Samsung's Latest Note 7 Battery Fix Violates Android Compatibility Docs (arstechnica.com)

Over the past few days, we have extensively talked about the Galaxy Note 7 -- and its faulty battery. Amid announcements of a global recall, Samsung noted that it is rolling out a firmware update to let users know if their device is affected by the faulty battery. If the battery icon on the device turns green, it means the device is safe to use. The problem is that according to Google's Android Compatibility Definition Document, a set of guidelines that Google imposes on every OEM that opts for Google Mobile Services-enabled Android aren't supposed to tinker with things like battery icon. ArsTechnica reports:In the CDD, Google also defines some of the interface design -- usually the parts apps need to interact with, like the System UI and shared theme assets. This includes mandating the color of the status bar icons, which seems to throw a wrench in Samsung's publicized plans. The section titled "3.8.6. Themes" reads: "Android device implementations MUST use white for system status icons (such as signal strength and battery level) and notifications issued by the system, unless the icon is indicating a problematic status or an app requests a light status bar using the SYSTEM_UI_FLAG_LIGHT_STATUS_BAR flag." Google spells it out pretty clearly: status bar icons have to be white. They aren't allowed to be green, which is the color Samsung plans to use in a future update.

Comments

No, it's fine

[Anonymous Coward]

unless the icon is indicating a problematic status

Right. The icon *is* indicating a problematic status: The device is using a battery which might explode.

Re: No, it's fine

[Anonymous Coward]

But then how do you know if the battery checker app is working correctly? Really, Samsung should have a firmware update that shows the battery RED if there is a problem, plus a separate app that just tells you if the battery is defective model (or not). That separate app only needs to run once.

Re:No, it's fine

[meerling]

Flaws in the battery from manufacturing, often a contaminant is the cause according the papers on it I've read.
There's a lot of scientific papers on lithium batteries and their risks & flaws if you look for it. You don't have to rely on clickbait sensationalist 'journalism' written by someone that doesn't know the difference between an alloy case and a violation of the conservation of momentum and is likely to call both of them an airborn computer virus. (The standards for journalism have fallen so low that demons in the ninth layer of hell drop care packages for them down the well.)

Re: No, it's fine

[HannethCom]

Except Google has come out and said that they worked with Samsung on this. It is actually green, with a white outline and an exception has been made for this one special case.

Re:And

[msauve]

Hell, it's a bigger deal that Samsung consistently violates the GPL by shipping phones and not releasing kernel source for months.

OOooOOOooh! They got CAUGHT!

[mpoulton]

THOSE DIRTY BASTARDS!!! They had the temerity to violate a minor rule in an unenforceable voluntary standard to fix an actual operator safety issue! What gall.

Really though, nobody should care one bit about this. The violation is that the icon is green under normal conditions. Turning red when unsafe is standards-compliant, but the green normal state isn't. The problem is that a white normal state provides no confirmation to the user that the battery status has been checked at all. Turning green confirms that the check has been performed and the result was acceptable. Could they have used some other method of indicating this? Sure, but it would have been more intrusive and less clear to the user. This is simple and elegant, and addresses a problem that the standards writers certainly never anticipated. It's a great solution, really. Why would anyone object?

Re:OOooOOOooh! They got CAUGHT!

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a great solution, really. Why would anyone object?

Because this is Ars Technica we're talking about. Mental flexibility isn't one of their strengths.

Priorities?

[jetkust]

So changing the color of the icon violates the policy but blowing up the phone doesn't?

Re:I'm so glad

[omnichad]

It's open the same way that Chrome is. If you fork it, you can't call it Chrome and you can't use Google's trademarks all over it.

A flaming phone icon would be better.

[fwc]

So, they can't change the icon color. So, instead, they should just include a flaming phone icon. That should convey it perfectly.

Re:A flaming phone icon would be better.

[Howitzer86]

Honestly it should just shutoff. The thing is a fire hazard, and if the system knows this and persists in operating without user intervention I can imagine a lawsuit painting Samsung liable for damages. We don't know how long an interval would be between a bad battery icon and an exploding battery. It could be days, hours, minutes...

We need to cut Samsung some slack here

[93 Escort Wagon]

The problem is that according to Google's Android Compatibility Definition Document, a set of guidelines that Google imposes on every OEM that opts for Google Mobile Services-enabled Android aren't supposed to tinker with things like battery icon.

I agree that, under normal circumstances, Samsung should get dinged for something like this. But the problem is Samsung's copy of this document got destroyed in a fire.

Re:Hey I thought all S7 phones were recalled?

[mr_mischief]

A mandatory recall means the seller must ask the buyer to return them. It's still up to the buyer to do so. It's not mandatory in the sense that jackbooted thugs come to your house, take your phone, and hand you a check from Samsung in the middle of the night.

Re:is anyone color blind?

[OrangeTide]

Truly confidence inspiring words.

I'm happy that I was able to placate your concerns.