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.

34 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 houstonbofh · · Score: 4, Informative

      I still want to make the choice...

    2. Re:Relevant xkcd by captaindomon · · 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 Diss+Champ · · 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.

    4. Re:Relevant xkcd by PvtVoid · · 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.

    5. Re:Relevant xkcd by pkinetics · · 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!!

    6. 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.

    7. Re: Relevant xkcd by DarkOx · · 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
    8. Re:Relevant xkcd by Calydor · · 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=-
    9. Re: Relevant xkcd by The-Ixian · · 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.
    10. 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.

    11. Re:Relevant xkcd by houstonbofh · · 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.

  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.

    1. Re:User Convenience? by Anubis+IV · · 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.

    2. Re:User Convenience? by Anubis+IV · · 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.

  3. The answer by blogagog · · 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!"

  4. What Verizon Meant to say: by RavenLrD20k · · 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 Anubis+IV · · 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.

    2. Re:What Verizon Meant to say: by Anubis+IV · · 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.

    3. Re:What Verizon Meant to say: by starblazer · · Score: 2

      nope. Try mid 30s.

  5. 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".

  6. Wait, what? by fahrbot-bot · · 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 mlts · · 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.

    2. Re:Wait, what? by jonwil · · 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...

  7. 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?

  8. 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...

  9. 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 ArchieBunker · · 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 · · 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 · · 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.

  10. Irony is delicious by CCarrot · · 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
  11. Re:Verizon - the next class-action victim by The-Ixian · · 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.
  12. Re:good thinking by iggymanz · · 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.

  13. 911, what's your emergency? by AdamStarks · · Score: 3, Funny

    My phone's on fire! Ow!