Slashdot Mirror


Samsung Galaxy Note 7 Explodes In New York, Burns Six-Year-Old Boy (arstechnica.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: A six-year-old boy from Brooklyn has reportedly become the latest victim of Samsung's disastrous exploding Galaxy Note 7 batteries. The boy had been using the device at his family home when it "suddenly burst into flames," according to the New York Post. He was rushed to hospital with burns to his body. Samsung issued a recall of 2.5 million of its latest flagship phone on September 2 -- which had only been released the previous month -- after 35 reports that lithium batteries were exploding while they were being charged. The injured boy's grandmother said that the fire caused by the phone was strong enough to "set off alarms in my house." "He is home now," Linda Lewis told press. "He doesn't want to see or go near any phones. He's been crying to his mother." Samsung issued a statement on Saturday, urging owners of the Galaxy Note 7 to "power down your device and return to using your previous phone. We will voluntarily replace your Galaxy Note 7 device with a new one, beginning on September 19th... We acknowledge the inconvenience this may cause in the market but this is to ensure that Samsung continues to deliver the highest quality products to our customers." The recall has caused Samsung's stock to plunge. On Monday, Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. stock suffered from its biggest one-day price decline in its 28-year history as a public company.

124 of 202 comments (clear)

  1. Smartphones by freeze128 · · Score: 1

    Adult supervision is now required for all smartphones.

    1. Re:Smartphones by ganjadude · · Score: 5, Informative

      its been 10 days since the very public recalls have been announced, i mean..... the adults really should have not been letting him play with it

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    2. Re:Smartphones by sabri · · Score: 4, Insightful

      the adults really should have not been letting him play with it

      Plot twist: perhaps they did it on purpose so they can now sue Samsung and cash in.

      --
      I'm not a complete idiot... Some parts are missing.
    3. Re:Smartphones by Mikkeles · · Score: 1

      'its [sic] been 10 days since ...'

      Almost as long as /. requires between postings.

      --
      Great minds think alike; fools seldom differ.
    4. Re:Smartphones by geekmux · · Score: 2

      Adult supervision is now required for all smartphones.

      Considering how many smartphones don't even try to block the ability to access hardcore porn, this should be common fucking sense.

    5. Re:Smartphones by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Nonsense. Not everyone is so technology minded that such recalls catches there eye. We are so heavily bombarded with non-information nowadays that such messages just do not get through anymore, unless they are on the front page of newspapers, prime-time advertisements on tv and huge advertising campaigns on the internet. Just like they did to sell the product, but they did not do that, it would eat up Samsungs advertising budget for the entire year.

      On the other hand, Samsung could have very easily pushed an OTA update to all Galaxy Note 7 phones to rudely and directly inform the user of the problem.
      The fact they did not do that tells me they do not really care about their customers. They are doing just enough to indemnify themselves, without creating too much unwanted attention to the problem.

    6. Re:Smartphones by saloomy · · Score: 5, Informative

      Even if they didn't know, they should be responsible. The news has been ADAMANT about reporting on this recall, and making a lot of hoopla about it. Samsung issued a recall. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE let them not win a lawsuit against Samsung.

      If they sue, Samsung is in trouble cause it admitted a fault and issued a recall. Shouldn't we encourage companies to recall products when there are safety hazards and they are willing to take the financial hit and do the responsible thing? They will never admit fault if it exposes them to liability in court.

    7. Re:Smartphones by viperidaenz · · Score: 3, Informative

      and the OTA updates will be deployed.... soon after the carriers approve them and be active after the users use the phone they've been told not to and download and accept the update.

    8. Re:Smartphones by ffkom · · Score: 1

      If you're actually concerned about your 6 year old watching pornography on a phone, then that phone going off in flames is probably just what you need to scare your child away from porn by telling him it was the flames of hell, to where all sinners go, which were scorching the phone. And if you're less of a zealot, you can still tell him them chicks were just too hot for the phone to handle.

    9. Re:Smartphones by OrangeTide · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I think Samsung coming forward and doing an across the board recall with a fairly significant level of media coverage is a good thing.

      But in the end, Samsung produced a defective and dangerous device and people were hurt. Samsung is still on the hook in civil courts because some people didn't get the message about the recall, or didn't understand the message.

      If I were a judge (and I obviously am not), I think a class action case against Samsung should be divided along where people were reasonably expected to have heard the recall announcement. Anyone before that time is one group, and anyone after that time has to file individually or form a different class action lawsuit.

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    10. Re:Smartphones by saloomy · · Score: 1

      If you go about it like that, then you are in effect encouraging companies to remain quiet about defects and cause confusion. Its terrible when a product causes injury, and I would agree that people who were hurt before such a recall have a claim and should be compensated.

      However for a company to come out and openly admit that there are faults in its product, opens it up to all sorts of claims. You don't want the government to have to sue each company into a recall, you want them to do it voluntarily. Offering them a liability limitation encourages them to issue the recall in the first place.

    11. Re:Smartphones by bloodhawk · · Score: 1

      So they are running out to buy the brand new Note 7 but they aren't technology minded? Not defending Samsung as they made a defective product and they should be accountable for that. But it has been all over the front pages of newspapers, web sites and everywhere on the internet. I haven't looked for it as it doesn't affect me but I have seen it on TV more than a dozen times and god knows how many times on various websites.

    12. Re:Smartphones by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

      remaining quiet could be criminal negligence. theoretically that can not only include stiff fines, and nearly unlimited civil penalities, but prison time for those involved in covering up.

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    13. Re:Smartphones by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 2

      So they are running out to buy the brand new Note 7 but they aren't technology minded? Not defending Samsung as they made a defective product and they should be accountable for that. But it has been all over the front pages of newspapers, web sites and everywhere on the internet. I haven't looked for it as it doesn't affect me but I have seen it on TV more than a dozen times and god knows how many times on various websites.

      Which means what? Here's what actually happens. When I was the president of a youth hockey organization, an adult came to a board meeting, and told us we had a terrible failing in getting the word out about ourselves.

      "You need to have newspaper advertisements, ads in the local magazines, ads in all the rinks and on television. And brochures!"

      So I pulled out the receipts for all of the above, and told him where he could find the brochures. His only reply was that we needed to find better ways and times so he could see them note: this is disregarding how the person knew to come in to see us anyhow, but the point is, saturation doesn't prove that someone saw something.

      Samsung can only cover itself by notifying everyone who has one of their burning phones personally.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    14. Re:Smartphones by Teckla · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Sorry but once a company takes every reasonable effort to make a situation safe (which they have done) there should be no more liability.

      I think this may be the single most stupid thing I've ever seen someone say on Slashdot, and I've been here a pretty long time.

    15. Re:Smartphones by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      I'd rather die by Samsung burn than have an iphone without a headphone jack

    16. Re:Smartphones by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      You're right. Companies should be encouraged to do nothing unless the government or a well funded lawsuit tells them. Good corporate citizenry should be discouraged. Yay capitalism.

    17. Re:Smartphones by beanpoppa · · Score: 1

      It's been about, what, 40 phones in 3 weeks? That doesn't mean that only 40 phones are affected. If there was no recall, it could be 60 by now, and 60 in the next 3 weeks, and 60 the 3 weeks after, etc. We don't know how many devices are affected. Rumors are that it's only the Samsung manufactured batteries, and the Chinese-made batteries are actually fine (ironic) but Samsung isn't admitting anything. It could be a smaller percentage of the overall devices, but a significant percentage of the phones with Samsung batteries, which could have reasonably been picked up in QA testing.

    18. Re:Smartphones by beanpoppa · · Score: 1

      and NBC, CNN, FOX, NY Times. This has been all over the news.

    19. Re:Smartphones by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      This isn't some 2 bit pointless local hockey team that would barely rate a mention in the local rag. This has been a major story for the past X days on every communications medium, radio, TV, newspapers, internet. point at just about any tech or news site in the world and it will almost certainly have rated a mention. It has been mentioned on everything from local news reports to international media and press releases. Sure they could have possibly missed it (seems incredible for someone that is buying tech), but far more likely they just ignored it with the usual ignorance of "meh, that won't happen to me", just like what happened constantly with the hoverboards.

    20. Re:Smartphones by gfxguy · · Score: 2

      I disagree - the earlier they release the recall announcement, the fewer the number of people would be able to claim damages, so it behooves the company AND the non-greedy, just-want-to-be-safe public that it be publicized earlier. In this particular case, I find it hard that someone who could afford a Galaxy Note 7, and actually lives in the modern world (Brooklyn... so more or less), would be over a week behind the news that the devices should be returned.

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
    21. Re:Smartphones by arglebargle_xiv · · Score: 2

      Samsung should sell all the recalled phones to ISIS, I'm sure they'd have a use for them.

    22. Re:Smartphones by Aerokii · · Score: 1

      As well as texts and emails from the carriers themselves in many cases, the former of which goes DIRECTLY TO THE IMPACTED PHONE.

    23. Re:Smartphones by TheCastro1689 · · Score: 1

      I like how there is no middle ground with you. Just because a recall is issued doesn't mean all of the customers know. Just because you've said, "Hey there's a problem with our stuff." doesn't magically make you off the hook.

    24. Re:Smartphones by khr · · Score: 1

      Here's my idea of proper adult supervision. "Here you go, kid. There's only one thing I want you to remember: Nothing you see on a screen can hurt you, because nothing you see on a screen is real. Have fun."

      Spoken like a true human who's never earned the title of parent.

      Hey, I do babysitting for $15 an hour... Here's my number, 36-24-36, give me a call...

    25. Re:Smartphones by pak9rabid · · Score: 1

      ...We'll have ourselves a ball.

    26. Re:Smartphones by OhPlz · · Score: 1

      Punitive may be appropriate given the apparent lack of testing before releasing the product.

    27. Re:Smartphones by leadfoot · · Score: 1

      10 days since the announcement, however if you go to the 4 major U.S. wireless websites, you see no notice of the recall on their front pages. All you see is "iPhone 7 coming soon"

      Have the carriers sent out emergency emails or texts to Note 7 owners?

      --
      "We're gonna need a bigger boat"
    28. Re:Smartphones by lsatenstein · · Score: 1

      The ISP or phone supplier must surely have sent a broadcast message to all their subscribers, warning them of the defective battery design.

      A software change in the phone is going to measure battery temperature, and if it is above a threshold, stop the charging. Thats about it.

      --
      Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
    29. Re:Smartphones by lsatenstein · · Score: 1

      Samsung is the redistributor of the battery. The suit has to be jointly against Samsung and the battery manufacturer.

      --
      Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
    30. Re:Smartphones by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      Samsung can only do that if the person allows themselves to be notified.

      You hit on the important part of the effort. If Samsung makes a diligent attempt to contact the person, they have covered themselves. If the person they are trying to contact doesn't open their mail, well that's now the individual's fault.

      I've had a few recalls on my Jeep, and that's the metric - they contact me, and it is my choice and responsibility after that.

      Side note: oftentimes Slashdotters believe that companies are acting in their self-interests by avoiding recall notices. In fact, it might be the opposite. Jeep has been pretty diligent in making recalls, and that has helped with me trusting them. If Samsung thinks that news reports or online gossip are all that is needed, I'd not trust them with a device that has the energy density of a modern cellphone or tablet. They have made strides and alerted media to get as many people informed as possible ahead of the big inevitable recall.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    31. Re:Smartphones by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      This isn't some 2 bit pointless local hockey team that would barely rate a mention in the local rag. This has been a major story for the past X days on every communications medium, radio, TV, newspapers, internet.

      Way to not get it You win one big whooshie.

      The point is you can advertise as much as you want, and people will miss all of it. Has nothing to do with your assessment of our league, which was by the way, rather large, but with people in general.

      point at just about any tech or news site in the world and it will almost certainly have rated a mention. It has been mentioned on everything from local news reports to international media and press releases.

      The problem is people do miss stuff. Some people are not interested in Tech. Didn't you catch all those early 2000's commercials where the important looking person spouts "Just tell me the right thing to buy!" ?

      That you or I might read and look and know is irrelevant. My wife hand't heard of the problem until I told her yesterday. A lot of people don't give a crap about tech. They just want a cellphone that works and doesn't kill them.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    32. Re:Smartphones by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

      If the faulty battery was in a lawn mower or model airplane then we probably wouldn't have had young children hurt and people would have not have been likely to be holding the device in their hands while it was charging. The battery manufacturer might not necessarily have much control over what kind of end products use their batteries. Although if it's a special order just to fit inside the confines of a particular phone or tablet, then I agree that the battery manufacturer has significant responsibility for the safety.

      I suspect consumer products with lipos will be put under more rigorous safety standards. The libertarian in me wishes these companies would self-regulate and that consumers would only purchase items that are UL listed. But we know how politics works and legislaturers are going to rush in to "save" us from big bad corporations (while also accepting donations from corporations).

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    33. Re:Smartphones by samwichse · · Score: 1

      http://www.huffingtonpost.co.u...

      It would be nice if that story was real.

    34. Re:Smartphones by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

      So far UL's record is solid, and they've been around over 100 years. Their safety standards are reviewed and approved by the government, if you think there needs to a government aspect to it. Although I will admit that UL's for-profit status is likely a cause for some to question their ethical obligations.

      Don't think for one second that governments are somehow immune to the same sort of corruption you imply. Both private corporations and public bureaucracies can be influenced by money and political pressure.

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    35. Re:Smartphones by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      There is no middle ground when someone takes every reasonable effort. This is nothing at all to do with me.

      Customer's lack of acknowledgement of a fault when a company has issued a formal recall, it's been covered in the news, on their facebook page, twitter accounts, on their website, I received an email from Samsung via my Samsung account even though I have don't have a Galaxy Note 7, it's on the page of resellers and telecom companies, and there's been warnings issued by safety boards across many countries, not to mention 3rd parties like airlines, should not hold a company liable.

      Wilfully doing something that someone has taken every reasonable effort to tell you not to do does make the party magically off the hook. This is the entire basis of tort law and is the reason you see "Slippery when wet" signs.

    36. Re:Smartphones by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      It only showed up in 40 cases out of millions of units so far. How much testing is enough in your world?

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    37. Re:Smartphones by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      That was (less than) 40 cases. Slashdot doesn't like the less than symbol.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  2. Negligence? by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

    Surely they're aware of the recall. They gave a child in their care a device that is known it catch on fire under normal use.

    1. Re:Negligence? by SeaFox · · Score: 2

      My kid loves his lawn darts, you insensitive clod!

    2. Re:Negligence? by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      Surely they're aware of the recall. They gave a child in their care a device that is known it catch on fire under normal use.

      Why would they be proven to be aware? The only way to prove that a person knows, or has a good presumption of knowing that the Samsungs like to go kablooey, is if Samsung does due dilegence and sends each owner a physical thing that explains the problem.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    3. Re:Negligence? by mjr167 · · Score: 1

      Fisher-Price Glow Seahorses also catch fire. And were not recalled. My kid actually has one in her crib. According to the baby books and baby stuff manufacturers everything will kill your kid. When we bought our crib the vendor had just come out with a new model with special "green" stains and finishes that would reduce the risk of SIDS. We habitually recall things where 1 in a million uses under some strange circumstances resulted in some guy hurting himself. Instead of writing it off as 'some guy did something dumb' or 'shit happens' we have to 'do something'. Remember Ford disabling airbags because their was a minute chance that the air bag might explode? Which was more likely, the airbag saving your life or exploding?

      Logic and reasoning never make into our risk management conversations. We say "OH MY GOD! A PHONE EXPLODED A CHILD WAS BURNED! HOW HORRIBLE! DO SOMETHING! SUE SAMSUNG! ARREST THE PARENTS!". Meanwhile how many children actually DIED in car crashes yesterday?

      On another note, random things spontaneously combusting is actually extremely common. Four of my monitors at work have caught fire (IT informed me that they were not on actually on fire, just smoking).

    4. Re:Negligence? by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      I asked for a fire extinguisher once after unplugging a coworker's monitor, because it started hissing loudly and smoking. Our branch chief came over, facepalmed, and lectured the guy about not being allowed to bring his own 35 inch monitor into work.

    5. Re:Negligence? by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      That toy hasn't been recalled and the manufacturer hasn't told everyone to immediately stop using it

    6. Re:Negligence? by mjr167 · · Score: 1

      If the toy you are snuggling with bursts into flames, how much do you really care if there was an official recall or not? You are now on fire.

      There are actually lots of ways to set yourself on fire, many of them surprising. Flour is highly explosive and grainery fires are pretty nasty. Should we ban flour or charge bakers with negligence for baking while their children are in the house? What about people that deep fry turkeys? Or laptops that overheat and set beds on fire? You must be negligent if you let your kids use a laptop in their room!

    7. Re:Negligence? by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      You're completely missing the point.

    8. Re:Negligence? by mjr167 · · Score: 1

      Actually... I think I understand you perfectly. You want to charge parents with negligence when anything bad happens to their children that YOU are quite certain you would have never let happen because it makes you feel superior to judge people. YOU would never turn around in the grocery store to find your kid was not following you like he was supposed to. YOUR kid would never wake up in the middle of the night, open the front door and walk outside. YOUR kid would never set the house on fire making toast.

      You are probably also the type of person that would sue Walmart because their parking lot was dark at 2AM and you tripped because they should have had better lighting.

      How about instead we accept that sometimes shit happens? Sometimes we trip. Sometimes the toy/phone/laptop we are using randomly bursts into flames. We don't need to send someone to jail or take away their children every time something bad happens. We don't need to assign blame for every little thing. Accept that shit happens and life is dangerous. Life is full of risks that we take everyday.

      Instead there are children suffering from REAL abuse and neglect that we are ignoring because we are too busy trying to decide if letting your kid hold a phone constitutes neglect. This kid has loving parents that can give him things like a state of the art brand spanking new phone. There are kids whose parents leave them alone while they go off and get high or drunk. There are kids who do not have food. Worry about those kids, not this one.

    9. Re:Negligence? by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      To be honest, my kid has walked out side, down the road and stood in the middle of the road. A helpful neighbour brought him back.

      I wouldn't give him a box of matches, a lighter, or let him play in the bath with a hair dryer.
      I also wouldn't give him a phone that's known to spontaneously catch on fire and has been recalled globally.

      I don't live in a country run by lawyers. People don't sue other people for accidents here.
      However, when someone does something stupid and it results in someone getting hurt, that's not an accident.

    10. Re:Negligence? by mjr167 · · Score: 1

      So who decides when it crosses the line to "something stupid" and "they should have known"? You?

      You clearly should have been watching your kid! You should have locked the door! You should have gotten child proof door handle things so the entire family can burn in the event of a fire! What if he had been kidnapped or hit by a car?

      We can blame the parents all day long. We can go and remove the child from the home and declare the parents unfit. Or... we can accept that we weren't there. We don't know what the parents knew. We don't know what the parents thought. Maybe thought it only exploded in strange circumstances. You don't know. Just because YOU know better doesn't mean anyone told them.

      In all honesty, we recall things so often in the country for stupid reasons that people tend to ignore them. My kid's high chair was recalled because apparently people weren't putting it together right. I looked at the high chair and decided the risk wasn't worth sending it back. Should I loose my kids if it falls apart? OR do I have the right to do my own risk management and use my own judgement?

    11. Re:Negligence? by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      tl;dr;

  3. Still way too little schadenfreude on the net... by ffkom · · Score: 5, Funny

    ... where are the photoshop artists when you need them to create suicide-bomber pictures with belts made of Note 7s?

  4. No Thermal Fuse? by BoRegardless · · Score: 1

    I've used various thermal fuses to stop overheating in designs since the 1970s. Tell me why it should not be done in cellphone battery areas.

    1. Re:No Thermal Fuse? by dwywit · · Score: 1

      Samsung have claimed it's a short circuit, not much a thermal fuse can do about that.

      --
      They sentenced me to twenty years of boredom
    2. Re:No Thermal Fuse? by wierd_w · · Score: 5, Informative

      This comes from bad electrolyte or bad quality control in the battery's construction.

      One of the following is happening:

      1) the cathode of the battery is fraying apart too quickly. (LiON batteries have cathodes that shrink and swell under charge and discharge, as they need to have a very high permeability to ionic lithium salts in solution. The actual absorption of the electrolyte during charging splits the cathode apart slowly over time. That's why the batteries wear out. In this case, the cathode is prematurely disintegrating, and the frayed out bits are shorting with the annode.)

      2) the electrolyte inside the pack is of poor quality/improper. Instead of just migrating into the porous cathode during charging, it is breaking down, and depositing metallic lithium dendrites inside the cathode. These can cause short circuits, much like tin whiskers do.

      3) the charge logic is improper, causing either breakdown of the electrolyte, or causing premature cathode disintegration through overcharging.

      in all cases, the fire happens after a dead short with the annode occurs inside the battery.

      Normally, the charge controller uses a thermistor to tell if thr cell is charging properly or not.if it is not charging properly, it disables the cell to prevent electrolyte and cathode breakdown, and the subsequent fire these cause.

      in the endless madness for thinner and thinner batteries, it is possible that thermally assisted detection of bad charging is less effective, because of the high surface area to weight ratio of the thiner battery cells. (they radiate the heat too quickly because they are thin and flat, so the thermistor reading isnt as accurate.)

       

    3. Re:No Thermal Fuse? by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      Have a read up on lithium batteries. No thermal fuse can stop them catching on fire once an internal short circuit has occurred.

    4. Re:No Thermal Fuse? by cheater512 · · Score: 1

      Fuses sit between the device and the battery. Not so much help when the fault is internal to the battery.

    5. Re:No Thermal Fuse? by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

      LiPo defects can result in an internal short, and catastrophic exothermic results. If your cells don't have defects and operate correctly under normal temperature range, then a thermal fuse is quite helpful in keeping them from running away into a dangerous range.

      lithium iron phosphate (LiFePO4) are much safer than typical lithium-polymer (LiCoO2 or LiMn2O4), but are lower capacity and thus heavier and bulkier for an equivalent capacity and are typically more expensive.

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    6. Re:No Thermal Fuse? by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      We use Li+ batteries because they're fast-reacting (release energy quickly) and high-energy-density (lots of charge in little space). That's the point of new battery tech: More current draw (ability to power more-demanding things) for more time (ability to power longer).

      That means any future battery tech will lean further toward high power output and high power density. We've got ideas for novel lithium compounds, organic cells, and nano-electrodes that should supply higher voltages, heavier current draw, and more capacity; most of that stuff is hard to make or just plain unstable (i.e. you get like four charge cycles before they're fucked). The only exceptions are slow-discharge batteries designed for low-draw operation, specifically because a high internal resistance extends battery life (can't power a motor, but lasts 15 years in your smoke detector).

      In other words: laptops, smartphones, electric cars, and Gameboy are all grabbing at Li+ and better batteries. They're specifically interested in what amount to miniature bombs, and they *will* go boom if mishandled. Safer alternatives are safer for the reasons you state--which is why we don't use them: can't drive a high-power circuit, can't provide power for 60 hours.

      You fundamentally have to give up on power output to get a safer battery. If it supplies less current when reacting, it's safer.

  5. I didn't know that by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    I had been following the thing a little bit but I thought the fire danger was just while charging, not under normal use...

    If I didn't know, I don't know how some random non-technical family is supposed to know anything about it whatsoever.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:I didn't know that by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      i guess as a parent id probably say if it can happen when charging....it can happen when its discharging, not letting my kid play with it

      also my kid would have a 200$ tablet not a 900$ smart phone, but then again what do i know, im just a stoner lol

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    2. Re:I didn't know that by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      This happened in New York City. $900 for a smartphone is nothing there compared to the rent.

    3. Re:I didn't know that by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      These were my thoughts, I see there's been news coverage and "public statements" but if the parents don't regularly watch the news how far has Samsung gone to ensure people get the message?

      Yeah, good point. WhoTF still watches "the news" these days anyway? Not people buying the latest $900 smartphone. The people who still watch the evening news are pretty advanced if they have a cellphone at all; most are still using landlines and many are probably on oxygen.

      These are phones, couldn't the carriers call or send a text?

      You really have to wonder. Maybe the carriers refuse to cooperate because they don't want people thinking their service is bad and they're somehow to blame for the exploding batteries.

      This is one of the big problems with these smartphones after all: in the Android ecosystem, there's no less than 3 different parties involved with supplying your phone to you, along with necessary software updates: the OS maker (who also provides a lot of the cloud services the phone makes use of--email, search, maps, etc.), the handset manufacturer (who loads up a whole bunch of bloatware and crapware that can't be removed without rooting the phone), and the carrier (who also loads up a bunch of bloatware and crapware of their own).

    4. Re:I didn't know that by anarcobra · · Score: 1

      Don't know if they did this, but samsung could have just sent a big popup saying this device is being recalled.
      You get a big message whenever they release an update too.
      Maybe the carriers can prevent this somehow dunno, but in that case blame them.

    5. Re:I didn't know that by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Well, with this discussion, I'm now hoping that it'll come out that Samsung *did* try to notify customers over-the-air like this, but that the carriers blocked it for stupid legal reasons. Then I want to see some customers who actually had them catch on fire sue the carriers for millions, and then the federal government arrest the execs and lock them up for criminal negligence.

      We could really use a big shake-up in the wireless telecom industry in this country. Hopefully Verizon will be the hardest-hit.

    6. Re:I didn't know that by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

      I believe I read somewhere else Samsung does plan to disable the devices around the end of the month. Maybe this will accelerate the timeline...

      --
      "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    7. Re:I didn't know that by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      i mean i see your point but still, a 200 dollar tablet that the kid can break 5 (and a half lol) of them for the same cost

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    8. Re:I didn't know that by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      I totally agree, but these things aren't marketed towards thriftier people like you and me, and people like you and me certainly wouldn't spend that much money on a tablet/phablet and give it to some kid who's just going to beat it up. I have a friend who's a single mom with a 7-year-old boy, and holy crap does that kid beat stuff up; I wouldn't put anything delicate or expensive anywhere near him. But I have an inkling that these Brooklynites aren't like me, and have money to burn.

  6. Just how I feel by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 1, Funny

    He doesn't want to see or go near any phones. He's been crying to his mother.

    Don't worry, kid- for Christmas you're getting an iPhone 7 and an expensive set of wired headphones!

    1. Re:Just how I feel by gnasher719 · · Score: 1

      Don't worry, kid- for Christmas you're getting an iPhone 7 and an expensive set of wired headphones!

      ... which you then plug into the phone using the included Lightning to 3.5mm adapter. I suppose that's what you meant, right?

  7. Stock price plunge by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

    It's too bad that lousy software and bloatware/crapware don't cause companies' stock prices to plunge. Then maybe they'd do something about those things.

    1. Re:Stock price plunge by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Compared to Chrome, Firefox isn't bloated.

  8. Non-removable battery = bad business risk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The cell phone companies are getting greedy using non-removable batteries that only benefit them. Maybe other companies will think twice and start using removable ones again.

    1. Re:Non-removable battery = bad business risk by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

      Good luck getting super thin industrial design on a device that has a removable battery.

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    2. Re:Non-removable battery = bad business risk by TroII · · Score: 1

      Where are these people who are demanding ever-thinner phones, anyway? Most people I know have their phones inside of thick cases (Otterbox etc.) because the phones themselves are too thin and fragile already. Give me a removable and replaceable battery over a thinner phone, any day of the week.

    3. Re:Non-removable battery = bad business risk by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

      I am, it's entirely my fault that we're in this situation.

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    4. Re:Non-removable battery = bad business risk by TheDarkMaster · · Score: 1

      I failed to understand your ignorance (or arrogance) ... Try putting a battery that can not be replaced in a flashlight, in a notebook or on any device whose lifespan is far greater than any current battery. Go back to your basement, you are not able to understand the real world.

      --
      Religion: The greatest weapon of mass destruction of all time
    5. Re:Non-removable battery = bad business risk by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

      I'm waiting for phones to be one molecule thick.

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
  9. Not only is the Galaxy Note 7 waterproof.. by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

    It can also be used to boil water in an emergency. This will be a boon to backpackers.

    1. Re:Not only is the Galaxy Note 7 waterproof.. by ffkom · · Score: 1

      Or use as a grenade substitute when ambushed by a wild horde. Or use it to make a fire in your cave shelter in the Himalayas - also scares off the Yeti!

  10. Reaction to recall: by DrYak · · Score: 1

    Some big company is issuing a recall because their gadget can explode. This company is dead serious about it, urging user to keep using their older phone until they receive replacement for the newer-explodey phone.

    In short: GADGET CAN EXPLODE, COMPANY WANTS YOU TO REPLACE IT.

    You:

    A. REPLACE: Hide the thing away in some solid trusted container and bring the shit as fast as you can to the nearest shop for replacement before it explodes.

    B. IGNORE: You give it to your kid to muck around - specially because said kid is pre-schooler and has no concepts of "exploding" or "safety".

    Any sane person will go for option A.

    The only reason that option B doesn't qualify is that you remove the genes from the gene pool by proxy (for DA you need to remove your own genes from the pool before you reproduce. Not remove your offspring after you've reproduced. Aka: don't involve innocent people in the procedure).

    Someone should *REALLY* call child protection service over this one. If the (grand-)parents are *THAT* stupid, chances are high that the kid is exposed to other risks due to the irresponsibility and stupidity of close family.

    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
    1. Re:Reaction to recall: by Teckla · · Score: 1

      Someone should *REALLY* call child protection service over this one. If the (grand-)parents are *THAT* stupid, chances are high that the kid is exposed to other risks due to the irresponsibility and stupidity of close family.

      A lot of people don't watch or read the news -- and I don't blame them, as it's 99% hyped up garbage.

      I can easily imagine a lot of affected Note 7 owners -- approximately 2.5 million of them -- weren't exposed to the recall message for some reason.

      Sitting in such harsh judgment is pretty immature.

  11. Multimillion dollar damages lawsuit incoming. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    "He doesn't want to see or go near any phones. He's been crying to his mother."

    If that doesn't sound like "we are going to sue the shit out of Samsung for not bothering to pay attention to product recalls" idk what would.

  12. Re:Still way too little schadenfreude on the net.. by pushing-robot · · Score: 1

    I'm hoping for a fake video of Jony Ive explaining that smartphone battery fires are caused by interference from the 3.5mm jack.

    --
    How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
  13. Should, did not. by DrYak · · Score: 1

    Tell me why it should not be done in cellphone battery areas.

    In theory, cellphone batteries, because they are made of lithium(*) have EVEN MORE protection than that.
    Tons of protection directly built into the battery case itself, and in the charging circuit.

    In practice: someone somewhere along the supply and/or assembly manage to fuck up enough of these protection.

    Thus Samsung joins the hall of shame previously occupied by
    - Sony (and their incendiary laptop batteries back in the early 2000s) who managed to burn countless laptops, even of 3rd party brand to which Sony was only a battery parts provider (and this fucker contain way much more energy than a smartphone battery. A laptop has the same energy content as a small handgrenade)
    - and the various no-name Chinese clone maker of self-balance board (the things nick named "Hoverboards") who where focusing so much on making a quick buck that they completely neglected any protection in their rush. (and these fucker pack even more energy than a laptop. THAT's some dangerous fire/explosion hasard).

    ---
    (*) lithium tends to explode if
    - you overcharge it
    - you undercharge it then try to charge
    - overheat
    - draw too much current while using
    - put too much current while charging
    - puncture ...
    Well metaphorically, it will explode if you look it the wrong way.

    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
  14. Exploding or going up in flames by gnasher719 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    To me, "exploding" and "going up in flames" is not the same thing. If I hold a phone in my hands and it goes up in flames, I drop it and might have some burns if I'm unlucky. If I hold a phone in my hands and it explodes, good bye hands.

    Is there any reliable information what actually happens?

    1. Re:Exploding or going up in flames by hey! · · Score: 5, Informative

      If I recall, technically an "explosion" is supersonic deflagration, which of course is accompanied by a shock wave. It's the shock wave that's the salient feature of an explosion.

      Practically anything flammable can explode if it is finely mixed with oxygen (or an oxidizer) and it is *contained*. If you pour the black powder from a bullet into a line and touch it off it's go up pfft! But it won't explode because it's not contained. On the flip side flour or powdered coffee creamer can be sifted into a tube and ignited and it will explode, but not with much force.

      A lithium ion cell has plenty of flammable bits inside, a source of O2 (the electrode), and of course it is contained, but it's engineered not to explode. It's engineered not to catch fire too, so you can't rule rule out either possibility since something's gone very wrong.

      It's not either/or too: you can get a small explosion that once it escapes its immediate confines dissipates into an expanding cloud of burning gas -- or even a fireball. It can be quite impressive, and while not packing the shattering power it would if all the fuel was consumed at supersonic speed, it can be quite impressive and destructive.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    2. Re:Exploding or going up in flames by OrangeTide · · Score: 2

      There is a chemists definition of explosion, and there is a less rigorous colloquial definition. A can of your favorite fizzy drink might be said to explode if the conditions are right, but really it's just gas expanding rapid through a failure in the container. It's particularly violent if you were to say, microwave it, then you'd have potentially super-heated sugar water spraying all over your relatively flimsy human skin, and I promise you every newspaper would report that as an "explosion".

      So while there are probably no shockwaves in your burning LiPo, deflagration is significant enough for the case and glass of the phone to fly outward at low-velocity from the release of gas and the thermal shock to the glass. If you put the device in a fireproof bag (as RC guys do) then it probably isn't going to "explode" in any sense of the word, but if it happens while a small child is holding it then we'd say it "exploded".

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    3. Re:Exploding or going up in flames by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Flour has detonated with extreme force. Enough to demolish a building. Thirteen abstract people died.

    4. Re:Exploding or going up in flames by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Colloquially, something has to go boom to explode. We've separated out the idea of squeezing something externally or puncturing a pressure vessel.

    5. Re:Exploding or going up in flames by hey! · · Score: 1

      Yes, if you scale a weak explosive enough the size of the shockwave gets arbitrarily large. However if you try this in a cardboard concrete form (sonotube) the sonotube will remain intact. You suspend the tube over an ignition source like a candle and sift flour into the top.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    6. Re:Exploding or going up in flames by rpstrong · · Score: 1

      If I recall, technically an "explosion" is supersonic deflagration, which of course is accompanied by a shock wave. It's the shock wave that's the salient feature of an explosion.

      Practically anything flammable can explode if it is finely mixed with oxygen (or an oxidizer) and it is *contained*. If you pour the black powder from a bullet into a line and touch it off it's go up pfft! But it won't explode because it's not contained.

      I beg to differ. Modern smokeless powder will indeed go 'pfffft' (IIRC, a pile of powder from a 12 gauge shell took several seconds to burn). But smokeless powder is a propellant, not an explosive. Black powder, OTOH, is an explosive whether it is contained or not. Lighting a small pile makes a distinct popping sound from the wave front of the uncontained explosion.

  15. How your supply chain can build or destroy a brand by seoras · · Score: 2

    The question, that remains unanswered at the moment, is just how damaged is the Samsung Phone brand?
    Is it on life support now after what just happened to a 6 year old NY-er?
    As a parent I'm not keen on allowing any of my gang (7, 5, 3, & 6 mnths) to touch our smart phones, less so now.
    This is where brand value and customer confidence in brand comes to the fore, when it threatens the safety of those who you protect.
    Xmas time is going to be a tough one for Samsung and, for not paying attention to the quality and safety of supplied parts, they deserve it.
    Which android brand will take their place?

  16. Re:As an EE and amateur aircraft manufacturer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I'd say take a hard look at the fucking chem heads instead.
    No amount of electrical engineering can fix you strapping a bomb to an electric heater.

  17. Re:As an EE and amateur aircraft manufacturer by Austerity+Empowers · · Score: 1

    I wonder how EEs many lost their jobs in this?

    As an EE I would also try to point my finger at some firmware guys, at some semiconductor guys and some chemical engineers. There's a lot involved in these sorts of batteries in consumer devices, plenty of blame to share.

  18. Re:Doesn't want to see or go near any phones. by OrangeTide · · Score: 2

    play games. there are lots of mobile games for young children. some of them of actual educational value, most of them of value of keeping a bored child busy while parents get daily chores done.

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
  19. *crosses fingers* by nightfire-unique · · Score: 1

    I for one hope this is the even that causes Samsung to discontinue their idiotic policy of sealing in phone batteries.

    They could have mailed out replacements with a return envelope so much more easily than depriving people of their devices for a week.

    --
    A government is a body of people notably ungoverned - AC
    1. Re:*crosses fingers* by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      What do you mean? Take it into the local T-mobile/Verizon/Target/whatever and swap it off, let the store send your shit phone back.

  20. Remotely brick? by by+(1706743) · · Score: 2

    Would it be legal for Samsung to issue an OTA update to essentially brick the device (ideally affecting the charging controller, too)?

    Would this be legal? Not that I'm advocating that sort of behavior, just wondering...as-is, it seems we barely own anything and are just borrowing it from the company...

    1. Re:Remotely brick? by vakuona · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Maybe not brick it (because people might try to fix it).

      Just put a huge warning message that the device is dead and can not be used anymore. Give the people a code that they can use to claim a refund, and tell them they don't even have to bring it to a store. They can just chuck it away and claim a refund.

      That way, no parent gives it to a young kid, and they scare them enough into getting rid of it.

  21. Hard to feel sad about Samsung by OneHundredAndTen · · Score: 1

    Samsung is a pretty despicable company, when it comes to support and customer attention. Also, they load their phones with bloatware and plain junk.

    1. Re:Hard to feel sad about Samsung by OneHundredAndTen · · Score: 1

      And while I am at it, the enjoyment will increase once Samsung starts being hit with lawsuits left and right.

  22. Re:Just sayin by OneHundredAndTen · · Score: 1

    Anyone else notice when a giant US company is struggling, it's competition suddenly does something insanely stupid?

    No. It may have happened on occasion but by no means all the time. Coincidences, that's all.

  23. Re:As an EE and amateur aircraft manufacturer by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

    There's a lot involved in these sorts of batteries in consumer devices, plenty of blame to share.

    And eventually some janitor and the new guy in the mailroom will be fired, and the CEO will get a nice bonus.

    --
    The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  24. Re:As an EE and amateur aircraft manufacturer by Teckla · · Score: 1

    As an EE I would also try to point my finger at some firmware guys, at some semiconductor guys and some chemical engineers. There's a lot involved in these sorts of batteries in consumer devices, plenty of blame to share.

    Samsung/Samsung SDI have already admitted it's a manufacturing defect.

  25. Is it always when charging or no? by AbRASiON · · Score: 1

    I saw someone on twitter ask Benson Leung to test but he doesn't have a Note 7 USB-C cable.

    USB-C being a real mess of a standard, it'd be great if people followed it to the letter but so far the past 2 or 3 years has been a shambles of risk and potentially fried devices.

  26. Bomb in a pocket by iamacat · · Score: 1

    Rather than carrying a stick pf dynamite in my pocket, next to important organs that I would prefer to keep, I would rather have a little thicker phone that allows for bigger, less energy dense battery. And then optimize software to reduce power demands. An old fashioned alphanumeric pager used to last weeks on a pair of non-explosive AA batteries. When the phone is not in active use, it does not need any more functionality to display notifications and receive phone calls on a secondary e-ink screen. When I actually unlock it, feel free to spin up the CPU and 1080p screen and then download stuff over LTE.

  27. Could've had an easy solution by sremick · · Score: 1

    I wonder if Samsung is wishing they had listened to users and kept batteries user-removable.

    1. Re:Could've had an easy solution by Ash-Fox · · Score: 1

      I wonder if Samsung is wishing they had listened to users and kept batteries user-removable.

      To answer your question:

      Nope, that's not what they're wishing at all.

      --
      Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
  28. Re:As an EE and amateur aircraft manufacturer by Woldscum · · Score: 2

    ZERO. It is not a design fault. It is poor workmanship. Samsung themselves make the battery cells. A 3rd party company assembles the cells into battery packs. The battery pack assembly is what is at fault here. From everything I have read.

  29. Re:Still way too little schadenfreude on the net.. by GrumpyNope · · Score: 1
  30. Re:As an EE and amateur aircraft manufacturer by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

    But the problem is with the battery terminals causing an over current condition and over heating. Totally an electrical problem.

  31. Safety Warning! by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 1

    Please send in your Samsung Galaxy Note 7 immediately. Preferably via Air Mail. Signed ISIS

    --
    Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
  32. Re:Still way too little schadenfreude on the net.. by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

    Samsung did the right thing by admitting it right away. The lack of a "you're charging it wrong" type reaction saved it from becoming another -gate scandal.

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  33. unplanned obsolescence by Ignatius · · Score: 1

    Looks like the company was a bit too eager to hit its planned obsolescence targets.

    ignatius

  34. Not a Note 7 by crvtec · · Score: 3, Informative

    Not a Note 7. It was a Galaxy Core: http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news... Possibly aftermarket battery?

  35. Tracking down smartphones by DrYak · · Score: 1

    I can easily imagine a lot of affected Note 7 owners -- approximately 2.5 million of them -- weren't exposed to the recall message for some reason.

    We're speaking about smartphones.

    - As per the various laws that were put into action in the name of "protection against terrorism" after 9-11, lots of countries (including the US) require tracking off all users of cell phone services (even pay as you go) to be properly registered. That means, at some point during purchase, this smartphone was associated with a SIM card that has an identity linked to it.
    It's not necessarily the SIM card that finally ended up in the phone (e.g.: the grand parents might have bought it, but kept their old phone with the SIM in it, and might have given the smartphone as a present to the 6yo kid), but easy to track down that the grandparents were present at the moment when the phone was bought.
    Through this way it is possible that the store chain that sold the phone (or the company that is keeping track of the cell phone customer for them) could track every last buyer of the phone and tell them. (They won't be able to tell the kid, but at least they can reach the grand parents who bought it).

    If the way SIM-card holder registry is done in the US can't be used to track down users in case of emergency, then it's really a piece of shit that can't even stand up for the reason it was invoked (though I strongly suspect that this is the case. Just another privacy invading policy that can't be actually used against terrorism or for emergencies).

    - Due to the way radio-wave licensing works, there are part of the phone radio circuits (parts of the firmware running in the modem, and the firmware running in the SIM card) that aren't update by Google / Samsung (they aren't part of the Android installation installed on the smartphone).
    They are not supposed to be end-users accessible.
    Only holder of license for the radio channel can access it. It's the carrier's job to send over-the-air updates to this part of the modem firmware, and to the SIM card. (When not straigh sending a new physical SIM card, because after 10 years the previous one is too old and useless to run anything compatible... been there...) (Also hope that your phone's SoC doesn't use it's modem chip *as a Northbridge/main controller* and the modem-firmware update causes freezes/crashes in the OS... cough... Qualcom! ...cough...)
    Thus at any time every cell tower knows exactly which phone (and exactly which *hardware model* of phone) is connected to it (and might send such OTA updates).
    Cell tower can also send not only SMS messages, but direct service message (a full screen text/warning that bypasses the SMS system).
    Also keep in mind that, even without a SIM card, a smartphone *will* establish contact to a cell tower (at least to provide emergency calling services).

    Thus it's trivially possible (with a bit of cooperation between carriers) that a message is delivered straigh to the screen of all concerned smartphones (i.e.: a specific IMEI range, or a certain firmware revision...)
    Even if the 6yo can't read the "WARNING: this phone is about to explode" message, he'll probably complain to the nearest adult that the pop-up is disturbing his session of Pokémon.

    As a comparison, 1 year ago, here around a couple of store chains needed to recall quick-build above-ground inflatable spas/whirlpool due to potential electric shock hasard in the heating system.
    It's not even an IoT connected thing, there's no automatic way to remotely contact users / display warning on the console. It was entirely done through public communication / announcement.
    Still, the whole defective batch was successfully recalled without any causality.
    But it might be that germanic speaking countries might be a little bit better organised than the US.

    Still, if they can manage to recall a dumb spa, whereas Samsung and the US cell carriers are unable to recall a connected device that can remotely display message and whose buyers are supposed to be easily traceable (for terrorism/emergency reasons), then there's a deep problem somewhere.

    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
  36. Re:Still way too little schadenfreude on the net.. by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

    Sevengate? Notegate? Galacticgate? Thesuninyourpocketgate?

  37. Re:As an EE and amateur aircraft manufacturer by FilmedInNoir · · Score: 1

    The problem is with the batteries becoming over-charged or over-discharged causing metallic lithium and oxygen bubbles to form. They react together and cause a fire. Either it's an issue with the protection circuitry failing to shut down the batteries when they are at max/min change (possibly an EE issue) or it's an issue with the batteries themselves not charging correctly such as reporting a false voltage and continuing to change or discharge (manufacturer issue). The latter is more likely since lipo protection circuitry is so common now they don't really need to reinvent the wheel, but trying to add an extra 1000 or so mAh to a battery could definitely cause a problem.

    --
    Sig. Sig. Sputnik
  38. Hurray for QC by slashmydots · · Score: 1

    I can't believe they ordered some cheap Chinese crap battery that explodes like something you'd get on ebay and stuck it in one of the premiere, top quality phones. They will now forever be associated with cheap Chinese parts. I'm sure that's totally worth all the money they saved on battery production.

  39. Shame on you, Samsung! Shame! by emil · · Score: 1

    The market WANTS removable batteries, and an a removable sdcard. The market wants this BADLY.

    Samsung, you spurned the desires of the market, thinking you knew best.

    You did this to accelerate planned obsolescence and force the purchase of replacement phones long before the service life of the electronics had reached a reasonable end. Had these batteries been removable, replacement of the faulty/dangerous parts would have been greatly simplified.

    Samsung, you have not received a tenth of the market punishment that you deserve.

    1. Re:Shame on you, Samsung! Shame! by Big+Bill+the+Conjure · · Score: 1

      +1. Agree wholeheartedly. A sealed design greatly reduces the device's usable lifespan and is a horrible design approach for a rechargeable device for that reason.

      I am a heavy user of a Galaxy Note 3, and I've bought several spare and replacement batteries since I got it. When I finally replace it, it will not be with another Samsung device; I'm switching over to the LG V line, which still employs a removable battery.

  40. Re:Still way too little schadenfreude on the net.. by zentigger · · Score: 1

    I think you are looking for fark.

    --

    the above is my personal opinion and does not necessarily reflect that of the little voices in my head

  41. Re:%$&#$% Bellends! by wkwilley2 · · Score: 1

    It's been plastered over news outlets for 10 days before this incident happened. I've even heard news of it on the radio.

    Ignorance isn't an excuse.

    --
    Have you ever fallen asleep at the keybhanusdiog?
  42. Re:How your supply chain can build or destroy a br by LienRag · · Score: 1

    Good question, what would be a good smartphone that could be rooted and is under 100$ second-hand? Is the Galaxy S4 still a good choice?