Slashdot Mirror

← 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 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.

10 of 192 comments (clear)

  1. Relevant xkcd by serviscope_minor · · 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 Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      ...and then somebody like you sues them when it finally does burn down their house.

    2. Re: Relevant xkcd by barc0001 · · 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.

    3. Re: Relevant xkcd by rogoshen1 · · 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.

  2. User Convenience? by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

  3. Translation by sjbe · · 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".

  4. Dangerous precedent by BlytheBowman · · 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?

  5. Verizon - the next class-action victim by geekmux · · 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...

  6. Liability? by MirthScout · · 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 iggymanz · · 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.