Slashdot Mirror
Samsung's Calls For Industry To Embrace Its Battery Check Process as a New Standard Have Been Ignored (cnet.com)
Months after the Galaxy Note 7 debacle, the topic remains too hot for the rest of the wireless industry to handle. From a report on CNET: With Samsung's Galaxy S8 to launch next week, a renewed discussion of the Note 7, which had an unhealthy tendency to catch fire and which had to be recalled, is inevitable. Samsung opened that door in January when it embarked on a mea culpa tour. Beyond spelling out the cause of the overheating problem in its popular phone, the company unveiled an eight-point battery check system it said surpassed industry practices, and it invited rivals to follow its model. But two months after the introduction, what's the industry response? A collective shrug. Interviews with phone makers and carriers found that while all placed a high priority on safety, few would talk specifically about Samsung's new battery check process or the idea of adopting it for themselves.
Mobile phone manufacturers place a high priority on battery safety, as long as they don't have to actually do anything about safety. Especially if it costs any money. Or doesn't allow phones to continue their evolution towards paper thin.
I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
Is Samsung. They are talking *loud* about something they purport to be a super better thing. It would help their narrative if they make it sound like all the competitors are ready to fail at any moment.
So the competitors going along with it and making it look like Samsung is *leading* in battery safety would just play into Samsung's hands.
In terms of the actual relative merit, who knows, but from a perspective of marketable storytelling, it is very much not in the interest of Samsung's competitors to play up Samsung's process. If there is merit that their competitors are told about and recognize, expect them to silently improve their process, but in no way publicize that fact.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
Since Samsung also manufactures its own batteries, they have to up their game. It's not just about smartphones, it's also about their own 2170/21700 batteries going head-to-head with Tesla/Panasonic.
If they can't give proof that they're being extra-careful, nobody's going to want electric cars with Samsung batteries in them, which in turn means electric car manufacturers won't buy Samsung batteries.
#DeleteFacebook
should listen to Samsung's advice about batteries!
This.
A thousand times this.
Since their competitors have failed to voluntarily participate Samsung will take it to Washington next; lobbying Congress and the FCC to erect a (another?) battery safety bureaucracy complete with $250k certification fees and a special "fast lane" process for the well healed. Never let a fuck up go to waste.
Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
You currently are on the bottom of the battery safety ladder. No one is going to listen to you now.
Yes, I know you think you've developed an industry-leading battery safety design and procedures, but maybe give it a little time and wait til you are closer to the top of the ladder before asking other companies to join in, and maybe you'll get a better response.
without reading the article, because I cannot get passed the headline - is that "new standards have been ignored" or "a new standard has been ignored"?
has and have are not that confusing, it's not like it is an Oxford comma or anything
Apple will pay the congress critters $1M more than Samsung will, and the problem will go away.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
Or alternatively "boy our process was garbage and we were lucky, but it is good now"
even if they were 'just' lucky, they'd never admit to it.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
No, don't *publicly* learn anything from the mistakes of others.
Maybe Samsung was more lax, or maybe they were just more lucky. Either way, their competition isn't going to do anything *publicly* to demonstrate a hint that it was luck rather than quality.
If competitor processes were lacking, but lucky, you can be certain they did (quietly) learn and improve.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
Nothing to do with adding more hardware. It is QC checks on the batteries themselves (Durability test, Visual Inspection, X-ray test, disassembling test, delta OCT test, charge/discharge test, TVOC test, accelerated usage test).
I don't think you understand, Apple will gladly pay, as will any huge company. It's dirt cheap insurance to put up another major obstacle to any new competitor that might arise in the future. No existing player will pass up that opportunity.
They are all waiting to have a note-7 style catastrophe and then they will adopt the standards as a groundbreaking move. Until then why bother? Its not like Apple is taking *any* flak for the iPhones that catch fire, since they have always had the problem (albeit in a smaller margin vs Samsung).
What a non-sequitur. Why should Apple catch *any* flak for iPhones that catch on fires due to faulty 3rd party battery swaps?
Do what I say, not what I do.
I mean, of course Samsung really needs a new battery check process, doesn't mean others also need it.
In order for anyone to follow Samsung's advices, they need first to prove it's worth for other companies, not only that it's needed for themselves not to f*ck up things further.
And in the end, it was a design flaw that caused the whole deal. Samsung rushed the process, cut corners (figuratively AND literally) to release the phone faster, ignored warnings, which ultimately lead to the Note 7 disaster.
They don't have any moral high ground to stand on.
Other companies would follow if Samsung had lower rates of failures, not the opposite. So if they can prove their new process guarantees a lower percentage of battery issues, then fine, it's a win. But until then, I don't see why any other company would go for it.