsc-washing-machine-explo
sion-reports/index.html>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#35277

In message <121020161421440132%nospam@nospam.invalid> 
  nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <e67btcFq5v6U3@mid.individual.net>, s|b <me@privacy.invalid>
> wrote:

>> 
>> > Ouch. That's going hurt Samsung.
>> 
>> According to some, it won't hurt them one bit.

> they'd be wrong. 

The have already announce a drop of $3 billion this quarter.

That doesn't account for the increased marketing costs they will incur
to try to make people forget about exploding phones when they release
the next Note (whatever it is called, I suspect the Note name is dead).


-- 
This is our music from the bachelor's den, the sound of loneliness
turned up to ten. A harsh soundtrack from a stagnant waterbed and it
sounds just like this. This is the sound of someone losing the plot
making out that they're OK when they're not. You're gonna like it, but
not a lot. And the chorus goes like this...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#35278

In article <slrnnvt6v0.2pr.g.kreme@snow.local>, Lewis
<g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

> >> 
> >> > Ouch. That's going hurt Samsung.
> >> 
> >> According to some, it won't hurt them one bit.
> 
> > they'd be wrong. 
> 
> The have already announce a drop of $3 billion this quarter.
> 
> That doesn't account for the increased marketing costs they will incur
> to try to make people forget about exploding phones when they release
> the next Note

yep.

> (whatever it is called, I suspect the Note name is dead).

quite likely. 

what will probably happen is samsung will copy apple (yet again) and
call it next year's models the galaxy s8 and s8 plus.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#35279

Lewis wrote:

> increased marketing costs they will incur to try to make people
> forget about exploding phones when they release the next Note
> (whatever it is called, I suspect the Note name is dead).

I've seen people in other groups confusing S7/S7Edge devices with Note7 
devices.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.mobile.android

csiph-web