Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Verizon Changes Its Mind and Will Kill Samsung's Galaxy Note 7 on January 5th (theverge.com)

Posted by msmash on from the change-in-heart dept.

Verizon has just announced that it plans to roll out Samsung's upcoming Note 7 update, which permanently stops the recalled smartphone from charging and disables its wireless radios, on January 5th. Only last week, the leading US carrier took a controversial stance when it said it would "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." From a report on The Verge: The company was particularly concerned about nuking the Note 7 during the holiday travel season, something that its US rivals also seemed to take into consideration when scheduling a roll-out date for the update. AT&T is waiting until the very same day. Sprint will release it on January 8th. And T-Mobile's going first among major US carriers on December 27th. Verizon still seems to think it's making the right decision pushing things off a bit for the same reasons. "We want to make sure you can contact family, first responders, and emergency medical professionals during the holiday travel season."

96 comments

  1. Dick Response = by PessimysticRaven · · Score: 0

    Nah. Sorry.

    People that have the Note 7 IED Edition have been duly warned about the issue for awhile now. If they didn't already make arrangements to use another device, even a cheapy burner, I'm not really going to be too bothered.

    --
    Consistency is only a virtue if you're not a screw-up.
    1. Re:Dick Response = by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I think verizon realized they have to limit their liability.
      It was acting like a retailer stopping a recall - "but we can't make people return their faulty Fisher-Price flamethrowers because..... it's Christmas!!"

    2. Re: Dick Response = by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      As a previous Note 7 owner who swapped out already, you shouldn't be able to force a product recall. It's really up to the person that purchased the device.

      They've done a great job making it clear the device is defective. I think people who still have a Note 7 are aware and it's entirely their choice to keep the device if they wish.

      Pull the SIM card, root the device, remove auto update mechanisms and continue on.

    3. Re: Dick Response = by rtkluttz · · Score: 1

      Yep... not even an owner of one, but this just goes to show. F*ck Samsung, the owner is the owner... the owner gets to make any and every decision about their device.

      --
      Digital is, by definition, imperfect. Analog is the way to go.
    4. Re:Dick Response = by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think verizon realized they have to limit their liability.

      It was acting like a retailer stopping a recall - "but we can't make people return their faulty Fisher-Price flamethrowers because..... it's Christmas!!"

      Not quite.

      The timing is typical of Verizon's wireless operations which has an (unwritten) "internal philosophy" of not (intentionally) screwing around with the network or customer devices during the holiday shopping season. Once that "season" is over, as in this case, then making changes like this are considered "fair game".

    5. Re: Dick Response = by mlyle · · Score: 2

      > They've done a great job making it clear the device is defective. I think people who still have a Note 7 are aware and it's entirely their choice to keep the device if they wish.

      This is great solace to someone whose apartment burns down because there's a Note 7 charging next door. And I'm sure whoever decides to keep the device has fully indemnified Samsung for any damages that may come from the defect.

      I'm not saying that they should be able to force the recall necessarily-- just that the issue is a little more complicated than informed consent.

    6. Re:Dick Response = by slashdotwannabe · · Score: 1

      Note 7 IED Edition

      Damn, I never have mod points when I want them!

      --
      This comment is my opinion and does not represent an official position of Donald Trump or others I do not work for
    7. Re: Dick Response = by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Though Samsung may not have ownership of the hardware, I believe that Samsung has rights to some portion of the OS on the phone. I think Samsung's stance is that all they are doing is rolling out a software update that prevents their flavor of android from enabling dangerous activity. I'm guessing that Samsung decided that they would rather deal with litigation from people upset that their software disabled their phone, than litigation from individuals who bought their phone and were injured. Given the fact that the Note 7 is not only a danger to the owner of the device, but also to those in the immediate proximity, its not hard to see why.

    8. Re: Dick Response = by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's a pretty simple minded view there. You can't use radio jammers to eff up critical equipment, can't use knives for stabbing babies, the list goes on and on and on. It really doesn't matter if you own these things, you still have to play nice.

    9. Re: Dick Response = by jtgd · · Score: 1

      Yep... not even an owner of one, but this just goes to show. F*ck Samsung, the owner is the owner... the owner gets to make any and every decision about their device.

      For that to be a reality you would have to absolve Samsung of liability for any and all damages caused by their product. Is that really what you want? You can't have it both ways.

      --
      J
    10. Re: Dick Response = by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a device that randomly and unexpectedly bursts into flames. Think about that as not just your problem for a second before getting all Charleton Heston about it.

    11. Re:Dick Response = by someoneOtherThanMe · · Score: 1

      ... use another device, even a cheapy burner...

      Why settle for a cheapy burner when you have an expensive burner?

  2. It's been months, give it up by Virtucon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's dead, get your money back and get something else. I can't imagine anyone wanting to cling onto this burning POS.

    --
    Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
    1. Re:It's been months, give it up by Cinnamon+Beige · · Score: 1

      Actually, I can see one reason alone and that's pretty much entirely the fact that while I've seen a lot of publicity about how amazingly bad these particular phones are? I've not actually seen that much publicity on what the US cell companies are going to do if you go in and say "I got this burning POS as part of the deal when you sold me that 2-year contract, you don't want me using this, so what can you do for me?" Would it be that hard to be nicely public about how if you've got a phone recalled because it's a burning POS like this, they'll treat you well? Especially if your competition isn't thinking that this might be something customers would care about?

      It might cost them a bit to give a good deal now--but it'd be good marketing & they can probably set it up so if/when Samsung pays out money over this debacle, they get the payments for those phones they exchanged for credit.

    2. Re:It's been months, give it up by fafalone · · Score: 3, Insightful

      First off, the danger is known and given the odds of having a fire hazard device and the fact the cause has been established and can be prevented with care, the risk falls within the levels of many other products we're allowed to own.

      Second, and more important, I hope they get sued into the ground for this. It is absolutely unacceptable that a product you purchased can be force bricked at the manufacturer's whim. They're intentionally destroying your property. It's like not taking your car in due to a recall notice then the car company shows up and you wake up to a crushed cube in your driveway.
      They absolutely have the right to, and probably should, ban the devices from connecting to the cellular network by blacklisting the IMEI like a stolen phone, but the right to just destroy it completely is an extremely dangerous precedent.

      Nobody SHOULD want to continue to use that phone, but that shouldn't give the company that made it free reign to destroy your paid-for private property at will.

    3. Re:It's been months, give it up by Solandri · · Score: 3, Interesting

      At this point, I suspect most of the people hanging on to it are speculators hopeful that the mass recall will make it a rarity in the future, and thus valuable to collectors.

    4. Re:It's been months, give it up by Virtucon · · Score: 1

      T-Mobile and others are offering what Samsung has offered. Full Refund + $100 if you get another Samsung phone (S7) or $25 credit. I'm not sure on the contract side but if I extended my contract or signed up for service based on this device you'd have a good argument to terminate that deal. I do however think when you pay $800+ for a phone it should work, be safe as in not blow up and last as long as your contract. The carriers in this case aren't at fault but they should do everything to keep the business.

      --
      Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
    5. Re:It's been months, give it up by JackieBrown · · Score: 1

      It's dead, get your money back and get something else. I can't imagine anyone wanting to cling onto this burning POS.

      Its being forced that sucks. What if the next stage of protecting us is disabling phones that don't have offer most recent OS versions on the basis they are not secure or safe?

    6. Re:It's been months, give it up by unixisc · · Score: 2

      Every party in this drama knew what this was, and offered customers a range of alternatives. Samsung offered them a free trade-in, while the carriers too offered to substitute the phone. Given all that, there is no reason to suggest that the buyers of this phone were getting the shaft. I'd understand and be sympathetic had there been resistance from the parties, but Samsung was the first to proactively recall this, while the carriers too stopped carrying it and offered trade-ins.

    7. Re:It's been months, give it up by trudyscousin · · Score: 3, Insightful

      First off, the danger is known and given the odds of having a fire hazard device and the fact the cause has been established and can be prevented with care, the risk falls within the levels of many other products we're allowed to own.

      Second, and more important, I hope they get sued into the ground for this. It is absolutely unacceptable that a product you purchased can be force bricked at the manufacturer's whim. They're intentionally destroying your property. It's like not taking your car in due to a recall notice then the car company shows up and you wake up to a crushed cube in your driveway.
      They absolutely have the right to, and probably should, ban the devices from connecting to the cellular network by blacklisting the IMEI like a stolen phone, but the right to just destroy it completely is an extremely dangerous precedent.

      Nobody SHOULD want to continue to use that phone, but that shouldn't give the company that made it free reign to destroy your paid-for private property at will.

      I couldn't disagree with you more.

      An "extremely dangerous precedent" already has been made, which is the release of a device that has proven to be susceptible to fire and explosion. Don't forget that this particular conflagration (a Li-Ion fire) burns under water.

      That's one's prerogative to carry such a bomb in one's pocket, until the possibility of injury or death to those surrounding one exists. Given this, these devices need to be neutralized, and 'updating' them so that they can't be recharged seems to be a solid approach.

      Looking at the bigger picture, this isn't about you. It sucks that you're out the money you invested in your device, but wasn't there a program in place to obtain a replacement (besides the abortive attempt to effect replacement with the same device)?

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, write technology blogs.
    8. Re:It's been months, give it up by Cinnamon+Beige · · Score: 1

      T-Mobile and others are offering what Samsung has offered. Full Refund + $100 if you get another Samsung phone (S7) or $25 credit. I'm not sure on the contract side but if I extended my contract or signed up for service based on this device you'd have a good argument to terminate that deal. I do however think when you pay $800+ for a phone it should work, be safe as in not blow up and last as long as your contract. The carriers in this case aren't at fault but they should do everything to keep the business.

      Good to know, but I'd expect somebody to have made a point of running ads about this. I've seen ads surprisingly recently trying to get you to buy this specific phone--as in, my first thought was "Waaait I thought that phone got yanked from the market for being a bomb"--and if nothing else letting those run is an utter waste of ad money on Samsung's part. They'd stand to benefit as much as the carriers from letting this deal be known...and it'd get the last remaining ones turned in pretty quickly, likely.

    9. Re: It's been months, give it up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except what about older phones? I have a Samsung Galaxy s2 that I have long suspected has been force bricked. I switched to a new phone and then left my s2 on my table untouched for 2 years. Decided to use it for a webcam project and mysteriously it does not power on anymore. This includes replacing it with known working batteries (I have two S2 phones). The second phone will not stay powered on for more than an hour leading me to believe it will not work in the coming months.

      So while I agree, the note 7 needs to be removed from service.. You bought the device, it's yours. Liability should be removed from the carrier (disable cell radio) and warning messages to the user when they attempt to use it. You burn down your house because you're an idiot? So be it.

      Let's not implement planned obsolescence in hardware, this exactly what exacerbates the junk problem in third world countries.

    10. Re:It's been months, give it up by Cinnamon+Beige · · Score: 1

      My point is that rather little has been done to make sure customers know about the range of alternatives--and that people on the sidelines do, because while I don't own a Samsung Galaxy Note 7, this debacle definitely has me distinctly less likely to buy a Samsung product. The issue isn't merely "Are buyers of this phone getting the shaft?" but also how good the effort to ensure that these deals are known.

    11. Re:It's been months, give it up by thegarbz · · Score: 4, Insightful

      and the fact the cause has been established and can be prevented with care

      No it can't. There is nothing you can do to prevent it. Phones have blown up with little charge, with a lot of charge, while not on charge, while not on, and in every other category you can think of.

      Second, and more important, I hope they get sued into the ground for this.

      They won't. In fact what they did should be grounds for cases against them to be thrown out. Pro-actively working to get a known dangerous device out of people's hands, offering not only a full refund but also breaking people out of contracts, and giving discounts on other devices is about as socially responsible as it gets.

      It's like not taking your car in due to a recall notice then the car company shows up and you wake up to a crushed cube in your driveway.

      No. It's like getting an email to tell you that in 100km your car won't start anymore and to drive it to the service centre where you will get 100% of your original value of the car back along with a discount on a brand new car.

    12. Re:It's been months, give it up by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      At this point, I suspect most of the people hanging on to it are speculators hopeful that the mass recall will make it a rarity in the future, and thus valuable to collectors.

      The Butcher's cover didn't randomly catch fire and burn your museum down.
      A run of the mill phablet with a design fault is not a collectors item and will never appreciate in value.

      People holding on to it now are simply complete idiots, regardless if they are doing so because they like to play with fire or because they are under the delusion that a failed piece of electronics would become a collectors item.

    13. Re:It's been months, give it up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I almost wish I owned one. If I did I'd set it up on an asbestos sheet next to a webcam and stream it - kinda like the glass drop experiment, but with a more entertaining outcome and higher probability of seeing it in my lifetime.

    14. Re:It's been months, give it up by exomondo · · Score: 1

      Its being forced that sucks. What if the next stage of protecting us is disabling phones that don't have offer most recent OS versions on the basis they are not secure or safe?

      So they shouldn't protect the physical safety of people from a device that you carry in your pocket that is known to have a fault causing it to catch fire on the basis of fear of something that in theory could have always happened yet never has and for which there is no evidence to suggest it ever will. In fact I'd almost welcome your scenario because at least that would mean that Android devices were getting timely updates.

    15. Re:It's been months, give it up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. It's like getting an email to tell you that in 100km your car won't start anymore and to drive it to the service centre where you will get 100% of your original value of the car back along with a discount on a brand new car.

      Look: it's perfectly reasonable for a manufacturer who makes a dangerously defective car to put out a recall (and for the authorities to unilaterally ban driving said car on public roads if there is a danger to other road users, though this is not an issue with this phone as the danger is to the user). It's very much not OK for them to follow this up by remotely destroying these cars after some arbitrary grace period.

    16. Re:It's been months, give it up by TheFakeTimCook · · Score: 1

      Nobody SHOULD want to continue to use that phone, but that shouldn't give the company that made it free reign to destroy your paid-for private property at will.

      This. Exactly this. Samsung is thinking only of itself; or more precisely, only of its exposure to civil and criminal suit.

      Where is all the usual Fandroid "Freedom!" OutRAGE?

    17. Re:It's been months, give it up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On the flipside, I could sue Verizon for knowingly allowing people to operate a device that has proven to be hazardous.

      The unique identifiers of the devices are known and not changeable. Verizon without a doubt knows exactly how many Note 7s are on their network and when they are operating (Probably where too)

      Say a Note 7 User's phone burns down my house or causes a fire on a plane. Verizon could easily be held liable because they've proven that they can shut down and disable the devices remotely, and have planned to do so.

      Verizon consulted their lawyers and has decided it's a much larger risk to let the devices operate. - They'll take a few spurious (and probably unsuccessful) suits from people with exaggerated ideas about property rights or even a class action suit over the possibility of being held liable for a fire where someone loses their life.

    18. Re:It's been months, give it up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At this point, I suspect most of the people hanging on to it are speculators hopeful that the mass recall will make it a rarity in the future, and thus valuable to collectors.

      Plus hipsters/cynics who think it's cool to keep using a phone that's been recalled for its dangers, and thus that few people use anymore, even though it's a recent phone...

    19. Re: It's been months, give it up by mlts · · Score: 1

      How far do we take this though? Fire is one thing, but I can see this used in other ways. For example, an evil version of Apple pushing out an update that bricks any phone older than an iPhone 5 because the 4S and earlier won't be receiving security updates, and thus could be considered insecure and dangerous. Or a car maker pushing out an update to render older vehicles inoperable because they don't comply to the latest EPA laws.

      There is a point where a device maker makes it clear that the owner of the device is 100% responsible for it, in a way that can't be wiggled out of in court. That way, if a phone turns into a bong, it isn't the phone maker's responsibility in any way, shape, or form that it happened.

    20. Re: It's been months, give it up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unless you held your Note 7 return until black Friday upgrade offers, you really did get shafted. I waited because I knew Samsung was in a hurry not just for liability reasons, but also to recover as much in lost sales by pushing consumers to switch devices before their other flagship phone (the S7 Edge) was priced down. Cellular retail stores are doing the same thing because their inventory is about to deprecite in value (and also liability potential). Either case, because $$$.

      E.g., Verizon offered the S7 Edge at $480/24 months BF + $100 Samsung credit, bringing total S7 Edge cost down to $380--and you could get coral blue *giggles*). If you got the Gear Fit 2 watch and sold it for ~$100 plus used the Samsung Pay promotion for another free $20 and the initial recall account credit of $25... you could have an S7 Edge for $235 which is reasonable for me.

      I suggest if you still have a Note 7 and do plan to return it for an S7, you void your payment contract (if you chose that route) and buy your next phone at full price using a credit card with good price protection (like Discover). That way, when the S7 price is cut by February-March, you can get reimbursed for the price drop.

      My two cents.

    21. Re:It's been months, give it up by lgw · · Score: 1

      You sound very frightened. You should totally give up your liberty for a sense of security.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    22. Re:It's been months, give it up by trudyscousin · · Score: 0

      You sound very frightened. You should totally give up your liberty for a sense of security.

      You didn't have a real argument, did you?

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, write technology blogs.
    23. Re:It's been months, give it up by lgw · · Score: 2

      The only argument I saw you present here is "I'm scared; an authority should make me safe". Sure, the chance that you'll be injured by a Samsung IED is less than your chance of being struck by lightning, but the important thing is other people's freedom to keep using the device if they want to is less important than the fact that you're scared.

      Everything we do in life harms someone else, somewhere. Freedom requires accepting de minimus harm form others.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    24. Re:It's been months, give it up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only argument I saw you present here is "I'm scared; an authority should make me safe".

      Then you read wrong. What he is saying is there is an objective danger posed by a product and the purveyors of that product should take steps to end that danger. You think these people would be just fine with it if theirs caught fire and burned down their house or car? No they'd be right on fucking suing the crap out of anyone and everyone connected to the product. They're supposed to just sit around and wait for the injury or death to happen and then the lawsuit to arrive despite the fact that it is completely preventable? Hey if you want to sign a waiver then you can have all the freedom you want, but you can't have freedom and reserve the right to sue people when you own braindead decision comes back to fuck you in the ass.

    25. Re:It's been months, give it up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ok then well go sign a waiver that says that the defective phone and the implications of your continued use of it are your responsibility and you accept that you know the risks. Phone catches fire, burns down your house and kills your whole family: your fault. You think anybody is going to actually do that?

    26. Re:It's been months, give it up by exomondo · · Score: 1

      Ok then well go sign a waiver that says that the defective phone and the implications of your continued use of it are your responsibility and you accept that you know the risks.

      Your insurance company probably wouldn't be too happy about that.

    27. Re:It's been months, give it up by John+Bodin · · Score: 1

      How many of these phones are private property? I have older Note 4 and just about to end the lease set up with Sprint, the only option they had on the phone, as they were not offering 2 year contract discounts with this when I got it. Well they are sure to remind me at each bill that the phone is owned by them until the lease is fully paid off.

      --
      John
    28. Re:It's been months, give it up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So when are you going for a flight where everyone else on it has a Note 7? You willing to take that risk then? Will you tell your family that if you die they can not try to sue because you just had to be one of the last with a dangerous item in public?

    29. Re: It's been months, give it up by exomondo · · Score: 2

      How far do we take this though? Fire is one thing, but I can see this used in other ways.

      See what being used in other ways? It's not like this is some legislation or new technology here.

      For example, an evil version of Apple pushing out an update that bricks any phone older than an iPhone 5 because the 4S and earlier won't be receiving security updates, and thus could be considered insecure and dangerous.

      What's that got to do with this scenario? If they wanted to do that they could have done it and if they want to do it in future they could do it regardless of whether this happens or not.

      There is a point where a device maker makes it clear that the owner of the device is 100% responsible for it, in a way that can't be wiggled out of in court. That way, if a phone turns into a bong, it isn't the phone maker's responsibility in any way, shape, or form that it happened.

      Sure, why not but I doubt many people want to sign the agreement that says "we have no responsibility for this product, if it explodes and maims you it's not our problem". Would you sign an agreement when buying a new car that said you are solely responsible and the manufacturer has no obligation whatsoever going forward. You can have all the freedom you want so long as you're happy to take the responsibility that goes with it.

      For example how about you get sued by the EPA for driving a diesel VW and polluting the environment rather than VW.

    30. Re:It's been months, give it up by pnutjam · · Score: 1

      My wife had one. I got it at Sam's. I got a $100 gift card when I got the phone (from Sam's), then Samsung gave me a 256GB micro-SD card.
      When I returned the phone, I got to keep the $100 gift card and the phone she opted to switch to, a galaxy 7 Edge, now had a $100 gift card deal. I got that too.

      I'm not seeing how Samsung or my retailer treated me poorly. Aside from the tedious wait.

      --
      Cheap storage VM.
    31. Re:It's been months, give it up by JackieBrown · · Score: 1

      So they shouldn't protect the physical safety of people from a device that you carry in your pocket that is known to have a fault causing it to catch fire

      Knowledge is protection. Afraid that some people won't get the word, then send a text to everyone. Have an opt-out at least which could include a wavier.

    32. Re:It's been months, give it up by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      That has to be the dumbest fucking use of that phrase I've ever seen. Way to go taking something real important and relevant and putting it into a context that makes people think less of it ... and of you.

    33. Re:It's been months, give it up by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      though this is not an issue with this phone as the danger is to the user

      No it's not. It's a danger to the general public. Today you burn your pants, tomorrow you burn down an apartment building or fill an airline cabin with toxic fumes.

      It's very much not OK for them to follow this up by remotely destroying these cars after some arbitrary grace period.

      I disagree.

    34. Re:It's been months, give it up by lgw · · Score: 1

      How so? It's just the natural tendency of the weak minded to want to give power to some authority anytime something might possibly harm them - no matter how far-fetched. It's the same manner of thinking that gave us the TSA.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    35. Re:It's been months, give it up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Knowledge is protection. Afraid that some people won't get the word, then send a text to everyone.

      Somehow I don't think an "FYI your device may catch fire and injure you" is going to suffice in terms of their legal obligation.

      Have an opt-out at least which could include a wavier.

      It's a dangerous, defective device! It's probably not worth the effort to even put together a legally-binding waiver of rights on the off chance some half-wit actually wants to still keep using one of these things.

    36. Re:It's been months, give it up by exomondo · · Score: 1

      Knowledge is protection. Afraid that some people won't get the word, then send a text to everyone. Have an opt-out at least which could include a wavier.

      You're being pretty silly if you think that sending a text message is a valid response here and why would anybody want to opt out of having a known dangerous that is defective by design replaced with something safe?

      In a place as litigous as the US there is absolutely no reason to go to the effort of producing a waiver for a product that is known to have design problems causing injury and/or property damage. Who would even want to sign that?

    37. Re:It's been months, give it up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fine then, have all the freedom you want but you get no warranty, you don't get to sue somebody if things go wrong and if the product causes injury or property damage to somebody else then that is your fault and your responsibility. If you think that's a worthwhile enterprise then invest in that methodology. The problem is people like you want all the freedom but with none of the responsibility.

  3. They didn't change their mind... by RhettLivingston · · Score: 2

    The holiday season was part of their reasoning. It was obvious that they were going to kill it after the season.

  4. CDMA Carriers by Zombie+Ryushu · · Score: 1

    This is a serious issue with CDMA Carriers that GSM carriers do not have. USian CDMA Users (Sprint, Verizon, and their Virtual Operators) have no SIM cards to pull from their devices. These people can't just pull a SIM out and put it in another device. Issues like this are why Canada is discontinuing all CDMA as of January 1st 2017.

    1. Re:CDMA Carriers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is a serious issue with CDMA Carriers that GSM carriers do not have. USian CDMA Users (Sprint, Verizon, and their Virtual Operators) have no SIM cards to pull from their devices. These people can't just pull a SIM out and put it in another device. Issues like this are why Canada is discontinuing all CDMA as of January 1st 2017.

      Not true at all. I have BlackBerry on Verizon and it DOES use a SIM. I'm sure it's not a GSM SIM, but it's a SIM nonetheless.

    2. Re:CDMA Carriers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Sim in a CDMA device is only to enable LTE only. The entire CDMA network relies on whitelisting and blacklisting devices. They enable the esn on your device to be in (at least in the US) under verizon or sprint so they ultimately control what's on their network.

      Now rolling out an update to your phone is like a windows update. The user has to accept it to be applied as the modem is located on the rom and isn't writable during android operation (has to boot to the update/recovery to apply it).

      The whole thing is a pretty dick move all around. Samsung should have corrected the issue, not recalled it, so that users could get a working note 7 without issues. Also, it shouldn't be up to the carriers to enforce changes to devices under any circumstances.

    3. Re:CDMA Carriers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No, Canada is not discontinuing CDMA service. Period. The carriers are choosing to shut down service. And the last date is not January 1st, 2017.

      The main reason why the carriers are done with it is because RoBellUs (The shame-name for the service tri-opoly we have in Canada) see this as an opportunity to rid themselves of cheap plans customers got on CDMA, and to force them onto new plans. Customers presently on CDMA have grandfathered plans which will die with the service.

    4. Re:CDMA Carriers by Wycliffe · · Score: 1

      This is a serious issue with CDMA Carriers that GSM carriers do not have. USian CDMA Users (Sprint, Verizon, and their Virtual Operators) have no SIM cards to pull from their devices. These people can't just pull a SIM out and put it in another device. Issues like this are why Canada is discontinuing all CDMA as of January 1st 2017.

      But in this particular case, this is a benefit. With CDMA you can just invalidate all the CDMA serials but still allow them to call 911. CDMA would seem to make this easier. Even if that's not possible, I still don't understand why they want to brick the phones. Why not push out an update that only allows the phone to have a 50% charge and only allows it to call 911 and customer service? The update could even disable all apps, change the background to a message telling them to call or even make half the lcd black. There are lots of ways to cripple a phone that doesn't introduce a new safety issue.

    5. Re:CDMA Carriers by Solandri · · Score: 1

      CDMA phones have had SIM cards for years now - LTE service requires a SIM card. It isn't used to store contact info like on GSM phones, but that's hardly a "serious issue" when there are hundreds of backup and restore options and Google even does it automatically on Android phones.

      And CDMA is being phased out because it's old technology that's being supplanted by OFDMA (which is what most LTE implementations use). Both use orthogonal signaling to allow all devices to transmit simultaneously without interfering with each other. CDMA does it using orthogonal codes (the C in CDMA), OFDMA does it using orthogonal frequencies (the OF). OFDMA is more efficient than CDMA, but requires more processing to separate out the orthogonal signals. It wasn't until about 5 years ago that microprocessors reduced their power consumption enough to make this feasible in a phone which would last all day. Earlier implementations of OFDMA (WiMax was OFDMA) would drain your battery in about 2-4 hours. I know - I had a Sprint WiMax phone.

      By the way, did you know the 3G service on your GSM phone is most likely wideband CDMA? That's right. CDMA won the GSM vs CDMA war. GSM (which originally used TDMA, still does for voice, giving each phone a timeslice during which no other phones are allowed to transmit) wasted gobs of bandwidth reserving timeslices for phones which had data connections active but weren't actually sending/receiving data at that moment. On CDMA, everyone transmits whenever they want. Each phone sees the transmissions of other phones as background noise, reducing the signal to noise ratio, causing bandwidth to automatically divide evenly across the number of devices transmitting at any given moment. GSM was forced to add wideband CDMA to its spec to stay competitive with CDMA cellular data services. You may recognize wideband CDMA more by the GSM trade names - UMTS, HSDPA, and HSPA+. So even if Canada phases out CDMA voice, rest assured that CDMA is still being used all over Canada in GSM phones.

      If the U.S. had played along and mandated GSM like the rest of the world, our cellular data speeds today would probably be down around 500 kbps. No CDMA would've meant no proof of concept that this orthogonal signaling hocus pocus would actually work when scaled up to a national network, which would've meant no OFDMA, which would've meant no LTE.

    6. Re:CDMA Carriers by Aaden42 · · Score: 1

      I think that's a little dated, at least with US networks. I was able to put my son's Verizon SIM into my unlocked AT&T iPhone 6. Works like a charm.

    7. Re:CDMA Carriers by Miamicanes · · Score: 1

      Actually, it's a bit more complicated than that.

      CDMA2000 does, in fact, have an official SIM-like standard: the USIM, which is a literal superset of the GSM SIM card standard that has CDMA's own R-UIM card grafted onto it. The catch is, Qualcomm made it an optional part of the standard, and Sprint & Verizon were perfectly happy to pretend it didn't exist. Ditto for Telus in Canada, which was (at the time) a wholly-owned subsidiary of Sprint with identical phones and policies (but they STILL wouldn't let you use a Sprint phone on Telus, or a Telus phone on Sprint... they could roam on both networks just fine, but neither network would allow you to actually sign up for local service using a phone from the other country AS your "real" phone).

      Elsewhere in the world (New Zealand, Australia, Singapore, India), you could ABSOLUTELY buy non-carrier-branded CDMA2000 phones, get a R-UIM or USIM card from your carrier, and use it as effortlessly as using a GSM phone on a GSM network.

      As a historical quirk, there WAS actually one popular Sprint phone that had a R-UIM socket (or at least a place to solder one) that was covered by a black sticker -- the HTC PPC-6700. Apparently, they had a brief second life of popularity in India after someone figured out they could buy old (or new old stock) American PPC6700s for a pittance, hack them slightly, and sell them as fully-working phones in India (at a point in time when phones running Windows Mobile were OUTRAGEOUSLY expensive in India, and WinMo CDMA phones like the PPC6700 basically didn't officially exist at all)

    8. Re: CDMA Carriers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually CDMA differs in the wireless protocol in that everyone is given a slice of spectrum while they use their device. Carriers need control of the phone radio such that swapping a sim card would remove that control. CDMA could use some cards but the decision by Verizon early on established a non sim use case. WiMax was very similar, but LTE is based around GSM. It's not cost effective to create a locked LTE device hence sim cards

      GSM/LTE are time based, as in every device is authorized a piece of spectrum for a brief period of time. This allows the phone to manage multiple networks for greater coverage. This is also why Sprint/Verizon boasted superior call quality, you were always guaranteed a connection once established

    9. Re:CDMA Carriers by Cinnamon+Beige · · Score: 1

      Given the problem is the battery as I recall, I'd go for it powering on only when plugged in, disable anything not 911 service and customer service, the background message including very explicit directions to "REMOVE THE BATTERY," and roll out a very solid backup-to-computer program specifically for it that will get everything off the phone & scrub the phone's memory in prep for trading it in.

    10. Re:CDMA Carriers by chmod+a+x+mojo · · Score: 1

      Why not push out an update that only allows the phone to have a 50% charge and only allows it to call 911 and customer service? The update could even disable all apps, change the background to a message telling them to call or even make half the lcd black.

      Because, just like this proposed update, that would run afoul of anti hacking laws if it was not a user initiated and requested installation of the update. The carrier does not own the phone , and by intentionally breaking it more than likely will open themselves up to lawsuits.

      It should be interesting to see what the courts say about this, as it is perfectly legal to own property that has a much higher probability of being a danger to the owner or others( thus negating "it's for the safety" arguments). I could see a lawyer citing "unauthorized access" and "fraudulent access" to these "computer systems", unless the update is 100% crystal clear that the update will completely ruin the device, all in terms that the most brain-dead idiot can understand, and being able to be opted out of completely. A good lawyer could also potentially argue that this violates the first sale doctrine, since the carrier / Samsung no longer owns the device that they will be destroying after the sale.

      If the carriers had any brains at all they would just deny the devices access to the cell networks ( as is within their rights as owners of the network ), this covers their asses legally, while not opening up a whole other can of legal worms. For something like 99% of the owners, not being able to access the cell and data networks they bought the phone for would force them to take the offered replacements OR outright buy a new phone to carry around.... getting the note 7's out of pockets like wanted. The last 1% probably hopes that they become a rare collectible item and probably has powered them down and packed them away somewhere already so they stay in as pristine of shape as possible.

      Under the loan system that there is now the carriers MAY be able to demand the phone back while absolving the person from debts, but this is unlikely. At least for the phones I have gotten through these monthly payment plan options none of them were used as collateral against the loan. As a matter of fact in the case of termination of service for any reason the contract states that you must pay off the remaining balance, and says nothing about the carrier recouping the phone itself.

      --
      To err is human; effective mayhem requires the root password!
    11. Re:CDMA Carriers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      LOL WUT

      This comment is totally inaccurate.

      Last night, my (CDMA) phone got eaten by my snowblower. Fell out of my pocket while i was starting the machine, and like the dumb shit I occasionally am, I ran it over. The phone ended up in a snowbank about 20 feet from where it had originally landed. Thankfully, the SIM card wasn't damaged! So I removed the card, popped it into a spare phone we had in the Big Box Of Random Electronical Bits, fired up the spare, and it works beautifully.

    12. Re:CDMA Carriers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're a fucking idiot. Verizon at the very least has instituted a SIM/UICC card that authenticates both to the CDMA and LTE networks. Only since, oh 2011 or so. You really can just pull the SIM and put it in another device.

      But if you weren't some smug fucking moron foreigner, you'd probably know that and wouldn't post bullshit that hasn't been relevant in over half a decade.

    13. Re:CDMA Carriers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      No, the SIM is not only for LTE you motherfucking idiot. I SIM swap between multiple Verizon devices almost daily, and have for years now. The SIM authenticates both the LTE and CDMA network. But you'd know that already if you weren't a motherfucking idiot.

  5. Ha by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We want you to be able to use the phone that blows up...

  6. Forced notifications. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If they can force updates that disabling charging/radio have they thought about using this to force notifications to the phones urging customers replace the phones ASAP? Even if they do remotely brick the phone still the forced notifications should still be used in the mean time.

  7. Makes sense by ilsaloving · · Score: 1

    Killing off the phone before christmas would have done nothing but cause a whole whackton of frustration and resentment. Killing it off after christmas, when a number of people would have gotten new devices anyway, makes much more sense.

  8. Re: BS!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And if your car has a critical safety recall, you're not going to be bothered with it since you paid cash? Knucklehead.

  9. How will they call 911? by Macdude · · Score: 2, Funny

    I get that they don't want to turn off the phone because some people may not have access to another phone to call for emergency services, but how are those people going to call for emergency services when their Galaxy Note 7 starts a house fire?

    This really is a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation.

    --
    "Grab them by the pussy" -- President of the United States of America
    1. Re:How will they call 911? by Yvan256 · · Score: 1

      If their Galaxy Note 7 starts a house fire, they can no longer call emergency services with it.

    2. Re:How will they call 911? by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1

      I get that they don't want to turn off the phone because some people may not have access to another phone to call for emergency services, but how are those people going to call for emergency services when their Galaxy Note 7 starts a house fire?

      Fireproof gloves?

      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
    3. Re:How will they call 911? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      thatsthejoke.jpg

    4. Re:How will they call 911? by Yvan256 · · Score: 1

      doh.png

    5. Re:How will they call 911? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And mask?

    6. Re:How will they call 911? by theendlessnow · · Score: 1

      I get that they don't want to turn off the phone because some people may not have access to another phone to call for emergency services, but how are those people going to call for emergency services when their Galaxy Note 7 starts a house fire?

      This really is a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation.

      But... what if you quickly toss the phone to your neighbor, through their window.... and they toss it to their neighbor. Sort of like "hot potato". Eventually it gets tossed into the Fire Station and is easily dealt with. So maybe it's just a simple matter of documentation and education? It may sound "difficult" but if you make it into a game, who knows?

  10. Make sure to keep it charged by ninthbit · · Score: 1

    They just need to make sure they keep it charged on one of those cheapo knockoff Qi quick car chargers. Can't let that incendiary grenade defuse itself.

  11. Money wins by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Someone figured out they might be liable for damages if they held back the patch. If anyone thinks it was due to verizon of all people worried about customers you do not have ever used verizon.

  12. Does it really? by bigbang137 · · Score: 1

    Does it really? Too many will illegally fly with it, very possibly risking an incident at 35,000 ft. Is it worth that risk?

    1. Re:Does it really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does it really? Too many will illegally fly with it, very possibly risking an incident at 35,000 ft. Is it worth that risk?

      True, but some people are quite simply stupid, self-absorbed "d-bags" that frankly don't give a damn about anyone else except themselves.

    2. Re:Does it really? by ilsaloving · · Score: 1

      Without knowing exact numbers, I can't possibly tell you. Firstly, it's not like the devices are all going up into flames en masse. Secondly, there has already been a massive marketing campaign by Samsung, carriers, airlines, and governments pointing out how dangerous these things are and how they are prohibited from air travel.

      Given everything that has already happened, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the total number of Note 7's devices that will actually make it into the air will be so small that the overall risk will be no greater than they would be all mobile devices in general.

  13. Burner - I see what you did there by tripleevenfall · · Score: 1

    I wanted to use my Note 7 as a rechargeable handwarmer, you insensitive clods!

    1. Re:Burner - I see what you did there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was hoping to use it as a rechargeable igniter for my fireplace.

  14. Re: BS!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think parent commenter is referring to the precedent it will set. What about phones that pose a cyber security threat, e.g. old phones

  15. Your rights end where they intersect with others by DanDD · · Score: 1

    Your continued use of a known defective product constitutes a public health hazard. I imagine Samsung is perfectly happy to be sued by you, an individual property owner, rather than accept the ongoing risk of being sued by an airline, movie theater, etc. By the way, your lawsuit against Samsung would fail, for the following reason:

    This is analogous to restricting free speech by declaring it illegal to yell 'Fire!' in a crowded movie theater. Yes, you are free say anything you want, but not when your free speech jeopardizes the well-being of those around you. Should your phone burst into flames in a movie theater, you place everyone at risk. Samsung & Verizon are doing the right thing.

    --
    "Every time I see an adult on a bicycle, I no longer despair for the future of the human race." - H. G. Wells
  16. Why does Verizon have a say in this? by lokedhs · · Score: 1

    It seems strange to me that the carrier has the capability to control this. The update would be pushed from the manufacturer, not by the carrier. Unless they installed a special firmware that uses different update servers, which seems to be the case here. My question is if all the US carriers do this, since most commenters seems to think this is perfectly normal.

    1. Re:Why does Verizon have a say in this? by Fly+Swatter · · Score: 1

      This is a great way to test a government backed kill switch.

      Sorry, gotta run. My tinfoil hat is tingling.

    2. Re:Why does Verizon have a say in this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I believe all US carriers require control over updates pushed to phones on their network. Here in the US you never get an update that doesn't come directly form the carrier. Nothing comes from the phone manufacturer

  17. Of course they did by nehumanuscrede · · Score: 1

    One of their more insightful legal types told them who would be at fault if another one caught fire.

    Especially since Samsung did their part to limit any further injuries.

  18. Good thing they're waiting until after New Years! by Gumbercules!! · · Score: 1

    Looks like there will be some extra fireworks on New Years Eve, after all!

  19. Uh, something fishy here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The company was particularly concerned about nuking the Note 7 during the holiday travel season

    ...when people are often flying ON AIRPLANES

  20. Uh... Samsung's Phone? by Waccoon · · Score: 1

    Call me dumb for asking, but I don't own a smart phone...

    If the phone was made by Samsung, why do they need to have Verizon update the firmware? Doesn't the manufacturer have the ability to do this to a phone they made themselves? Are they contractually bound so that the ISP has to approve each system update?

  21. haha dumbass shitstains by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    totally unaffected

  22. Call Emergency Medical Professionals ?! ! by ripvlan · · Score: 1

    "make sure you can contact family, first responders, and emergency medical professionals"

    How nice , of course they do --- so that you may call your family and first responders after the phone catches fire and you're about to die !!!