Verizon Says It Will Not Push Samsung's Update That Disables Galaxy Note7 Because Of User Inconvenience (verizon.com)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Verizon Says It Will Not Push Samsung's Update That Disables Galaxy Note7 Because Of User Inconvenience (verizon.com)

Posted by msmash on Friday December 9, 2016 @06:40AM from the moral-dilemma dept.

Samsung confirmed on Friday that it will indeed release an update to Galaxy Note7 smartphones in the United States to "prevent US Galaxy Note7 devices from charging and will eliminate their ability to work as mobile devices." In a new wrinkle to this whole situation, Verizon said today it will not be releasing Samsung's software update to Galaxy Note7 users on Verizon network. In a blog post, Verizon said: "Verizon will not be taking part in this update because of the added risk this could pose to Galaxy Note 7 users that do not have another device to switch to. We will not push a software upgrade that will eliminate the ability for the Note 7 to work as a mobile device in the heart of the holiday travel season. We do not want to make it impossible to contact family, first responders or medical professionals in an emergency situation." To recall, the Galaxy Note7 remains banned on airlines by the FAA and has also been prohibited from being used on many other public transit services in the United States. Elsewhere in the world, similar bans have been imposed on the phone.

192 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Relevant xkcd by serviscope_minor · 2016-12-09 06:42 · Score: 5, Insightful

https://xkcd.com/1328/
You know what's more inconvient than a broken phone? Your phone setting your fucking house on fire, that's what.

--
SJW n. One who posts facts.
1. Re:Relevant xkcd by houstonbofh · 2016-12-09 06:52 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  I still want to make the choice...
2. Re:Relevant xkcd by captaindomon · 2016-12-09 06:55 · Score: 2
  
  How about being stuck on a road in a snowstorm without communication? There are reasons why we shouldn't disable people's phones. I would argue for nagware - every hour, have a message pop up telling you there is a safety issue and asking you to return your phone to a Verizon store for a free replacement or something. Seems like a good balance between keeping devices safe and people losing critical communication.
  
  --
  Just because I can hook a shark from a boat, I do no offer to wrestle it in the water.
3. Re:Relevant xkcd by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-09 06:56 · Score: 0
  
  I don't have a fucking house, because that kind of house is illegal.
4. Re:Relevant xkcd by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-09 06:59 · Score: 0
  
  That's the risk that you take, otherwise go trade your phone in already.
  Considering the number of things that can catch fire or explode in my house a phone is the least of my non-worries.
5. Re:Relevant xkcd by Diss+Champ · 2016-12-09 06:59 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  How about being stuck on a road in a snowstorm without communication? There are reasons why we shouldn't disable people's phones. I would argue for nagware - every hour, have a message pop up telling you there is a safety issue and asking you to return your phone to a Verizon store for a free replacement or something. Seems like a good balance between keeping devices safe and people losing critical communication.
  Besides, when you are trapped in the wilderness in the snow, you may need to use your phone to start a fire.
6. Re:Relevant xkcd by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-09 07:02 · Score: 0
  
  How about being stuck on a road in a snowstorm without communication?
  You're right - if you're stuck in a snowstorm a fire can save your life! Good thinking, Samsung
  CAPTCHA: accuracy
7. Re:Relevant xkcd by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-09 07:03 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  ...and then somebody like you sues them when it finally does burn down their house.
8. Re:Relevant xkcd by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-09 07:03 · Score: 0
  
  and isis may want a bomb button.
9. Re: Relevant xkcd by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-09 07:04 · Score: 0
  
  Counterpoint: How about your downstairs neighbor leaves his note 7 on while he's out at the store and you're at work and both of you come home to find your apartment building on fire?
10. Re:Relevant xkcd by PvtVoid · 2016-12-09 07:04 · Score: 2
  
  How about being stuck on a road in a snowstorm without communication? There are reasons why we shouldn't disable people's phones. I would argue for nagware - every hour, have a message pop up telling you there is a safety issue and asking you to return your phone to a Verizon store for a free replacement or something. Seems like a good balance between keeping devices safe and people losing critical communication.
  They already do that, and the morons with these phones still refuse to return them, putting not only themselves at risk, but the people around them.
  Seriously, there is no excuse for still using one of these phones, and they should be bricked immediately. I hope Verizon gets sued for a bazillion dollars for any damages that result from leaving these phones in use.
11. Re:Relevant xkcd by pkinetics · 2016-12-09 07:06 · Score: 2
  
  Chestnuts roasting over an on fire Note
  Jack $hit care no one gives you
  You've been warned many times
  Return the damn thing, today!!
12. Re:Relevant xkcd by SlashdotWanker · 2016-12-09 07:06 · Score: 1
  
  How about being stuck on a road in a snowstorm without communication? There are reasons why we shouldn't disable people's phones. I would argue for nagware - every hour, have a message pop up telling you there is a safety issue and asking you to return your phone to a Verizon store for a free replacement or something. Seems like a good balance between keeping devices safe and people losing critical communication.
  I would argue (as someone who had the Note 7 and returned it over 1.5 months ago) that the time for minor annoyance popups is over. I think it should be more like you get a permanent popup that asks you to return the phone and that only the phone dialer & contacts app works on the phone so you aren't stranded. I get wanting to keep the Note 7 (best phone I ever owned other then the whole fire issue) but at this point you are putting others at risk because you don't want to give it up.
13. Re:Relevant xkcd by 110010001000 · 2016-12-09 07:10 · Score: 0
  
  Maybe they should have thought about that when the designed a defective product. It is 2016, we shouldn't have exploding phones.
14. Re: Relevant xkcd by barc0001 · 2016-12-09 07:11 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  What if you live in an apartment or townhouse? Would you want your neighbors making that choice for you as well? And flipping that around if you live in an apartment or townhouse complex and your Note 7 did catch the place on fire, your neighbors would be well within their rights to sue you into a financial hole so deep you'd never get out of it. Why? Because the Note 7 is a proven fire risk that the manufacturer is doing everything it can to ensure that people return and you're ignoring that. I bet your insurance would decline coverage in that case as well.
15. Re:Relevant xkcd by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-09 07:15 · Score: 0
  
  Seriously, there is no excuse for still using one of these phones
  There is no phone as nice as the Note 7 on the market today. Maybe in a few months, but not today
16. Re: Relevant xkcd by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-09 07:20 · Score: 0
  
  Countercounterpoint: How about your downstairs neighbor leaves his iron on while he's out at the store and you're at work and both of you come home to find your apartment building on fire?
  This just in: The world is fraught with danger. Film at 11.
17. Re: Relevant xkcd by DarkOx · 2016-12-09 07:22 · Score: 2
  
  What if you live in an apartment or townhouse?
  
  Then you must comply with whatever rules your landlord sets down. Actually renters have way to many rights, most places. Private property is the cornerstone of freedom and it should be nearly absolute.
  
  Would you want your neighbors making that choice for you as well?
  No I would expect my landlord to have rules regarding fire safety and that people would either be following them or be evicted.
  
  And flipping that around if you live in an apartment or townhouse complex and your Note 7 did catch the place on fire, your neighbors would be well within their rights to sue you into a financial hole so deep you'd never get out of it.
  Honestly I doubt very much they would. Statistically the Note 7 probably isn't nearly as great a fire risk as your average candle, or any of those cheap Chinese vape devices, to say nothing of your typical hot plate, rice cooker etc. All things that are generally permitted in residential buildings.
  
  Why? Because the Note 7 is a proven fire risk that the manufacturer is doing everything it can to ensure that people return and you're ignoring that. I bet your insurance would decline coverage in that case as well.
  I would actually be pretty surprised if they could skate on that one. Its possible, but there would be law suits.
  
  --
  Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
18. Re:Relevant xkcd by PvtVoid · 2016-12-09 07:23 · Score: 0
  
  There is no phone as nice as the Note 7 on the market today.
  Anybody who thinks this is a valid reason for putting the people around them at risk of injury or death should not just have their phone bricked, they should have the stupid beaten out of them with a bag of oranges.
19. Re:Relevant xkcd by khelek · 2016-12-09 07:23 · Score: 1
  
  You know phones that are nicer than the Note 7? The ones that don't catch on fire and explode. There seem to be plenty out there.
20. Re: Relevant xkcd by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-09 07:23 · Score: 0
  
  Counterpoint: How about your downstairs neighbor leaves his note 7 on while he's out at the store and you're at work and both of you come home to find your apartment building on fire?
  That's why apartment buildings have fire sprinklers.
21. Re:Relevant xkcd by Calydor · 2016-12-09 07:26 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Wait, did I miss a memo that says that all technology is now infallible because it's 2016?
  
  --
  -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
22. Re: Relevant xkcd by Calydor · 2016-12-09 07:29 · Score: 1
  
  Actually renters have way to many rights, most places. Private property is the cornerstone of freedom and it should be nearly absolute.
  Your freedom is in that you don't have to rent out your private property.
  If you DO rent out your private property, the people renting it have protections regarding their privacy, their own belongings, etc.
  Private property and absolute control over it when other people live there is something we saw back in the old days of dukes, counts etc. It was not freedom, quite the contrary. Private property was for the rich, renting it was for the poor.
  
  --
  -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
23. Re:Relevant xkcd by unixisc · 2016-12-09 07:32 · Score: 1
  
  They can write an app for it
24. Re:Relevant xkcd by unixisc · 2016-12-09 07:33 · Score: 1
  
  Which state law has that?
25. Re:Relevant xkcd by The-Ixian · 2016-12-09 07:36 · Score: 1
  
  This made me lol
  
  --
  My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
26. Re:Relevant xkcd by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-09 07:38 · Score: 0
  
  There is no phone as nice as the Note 7 on the market today.
  Anybody who thinks this is a valid reason for putting the people around them at risk of injury or death should not just have their phone bricked, they should also be bricked.
  TFTFY
27. Re: Relevant xkcd by The-Ixian · 2016-12-09 07:38 · Score: 2
  
  Now that I think of it... my neighbors DO have ovens in their apartment! Also probably candles and even guns! I probably won't sleep tonight or ever again...
  
  --
  My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
28. Re:Relevant xkcd by mysidia · 2016-12-09 07:43 · Score: 1
  
  It's not infallible. It's just that Manufacturers are still liable for product defects, AND releasing an update does not relieve them from this liability, unless you are provided reasonable advance notice (90 Days before the problem) to apply the update first.
29. Re:Relevant xkcd by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-09 07:44 · Score: 0
  
  I dunno, my house is insured up to the gills, and a fresh start would be kinda cool...
  Now if you'll excuse me, I've got to sort out my old, dried newspaper collection all over the house.
  *lightly squeezes Note 7 and stuffs between two piles*
  *runs away*
30. Re: Relevant xkcd by bill_mcgonigle · 2016-12-09 07:44 · Score: 1
  
  You missed the memo that says battery engineers know how big anodes and cathodes need to be to be safe. And also the one where in bad corporations product designers and marketing people get to override safety engineers.
  
  --
  My God, it's Full of Source!
  OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
31. Re: Relevant xkcd by mysidia · 2016-12-09 07:45 · Score: 1
  
  What if you live in an apartment or townhouse? Would you want your neighbors making that choice for you as well?
  Your neighbors don't have that decision. They had the decision not to move into the same Townhouse or Apartment as you, though,
  Or the landlord had the decision to not allow you to move in though.
  If anything happens, You are liable to your neighbors for their damages AND the Manufacturer is liable to you.
32. Re: Relevant xkcd by mysidia · 2016-12-09 07:47 · Score: 1
  
  Then you must comply with whatever rules your landlord sets down.
  You have the right to NOT follow them and accept the consequences, however.
  Also, I've never heard of a Landlord inspecting tenants cellphones or personal effects to look for hazardous items.
  Ultimately it's your responsibility what you do with your property, that's the point though --- the phone is YOUR property,
  Not Samsung's.
  If your Landlord finds out you're using one and decides to evict you, that's their choice then, and they can do that ---
  they just can't physically stop you from using Your Samsung which you own as a mobile phone, without going to jail for assault, I mean.
33. Re:Relevant xkcd by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-09 07:50 · Score: 1
  
  I live in a townhouse. I do not want my neighbors making that choice.
  Last year I couldn't know if they had a faulty hoverboard under their Xmas trees and this year I don't know if they're stubborn enough to hang on to their Note7.
  And I don't know what the next product with the potential to start fires will be either.
  My insurance is paid up and my smoke detectors work but that will be small consolation if a fire does start and suing (even if I win) is not going to replace my time or effort or the things that are lost in a fire either.
34. Re: Relevant xkcd by mysidia · 2016-12-09 07:51 · Score: 1
  
  Indeed; Most fires are started by space heaters, followed by ones that start in the kitchen, I believe the next most common place is the garage, followed by faulty electrical wiring (Common in rental units with cheap landlords). You should be scared.....
  You had the choice to accept that risk when you chose what city to live in and what kind of people to surround yourself, or whether to buy your own lot on a farm out in the sticks a mile from your nearest neighbor.
35. Re:Relevant xkcd by ColdWetDog · 2016-12-09 08:00 · Score: 1
  
  How about being stuck on a road in a snowstorm without communication?
  You're right - if you're stuck in a snowstorm a fire can save your life! Good thinking, Samsung
  CAPTCHA: accuracy
  If you can't start a fire with the typical objects in a modern automobile, you need to go watch a couple of reruns of McGyver or something. Talk about portable bombs.....
  
  --
  Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
36. Re: Relevant xkcd by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-09 08:14 · Score: 0
  
  You're worried about your neighbkrs hover boards and Note 7s causing house fires???
  You really need to get out more and see the world. I can assure you, your neighbors are almost certainly doing much higher fire risk activity than owning either device.
37. Re: Relevant xkcd by rogoshen1 · 2016-12-09 08:19 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  as long as people are allowed to smoke inside or on patios, own space heaters, use a range, or use candles -- worrying about a fucking cell phone is absolutely trivial.
38. Re: Relevant xkcd by houstonbofh · 2016-12-09 08:21 · Score: 1
  
  Funny enough, when I did live in an apartment, the building next to mine burned down. The people in that apartment smelled "something burning" for two hours before the fire but called no one. It was not a Samsung phone. Also, I now live in a home of my own. I assumed more personal risk to get away from the idiots.
39. Re:Relevant xkcd by Provocateur · 2016-12-09 08:22 · Score: 1
  
  Well, they did take customer surveys e.g. 'what else do you want on your smartphone?'
  and there was a set of respondents that statedWhy does my I.E.D. get triggered by a cell phone that would have to be purchased separately? Don't they come in a bundle or all-rolled-into-one package?
  
  --
  WARNING: Smartphones have side effects--most of them undocumented.
40. Re:Relevant xkcd by houstonbofh · 2016-12-09 08:23 · Score: 2
  
  I live in a townhouse. I do not want my neighbors making that choice.
  Then move, or accept it. Those are your options. Because they are allowed to make lots of choices that can impact you.
41. Re: Relevant xkcd by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · 2016-12-09 08:50 · Score: 1
  
  Private property is the cornerstone of freedom and it should be nearly absolute.
  I've heard that line a lot, but Ive never heard anyone go beyond it as an axiom, and explain why. Would you mind?
  
  --
  Your ad here. Ask me how!
42. Re:Relevant xkcd by Half-pint+HAL · 2016-12-09 09:07 · Score: 1
  
  The recall notice has been in effect for aaaaaaaaaaaages now. No-one should still have a Note 7 in their pocket -- to do so is negligence on the consumer's part.
  
  --
  Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
43. Re: Relevant xkcd by Half-pint+HAL · 2016-12-09 09:09 · Score: 1
  
  And flipping that around if you live in an apartment or townhouse complex and your Note 7 did catch the place on fire, your neighbors would be well within their rights to sue you into a financial hole so deep you'd never get out of it.
  Honestly I doubt very much they would. Statistically the Note 7 probably isn't nearly as great a fire risk as your average candle, or any of those cheap Chinese vape devices, to say nothing of your typical hot plate, rice cooker etc. All things that are generally permitted in residential buildings.
  
  Why? Because the Note 7 is a proven fire risk that the manufacturer is doing everything it can to ensure that people return and you're ignoring that. I bet your insurance would decline coverage in that case as well.
  I would actually be pretty surprised if they could skate on that one. Its possible, but there would be law suits.
  It has been subject to a well-publicised recall. Even if it's not the highest fire risk on the planet, it has still been deemed defective -- declared unsafe.
  
  --
  Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
44. Re: Relevant xkcd by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-09 09:24 · Score: 1
  
  What if you live in an apartment or townhouse?
  I do, and I no more want people busting down their doors (or mine, for that matter) to make sure our christmas trees are watered than I want some fucktard company bricking a device I paid for.
45. Re: Relevant xkcd by jabuzz · 2016-12-09 09:33 · Score: 1
  
  At this point the recall notice has been out long enough, that if you knowling keep and use a defective Note 7 and it burns your house down Samsung are off the hook. In fact Verizon by refusing to push the update are accepting that liability if any still exists above Samsung.
46. Re: Relevant xkcd by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-09 09:34 · Score: 0
  
  Then any issues that arise will be up to the lawyers, right?
47. Re: Relevant xkcd by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-09 09:37 · Score: 0
  
  I know my landlord once freaked at all the gear and electronics and computers that I had managed to fit into the apartment I was renting from him.
48. Re:Relevant xkcd by mysidia · 2016-12-09 09:46 · Score: 1
  
  No-one should still have a Note 7 in their pocket -- to do so is negligence on the consumer's part.
  Maybe..... out of 2.5 million units manufactured, about 35 have had major problems.
  What do you suppose the chances are that there are customers who just don't know?
  What about people who already had them replaced and got their replacements in October, and then there were reports the replacements were unsafe.
  That's kind of ridiculous when you think about it. At some point, there are going to be people who are reasonably fed-up with Samsung on this,
  and rationally chose to keep their first run replacement Notes, as Samsung has yet to deliver a fixed one......
49. Re: Relevant xkcd by BronsCon · 2016-12-09 09:48 · Score: 1
  
  You're looking at it backwards... He didn't mean you as a Note 7 owner, he meant your neighbors as Note 7 owners.
  
  --
  APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
50. Re: Relevant xkcd by BronsCon · 2016-12-09 09:52 · Score: 1
  
  The iron has a thermal fuse and is less likely to start a full-blown fire; at worst, it will smolder for a while before the thermal fuse burns and removes the heat source. A Note 7 is, in all reality, more likely to start a fire than an iron, both devices being left plugged in and sitting on the same ironing board.
  
  --
  APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
51. Re: Relevant xkcd by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-09 09:54 · Score: 1
  
  For what it's worth, in the academic field the only people that believe in private property as the first-principle of freedom are economists. Everyone else rejects it for either freedom of speech, or freedom of non-action (i.e. freedom requires the ability to choose to not act when someone else demands you must).
52. Re: Relevant xkcd by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-09 10:34 · Score: 0
  
  Its 2016, we can now use the current year to justify anything we see fit.
53. Re: Relevant xkcd by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-09 11:36 · Score: 0
  
  Not everyone who lives in an apartment is a renter. Maybe half of the apartments in my complex are owned by the residents.
54. Re:Relevant xkcd by suutar · 2016-12-09 12:15 · Score: 1
  
  or just don't let it unlock. You can call 911 from a locked phone (at least, for any locked phone I've seen... I think it's an FCC requirement or something).
55. Re: Relevant xkcd by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-09 14:58 · Score: 0
  
  yes, private property is the cornerstone, and it should be absolute. That's why, when you rent property to somebody, during the course of the lease the rights and appurtenant interests of the property are what the tenant is renting, including the absolute cornerstones.
  read up on what real estate is and what is being rented out, it's the real estate.
56. Re:Relevant xkcd by rtb61 · 2016-12-09 15:22 · Score: 1
  
  Well, now you do get to make a choice, whether you sue Samsung or Verizon when you note 7 burns your house down. The older the battery and the hotter operating conditions, the sooner it will go up in flames and when it comes to replacing that battery in some years times when it finally dies, well, you are shit out of luck. Keep in mind that people will be able to sue 'YOU' should your phone start a fire as you were being wilfully negligent in keeping a product that has been recalled for safety reasons. Someone dies in that fire and you are going to jail, most deservedly so. Verizon is just stupidly making themselves criminally liable for any harm those phones cause.
  
  --
  Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
57. Re:Relevant xkcd by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-09 16:19 · Score: 0
  
  Just because you, and others, want to make that choice yourselves, makes it necessary to turn off those Note 7's globally, because you lack the mental capacity to understand why.
58. Re:Relevant xkcd by FatdogHaiku · 2016-12-09 17:31 · Score: 1
  
  I don't think that would hold up in this case. The Consumer Product Safety Commission announced a full, voluntarily recall on all versions of the Samsung Galaxy Note7 on September 15, 2016. That makes it against Federal law to sell one of these, even as a private party.
  
  This patch is to deal with the 15% of units that have not already been made safe via the recall. By declining to release the patch Verizon has pulled themselves into the liability pool, and when it comes to court (and some of it will, you can bet) they may find that, if no other provider followed their course of action, Samsung "could" walk away clean, leaving Verizon holding the bag for any phones they failed to patch.
  
  Any extended reasonable notice should not be a legal requirement when a possibility of death and a danger to general public safety can be shown to be involved. In fact, delay resulting in serious injury might be addressed in a criminal venue.
  
  I don't think bricking the phone would remove it from recall eligibility, they still have to make good for defective equipment and the phones are cheap enough to be covered by small claims action if no other satisfaction is available. That would be a nightmare from a corporate point of view, anyone anywhere suing for less than it would cost to defend that suit... then they hire another guy two counties over to defend the same thing... rinse, repeat...
  
  One good result of all this is a greater awareness of Fire Containment Bags, great things to have when what is burning exceeds the melting point of the vehicle it is transported in... can't wait till they build that into a regular laptop bag.
  
  Hopefully designers also took note of of what happens when these volatile things get too thin... and compressed. I'm sure the engineers told them but hey, it's got to look great!
  
  --
  You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
59. Re:Relevant xkcd by ChunderDownunder · 2016-12-09 19:09 · Score: 1
  
  Indeed, I'm not sure how anyone can develop such an emotional attachment to a handset, with less than 2 months from release to recall.
  It has a few evolutionary features over the previous Note 5 (sd card, dual sim, waterproof, usb-c, iris scanner) but not anything I'd risk personal injury for.
60. Re:Relevant xkcd by arglebargle_xiv · 2016-12-09 19:45 · Score: 1
  
  It is 2016, we shouldn't have exploding phones.
  Unless you're Palestinian, and your phone was provided by Mossad.
61. Re: Relevant xkcd by Zontar+The+Mindless · 2016-12-09 20:03 · Score: 1
  
  I own my apartment, and all my neighbours own theirs.
  Nice way to slip in your off-topic agenda, BTW.
  
  --
  Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
62. Re: Relevant xkcd by Zontar+The+Mindless · 2016-12-09 20:54 · Score: 1
  
  There are literally hundreds of things YOU do on a DAILY basis that are over million times more likely than your note catching fire and FAR more dangerous.
  In case you missed it, those things--unlike the Note 7--have not been the subject of a government-backed recall. This means, (a) if your Note 7 causes a fire, you're liable to get sued into oblivion, and (b) if you try to sell or give it to someone else, you're subject to criminal penalties.
  This is the reality; any discussion of other things being more (or even less) dangerous than the Note 7 is completely beside the point.
  
  --
  Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
63. Re:Relevant xkcd by Zontar+The+Mindless · 2016-12-09 20:56 · Score: 1
  
  Whooooosh.
  (And the answer to your question is, "All of them except Nevada, IIRC.")
  
  --
  Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
64. Re: Relevant xkcd by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-09 22:40 · Score: 0
  
  as long as people are allowed to smoke inside or on patios, own space heaters, use a range, or use candles -- worrying about a fucking cell phone is absolutely trivial.
  WHY is this up-voted?
  if a manufacturer KNEW that there space heater made fires because of a flaw and tried there god damned to get it off the market as it will catch on FIRE! so yeah no your augment is fundamentally flawed because a space heater dose not lite your shit on fire everything you named CAN be used safely with a resonabil amount of assurance it will not set on fire. this trivial cell phone as you put it WILL catch on fire they are recalling them not because derp a herp some might have an issue they are recalling them as they ALL have the issue.
65. Re: Relevant xkcd by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-10 02:52 · Score: 0
  
  Private property is the cornerstone of freedom and it should be nearly absolute.
  Bullshit. You want to use your property however you want for your own purposes, that's great as long as you don't otherwise violate the law. Offer it up for commercial purposes and you can jolly well follow the rules of commerce that are set out for you, and screw you if you don't want to.
  I thought you libertarians were all about contracts and stuff, are you not? When you sign a lease it's a contract, and landlords don't get to run around changing things in the middle of the term. So unless your lease contains language about Galaxy Note 7s, or contains language pertaining to recalled products, or something else specific to this then you're just dealing with general liability here.
  I thought resolving liability in court when something bad happena rather than trying to prevent it through regulation was the libertarian way. After, you know, we pass mandatory binding arbitration laws, limit class actions, and do everything else to screw over regular people and prevent them from seeking the only redress people like you want them to have. Put the shoe on the other foot though where actual humans have legal rights and libertarians start squealing like stuck pigs.
66. Re: Relevant xkcd by barc0001 · 2016-12-10 19:37 · Score: 1
  
  Apples and oranges. Last time I looked you won't go to prison for bringing a candle onto a plane without using it, but a Note 7 is a one way ticket to the crowbar palace if it's found on you while trying to board a plane, even if it's powered off.
User Convenience? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-09 06:50 · Score: 2, Insightful

Verizon does have a point here. Yes, there is an inherent safety risk with these phones, but there is also an inherent safety risk with not travelling with one.
Frankly, a better solution would be to push out nagware, reminding users every time they unlock the phone to trade it in.
1. Re:User Convenience? by houstonbofh · 2016-12-09 06:53 · Score: 1
  
  One of the few times I have agreed with Verizon. Very few times...
2. Re:User Convenience? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-09 06:58 · Score: 0
  
  One of the few times I have agreed with Verizon. Very few times...
  Jesus how fucking retarded are you people ?
  When one of Verizon's client has his Galaxy Note 7 burn his testicles, or the airplane he is travelling in, or his house who is he going to blame ? Verizon ? I think not, mostly Samsung. Except in this case Samsung should tell the man to fuck off. No financial compensation of any kind. And Verizon is going to say man you can't sue us because "arbitration clause in the contract yada yada yada...". Sometimes you have to save stupid people from themselves.
  Samsung is absolutely in the right here. Verizon is not and is playing a dangerous game of responsability.
3. Re:User Convenience? by dstyle5 · 2016-12-09 07:05 · Score: 1
  
  People have known about this issue and there has been a recall in place for months. They should not be using these phones anymore, there is no excuse at this point. The safety of others takes precedence over any moron who has not replaced their phone by now. If you have been too lazy/stubborn/dumb to replace your ticking time bomb phone that is on you.
  
  I certainly don't want to be in a hotel, apartment building, at work, on public transit, etc. with some dumbass who has steadfastly refused to return their phone and poses a risk to me and others. Even driving to work some idiot might panic if the phone starts on fire and cause a car accident.
  
  Verizon is knowingly putting people in the vicinity of these phones at risk. This isn't protecting consumer rights, its endangering innocent people. Did their PR people vet this idea with their lawyers? A lawsuit from anyone hurt by one of these phones will far outweigh any good PR gained for this decision.
4. Re:User Convenience? by caseih · 2016-12-09 07:11 · Score: 1
  
  Yet somehow millions of people managed the risk of traveling without a cell phone, and did it their entire lives. Sometimes they weren't heard from for months at a time by friends and relatives. Life managed to continue.
  I would say they lived to tell the tale, but pretty sure life had a 100% mortality rate back then. Good thing we live nowadays!
  Just a thought, but do you suppose that these days with all of our cell phones and connected devices that we are much less inclined to look out for and help each other in daily life because we assume that everyone has a phone and someone they can call for help for things like a broken-down vehicle, a flat tire, or worse? Seems like we're more in bubbles than ever before.
5. Re:User Convenience? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-09 07:42 · Score: 0
  
  Verizon does have a point here. Yes, there is an inherent safety risk with these phones, but there is also an inherent safety risk with not travelling with one.
  Frankly, a better solution would be to push out nagware, reminding users every time they unlock the phone to trade it in.
  Give me a break! ... People have traveled safely for centuries without a cell phone. 90% of the time, I intentionally leave my cell phone behind and it would be a
  100% of the time if my work didn't require periods of availability.
6. Re: User Convenience? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-09 07:46 · Score: 0
  
  Yep, if cell phones are now a basic need we should turn providers into public utilities ASAP.
7. Re:User Convenience? by Anubis+IV · 2016-12-09 08:17 · Score: 2
  
  Yes, there is an inherent safety risk with these phones, but there is also an inherent safety risk with not travelling with one.
  Bingo. And the risks aren't even close. The incident rate for the Note 7 was well under 100 per million in the first three months it was on the market. Annualized, that'd be less than 400 per million per year, most of which result in mere nuisance or mild injury. Contrast that with the 240 million 911 calls made each year across a population of about 320 million Americans. 80% of those calls are for life-threatening emergencies. 70% of the calls are from mobile numbers. That works out to 420,000 per million per year, all of which involve lives on the line.
  The Note 7 is a complete disaster of a consumer product, but voluntarily bricking the device would be cutting off the nose to spite the face, given that they're over 1000x more likely to be used to save a life than they are to endanger one.
8. Re:User Convenience? by houstonbofh · 2016-12-09 08:24 · Score: 1
  
  Sometimes you have to save stupid people from themselves.
  This only leads to stupider people. Fuck with Darwin at your peril!
9. Re:User Convenience? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-09 08:26 · Score: 0
  
  Jesus how fucking retarded are you people ?
  Verizon is not and is playing a dangerous game of responsability.
  Verizon's lawyers did the math and their answer does not agree with yours.
  You may have different political opinions about the correct approach yet your not a lawyer and don't know shit about liability. Your assertions are worthless.
10. Re: User Convenience? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-09 08:29 · Score: 1
  
  If you're going to go in on making other people's choices for them on account of their safety, Verizon's has accurately assessed that not having a phone is more dangerous than having one with a low probability of catching fire.
  The recent Note 7 incident has really shined a light on how easily people are lead to overreact to risk and inaccurately assess risk, as well as do basic risk assessment (cost to benefit) of normal scenarios.
  Go watch Faux News and Dr Oz or you're going to from improper composition of Dihydrogen Monoxide leading to poisoning, which is a leading cause of death world wide. Actually the #1. ::shakes in fear::
11. Re:User Convenience? by torkus · 2016-12-09 08:40 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, they did manage.
  We also managed life before penicillin but we're not going to arbitrarily give it up because of a low risk situation.
  You also have to take into account that society as a whole has come to depend on the ubiquity of cell phones. Whine all you like, but it's reality and it's shaped plenty of behaviors.
  
  --
  You can get rich if you own a politician, but you have to be rich to buy one in the first place.
12. Re:User Convenience? by Anubis+IV · 2016-12-09 10:11 · Score: 2
  
  Correction: out of the one million Note 7s in the US, there were 92 confirmed incidents in its first month, which works out to about 1,100 incidents per million units per year. So, instead of "over 1000x", it's actually 380x. Even so, that's still a huge difference, and (much as I hate to say so) Verizon is clearly making the right call in keeping 911 available.
13. Re:User Convenience? by ChunderDownunder · 2016-12-09 19:21 · Score: 1
  
  It has been 59 days since a recall was announced, which is longer than the phone was even on the market (Aug 19 - Oct 11).
  So there has been plenty of time for anyone to exchange their phone for a different handset. Verizon haven't personally telephoned every one of their affected customers to arrange this?
14. Re: User Convenience? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-10 06:46 · Score: 0
  
  So cell phones haven't reduced risk caused by emergency situations or by reducing/minimizing unneeded travel during hazardous road conditions through means of an effective communication medium? Driving is one of the most dangerous things most people expose themselves to every day of the year and often for minimal benefit and at a much higher risk than a phone fire
15. Re:User Convenience? by xlsior · 2016-12-10 13:03 · Score: 1
  
  Other options: Disable everything except 911 calls? Pop up a nags screen every 5 minutes for those who don't make calls but only play games? Continually reduce the max charge level down further each day until it becomes obviously unsuitable to depend on it
The answer by blogagog · 2016-12-09 06:53 · Score: 4, Funny

They should push an update that makes it so every time you swipe it, it pops up an alert saying, "Are you crazy? Stop using this phone!"
1. Re:The answer by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-09 06:56 · Score: 0
  
  Exactly. I can see disabling the phones if they actually expect them to start combusting at any minute. Otherwise just annoy the heck out of the user until they get around to wandering into a Verizon store and trading it for a non combusting phone.
2. Re:The answer by drakaan · 2016-12-09 07:09 · Score: 1
  
  Umm, they *do* expect that, hence the recall. They even know why it's happening...and they still want to recall the phones, so...
  
  --
  "Murphy was an optimist" - O'Toole's commentary on Murphy's Law
What Verizon Meant to say: by RavenLrD20k · 2016-12-09 06:54 · Score: 4, Funny

Translation: "We don't give a crap about the fact that your phones have the potential to spontaneously combust. Even though we're perfectly capable of performing a swap out of your phone and applying to Samsung to get the credit for the phone you swapped to, we're not going to do that, just because of the fact we are such a shitty company. So happy holidays from us here at Verizon, and we hope your fucking houses burn down you poor goddamn plebs! Hell, maybe it'll kill some of you assholes and we can finally get some new blood on our network that we need to oversell!"
1. Re:What Verizon Meant to say: by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-09 07:11 · Score: 0
  
  Holy shit, I'm glad I don't know you. I get the distinct impression that no matter what they did you would attack it because you think it makes you look c001. You have to give credit where credit is due, son. Not every story is a contest to see who can lay the biggest smackdown on corporate America.
2. Re:What Verizon Meant to say: by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-09 07:18 · Score: 0
  
  with a uid that low, he is likely using his dad's slashdot account
3. Re:What Verizon Meant to say: by SubtleGuest · 2016-12-09 07:19 · Score: 1
  
  Nice try, Verizon.
4. Re:What Verizon Meant to say: by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-09 07:23 · Score: 0
  
  Translation: blah blah blah
  I refer you to the comments to the earlier article about Samsung releasing the update, which were overwhelmingly, "Keep your fscking hands off my phone, it's mine and I'll use if I feel like it!"
5. Re:What Verizon Meant to say: by Nidi62 · 2016-12-09 07:25 · Score: 1
  
  Even though we're perfectly capable of performing a swap out of your phone and applying to Samsung to get the credit for the phone you swapped to,
  They've been doing precisely that. The thing is, the number of phones experiencing this type of failure is extremely small compared to the number of phones that shipped, so a lot of people that like the Note 7 made the decision to hold on to their phones as long as possible. This even includes actual Verizon employees. Pretty much all Note 7 owners have been made aware that there are options for returns and exchanges for their phones. Those who haven't yet taken advantage of those options have chosen not to.
  
  --
  The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
6. Re:What Verizon Meant to say: by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-09 07:29 · Score: 0
  
  Our lawyers tell us that we are not liable for your burning phones. So no, we won't do anything other than offer replacements that Samsung will pay for.
7. Re:What Verizon Meant to say: by Anubis+IV · 2016-12-09 08:05 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  While I can't stand Verizon and consider the Note 7 an unmitigated disaster, you clearly have no understanding of how incredibly important 911 access is. Do the math for yourself and it's pretty clear that bricking the device makes absolutely no sense, given that a Note 7 user is 1000x more likely to place a 911 call than they are to have their phone combust. In fact, let's quickly walk through the math together...
  The incident rate with the Note 7 was around 87 per million after the first three months or so. Even if we extrapolate the rate out to a full year, we're still talking about any particular Note 7 having less than a 0.04% chance of an incident in a given year. To the best of my recollection, none of the incidents to date have resulted in life-threatening injuries, so while 0.04% is an atrocious annual rate for a consumer product and well-deserving of a recall, a 0.04% annual incident rate isn't that bad in the grand scheme of things.
  Contrast that with the fact that the US has a population of 320 million people who make 240 million 911 calls each year. 70% of the calls come from mobile devices and at least 80% are for actual, life-threatening emergencies. Based on that, we can say that lives are on the line for about 134 million 911 calls made from mobile phones in the US each year, which averages to about 2 calls per 5 Americans each year (42% annually). I'll admit that those calls are almost certainly not evenly distributed among the population, but we just want some ballpark estimates (i.e. orders of magnitude), so we'll use them as they are.
  Suppose there are still one million Note 7 devices in use in the US. In the next half month, the odds suggest that about 15 of them will combust while 17,500 of them will be used to make 911 calls in response to life-threatening emergencies. As I said at the top, that means that a Note 7 user is over 1000x more likely to need to place a 911 call to save a life than they are to have their phone combust (which would probably cause more annoyance than injury).
  But please, continue telling us about how Verizon is acting contrary to the safety and wellbeing of their customers.
8. Re:What Verizon Meant to say: by nbvb · 2016-12-09 08:18 · Score: 1
  
  Low uid in the hundred thousands? WTF?
9. Re:What Verizon Meant to say: by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-09 08:31 · Score: 0
  
  It's vitally important that when their Note 7 catches fire, they'll be able to call 911 on it to have the fire put out and the deep third-degree burns to their hands and head treated.
10. Re:What Verizon Meant to say: by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-09 09:27 · Score: 0
  
  Sorry, I don't agree. The Note 7 has been recalled for months now. If you still couldn't be bothered to trade yours in despite all the publicity and nag messages, you get what you deserve if you get stuck in a snowstorm with your Note 7 as the only phone which gets bricked right then by the update.
11. Re:What Verizon Meant to say: by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-09 09:39 · Score: 0
  
  It's all comparative. People in the 6-digit range are likely in their 40s. People with 5 or less are in that uncomfortable age where they have been fired for their job for having useless skills and costing too much in benefits, but they aren't able to retire quite yet and are looking for a job at Home Depot.
12. Re:What Verizon Meant to say: by Anubis+IV · 2016-12-09 10:04 · Score: 2
  
  You're saying that anyone who--upon learning that their phone had a remote chance of burning them--wasn't willing to make time in their schedule to turn over the phone and set up a new one deserves to be left to die if faced with a life-threatening situation?
  While I agree that these people are idiots for hanging onto their defective phones despite all of the warnings, suggesting they deserve to die is a step too far.
13. Re:What Verizon Meant to say: by starblazer · 2016-12-09 15:31 · Score: 2
  
  nope. Try mid 30s.
14. Re:What Verizon Meant to say: by drinkypoo · 2016-12-09 16:27 · Score: 1
  
  While I agree that these people are idiots for hanging onto their defective phones despite all of the warnings, suggesting they deserve to die is a step too far.
  They're putting the lives of others at risk. House fires commonly spread to other dwellings and take lives, to say nothing of the potential for property damage. This is not exactly fire season, but the phones only become more likely to start a fire as they age, with thermal cycling.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
15. Re:What Verizon Meant to say: by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-09 19:56 · Score: 0
  
  Come on. It's been months now, it was all over the news and you got multiple messages on the phone itself. You had more than enough time to make time in your schedule to exchange the phone, or if you really aren't able to (hard to believe, but lets assume that), ask around if someone has an old phone you could use for a while.
  There comes a time, after someone had multiple chances over a long time to address a problem and didn't, they really DO deserve the end result, whatever it is.
16. Re:What Verizon Meant to say: by Waccoon · 2016-12-09 22:48 · Score: 1
  
  math...
  You just lost 99% of the population.
17. Re: What Verizon Meant to say: by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-09 22:53 · Score: 0
  
  It's a design flaw meaning that as the batteries age they will inevitably combust. Although 911 calls are important, all cell phones can make them and when they turn in their note 7... Wait for it... They get a new phone!!! Oh well. Let nature take it's course.
18. Re:What Verizon Meant to say: by Type44Q · 2016-12-15 09:06 · Score: 1
  
  ...a Note 7 user is 1000x more likely to place a 911 call than they are to have their phone combust
  ...a Note 7 user is 1000x more likely to place a 911 call due to their phone combusting. FTFY. ;)
Translation by sjbe · 2016-12-09 06:55 · Score: 5, Insightful

Verizon will not be taking part in this update because of the added risk this could pose to Galaxy Note 7 users that do not have another device to switch to
Translation: "This will result in a lot of pissed off customer calling us about the problem and we don't want the expense".
1. Re:Translation by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-09 07:01 · Score: 1
  
  On the bright side, at least those particular users won't be able to call it in.
2. Re:Translation by NotInHere · 2016-12-09 07:02 · Score: 1
  
  Wait: if you don't have another device to switch to, how are you going to call verizon then?
3. Re:Translation by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-09 07:08 · Score: 0
  
  Exactly. Every single decision a business makes is about money, no matter how believable their official statement.
4. Re:Translation by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-09 07:13 · Score: 0
  
  Wait: if you don't have another device to switch to, how are you going to call verizon then?
  maybe you need to find:
  1. a friend with a phone
  2. someplace to live that has telephone service
5. Re:Translation by Calydor · 2016-12-09 07:30 · Score: 1
  
  But how are you going to find either of those without a phone?!
  
  --
  -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
6. Re: Translation by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-09 07:34 · Score: 0
  
  Really? No one made phone calls before we all owned our own personal phones? Dumbass. You should've posted as AC.
7. Re: Translation by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-09 07:38 · Score: 0
  
  Judging from the tone of judgement present in your comment, I take it you don't own a business.
8. Re:Translation by sootman · 2016-12-09 07:59 · Score: 1
  
  Narrator: A new car built by my company leaves somewhere traveling at 60 mph. The rear differential locks up. The car crashes and burns with everyone trapped inside. Now, should we initiate a recall? Take the number of vehicles in the field, A, multiply by the probable rate of failure, B, multiply by the average out-of-court settlement, C. A times B times C equals X. If X is less than the cost of a recall, we don't do one.
  Business woman on plane: Are there a lot of these kinds of accidents?
  Narrator: You wouldn't believe.
  Business woman on plane: Which car company do you work for?
  Narrator: A major one.
  
  --
  Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
9. Re:Translation by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-09 08:00 · Score: 1
  
  No, they don't want the lawsuit from someone whose health is in peril because his wireless provider prevented him from calling for help. And I don't blame them one bit.
10. Re:Translation by thegarbz · 2016-12-09 10:36 · Score: 1
  
  Verizon will not be taking part in this update because of the added risk this could pose to Galaxy Note 7 users that do not have another device to switch to
  Translation: "This will result in a lot of pissed off customer calling us about the problem and we don't want the expense".
  Better Translation: "I hope your house burns down filthy customer."
11. Re: Translation by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-09 21:14 · Score: 0
  
  Given that you don't seem to realise that the goal of a business is to make money...
Give Me Convenience or Give Me Death! by mujadaddy · 2016-12-09 06:56 · Score: 1

VZW: "You getchya fuckin' wish!"

--
Populus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur...
"Force shits upon Reason's back." - Poor Richard's Almanac
1. Re:Give Me Convenience or Give Me Death! by sconeu · 2016-12-09 09:37 · Score: 1
  
  Give Me Convenience or Give Me Death!!
  [as Bug from MIB]: Your offer is acceptable! Note 7 explodes
  
  --
  General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
2. Re:Give Me Convenience or Give Me Death! by Zontar+The+Mindless · 2016-12-09 21:20 · Score: 1
  
  Narrator: "Football.. Or baseball?"
  Deion Sanders: "Both!"
  Narrator: "Convenience... Or death?"
  Deion: "Both!"
  
  --
  Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
I want charge-limits on my iPhone by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-09 06:56 · Score: 0

I want to set a limit of 80% on my non-Samsung phone.
Wait, what? by fahrbot-bot · 2016-12-09 06:58 · Score: 4, Funny

Two questions: (1) A telecom provider can push phone updates? (2) Phone manufactures provide phone updates?

--
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
1. Re:Wait, what? by msmash · 2016-12-09 07:03 · Score: 1
  
  So Google makes new releases available. But in the United States and other places where carrier-locked phones are sold, the update won't come to your phone without going through OEM and Telecom operator. Typically, the OEM will refine the update to its own taste and add a few stuff (and remove things it doesn't want -- but not things that it is required to leave there as part of its agreement with Google), and then the update is sent to carriers. Carriers are the last vector in this process so even if Google and the OEM, Samsung in this case, has pushed the update a user on Verizon won't get it unless Verizon wants them to get it.
2. Re:Wait, what? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-09 07:07 · Score: 0
  
  Welcome to Android.
3. Re:Wait, what? by Zontar_Thing_From_Ve · 2016-12-09 07:10 · Score: 1
  
  Two questions: (1) A telecom provider can push phone updates? (2) Phone manufactures provide phone updates?
  Surprised that you had to ask, but since you did...
  1) Yes for Android. No for iPhone. This is Android.
  2) Yes.
4. Re:Wait, what? by 110010001000 · 2016-12-09 07:15 · Score: 1
  
  Not sure what this has to do with carrier locking. Carrier unlocked phones don't get updated either necessarily even if Google updates the OS. The problem is there is no "Android OS". It is simply a modular set of software that gets put together. It is up to the company that put it together to decide to update it or not. Most won't bother as there is no profit in it, just expense.
5. Re:Wait, what? by fahrbot-bot · 2016-12-09 07:34 · Score: 1
  
  Two questions: (1) A telecom provider can push phone updates? (2) Phone manufactures provide phone updates?
  Surprised that you had to ask, but since you did... 1) Yes for Android. No for iPhone. This is Android. 2) Yes.
  I was joking -- sorry that wasn't obvious -- but thanks for the info for those that actually don't know.
  
  --
  It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
6. Re:Wait, what? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-09 07:39 · Score: 0
  
  Recognizing sarcasm is not your strong suit is it?
7. Re:Wait, what? by The-Ixian · 2016-12-09 07:47 · Score: 1
  
  Carrier unlocked phones don't get updated either necessarily even if Google updates the OS
  Are you sure about that?
  I actually don't know either but I do know that I have an unlocked OP3 on AT&T's network and I am pretty sure that it gets OTA updates direct from OP.
  
  --
  My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
8. Re:Wait, what? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-09 07:48 · Score: 0
  
  Two questions: (1) A telecom provider can push phone updates? (2) Phone manufactures provide phone updates?
  In the US, at least, the Carrier is required to certify the the phone is safe to use on the networks (won't cause the towers to fall over, won't block the control channel, will respond to Carrier directs etc), failure to do so results in a fine from the FCC.
  So the manufacturers develop the base level version of the OS, then send it to the Carrier who is supposed to load it up on every model they ever sold to see which ones can take the update and which can't, as well as verifying that it won't blow things up. Once it passes Carrier testing, the Carrier gets to decide if, when and how it gets sent to the phones
9. Re:Wait, what? by mlts · 2016-12-09 08:24 · Score: 2
  
  It is a bit more involved than that:
  On Android, the ROM decides what updates it is getting, be it carrier or manufacturer. If the device came with an AT&T ROM, the ROM pulls down what AT&T wants for updates, if any. If the phone is shipped unlocked, it will be pulling down the manufacturer's ROMs. If I take a HTC 10 bought on AT&T, unlock it, and put it on T-Mobile, it will still continue to fetch updates from AT&T.
  iOS is slightly different. Apple controls the vertical regardless of carrier, so an iOS ROM comes from Apple no matter what.
10. Re:Wait, what? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-09 08:54 · Score: 0
  
  samsung and google don't have any stores to sell or provide support in the USA so they rely on the carriers here who have their own retail stores. they don't want to open their own stores so they let the carriers customize and brand their phones. apple does all the support in their own stores
11. Re:Wait, what? by jonwil · 2016-12-09 09:14 · Score: 2
  
  Its way past time for phone OEMs and Google to take a leaf from Apple's book and take carriers out of the picture as gateways when it comes to phone updates.
  Apple doesn't have to go through Verizon or Vodafone or China Mobile when they want to push iOS updates so why should Samsung or Google need to do the same thing...
12. Re:Wait, what? by edtice1559 · 2016-12-09 09:44 · Score: 1
  
  Which is why I think it's crazy to buy anything other than Nexus of iPhone. I wouldn't buy Samsung no matter how good it is because there is a carrier deciding if I get updates. Samsung wouldn't *have* to do this. They *could* ship devices that they update directly the way Google/Apple does but they've decided to make some deals with the devils (carriers) that harm their customers.
13. Re:Wait, what? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-09 09:51 · Score: 0
  
  My unlocked BLU phone gets updates directly from BLU
Where can you use them? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-09 06:59 · Score: 0

I work in a fairly well-known children's hospital and they have been banned from us by employees while on campus.
Set your phaser on overload by fustakrakich · 2016-12-09 06:59 · Score: 1

Verizon's update will just make the phone blow up immediately. Whoops!

--
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Let the morons burn by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-09 07:02 · Score: 0

Sorry, you've had months now to send back your defective, dangerous phone and get another.
If you're still using it, I hope the fucker catches fire in your pants pocket and burns your cock off, the world needs less idiots.
Just look at the previous thread about this, several users spouting crap such as "My note works fine, still charges and doesn't catch fire so I'm not returning it"
Seriously, that is completely fucked up logic.
It's like saying "I've not got cancer yet, so I'm not quitting smoking".
So please, carry on using a known faulty product, let Darwin do his job. I just hope that nobody else gets hurt by your ignorance.
Dangerous precedent by BlytheBowman · 2016-12-09 07:05 · Score: 3, Insightful

This is like Ford representitives comming over to your home, breaking into your garage and removing the engine from your car because the wire harness is defective and could short and set the car and perhaps the entite house on fire. Is this as road we should really be going down?
1. Re:Dangerous precedent by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-09 07:14 · Score: 0
  
  No, we should be going down the road of give Galaxy Note 7 owners a phone that won't possibly kill them.
  A product that is sold that will cause harm if used properly should not be tolerated.
  Why we let corporations walk all over us is beyond me.
2. Re:Dangerous precedent by Calydor · 2016-12-09 07:32 · Score: 1
  
  And it wasn't tolerated. It was banned from a bunch of places and the manufacturer issued a total recall.
  A bunch of idiots never figured out they can get a brand new phone for free.
  
  --
  -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
3. Re:Dangerous precedent by apoc.famine · 2016-12-09 08:43 · Score: 1
  
  This is like Ford representatives breaking into your garage and removing the engine from your car, because the wire harness could short and set the car and perhaps the entire house or neighborhood on fire, and you've been refusing for months to let them fix the problem and they are worried that if you do burn the neighborhood down that they'll get sued into oblivion.
  
  --
  Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
Inconvenience? by zzyzxd · 2016-12-09 07:06 · Score: 1

We do not want to make it impossible to contact family, first responders or medical professionals in an emergency situation.

But if your phone explodes when you are trying to make an emergency call, you may permanently lose contact with your family.
1. Re:Inconvenience? by j-beda · 2016-12-09 13:13 · Score: 1
  
  We do not want to make it impossible to contact family, first responders or medical professionals in an emergency situation.
  But if your phone explodes when you are trying to make an emergency call, you may permanently lose contact with your family.
  That was my thought too.
Verizon - the next class-action victim by geekmux · 2016-12-09 07:07 · Score: 5, Insightful

"Verizon will not be taking part in this update because of the added risk..."
Ah, say no more Verizon. When a Verizon-powered Note 7 device burns up in the cargo hold and takes down a passenger plane killing hundreds over that precious holiday season you wish to protect, Samsung et al will know exactly who to identify in the class-action suit/counter-suit.
Seems customer ignorance is infectious...
I'm switching to Verizon! by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-09 07:09 · Score: 0

It's obvious Verizon is more concerned about their customers than even their own profit.
They were the first ones to roll out fiber to the premise to give customers even more than what they thought they wanted. Then stopped when it was clear that too much of a good thing would be detrimental to their customers
They care deeply about net neutrality and its affect on customer's video enjoyment. That's why they prioritize their streams over the stuff no one wants to see.
Did they complain when traitor Bob jumped shipped to Sprint? No! They hired a quality spokesperson like Jamie Foxx to calmly explain why they'll keep delivering excellent service and affordability to their customers.
Customers.
FCC Steps in by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-09 07:09 · Score: 0

This is where the Consumer Product Safety Board calls the FCC, then the FCC calls Verizon. FCC has the ability to mandate anything they want, Big Red must comply. Solved.
Liability? by MirthScout · 2016-12-09 07:13 · Score: 4, Insightful

So, Samsung exercises due diligence by creating this update that will prevent further burning phones and the property damage and injuries that result.
Doesn't Verizon blocking the update make Verizon liable. Did Verizon run this past their lawyers?
1. Re:Liability? by ArchieBunker · 2016-12-09 07:50 · Score: 2
  
  Of course they did and found this route to be the most cost effective.
  
  --
  Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
2. Re:Liability? by iggymanz · 2016-12-09 07:53 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Get your head screwed on, this isn't "due dillegence" as the phones can still catch fire for weeks.
  No, Verizon not liable, contracts in place with Samsung and other phone providers make them not Verizon liable for anything the phone does.
  only 35 reported fires out of 3 million phones, those phones are MUCH more likely to be used for emergency comm than to catch fire.
  Verizon made correct business decision, good thing most slashdotters don't run a business.
3. Re:Liability? by tlhIngan · 2016-12-09 08:11 · Score: 2
  
  only 35 reported fires out of 3 million phones, those phones are MUCH more likely to be used for emergency comm than to catch fire.
  35 before North American release (rest of world got it around 2 weeks prior).
  By the time the CPSC got involved, it rose to 100 cases (a month later).
  Then Samsung discovered the replacements were bad, too, with about 120 reports. Note the latter numbers are more US centric now and not worldwide figures.
4. Re:Liability? by iggymanz · 2016-12-09 08:35 · Score: 1
  
  so hardly any phones; Verizon would more likely be severing someone's emergency comm than preventing any fire. And Samsung is legally liable by contracts with Verizon, that's SOP for any carrier reselling phones. Verizon is making correct business decision.
5. Re:Liability? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-09 08:41 · Score: 0
  
  Doesn't Verizon blocking the update make Verizon liable. Did Verizon run this past their lawyers?
  Let me introduce you to the Ford Pinto.
6. Re:Liability? by drinkypoo · 2016-12-09 16:29 · Score: 1
  
  Samsung is legally liable by contracts with Verizon, that's SOP for any carrier reselling phones.
  If I were Samsung, I'd certainly want to write into my contract that I become not-liable if I issue a general recall and they ignore it. It's not like Samsung has only recalled Verizon's phones.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Irony is delicious by CCarrot · 2016-12-09 07:21 · Score: 2

"Verizon will not be taking part in this update because of the added risk this could pose to Galaxy Note 7 users that do not have another device to switch to. We will not push a software upgrade that will eliminate the ability for the Note 7 to work as a mobile device in the heart of the holiday travel season. We do not want to make it impossible to contact family, first responders or medical professionals in an emergency situation."
So lemme get this straight, you won't push an update designed to prevent an emergency situation because then people couldn't use the device to contact someone in an emergency? ...sure glad I have this here cell phone to call 911 and tell them that my cell phone caught fire! Oh wait...
Make no mistake, this is purely about profits. Ppeople call, text and stream now more than at any other time of the year, making for juicy data and minute overage fees, all of which could be curtailed if the phone suddenly stops working and people are too busy to replace it. Also, right now people are jamming the stores to get the latest shiny in time for Christmas, so who wants to spend time providing service for lame swap-outs with little to no profit margin? And finally: we simply don't feel like dealing with the flood of calls this will generate from pissed off customers who don't read anything but E! Entertainment posts on FB, and can't understand why they should have to swap their phone out when 'it hasn't caught fire yet!'

--
"I love animals! Some are cute, others are tasty, what's not to like?" - Betsy Schroeder, Jeopardy contestant
1. Re:Irony is delicious by iggymanz · 2016-12-09 07:27 · Score: 1
  
  wrong. most phones won't catch fire, hardly any of them have. Those that do, liability is on Samsung. Cutting off someone's emergency comm makes Verizon liable.
  Grow up, this is how the adult world works
2. Re:Irony is delicious by guruevi · 2016-12-09 08:26 · Score: 1
  
  They could release an update that lets the phone still work in emergency mode. Basically lock the people out of their phones by changing their pins to a random number, then have them go swap it out.
  
  --
  Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
3. Re:Irony is delicious by drinkypoo · 2016-12-09 16:31 · Score: 1
  
  Cutting off someone's emergency comm makes Verizon liable.
  Grow up, this is how the adult world works/quote>
  The obvious thing to do to get the non-adults refusing to bring their phones in for replacement with something else to actually act like adults is to refuse to let their phone do anything but call Verizon service or 911.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Samsung/Horizon: Dumb and Dumber by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-09 07:21 · Score: 0

Hard to say who's the most idiotic here.
This is exactly the reason to never buy a phone from a carrier. Talk about a problem with slow updates? Complete bozos. Hope Horizon get's their pants sued off.
How on earth did Verizon by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-09 07:28 · Score: 0

How can Verizon stop a tcp request?
In other words, who gave them access to the OS and who decided to Verizonify the OS to the point where they could enable or disable updates?
LTE has nothing to do with the OS, that's like saying your modem can stop you from using a disk.
Sorry Verizon, you are wrong here. Why are you playing games in the first place, people can ask to use someone else's phone and the update notification can just say, "hey, this isn't an update we are actually disabling your phone and the reason why is because expansion wasn't thought of in relation to the type of batteries so it literally catches fire."
That's the problem with the engineers not being actual engineers, that's the problem with hiring people for the wrong reasons. That's the problem with capitalism.
If you wanted to make it right whoever did it would have already sent them new phones and an apology. If you think you are fighting some war with people who have those phones or something then explain how they could only have one phone as an option to buy.
You people really suck.
Why not an update to annoy you? by Stonent1 · 2016-12-09 07:29 · Score: 1

Just have it do a pop-up every 5 minutes telling you the phone has been recalled.
1. Re:Why not an update to annoy you? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-09 07:43 · Score: 0
  
  Because it worked so well for pushing Windows 10 upgrades.
Re:Verizon - the next class-action victim by iggymanz · 2016-12-09 07:29 · Score: 1

Samsung will be at fault. Bricked phones can still catch fire for weeks after this disabling update. Removing a customer's emergency comm would make verizon liable.
Three dozen fire incidents is essentially zero anyway, not a high risk
Who are they kidding? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-09 07:34 · Score: 0

The damn thing came out in August! Even without the battery issue, Verizon would have have stopped pushing updates last month.
good thinking by TimothyHollins · 2016-12-09 07:39 · Score: 1

" We do not want to make it impossible to contact family, first responders or medical professionals in an emergency situation."
1. The Note 7 is the very reason *why* you need to contact first responders and medical professionals in the first place!
2. How exactly are customers supposed to contact these people to let them know they need medical attention and a new phone after said phone has exploded?
1. Re:good thinking by iggymanz · 2016-12-09 07:51 · Score: 2
  
  no, not when there are 35 reported fires out of 3 million phones sold. Get some perspective, it's a very unlikely thing and more of those phones will be used for some other emergency this holiday season.
2. Re:good thinking by TimothyHollins · 2016-12-09 08:05 · Score: 1
  
  I take it you didn't find a sense of humour at the Black Friday sale?
  Perspective indeed.
Re:Verizon - the next class-action victim by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-09 07:40 · Score: 0

I know it's one thing not to read the article, but could you at least have finished reading the summary?

the Galaxy Note7 remains banned on airlines by the FAA

Kind of hard to burn up in a cargo hold of an aircraft, when it's prohibited to even be on an aircraft.
Verizon - tone deaf by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-09 07:42 · Score: 0

Verizon: Can you hear me now?

Customer: Yes, you are still tone deaf.
Re:Verizon - the next class-action victim by The-Ixian · 2016-12-09 07:44 · Score: 3, Interesting

Actually, I am thinking that the individual will be at fault because these devices are specifically proscribed from planes that the TSA has authority over.
I am thinking that, for example, if a grenade somehow got through TSA and went off in the cargo hold causing the plane to crash, it wouldn't be the grenade manufacturer that got the blame.

--
My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
Re:Verizon - the next class-action victim by iggymanz · 2016-12-09 07:49 · Score: 1

There are planes not under TSA though; I don't see any phone carrier having liability, the contracts with Samsung are already in place to protect Verizon from that.
Re:Verizon - the next class-action victim by ArchieBunker · 2016-12-09 07:49 · Score: 1

I was thinking the same thing. Verizon is knowingly allowing people to use a product that was deemed dangerous by the manufacturer. Sounds like a lawyers dream if someone is injured.

--
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
Hello, liability... by SuperKendall · 2016-12-09 07:55 · Score: 1

We will not push a software upgrade that will eliminate the ability for the Note 7 to work as a mobile device in the heart of the holiday travel season.
Isn't that kind of exactly when you'd want to reduce the risk to others from potentially hazardous devices traveling in larger numbers?
I guess it will not matter as much if a few cars burn out, since the Note7 is already banned from air travel...

--
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
1. Re:Hello, liability... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-09 09:18 · Score: 0
  
  We will not push a software upgrade that will eliminate the ability for the Note 7 to work as a mobile device in the heart of the holiday travel season.
  Isn't that kind of exactly when you'd want to reduce the risk to others from potentially hazardous devices traveling in larger numbers?
  I guess it will not matter as much if a few cars burn out, since the Note7 is already banned from air travel...
  I also think Verizon "got this wrong".
  I think Verizon should have pushed daily messages (yep, "nags") to the owners of Samsung Note 7 phones along with email and paper mail notices saying the phone might be disabled from the network some day because it's a safety hazard and it has been recalled (twice).
  Next, Verizon should have offered, if they had not already, the owners of Samsung Note 7 phones a "no cost, no contract affecting" trade-in on select phones already in Verizon's portfolio. For other phones in the portfolio Verizon might expect some $$$ for a more expensive device or provide a rebate to the customer if they choose a less expensive device, but in any case don't screw with the customer's contract termination date (don't make them buy into a new contract). That way the customer can pick just about any phone they want, not mess up their contract, and even get a rebate or pay up the difference.
  I understand Verizon's reasoning for not wanting to screw with people's phones around the holidays, but certainly Verizon could have strongly pushed some plans (what TV advertising from VZ over this? I saw nothing) at customers in the time preceding the holidays. Yes, that sounds like "pure commercialism" and "pure capitalism", but sometimes you have to encourage, and sometimes very strongly encourage, people to do things in their best interest, regardless of them thinking "this phone is the greatest thing in the world... since my last bj" (quote said in snarky TMZ narrator voice).
  Ok, so I don't think there's any way to avoid the inevitable of these phones getting shut off all cellular wireless networks because the phone is a SERIOUS RISK to the user and possibly other people and property (banned from all airlines, except maybe ISIS-owned Jihadi Airways, FOR A D@MN GOOD REASON). I know some have pushed the concept of "let me do my own thing", but those are the same types of "A$$ clowns" that drive the highways, swerving in & out of traffic at high speed while streaming on Facebook Live. The same "d-bags" also scream "FIRE!" in crowded movie houses just for "the rush"....
  To the clueless users that will only have their Note 7s taken from their "cold clamy hands"... Verizon might not be disabling them now, but are you willing to take that chance in the new year? Think about it. The "death sentence" for your lovely Note 7 may have only gotten a very short reprieve.
911, what's your emergency? by AdamStarks · 2016-12-09 08:03 · Score: 3, Funny

My phone's on fire! Ow!
Re:Verizon - the next class-action victim by gweilo8888 · 2016-12-09 08:15 · Score: 1

Verizon will also be at fault if the next incidence is one of their customers, and the incident happens after this firmware update should have been issued. Believe me when I say that if I am in any way personally affected, I will be suing Verizon as well as Samsung and the idiot owner.
Samsung went too far by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-09 08:32 · Score: 0

Samsung should have released update does that does the following:
1) Force maximum phone call time of 30 seconds (911 excepted). Then phone won't permit another call for 60 seconds minimum.
2) Block all incoming calls.
3) Maximum battery charge of 10%.
Samsung went too far when they decided to completely block phone calls.
Silly argument by MikeWin10 · 2016-12-09 09:10 · Score: 1

This argument is silly "We do not want to make it impossible to contact family, first responders or medical professionals in an emergency situation.". The people that have not turned in their Note 7 and gotten a replacement phone that won't explode would be able to contact family, first responders, or medical professionals IF they did turn in their phones. The phone is dead people! There are no software updates, no new versions of Android, no new features, no support whatsoever. Just turn in the phone, get a new one and when Samsung releases the next version of whatever BIG ass phone you want, get it.
Does this shift liability to Verizon by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-09 09:53 · Score: 0

With Verizon refusing this, if a Verizon Note 7 starts a fire and someone is injured or dies, would it at that point be Verizon's fault as Samsung's update would have disabled it preventing said fire?
Sure, give them a choice by GezusK · 2016-12-09 09:58 · Score: 1

Prompt the user to install the update. If they refuse the update, then they have to agree to take full responsibility for anything that may occur afterwards. You lose the right to sue if the phone does catch fire. You were warned, you were offered alternatives/replacements, and you refused them all. No reason Samsung should still be on the hook because you're a dumb ass.
Re:Verizon - the next class-action victim by thegarbz · 2016-12-09 10:38 · Score: 1

Samsung et al will know exactly who to identify in the class-action suit/counter-suit
The person who broke a federal law by bringing a restricted item on a plane?
It's bitztream by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-09 10:39 · Score: 0

the autism-hating, custom EpiPen-hating, Musk-hating Slashdot troll!
Sprint to brick Note 7s... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-09 11:00 · Score: 0

But I might get over it before the Note 8 ships...
drive.google.com/file/d/0B6QQWyEP1WReZnNDOUlrRXlEMTg/view?usp=drivesdk
Well, it's nice if they send replacements first... by DraugTheWhopper · 2016-12-09 12:44 · Score: 1

What Verizon doesn't say is that there's a large chunk of users who are just waiting for Verizon to ship them new phones before they send back the Note7s. Orders of Google Pixel XL phones from Verizon are at least 3 months and counting behind schedule.
And now... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-09 13:23 · Score: 0

...if a Verizon user's Note 7 starts on fire, hurting someone, killing someone, burning down a building, Samsung can say "we did this, but Verizon ignored it" - putting Verizon on the hook.
Idiots.
Galaxy 7 roasting on a open fire... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-09 13:59 · Score: 0

People need a source of warmth this winter. It would be cruel to turn them off.
Re:Verizon - the next class-action victim by iggymanz · 2016-12-09 14:00 · Score: 1

Nope law doesn't work that way, Verizon has contract that Samsung is liable for any and all
2016 by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-09 14:02 · Score: 0

The year a company finally intentionally bricked a device via update. Sad day this is.
Can't Fly with Note7 by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-09 14:13 · Score: 0

The airlines already make announcements that you cannot have this phone in flight. I've had co-workers (morons) who traveled internationally and were held up unless they relinquished their phone.
Why anyone thinks it is okay to continue usage is beyond me. A recall has been issued. Just because your phone works 'now' does not mean it will work without issue 'forever'. Battery chemistry is a complex beast.
"You can't take my shiny toy away!!" Kids these days...
I HATE the s7 edge by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-10 00:03 · Score: 0

i LOVED the note 7. i'd rather have a diminished battery size (physically) stuck in a note 7 rather than this s7 edge i got as a replacement.
Re:Verizon - the next class-action victim by gweilo8888 · 2016-12-12 06:05 · Score: 1

And as we all know, contracts are always inviolable. Not.