Related
So, I have a new Note7 with the green battery icon (yuck) and life is good. I have a flight in about 2 weeks. It's not super long, but around 4 hours. I usually enjoy using my phone to read, listen to white noise, or watch some shows. Has anyone flown since the recall? Can I expect pushback from the security or airline staff? Has anyone actually had to turn theirs off even though they have the ugly, green icon?
I guess I'll probably grab and old-fashioned book just in case, but was just wondering what the state-of-affairs is like in the air for us now.
I've flown with my replacement, and there was no issue. No one asked about it at any point. I have a case on it, so it doesn't stand out to most people as anything other than the countless other phones they see each day.
Nobody will know what phone you have. They might announce on the plane "if you have a Note 7, please turn it off" but they don't check everyone's phone to see what model it is. Just use it.
It's not a security issue, and the TSA is clueless anyway, so they won't know or care what phone you have.
Sounds good. I know I'm not putting anyone in danger, so I won't bring any attention to myself or my phone. I did call Southwest, and the lady on the phone told me per regulation I would not be able to power it up; however, I doubt anyone is going to say anything. I'll probably avoid pulling out the S-Pen just in case. That really sort of announces you are using a Note series phone.
As a Pilot with Air Canada there was an initial memo on the Note 7. The service directors do make a P.A.
There has been no update since saying what battery to look for etc. There has been no new directive from Transport Canada, or the FAA regarding new models.
That said, I have my new one and am on day 1 of my 4 day pairing with it.
Sent from my SM-N930W8 using Tapatalk
I flew to/from Vegas last week with the defective model. Their announcement was "if you have the galaxy 7 (verbatim) please power it off for the duration of the flight"
They have no clue. You could tell them it's the new iphone and they still wouldn't know the difference.
I've confronted Samsung with the FAA advisory and haven't gotten an answer yet. My demand was that the replacement phone be marked clearly on the exterior or the phone be renamed, like Note 7s or something.
Instead I've gotten an identically looking replacement. I've sent a followup mail to the support. Let's wait and see.
Meanwhile to me the device is utterly useless for flying, thus it rests in its original box.
I seriously hope that Samsung is in contact with the FAA at all regarding this issue, because if not they might as well have a second wave of replacements on their hands.
i flew about a week and a half ago. i don't myself have a note 7 but i do remember 1 out of 4 boarding gates did make an announcement if u have a note 7 they "ask" it to be powered down. nothing saying it was mandatory. i would think tsa would have to be involved at security check in. they are the only ones who will physically see everyones phones. that will cause a huge problem because lots of people have no idea how to tell what kind of phone u have. they would be holding up everyone with a samsung phone no matter what version it is
MrBaltazar said:
I flew to/from Vegas last week with the defective model. Their announcement was "if you have the galaxy 7 (verbatim) please power it off for the duration of the flight"
They have no clue. You could tell them it's the new iphone and they still wouldn't know the difference.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I think we were on the same flight. Lol
They don't have a clue. I used mine the whole flight. Texting, listening to music, watching a movie and reading magazines.
Sent from my SM-N930V using Tapatalk
Three out of four legs on a Delta flight last week mentioned it.
And now I have my reply from Samsung: They don't care about the FAA advisory. They are stating that the green battery icon, they put in the software is enough.
Heck you could get that stupid icon by installing a theme or a ROM if you so wish.
I don't know how Samsung believes it's seriously competing with anyone, let alone Apple, with that kind of customer service.
MrBaltazar said:
I flew to/from Vegas last week with the defective model. Their announcement was "if you have the galaxy 7 (verbatim) please power it off for the duration of the flight"
They have no clue. You could tell them it's the new iphone and they still wouldn't know the difference.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That pretty much sums it all up in one sentence. It's all one big farce!
.
MrBaltazar said:
I flew to/from Vegas last week with the defective model. Their announcement was "if you have the galaxy 7 (verbatim) please power it off for the duration of the flight"
They have no clue. You could tell them it's the new iphone and they still wouldn't know the difference.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes, these air crew people are truly dumb. Expecting their customers to care and give a crap about air safety, I mean who cares what happens at 11,000M?
They will be supplying baby sitters next despite the fact we don't all need one.
Ryland
Ryland Johnson said:
Yes, these air crew people are truly dumb. Expecting their customers to care and give a crap about air safety, I mean who cares what happens at 11,000M?
They will be supplying baby sitters next despite the fact we don't all need one. [emoji14]
Ryland
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
They allow people to get very drunk on an aircraft and that in my opinion is far more dangerous than my Note 7 will ever be.
.
Sent from my SM-N930F using Tapatalk
apprentice said:
They allow people to get very drunk on an aircraft
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No, that's not allowed (although it does happen occasionally).
and that in my opinion is far more dangerous than my Note 7 will ever be.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Drunk people aren't known for catching fire. Planes have crashed due to onboard fires. Has a plane ever crashed because of a drunk passenger?
Gary02468 said:
No, that's not allowed (although it does happen occasionally).
Drunk people aren't known for catching fire. Planes have crashed due to onboard fires. Has a plane ever crashed because of a drunk passenger?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It's quite possible an intoxicated passenger has caused a crash. Some air crash investigations are inconclusive. We'll never know. Drunk people aren't allowed to board a plane (though a lot get through) but people do become drunk on board and planes often have to divert/land to remove a drunk passenger because they are putting the safety of the aircraft at risk. So I stand by my first point firmly.
Fires cause plane crashes yes, but how many are due to someone's phone? Why has the Note 7 been singled out? The issue has been resolved and the actual (genuine) cases of battery fires has been pretty small in perspective. Any device with a battery has a potential to catch fire, there have been many other devices that proved that. So if you going to ban a particular phone because of this tiny risk, then you need to start banning all battery powered devices. That includes cameras, laptops, music players etc. Something that an airline would never do because it would lose them fare paying passengers, money is more important than safety.
Sent from my SM-N930F using Tapatalk
apprentice said:
It's quite possible an intoxicated passenger has caused a crash. Some air crash investigations are inconclusive. We'll never know.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
We've got known crashes due to fires, vs. no known or even suspected crashes due to drunk passengers (but yes, as with almost anything, we'll "never know" beyond any possible doubt).
Drunk people aren't allowed to board a plane (though a lot get through) but people do become drunk on board and planes often have to divert/land to remove a drunk passenger because they are putting the safety of the aircraft at risk. So I stand by my first point firmly.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It is illegal to become drunk on an airliner, no matter how "firmly" you assert the contrary. Of course it does happen, but that doesn't mean it's permitted (murder happens too, even though it's prohibited).
Why has the Note 7 been singled out? The issue has been resolved and the actual (genuine) cases of battery fires has been pretty small in perspective. Any device with a battery has a potential to catch fire, there have been many other devices that proved that. So if you going to ban a particular phone because of this tiny risk, then you need to start banning all battery powered devices
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The pre-recall Note 7s were singled out because they caught fire at a rate 100 times greater than other devices. It's entirely reasonable to draw a line that says that that rate poses an unacceptable risk, while for other devices (including the post-recall Note 7s) the much-smaller risk is low enough to permit the devices.
Gary02468 said:
It is illegal to become drunk on an airliner, no matter how "firmly" you assert the contrary. Of course it does happen, but that doesn't mean it's permitted (murder happens too, even though it's prohibited).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I never once said "firmly" or otherwise that it wasn't illegal did I? I said a lot get through. I have witnessed it many times. What happens when someone becomes drunk during a flight? Do they say.. "That's illegal, lets open the door and kick you out?" Obviously not they have to let that passenger continue and consider more drastic actions if that passenger endangers the aircraft. Again this happens a lot. The emphasis on "Endangering"
Gary02468 said:
The pre-recall Note 7s were singled out because they caught fire at a rate 100 times greater than other devices. It's entirely reasonable to draw a line that says that that rate poses an unacceptable risk, while for other devices (including the post-recall Note 7s) the much-smaller risk is low enough to permit the devices
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Where did you get this 100 times figure from? How many genuine cases of fires were there? It is still a tiny risk, considering the amount of Note 7's produced, the probability of a passenger owning one, the probability that it will catch fire whilst not being charged or unattended, the probability that the owner has a replaced Note 7 anyway. This would be the same probability of another of the tens of thousands of battery powered devices carried on aircraft in any given day. So no, it's a knee jerk reaction from airlines and it's only become like that due to over inflated sensationilised news coverage and social media.
.
apprentice said:
I never once said "firmly" or otherwise that it wasn't illegal did I? I said a lot get through.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Oh come on. You said (falsely) that becoming drunk on board was "allowed", and you specifically contrasted that with boarding while drunk, which you acknowledged is not allowed even though people do get through. So you were obviously not using "allowed" to mean "forbidden but it still happens" (and even if you had been, pre-recall Note 7s are "allowed" in that sense too).
Where did you get this 100 times figure from?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Samsung acknowledged about 10 fires per week (even after filtering out the false reports) out of a million phones in use, which equates to more than 500 fires per year per million phones. Can you cite any other device with a combustion rate of more than 5 per year per million (other than hoverboards, which are also banned on airplanes)?
Gary02468 said:
Oh come on. You said (falsely) that becoming drunk on board was "allowed", and you specifically contrasted that with boarding while drunk, which you acknowledged is not allowed even though people do get through. So you were obviously not using "allowed" to mean "forbidden but it still happens" (and even if you had been, pre-recall Note 7s are "allowed" in that sense too).
Samsung acknowledged about 10 fires per week (even after filtering out the false reports) out of a million phones in use, which equates to more than 500 fires per year per million phones. Can you cite any other device with a combustion rate of more than 5 per year per million (other than hoverboards, which are also banned on airplanes)?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Jeez... did you go to the school of pedantic?? Your statement is really nit picking. I am not stupid, I do know it's illegal, what I was expressly implying was that even if just one person got on a plane drunk, they are effectively being allowed. OK? I was not suggesting for one minute that I disputed it wasn't legal.
In relation to your other facts, it's all pie in sky (no pun intended) over half a million Note 7's were replaced a week ago, so I am estimating in another week or so 90% or more of the batch will have been replaced. So I am saying the chances are miniscule of a Note 7 causing such an issue. It won't stop stupid people ranting about how dangerous this device is. People love to scaremonger and people love to knee jerk.
Block service: Urgent fw update and software update in your note.
Samsung is pushing a update that makes your note 7 unusable!
Confirmed by samsung holland..
Maybe package disable pro can do it...
I don't actually see this as a problem considering the devices have been recalled worldwide.
escobar035 said:
Block service: Urgent fw update and software update in your note.
Samsung is pushing a update that makes your note 7 unusable!
Confirmed by samsung holland..
Maybe package disable pro can do it...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Why would you want to prevent Samsung from disabling a dangerous device they sold? Have you not been offered a return of your cash by Samsung? IN a few months Samsung will release its S8 series then we can take a look at that.
I need someone to explain why its imperative to keep ownership of a dangerous device that has been recalled twice losing the company multi billions of euros?
Ryland
They need to ban the iPhone too. I mean who would be comfortable knowing someone was carrying a device so dangerous it has been REPORTED it spontaneously explodes even when off?
The iPhone is DANGEROUS people. Ban it! I read about it in the news:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-college-student-s-iPhone-explodes-class.html
The Phone Company said:
*snip*
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
{
"lightbox_close": "Close",
"lightbox_next": "Next",
"lightbox_previous": "Previous",
"lightbox_error": "The requested content cannot be loaded. Please try again later.",
"lightbox_start_slideshow": "Start slideshow",
"lightbox_stop_slideshow": "Stop slideshow",
"lightbox_full_screen": "Full screen",
"lightbox_thumbnails": "Thumbnails",
"lightbox_download": "Download",
"lightbox_share": "Share",
"lightbox_zoom": "Zoom",
"lightbox_new_window": "New window",
"lightbox_toggle_sidebar": "Toggle sidebar"
}
Ryland Johnson said:
Why would you want to prevent Samsung from disabling a dangerous device they sold? Have you not been offered a return of your cash by Samsung? IN a few months Samsung will release its S8 series then we can take a look at that.
I need someone to explain why its imperative to keep ownership of a dangerous device that has been recalled twice losing the company multi billions of euros?
Ryland
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It's not so much that it is imperative to keep ownership of these devices. It's the point that it is a voluntary recall, and Samsung sending out an update that disables these devices makes it a bit involuntary. Plus, if someone has paid the phone in full, don't they legally own it? For Samsung to disable it in that situation is a bit much I'd say. This is of course all regardless of whether it is a good idea to keep the phone or not, but that's not the discussion here.
The Phone Company said:
They need to ban the iPhone too. I mean who would be comfortable knowing someone was carrying a device so dangerous it has been REPORTED it spontaneously explodes even when off?
The iPhone is DANGEROUS people. Ban it! I read about it in the news:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-college-student-s-iPhone-explodes-class.html
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I have to fight one battle at a time. I am mourning the loss of my Note 7. I don't want to be rude and certainly not confrontational when I write I don't care if the fruity brand goes bust and ceases to trade, no concern of mine. What is of concern to me is my families welfare to that end I hope I don't see someone with a Note 7 on an aircraft or public transport.
Every opportunity has been offered to return this defective device. There are zero excuses if an owner keeps one and causes others damage.
Ryland
---------- Post added at 10:48 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:39 AM ----------
svache said:
It's not so much that it is imperative to keep ownership of these devices. It's the point that it is a voluntary recall, and Samsung sending out an update that disables these devices makes it a bit involuntary. Plus, if someone has paid the phone in full, don't they legally own it? For Samsung to disable it in that situation is a bit much I'd say. This is of course all regardless of whether it is a good idea to keep the phone or not, but that's not the discussion here.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
So its morally incorrect for Samsung to block the use of a defective dangerous device but not morally incorrect for us to use them in public? Double standards me thinks?
Samsung are NOT going to take away your device. You can still own one as long as the recall where you live is not[/U] official, its the carriers who will block the phone etc. Samsung will not honour further warranties nor offer updates.
Can you explain why you would not want to cooperate with Samsung over the recall?
Ryland
I just noticed you live in the USA where the recall is official.
Ryland Johnson said:
I have to fight one battle at a time. I am mourning the loss of my Note 7. I don't want to be rude and certainly not confrontational when I write I don't care if the fruity brand goes bust and ceases to trade, no concern of mine. What is of concern to me is my families welfare to that end I hope I don't see someone with a Note 7 on an aircraft or public transport.
Every opportunity has been offered to return this defective device. There are zero excuses if an owner keeps one and causes others damage.
Ryland
---------- Post added at 10:48 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:39 AM ----------
So its morally incorrect for Samsung to block the use of a defective dangerous device but not morally incorrect for us to use them in public? Double standards me thinks?
Samsung are NOT going to take away your device. You can still own one as long as the recall where you live is not[/U] official, its the carriers who will block the phone etc. Samsung will not honour further warranties nor offer updates.
Can you explain why you would not want to cooperate with Samsung over the recall?
Ryland
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
One good reason: I don't get my replacement phone until at least 10/28 because thats the day Pixel XL's ship.
svache said:
It's the point that it is a voluntary recall, and Samsung sending out an update that disables these devices makes it a bit involuntary.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It's not a voluntary recall in the United States since Thursday at 3PM Eastern time (October 13 2016), it's mandatory:
https://www.cpsc.gov/Recalls/2017/s...-Additional-Incidents-with-Replacement-Phones
If Samsung were to issue a "magic bullet" over the air that does brick/disable the Note 7 models that people are refusing to return as part of the worldwide recall process all that does is force the customers to do it anyway: they're not going to be happy with a dead/bricked device but they still have the option - even after all that BS they've gone through - to return it to Samsung and get a refund on their costs.
Again, I don't see a negative here.
Ryland Johnson said:
So its morally incorrect for Samsung to block the use of a defective dangerous device but not morally incorrect for us to use them in public? Double standards me thinks?
Samsung are NOT going to take away your device. You can still own one as long as the recall where you live is not[/U] official, its the carriers who will block the phone etc. Samsung will not honour further warranties nor offer updates.
Can you explain why you would not want to cooperate with Samsung over the recall?
Ryland
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No double standards at all. If I want to use the device in a fire proof bunker, then that would be totally up to me as long as this is a voluntary recall. Disabling the device makes it impossible to use it, and renders it to nothing but a paperweight. The double standard is there when Samsung disables the device while you own it and calls it "voluntary".
Nobody is saying anything about not cooperating. As a matter of fact, my own and the wifes are both going back sometime early this coming week. But this isn't about that, this is about Samsung possibly disabling a device, rendering it useless while people may have paid over 800 bucks for it.
svache said:
But this isn't about that, this is about Samsung possibly disabling a device, rendering it useless while people may have paid over 800 bucks for it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I just covered that aspect in the post right above yours.
br0adband said:
It's not a voluntary recall in the United States since Thursday at 3PM Eastern time (October 13 2016), it's mandatory:
https://www.cpsc.gov/Recalls/2017/s...-Additional-Incidents-with-Replacement-Phones
If Samsung were to issue a "magic bullet" over the air that does brick/disable the Note 7 models that people are refusing to return as part of the worldwide recall process all that does is force the customers to do it anyway: they're not going to be happy with a dead/bricked device but they still have the option - even after all that BS they've gone through - to return it to Samsung and get a refund on their costs.
Again, I don't see a negative here.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Where do you read that it is mandatory?
Please, read the small prints at the CPSC site, there's a whole article on the matter. But in short, it is a manufacturer initiated recall, making it voluntary. It is not the CPSC that initiated it, which otherwise would make it mandatory.
PhoenixJedi said:
One good reason: I don't get my replacement phone until at least 10/28 because thats the day Pixel XL's ship.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Okay. I can see you are, like me, upset about the loss of your Note 7. I get it I truly do.
It is fine for you to take a pee in your own home swimming pool. You paid for it your water blah blah however, when you visit your local public swimming pool and despite the fact you pay an entrance fee is it okay for you to pee in your public swimming pool even though you have paid for entrance?
I hope your answer to that is no? Its no longer a question of morality when an action we make jeopardises the health and safety of the community we share and live in.
There is another post on this forum where a father and mother have returned their Note 7's as they have a young child in the house. Some call that stupidity I call that responsibility.
Providing you don't endanger others I don't have any objection to another person owning a Note 7. I fear that scenario in real life doesn't exist though?
Ryland
Ryland Johnson said:
Okay. I can see you are, like me, upset about the loss of your Note 7. I get it I truly do.
It is fine for you to take a pee in your own home swimming pool. You paid for it your water blah blah however, when you visit your local public swimming pool and despite the fact you pay an entrance fee is it okay for you to pee in your public swimming pool even though you have paid for entrance?
I hope your answer to that is no? Its no longer a question of morality when an action we make jeopardises the health and safety of the community we share and live in.
There is another post on this forum where a father and mother have returned their Note 7's as they have a young child in the house. Some call that stupidity I call that responsibility.
Providing you don't endanger others I don't have any objection to another person owning a Note 7. I fear that scenario in real life doesn't exist though?
Ryland
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
To take your analogy for a moment, it wouldn't be up to the water company to stop delivering water if he wanted to pee in the water of a public pool, though. That's a bit the issue I'm having with Samsung if they do this. I totally agree with you on the other points, but I also feel Samsung shouldn't be doing that next step.
Ryland Johnson said:
Okay. I can see you are, like me, upset about the loss of your Note 7. I get it I truly do.
It is fine for you to take a pee in your own home swimming pool. You paid for it your water blah blah however, when you visit your local public swimming pool and despite the fact you pay an entrance fee is it okay for you to pee in your public swimming pool even though you have paid for entrance?
I hope your answer to that is no? Its no longer a question of morality when an action we make jeopardises the health and safety of the community we share and live in.
There is another post on this forum where a father and mother have returned their Note 7's as they have a young child in the house. Some call that stupidity I call that responsibility.
Providing you don't endanger others I don't have any objection to another person owning a Note 7. I fear that scenario in real life doesn't exist though?
Ryland
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Here's the thing. The phones that verizon is offering as possible replacements (top of the line units) that you can switch the note 7 with include the iPhone 7, Pixel, Pixel XL, V20, S7, S7 Edge and a few others. Three of those phones are not out yet, therefore the Note 7 should not be allowed to be killed off until such a time as it HAS been replaced by the company with another phone. I get it, the phone can be dangerous, but people have lives and they've only given us ONE upgrade to replace it with. Why force people to waste it on a device they're not going to want when there are three brand new devices coming out that are eligable as replacement coming out?
svache said:
It's the point that it is a voluntary recall
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
About the possible "voluntary" term misunderstanding... maybe you and others missed this explicative post about this definition:
notefreak said:
Why do people think voluntary recall is any less serious?
"Most recalls of defective products are characterized as “voluntary,” a confusing term that can lead consumers to believe that the recall is optional. But voluntary recall is just government-speak for a deal that a manufacturer or retailer of a hazardous product has negotiated with the federal agency in charge of overseeing the safety of that product category. Voluntary recall would also seem to indicate that there are “mandatory recalls” that can be issued by the government should manufacturers or retailers refuse to cooperate, but nearly all the recalls announced last year were voluntary.
In light of this definition, consumers affected by this (or any other) recall should never assume voluntary implies:
less urgency for the need to comply with the recall, or that the recall is a preliminary measure taken by the company strictly out of an abundance of caution, i.e. that it would not otherwise be mandated by the regulating authority.
Do not be confused by the language: it is absolutely imperative that you take action and comply with the recall as soon as possible if you haven’t done so already."
This is from food safety site, but definition stands.
Aldo regarding liability:
"In some cases, a firm or company may initiate a recall voluntarily—meaning without a mandate from the CPSC. Such recalls are often the product of a negotiation between the product manufacturer/retailer with the federal agency that oversees their product category’s safety. Almost all announced recalls are voluntary. Voluntary product recalls are considered to be safeguards against potential lawsuits and sticky legal situations."
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showpost.php?p=69116188&postcount=21
To sum up:
voluntary means that the recall has been asked "voluntarily" by a manufacturer/seller (Samsung in this case)
mandatory means that an authority has imposed the recall on a manufacturer/seller
Therefore the "voluntary" has nothing to do with a possible customer's option to comply or not with the recall!
I hope these 2 terms are more clear now...
For Samsung, bottom line is that with all the commentary here and elsewhere of folks insisting they will keep the device regardless, they've little choice but to force an update to ensure the unit is disabled. Sure it will upset some owners and may lose them a few customers, but it is the right thing for them to do given the situation. What the folks shouting about keeping them they aren't seeming to care about the risk they will be placing other innocent parties under.
Sure I liked the 7 overall, only -ve for me was the edge glass, I've been in since the original note-1 came out. Mine is sat in its box waiting to be shipped back and I've switched to SIM only and reverted back to the note-3 until something better than current offerings are available. For me it makes no sense at all to hold onto the 7 even if they were not actively disabled by an update/IMEI block. No way am I prepared to take the risk of it failing while I am driving/travelling, am with my family/friends or at work, thereby putting other lives at risk.
Bit like driving drunk really, sure you may be ok and get home safely 98% of the time, but that one time when you don't, how many others got hurt and who's fault was it, the maker of the alcohol, the publican who served you, or you yourself for exercising poor judgement?
If you do continue to keep the device and go the custom ROM route to try to evade disable measures, you are fully and personally liable for whatever transpires thereafter. Can you really afford to compensate an airline for the loss of an aircraft? All the families for their loss? The cost of search and recovery operations?
Bear in mind too that just being there with a note-7 may lead to being implicated even if the device was not the initial cause, just because it's a known hazard and you hadn't returned it...
themissionimpossible said:
About the possible "voluntary" term misunderstanding... maybe you and others missed this explicative post about this definition:
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showpost.php?p=69116188&postcount=21
To sum up:
voluntary means that the recall has been asked "voluntarily" by a manufacturer/seller (Samsung in this case)
mandatory means that an authority has imposed the recall on a manufacturer/seller
Therefore the "voluntary" has nothing to do with a possible customer's option to comply or not with the recall!
I hope these 2 terms are more clear now...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thanks, reading that I think there may indeed a bit of a misunderstanding on both sides.
The rest of what I said still stands, though. While I agree people would be best to comply with the situation, I feel it should not be up to Samsung to actually disable the devices if someone paid them in full, and that was my point really. If providers at the other hand stop serving them, stop allowing them on their network and whatnot, then that would be a different situation entirely, but the device shouldn't be bricked.
svache said:
No double standards at all. If I want to use the device in a fire proof bunker, then that would be totally up to me as long as this is a voluntary recall. Disabling the device makes it impossible to use it, and renders it to nothing but a paperweight. The double standard is there when Samsung disables the device while you own it and calls it "voluntary".
Nobody is saying anything about not cooperating. As a matter of fact, my own and the wifes are both going back sometime early this coming week. But this isn't about that, this is about Samsung possibly disabling a device, rendering it useless while people may have paid over 800 bucks for it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I truly understand your point. I think, perhaps, our wires are getting crossed. Maybe we are getting hung up on the word 'voluntary' as apposed to obligatory?
Perhaps, I don't know, so far Samsung have requested owners help them resolve this nightmare by returning their mobiles for a swop or full refund. I took the refund and will wait till March when the new devices are out.
Now, lets place ourselves in the shoes of Samsung. They produced arguably the most technologically developed mobile phone to date and we loved them. (trying to avoid the word 'best' as its subjective). Most unfortunately for us also Samsung, the said device has a major safety issue. Proof of that is Samsung has recalled the mobile twice, lost multi billions of euros and its another unknow what the brand damage fall out will be.
Has Samsung the legal right to block an unsafe device they released for public sale? I don't know? I know here in Europe once a recall is made 'official' it IS illegal to own, store, trade or sell such an item. I didn't need for the recall to be made 'official' Once I saw Samsung taking this massive blow I realised this was for real and I had to return both my devices twice.
Can you imagine how you would feel if while driving down the motorway your Note 7 decided to go pop and you swerved and caused an accident. WE cant claim ignorance after the fact. This is world wide news. I am sick and tired of seeing people take the pi55 out of the Note 7 and Samsung and us. The sooner all owners cooperate and return the mobile the sooner the vultures will stop circling and both Samsung and we can move on in safety.
You have the freedom of speech to walk into a cinema and shout 'FIRE'. With freedom comes responsibility.
Ryland
Here's the one thing though. What if they find that it wasn't a random issue and that the overheating was actually caused by some stupid people using defective USB-C cables with the phone (as that is a likely possibility, a bad USB-C cable can damage the phone in a way that the battery protection board and/or the charging circuits could be damaged). That would then prove the phones were not defective but were made defective by an external uncertified device. Then, anyone who DID keep their Note 7 is completely screwed even if its found that a faulty device/cable was plugged into the unit.
And don't say its not a likely scenario. They are still investigating, they can't replicate the situation in the lab, and this is a commonly known issue with USB-C cables that Samsung wouldn't try in the lab. CPSC says 92 units out of 1.9 million sold in the US overheated. It is completely possible there are 92 idiots in the world who don't know what a USB-IF certification is.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2016/11/04/samsung-galaxy-note-7-cut-off-by-new-zealand-mobile-networks/ I even do not know how to comment it...
It isn't like one didn't know it was coming. Bound to happen sooner or later.
Sent from my BBA100-1 using Tapatalk
This should be illegal
Enviado desde mi SM-N930F mediante Tapatalk
Before it was just some rep saying it but now its official carriers are going to do this.
Time to backup efs and find a usable imei to change to
statikk1 said:
Time to backup efs and find a usable imei to change to
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It's going to come to that. I am sure I can find a suitable old phone to clone.
was obvious something like this was coming, they can't afford to legally force people to return the phones but since the recall is in effect they can legally disable them due to safety concerns. it's the same as I was reading the other day certain UK insurance companies are looking to void the insurance if a Note is anywhere near the incident. they are already banned on pretty much every airline, is it really worth putting up with a year of having to avoid people who don't want the phone in any situation it could cause a problem? the local hospitals in my area in the UK actually have a full ban on the Note as well if you are in the hospital with one you will be escorted by security off the grounds of the hospital and not allowed to return until you have got rid off the phone off site.
so yeah if you want to use a service and they have safety concerns and want to ban something that is entirely up to them, if you want to hang onto something that is potentially dangerous and take a chance that is up to you, but end of the day if it's their house it's their rules.
Belimawr said:
was obvious something like this was coming, they can't afford to legally force people to return the phones but since the recall is in effect they can legally disable them due to safety concerns.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes, but who is the "they" here?
What's in it for Verizon or Vodafone? Samsung can't block IMEI numbers. I'm genuinely puzzled why the industry is so hell bent on getting all of these phones out of circulation. The efforts they are going to are not commensurate with the levels of damage to people and property we have seen. Which incidentally, seem to be declining by the day.
The fact is that a single Note7 is about 100x less dangerous than a single Honda (or any other) motorbike. Does it not strike people as rather weird that all these agencies are trying so hard to get rid of Note7's? It does me.
I would have thought all that was needed was for Samsung to say they there's a problem and that you shouldn't use it and that if you do, it's at your own risk. But they are trying MUCH MUCH harder than this. It's almost like they know something terrible about the phone and are not telling us.
Chippy_boy said:
It's almost like they know something terrible about the phone and are not telling us.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
One of the phone has inside key for immortality hidden by one of samsung's engineer and now they try to find it by recalling all of them. Some people new it beforehand and tried to get to the key by smashing phone which then got fire as a result which gave solid base to recall all units by Samsung.
The rep from Verizon explained it to me. He also said Verizon employed some psychic to find the key by simply touching every note 7 before sent it to Samsung...
He said he hates one of the psychic to the guts because he touches iPhones as well and this is not professional.
Chippy_boy said:
Yes, but who is the "they" here?
What's in it for Verizon or Vodafone? Samsung can't block IMEI numbers. I'm genuinely puzzled why the industry is so hell bent on getting all of these phones out of circulation. The efforts they are going to are not commensurate with the levels of damage to people and property we have seen. Which incidentally, seem to be declining by the day.
The fact is that a single Note7 is about 100x less dangerous than a single Honda (or any other) motorbike. Does it not strike people as rather weird that all these agencies are trying so hard to get rid of Note7's? It does me.
I would have thought all that was needed was for Samsung to say they there's a problem and that you shouldn't use it and that if you do, it's at your own risk. But they are trying MUCH MUCH harder than this. It's almost like they know something terrible about the phone and are not telling us.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
lets say your phone does fail and causes considerable property of physical damage what would you then do? in the majority of cases the person will try to sue Samsung, the carrier or other so these firms are taking every effort to get the point across if you are still holding onto the phone it is entirely on you, if they take every option to stop people using the phone they are 100% free and clear as they have done everything possible to stop the use of a potentially defective device.
now on the other hand looking at all the places and insurance firms trying to discourage use of the phone or banning it, if your phone goes up in say a locker and damages the belonging of several other people would you be willing to cover those damages? because with the amount of action taken to discourage the use of the phone you are at a point where the user is 100% liable and firms will ban it because they know the type of person hanging onto the phone will likely be the type who would try to sue someone rather than admit fault and that is why people are trying to stop the use of the device "in their house" because they know it is likely them who will lose out and have to take legal action to recoup damages.
Belimawr said:
lets say your phone does fail and causes considerable property of physical damage what would you then do? in the majority of cases the person will try to sue Samsung, the carrier or other so these firms are taking every effort to get the point across if you are still holding onto the phone it is entirely on you, if they take every option to stop people using the phone they are 100% free and clear as they have done everything possible to stop the use of a potentially defective device.
now on the other hand looking at all the places and insurance firms trying to discourage use of the phone or banning it, if your phone goes up in say a locker and damages the belonging of several other people would you be willing to cover those damages? because with the amount of action taken to discourage the use of the phone you are at a point where the user is 100% liable and firms will ban it because they know the type of person hanging onto the phone will likely be the type who would try to sue someone rather than admit fault and that is why people are trying to stop the use of the device "in their house" because they know it is likely them who will lose out and have to take legal action to recoup damages.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Gosh, I hadn't thought of that.
I promise you they will get sued and lose if they do that here in the US. It is not the carrier's job to protect citizens, especially if they have no proof the phone is definitely going to burn.
I believe it is against the law to posses a recalled product in Australia and several European countries. Not so in the United States.
pinetreehater said:
I promise you they will get sued and lose if they do that here in the US. It is not the carrier's job to protect citizens, especially if they have no proof the phone is definitely going to burn.
I believe it is against the law to posses a recalled product in Australia and several European countries. Not so in the United States.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Looks like Australia doesn't outlaw recalled products.
http://www.productsafety.gov.au/news/samsung-galaxy-note7
There is no wording to mention it's illegal rather that ACCC "strongly urges"
pinetreehater said:
I promise you they will get sued and lose if they do that here in the US. It is not the carrier's job to protect citizens, especially if they have no proof the phone is definitely going to burn.
I believe it is against the law to posses a recalled product in Australia and several European countries. Not so in the United States.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I have no idea where in the world it is legal or illegal to possess a recalled product but I agree wholeheartedly that there will definitely be lawsuits in the US if these phones are blacklisted. Without a doubt....
Question. If I see a robbery, rape, fire or an accident or some other public safety concern, should I attempt to dial 911 to assist or should I shrug it off because I am a rogue accident waiting to happen? Should I shudder in fear so much as to avoid calling altogether?
Should I report myself to authorities?.....lol
I'd say no because I am neither illegal or criminal, get it?
whoofit said:
I have no idea where in the world it is legal or illegal to possess a recalled product but I agree wholeheartedly that there will definitely be lawsuits in the US if these phones are blacklisted. Without a doubt....
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Having said that, here's me hoping that New Zealand users start suing which will serve to not give anybody else ideas :laugh:
http://www.droid-life.com/2016/11/0...imit-battery-60-continue-remind-users-recall/
Very soon Samsung will block all service.
Sent from my VS995 using Tapatalk
As long as Samsung gets replacement phones/refunds to all they promised, I don't mind the IMEI block so much. Problem is that 19 days ago, they promised me a replacement S7E would come "within 21 days". I contacted them yesterday about how this was going since 21 days is almost up, and...They have run out of S7E stock (black Onyx) and don't know when new stock is coming...
This is Australia though, where they have just sent the 60% thing through and no official IMEI block discussed, yet..
Sent from my SM-N930F using Tapatalk
Verizon in the USA is also considering flagging accounts and suspending service for those of us who have a Note 7. I purchased it outright for $864 and was totally blown away with how nice the phone is. I don't want to return it.
The first batch was recalled due to a failure of the batteries circuitry to stop the charge. Statistic tell me that if an electrical component were to fail (aka infant mortality) then it would occur very early in the like cycle of a device. My device was always left overnight charging (until I learned about the 80% rule and battery life), and would never even get warm to the touch on either the usb-C or wireless charging. I was confident that my chances were slim to have an issue, but I returned it when they got the second batch of phones.
The failure of the second batch is being blamed on internal battery layers that are so close that they short out causing the catastrophic shorting of the battery. Again, no one knows how close is too close for these layers as Samsung never disclosed the details of the design much further. My phone gets charged every 30-36 hours since I got it and I have not had any issues. My second (current) Note 7 is even cooler when charging than the first one and as I never charge about 80%, my risk is even less. (what ever "less than less than 1%" is) I figure if my batteries plates were shorting out, I would have known it by now. So I feel my current phone is also safe.
Samsung or Verizon can not force me to return it. What they can do is exactly what they are: constant texts about the recall and now Verizon has stated (the store rep told me this when I went to inquirer about any changes to the return policy) that after November 25th, they will be suspending service. They told me originally the date was Nov 7th, but it got moved back. So take it with a grain of salt. I sometimes think that the reps don't have a clue. They will give owners no choice if they do this. But the question I ask is do we really own this? Verizon has already returned every penny I paid for the phone back to me. So in a sense I have the phone now for free, and that's not quite right either.
With the S8 four months away and a new Note 8 5-6 months after that (if rumors are true), Samsung in Korea is giving some great deals for those of us who stay loyal. (Korean customers if they stay with Samsung not only get the same $100 (equivalent currency) credit we are getting in the USA, but are also getting an opportunity to upgrade with no penalty to the S8 and Note 8. The new S8 and Note 8 will be sold for 1/2 the list price to these customer! I only hope the USA will get this same offer.
I agree that airlines and businesses have the right to ban the phone, and the liability now rest 99.9% with those of us who keep the phone. We have been warned in many ways. Its a slippery slope. Where does our right to keep it cross the line and endanger someone else? I looks at this like the smoking ban in the USA. Restaurants use to allow smoking in the dining rooms. They then morphed into having a "smoking" and "non-smoking" sections. I cant tell you how many times I would be in the non-smoking section that was right next to a smoking section and still had to breath their second hand smoke. I was glad when all restaurants when smoke free as did most businesses. I happen to be on the other side of the fence on this issue.
I only hope someone here extracts the firmware and kernel and can adapt it to say the S7 or another note device. I'm guessing the new 8 series will be very similar.
Belimawr said:
lets say your phone does fail and causes considerable property of physical damage what would you then do? in the majority of cases the person will try to sue Samsung, the carrier or other so these firms are taking every effort to get the point across if you are still holding onto the phone it is entirely on you, if they take every option to stop people using the phone they are 100% free and clear as they have done everything possible to stop the use of a potentially defective device.
now on the other hand looking at all the places and insurance firms trying to discourage use of the phone or banning it, if your phone goes up in say a locker and damages the belonging of several other people would you be willing to cover those damages? because with the amount of action taken to discourage the use of the phone you are at a point where the user is 100% liable and firms will ban it because they know the type of person hanging onto the phone will likely be the type who would try to sue someone rather than admit fault and that is why people are trying to stop the use of the device "in their house" because they know it is likely them who will lose out and have to take legal action to recoup damages.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Save your breath... common senses does not apply here. At least to some. Saying anything other than keeping the Note7 will just cause you to be branded as part of the conspirator.
It makes no sense what so ever to keep the phone outside of ego issues. Either "look at me I am a rebel" or "I've got a phone you can't get."
- Alternatives with nearly the same specs are out (Pixel and V20 both outperform the Note 7)
- support is going to be dead, Samsung and 3rd party
- it's not going to receive updates
- it's a hazard, Samsung didn't just kill one of their golden eggs for fun.
- keeping your phone affects more than just you.
It's starting to look incredibly suspicious that the moment Samsung stopped Note 7 production, the fires went with them. Could someone be pulling the strings here? 285 000 Note 7s remain in America alone, and not one to my knowledge has caught fire in the past month. 1.5 million of them, and they were catching fire every day.
I get that you didn't do a search but a similar topic is still on the first page of this subforum.
There's probably three other similar topics on this. And all of them end up with the same tiresome squabble.
AB__CD said:
It's starting to look incredibly suspicious that the moment Samsung stopped Note 7 production, the fires went with them. Could someone be pulling the strings here? 285 000 Note 7s remain in America alone, and not one to my knowledge has caught fire in the past month. 1.5 million of them, and they were catching fire every day.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Have you considered one of the reasons we no longer hear about the Note 7 going pop is due to the fact that so much media attention and warnings from Samsung and the retailers who sold the device to the owners to return them that only a die hard number of owners are still holding onto their Note's. Now after all these warnings its highly unlikely that an owner is going to complain if his or her Note 7 went pop! I would think they would just keep silent don't you? Its not a general habit for us as a race to want our mistakes highlighted.
I am sure there are other reasons as well.
Ryland
Samsung also recalled 2.5 million washing maschines. Do you think this is also a conspiracy or could it be they went wrong somewhere in the making of their products?
notefreak said:
Samsung also recalled 2.5 million washing maschines. Do you think this is also a conspiracy or could it be they went wrong somewhere in the making of their products?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Naw, everything is OK at Samsung. I own the washer. I just wear headgear and chest protection when I do the wash. I'm not worried about the Note7 either and will continue to use it until the end. I am a fortunate one though because I have protected my home with Samsung fire detection equipment and security cameras. Therefore I am very comfortable with my choices to live on the edge.
Consider these possibilities while remembering the funny tune from Monty Python. My washer explodes injuring me. I grab my Note7 to dial 911 and it bursts into flames. My fire detection equipment malfunctions allowing my home to burn down.
Who's fault is it?..... HA!
Makes me uncomfortable to have anything resembling a gun with Samsung's name on it pointed directly at me (the cameras) so it does..... lol And then there is this: https://www.wired.com/2016/05/flaws...let-hackers-unlock-doors-set-off-fire-alarms/
Ryland Johnson said:
Have you considered one of the reasons we no longer hear about the Note 7 going pop is due to the fact that so much media attention and warnings from Samsung and the retailers who sold the device to the owners to return them that only a die hard number of owners are still holding onto their Note's. Now after all these warnings its highly unlikely that an owner is going to complain if his or her Note 7 went pop! I would think they would just keep silent don't you? Its not a general habit for us as a race to want our mistakes highlighted.
I am sure there are other reasons as well.
Ryland
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
no.. i disagree. I think if mine did go "pop" that i would notify Samsung and make sure it was sent back to them. I WANT them to figure out the issue. I wouldn't be looking for any kind of payout, etc, i knew the risks when i continued to use the phone.
85% of us units have been successfully returned.
That will greatly reduce the number of new reports.
Sent from my HTC6545LVW using Tapatalk
dottat said:
85% of us units have been successfully returned.
That will greatly reduce the number of new reports.
Sent from my HTC6545LVW using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This could confuse users around the world. Since XDA is not exclusive to the U.S.
85% of U.S. users have been forced to return or exchange their Note 7.
http://www.androidauthority.com/samsung-85-percent-galaxy-note-7-phones-replaced-726910/
However in other countries the response may not be a massive, because carriers are not harrasing people to return their device or the exchange program may not be as beneficial as the U.S. was
Sent from my SM-N930F using XDA-Developers mobile app
CerveCesar said:
This could confuse users around the world. Since XDA is not exclusive to the U.S.
85% of U.S. users have been forced to return or exchange their Note 7.
http://www.androidauthority.com/samsung-85-percent-galaxy-note-7-phones-replaced-726910/
However in other countries the response may not be a massive, because carriers are not harrasing people to return their device or the exchange program may not be as beneficial as the U.S. was
Sent from my SM-N930F using XDA-Developers mobile app
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Riiiight? That's why I said US. Most of the drama in the press came from the us and the cpsc piece also came the us. That's why what I said was relevant. Cases are dying down here since only 15% remain.
Sent from my HTC6545LVW using Tapatalk
no
no fires recently
How about this?
http://gizmodo.com/a-different-sams...source=gizmodo_facebook&utm_medium=socialflow
Not the N7, a J5.
Maybe Samsung should really just revert back to removable battery design.
Or maybe they should, like they themselves said, make some serious changes in quality control.
AB__CD said:
Any recent Note 7 fires?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hey man, use the proper terminology at least Don't you know we have to call all these incidents "explosions". It sounds much more dramatic. If you want to use "violent explosions" then that's good too.
Maybe also throw in a few words about putting the public in terrible danger and selfish individuals etc. You know the score...
Now keep on message!
Chippy_boy said:
Hey man, use the proper terminology at least Don't you know we have to call all these incidents "explosions". It sounds much more dramatic. If you want to use "violent explosions" then that's good too.
Maybe also throw in a few words about putting the public in terrible danger and selfish individuals etc. You know the score...
Now keep on message!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The disgraceful way the media dealt with this news was nothing short of absurd.
You are correct, NO Note 7 'exploded'. An explosion, in any form, would make the detonated device fragment into many pieces sending the Note 7 all over the place including floor, ceiling, walls etc. To date, every incident has resulted in the note catching fire BUT the device itself has not fragmented. WE can see after each fire the mobile is left in one burnt piece, its not even burnt to the point of becoming unrecognisabel.
I am NOT suggesting when the Mobile has gone pop that's its acceptable! I am stating it clearly doesn't explode.
I would guess the main concern is fire, the mobile could be the ignition point or catalyst for surrounding areas to ignite thus causing a fire. Again to date I 'think' such fires have been localised to a very small area that's IF a fire was caused at all. I saw a clip of a 4x4 going up in the USA but still have not read the results of the investigation so I am discounting that incident. I suggest the problems are what could happen rather than what will happen and that is the cause of the mobile becoming black listed in more and more public areas such as aircraft, boats, trains blah blah blah.
Regardless of our differences I sincerely agree the media has made a meal out of this matter. A true storm in a tea cup.
I also think Samsung had to make the recall BUT the way that recall has been actioned has been without co-ordination world wide causing numerous clients no end of hassle that is still ongoing. Samsung Korea have not come out of this situation looking well at all.
For a communications division that sells communication devices they need to learn to.......well, communicate!
Those trying to pre order the Gear S3 like myself are having one hell of a trial. No one seems to know the date when the Gear is going to be finally available nor if it will be bluetooth or 4G? Another total ****-up.
Ryland :highfive:
I got a notification on Saturday from Samsung with said that on Jan 31st they are issuing another update which will prevent battery charging completely and disable mobile network access.
This is GREAT news, because it means there can be ZERO question of whether I'd be able to get a refund or not when I take my Note7 back when the S8 comes out (or whatever else I decide to change it to.)
Thanks Samsung!
(Of course the update won't affect me, so I'll carry on using my Note7 until then.)
This had also crossed my mind, if one owns Note7 until S8 Note8 is released, will samsung be willing to replace Note7 (a flagship device) for the next best thing equivalent at the time S8 Note8 is launched?
Another question also crossed my mind, regardless if I have everything that came with the phone and I am lawful owner of the phone but have no proof of purchase, will smasung still be willing to replace it for me or thats just a pipe-dream?
To my understanding, samsung cannot refuse to replace Note7 to anything but the best thing available at the time, so when note8 S8 is out etc, they shouldnt be offering S7 as a replacement at the time, what do you think?
Also, another thought (bare with me here) , samsung had 96% of 3million devices sold returned, of which 220000 were taken under very intense testing and investigations to reproduce faults and what not, so look at this now, once all is now done and clear to public, they have over 2.5 million note7 in stock that require a new safe battery replacement issue, reboxing and should sell worldwide or in some limited regions for a discounted price as a safe refurbs (some time soon I guess), they wouldnt just burry all that gold worth pile of Note7's now , would they?
I almost sense a new "Note7S" coming out some time very soon, carrying "S" on the back as being SAFE with probably reworked same capacity safe battery or with some 3000mAh battery and free wireless charging backpack battery pack case that samsung was selling for note7 phones.
Your thoughts?
Chippy_boy said:
I got a notification on Saturday from Samsung with said that on Jan 31st they are issuing another update which will prevent battery charging completely and disable mobile network access.
This is GREAT news, because it means there can be ZERO question of whether I'd be able to get a refund or not when I take my Note7 back when the S8 comes out (or whatever else I decide to change it to.)
Thanks Samsung!
(Of course the update won't affect me, so I'll carry on using my Note7 until then.)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hi how are you going to manage that this 31st January will not affect you? Please share as I still have note 7.
M.
xxxMJTxxx said:
Hi how are you going to manage that this 31st January will not affect you? Please share as I still have note 7.
M.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I've got all the updates blocked mate. Have a search on this forum and you'll find plenty of ways to do that, depending on what updates your phone has had already.
Ok
It had 60 percent battery cap update forced to me overnight last year but I flashed that with older firmware so it went back to 100 percent, I also installed old 6.3 package disabler and blocked all programs mentioned on forum.
Is there anything else would you advice to do additionally?
M.
Thanks
xxxMJTxxx said:
Ok
It had 60 percent battery cap update forced to me overnight last year but I flashed that with older firmware so it went back to 100 percent, I also installed old 6.3 package disabler and blocked all programs mentioned on forum.
Is there anything else would you advice to do additionally?
M.
Thanks
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm no expert mate, but I think you are good to go. You could try No Root Firewall as well I guess, but I haven't bothered. I have decided not to take ANY Samsung updates though - even for things like Smart Switch and Samsung Health etc - just in case the crafty barstards decide to hide something nasty in their apps.
They've been utter sheets about this whole thing. They have TOTALLY forgotten that they DO NOT own MY phone! It is MINE, not THEIRS!
Chippy_boy said:
I'm no expert mate, but I think you are good to go. You could try No Root Firewall as well I guess, but I haven't bothered. I have decided not to take ANY Samsung updates though - even for things like Smart Switch and Samsung Health etc - just in case the crafty barstards decide to hide something nasty in their apps.
They've been utter sheets about this whole thing. They have TOTALLY forgotten that they DO NOT own MY phone! It is MINE, not THEIRS!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Ha Ha I thought so!
I have no root firewall but not sure how to set it up being honest
I had Samsung Billing pushed to me few days ago but for some reason I cannot find it under applications in my mobile so I hope Evil Sam is not hidden there waiting to reactivate.
So really we will see after 31st what is going to happen, I really would hate to go back to Note 3 I still have, however it was also good mobile for few years back ago.
How many people still are using/own N7 in UK you reckon?
M.
xxxMJTxxx said:
:
How many people still are using/own N7 in UK you reckon?
M.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Honestly, I have no clue, but I guess it must be quite a few. They wouldn't be going to the trouble of writing software updates for just a handful of phones would they!
I wonder why on earth they didn't actually stop to think WHY people are not returning their phones? For some clever people, they have behaved like they have the brains of goldfish.
Chippy_boy said:
Honestly, I have no clue, but I guess it must be quite a few. They wouldn't be going to the trouble of writing software updates for just a handful of phones would they!
I wonder why on earth they didn't actually stop to think WHY people are not returning their phones? For some clever people, they have behaved like they have the brains of goldfish.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
the same update is world wide, altering it for different countries is a minor point as the majority of the changes comes in the form of the bands and network support, if they are removing all network support all they need is something that works on the exynos hardware, also the UK phones are the international phones so they are actually used across a load of countries so it is probably a large portion of the world covered by the same update as the UK.
also as I said there is little need for the networks to do their modifications since they all come in the form of network support that has been removed in this update.
No matter what it's going to be a nightmare. I wouldn't expect it to be as simple as walking into your carrier's store and swapping out for s8 - even though I do remember someone over at Samsung saying there was going to be a discount on "the next big thing". I'm in San Jose so Im going to HQ with mine, f em.
Chippy_boy said:
I wonder why on earth they didn't actually stop to think WHY people are not returning their phones?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
They're probably paranoid about being sued on the off chance someone else's phone blows up. It would be bad press if it happens again, probably followed by ignorant people saying that Samsung should have tried harder to stop it, etc etc, because some people have probably missed the whole thing till now and haven't noticed anything. Plus, Samsung wants to be able to say 100% recalled and returned.
FYI I don't own this device, just trying to answer this question. Maybe all of you who have it should put "Proud owner of the Note 7. Take that Samsung" or something in your sigs lol. It would be kinda funny to see.
Sent from my Amazon Fire using XDA Labs
in my country, Mexico, there have not been, any sort of batt capping updates, or any threatening messages about anything! as no burning reports here, the consumer bureau has not issued any order or authorization on the matter, here would be unlawful to capp or restrict the use of a legally owned device, so, all very cool over here
Mr.Ultimate said:
samsung cannot
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Samsung can do anything they want. If you think whatever that is violates a law or your rights as a consumer its up to you and/or whatever governmental agency is involved to get them to do something different. That could take months. Many months. In the meantime you'll be stuck living with whatever decision they make - whether it's "legal" or not. Fighting multi-billion dollar conglomerates isn't for the feint of heart.
Sadly there are people who've tried to do the right thing that are stuck in Samsung's matrix and no law or governmental agency has rescued them. I can't imagine said agency's will feel a lot of sympathy for people who've held on to a phone declared potentially dangerous by its manufacturer for the length of time being discussed here. "I kept my potentially dangerous phone because I didn't like any of the alternatives" or "I was waiting for the Galaxy S8 to come out" seem like pretty self-serving reasons not to take advantage of all the remedies (including a full refund) Samsung provided. This isn't black and white and certainly not a typical "fit for purpose" issue.
BarryH_GEG said:
Samsung can do anything they want. If you think whatever that is violates a law or your rights as a consumer its up to you and/or whatever governmental agency is involved to get them to do something different. That could take months. Many months. In the meantime you'll be stuck living with whatever decision they make - whether it's "legal" or not. Fighting multi-billion dollar conglomerates isn't for the feint of heart.
Sadly there are people who've tried to do the right thing that are stuck in Samsung's matrix and no law or governmental agency has rescued them. I can't imagine said agency's will feel a lot of sympathy for people who've held on to a phone declared potentially dangerous by its manufacturer for the length of time being discussed here. "I kept my potentially dangerous phone because I didn't like any of the alternatives" or "I was waiting for the Galaxy S8 to come out" seem like pretty self-serving reasons not to take advantage of all the remedies (including a full refund) Samsung provided. This isn't black and white and certainly not a typical "fit for purpose" issue.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
All doesnt matter and all goes against the law, just risk of hazard makes them liable indefinitely until its back at their possession and no harm caused during the time.
Im no fain hearted and I dont own 7 figure bank account but I know its not a rocket science to bring giant companies such as apple or samsung to their knees, again, its not for faint hearted, I was talking from a legal stand point.
Darkness and high-cliff edge walking heights are usually appearing dangerous things for most, until they're certain and know there is nothing dangerous/hazardous in the dark and walking the cliff edge not without protections and precautions, metaphorically speaking.
Take a case where mobile phone gets on fire and one or many people suffers fatal consequences, days, months or even years from now, and investigators dig up samsung note7, who they gonna blame? Who has the case against who? Looking from even early state all cards are against samsung where there disaster happens or not samsung should be waist deep to do whatever necessary to sort their clients out. And yes they can try to attempt "write their own laws" warning consumers, threatening with return closing deadlines, refusing to take back dangerous devices back in, blocking devices, etc its their cards their game against everyone, not that they are more than the majority, I call it one against all and no matter how much money they are worth, it can take just few big cases and they will soon realize what wrong turn things can take, not that they would be willing to take such risks when and if case is brought to the round table.
Heck, even a 3 year ago my 10+ year Honda got a safety recall letter warning about potentially defective airbag systems and all was replaced at surprisingly my convenience cost free, even the car was bought second hand and I am probably 3rd or 4th owner of that vehicle, auto manufacturers know about how this game be played out i suppose, has been in this game before or seen it happen, consequences are clear to them if potential event take place, they would not only put someone deep in dirt, they would be there themselves as a consequence, so they took no risks, and I was pleasantly surprised at the same too how much forthcoming they were to sort this out, and note - this is 10+ year old product, not much different case to the one were talking about here, and I believe if they went this far with thing such as this, how much further they would have taken things if they would have found out that these vehicle models would have been a hazardous risk of fire and explosion while driving, parked at house garage etc? Go beat this statement
BarryH_GEG said:
Samsung can do anything they want. If you think whatever that is violates a law or your rights as a consumer its up to you and/or whatever governmental agency is involved to get them to do something different. That could take months. Many months. In the meantime you'll be stuck living with whatever decision they make - whether it's "legal" or not. Fighting multi-billion dollar conglomerates isn't for the feint of heart.
Sadly there are people who've tried to do the right thing that are stuck in Samsung's matrix and no law or governmental agency has rescued them. I can't imagine said agency's will feel a lot of sympathy for people who've held on to a phone declared potentially dangerous by its manufacturer for the length of time being discussed here. "I kept my potentially dangerous phone because I didn't like any of the alternatives" or "I was waiting for the Galaxy S8 to come out" seem like pretty self-serving reasons not to take advantage of all the remedies (including a full refund) Samsung provided. This isn't black and white and certainly not a typical "fit for purpose" issue.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I reckon you work for Samsung. You must do, or you would have quit your tiresome campaign by now.
And as for "Samsung can do what they like", well let's see how successful they are on Tuesday shall we?
I'll post my update from my unrooted Note7 on Wednesday.
Chippy_boy said:
I reckon you work for Samsung. You must do, or you would have quit your tiresome campaign by now.
And as for "Samsung can do what they like", well let's see how successful they are on Tuesday shall we?
I'll post my update from my unrooted Note7 on Wednesday.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I've unrooted Note7 also, dont want to touch any mods yet until its definitely necessary
Mr.Ultimate said:
Im no fain hearted and I dont own 7 figure bank account but I know its not a rocket science to bring giant companies such as apple or samsung to their knees
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Read this. The poor sod has been fighting Samsung since 2015 over his SGS4. At the end of the day you have to put a value on your time. The amount of time you'd have to spend even with legal assistance is probably worth more than what you spent on your Note7. The time some here have spent fighting the fighting noose is probably worth half the cost of their phone.
I'm all for principle but there's also the law of diminishing returns. Life's too short to intentionally seek out battles. At least for me. If I'm going to invest heap loads of my time that could be spent doing other more entertaining and productive things it wouldn't be over a mobile phone. It would be for something far more noble.
https://www.engadget.com/2017/01/20/samsung-cant-use-in-box-warranty-to-kill-galaxy-s4-lawsuit/
While I'd love to see Samsung getting screwed right back, I can't imagine there won't be a final return date of some sort and them actually exchanging the phone for the new models. They just sound too cheap for that
BarryH_GEG said:
Read this. The poor sod has been fighting Samsung since 2015 over his SGS4. At the end of the day you have to put a value on your time. The amount of time you'd have to spend even with legal assistance is probably worth more than what you spent on your Note7. The time some here have spent fighting the fighting noose is probably worth half the cost of their phone.
I'm all for principle but there's also the law of diminishing returns. Life's too short to intentionally seek out battles. At least for me. If I'm going to invest heap loads of my time that could be spent doing other more entertaining and productive things it wouldn't be over a mobile phone. It would be for something far more noble.
https://www.engadget.com/2017/01/20/samsung-cant-use-in-box-warranty-to-kill-galaxy-s4-lawsuit/
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Im not going to talk much, but that's not even serious case and analogy is just wrong. Compare this - buying matchbox to light the fire place at home but these matchboxes keep exploding and potentially setting itself on fire on random times (case #1) vs. match box that doesnt have 100% of the content or doesnt light up/doesnt burn every time you strike it (case #2).
Yes, its no brainer about law diminishing returns, if you dont have serious case and intelligent sought trough evidence, plan put together that will be serving to the finish line, and all , dreamland ego and being naive left behind - there is no chance to expect something good coming out of it.
We're talking about life threatening hazardous product here.
Have a great day.
BarryH_GEG said:
Read this. The poor sod has been fighting Samsung since 2015 over his SGS4. At the end of the day you have to put a value on your time. The amount of time you'd have to spend even with legal assistance is probably worth more than what you spent on your Note7. The time some here have spent fighting the fighting noose is probably worth half the cost of their phone.
I'm all for principle but there's also the law of diminishing returns. Life's too short to intentionally seek out battles. At least for me. If I'm going to invest heap loads of my time that could be spent doing other more entertaining and productive things it wouldn't be over a mobile phone. It would be for something far more noble.
https://www.engadget.com/2017/01/20/samsung-cant-use-in-box-warranty-to-kill-galaxy-s4-lawsuit/
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Barry, my plan is to take my Note7 back to Samsung when I am ready (and not before) and ask for my money back, which I am very sure they will agree to, since they are obviously so very keen to get it back.
If in the monumentally unlikely event they say, "no, we'd like you to keep it please" (you're not REALLY suggesting that are you???!?) then I can file a small claim online in 20 minutes. It's a total no-brainer.
Sorry to disappoint you.