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

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.

Comments

Relevant xkcd

[serviscope_minor]

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.

Re:Relevant xkcd

[houstonbofh]

I still want to make the choice...

Re:Relevant xkcd

[Diss Champ]

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.

Re:Relevant xkcd

[Calydor]

Wait, did I miss a memo that says that all technology is now infallible because it's 2016?

Re: Relevant xkcd

[rogoshen1]

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.

The answer

[blogagog]

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!"

What Verizon Meant to say:

[RavenLrD20k]

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!"

Re:What Verizon Meant to say:

[Anubis IV]

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.

Translation

[sjbe]

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".

Wait, what?

[fahrbot-bot]

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

Dangerous precedent

[BlytheBowman]

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?

Verizon - the next class-action victim

[geekmux]

"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...

Liability?

[MirthScout]

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?

Re:Liability?

[iggymanz]

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.

Re:Verizon - the next class-action victim

[The-Ixian]

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.

911, what's your emergency?

[AdamStarks]

My phone's on fire! Ow!