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

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."

Comments

It's been months, give it up

[Virtucon]

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

Re:It's been months, give it up

[fafalone]

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.

Re:It's been months, give it up

[Solandri]

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.

Re:It's been months, give it up

[unixisc]

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.

Re:It's been months, give it up

[trudyscousin]

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)?

Re:It's been months, give it up

[thegarbz]

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.

Re:It's been months, give it up

[lgw]

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.

Re: It's been months, give it up

[exomondo]

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.

They didn't change their mind...

[RhettLivingston]

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

How will they call 911?

[Macdude]

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.

Re: Dick Response =

[mlyle]

> 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.