Slashdot Mirror
Samsung Answers Burning Note 7 Questions, Vows Better Batteries (cnet.com)
From a report on CNET: During a press conference Sunday, Samsung said two separate battery defects caused both the original batch of Galaxy Note 7 phones and the replacement units to overheat. The first battery, it said, suffered from a design flaw. The battery's external casing was too small for the components inside, causing it to short-circuit and ignite. The second battery, which came from another supplier, didn't have the same flaw, Justin Denison, head of product strategy and marketing for Samsung's US arm, said in an interview ahead of the press conference. In the rush to pump out enough batteries for the replacement units, though, the supplier introduced a manufacturing defect that led to the same result, he said. The explanation puts to rest the mystery behind the exploding Note 7, but it kicks off a new challenge for the embattled company: winning back your trust after a disastrous several months that included two recalls and the decision to kill the critically acclaimed phone. The Sunday press conference marked the start of a Samsung campaign to rebuild company credibility, which will include the upcoming launch of the flagship Galaxy S8 phone, as well as another Note later in the year.
They dont answer anything, they just try to shift the blame to their two suppliers of the battery.
So nooooo, Samsung didnt make mistakes by making the battery compartment exactly the size of the battery they ordered from two suppliers, it was the fault of "two suppliers" who did deliver a battery up to the specifications, and not one that didnt expand or heat up during usage, silly "two suppliers". So nothing to see here, move along, and get in line to buy the new and non-catching fire S8...
Oh yeah, totally unrelated, one of "two suppliers" is Samsung SDI, which has absolutely noting to do with Samsung (exept the name and same owner)...
They just didn't have time to definitively figure out root cause and the most obvious culprit being the battery got derailed because it happened with a different battery vendor and design. It ultimately turned out to be battery issues after all, but at the time they couldn't afford to take any chances.
Note the same thing would have happened even with replaceable batteries, though I would like to see replaceable batteries in phones for other reasons.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
it was supposed to be slotted into was too small.
It wasn't a engineering problem that was at fault, it was an aesthetic one. Trying to make things too thin and too fragile all in the name of keeping up with Apple. Samsung over-engineered the housing where any imperfection in the battery used could cause trouble. And imperfections did cause trouble. Imperfections, if reports are to be believed, that should have been well tolerated.
So maybe it's time to back off the thinness race and, you know, work on creating a unique look and feel.
While I do appreciate a user-replaceable battery, I certainly don't agree that a non-replaceable battery is purely, if even mostly a greed decision.
First and foremost, design challenges. It's much more difficult to design a phone (especially a larger one) that's rigid enough to survive normal use while not being able to count on the back for structural support. Furthermore, you need to dedicate interior space to the closing/locking/waterproofing mechanisms. Same goes for spring-loaded battery contacts and some minor sort of retaining mechanism. The choice of materials for the back is also limited. You effectively can't do a glass-back anymore (which is great for rigidity).
Then, you need to protect the rest of the interior for when the battery is swapped. This takes up further space, and forces certain layout changes.
And finally, you introduce an additional problem - 3rd party batteries. Bad quality, defective, dangerous 3rd party batteries. People want a spare battery so badly...but often are disinterested in paying the ~$50+ for one when there are ones for $10 in amazon/ebay advertizing "exact match, same as OEM" nonsense. While some might tack a greed charge on this, it's actually a revenue option for the manufacturer. They'd sell quite a few batteries too.
And finally, you CAN still replace the battery down the road when it eventually loses capacity. Granted it requires much more work, but absolute worst case I can imagine involves replacing the battery yearly.
So no, Samsung wasn't greedy by making the battery non-replaceable. They were stupid that they rushed a(n otherwise awesome) product to beat Apple to market (there's some greed if anything) which had an inherent design flaw (twice) and resulted in a huge cost to them and inconvenience to consumers.
You can get rich if you own a politician, but you have to be rich to buy one in the first place.
When you specify that a batteries maximum envelope is X, and the supplier provides a battery which has a maximum envelope greater than X then, yes, it's a supplier problem.
When you request 2 million batteries instead of 200,000, and your supplier changes the process which induces a flaw into the product then, yes, it's a supplier problem.
This is critical because the "engineers" (idiots) over at ExtremeTech published "findings" (a middle school essay on their thought experiment backed up with zero observed failures) said that the problem was in the case and had nothing to do with the design of the battery. Blaming the phone case for the problem is like blaming users hands for the iPhone antenna problem. It's not a problem with what it holding the (iPhone, battery) but rather that the (iPhone, battery) was not designed properly for the specified requirements.
In both cases, it's imperative that the overall product producer take responsibility to the end users for products which do not work as intended. Which they did - recalling the devices, offer full refunds and - in many cases - a credit for accessories that you didn't even purchase from them.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
You effectively can't do a glass-back anymore (which is great for rigidity).
Why not? In most cases phones are glass-backed over top of something else anyhow.
However, glass-back on phones is STUPID. Why? Because phones inevitably get dropped, and it's enough of a pain worrying about breaking the screen without this.
So what do most smart people do after buying a new phone? They buy a case or bumper to ensure that the screen and/or glass back don't get destroyed the first time the damn thing falls out of your pocket. It also renders the whole "thinner is better" thing rather stupid for similar reasons, as that "life proof" or "otter box" case is adding a hella whole lot more thickness to the phone than either a headphone jack or thicker battery.