read: SAMSUNG PUSH FW UPDATE NOTE7 KILL DEVICE!

[escobar035]

Block service: Urgent fw update and software update in your note.
Samsung is pushing a update that makes your note 7 unusable!
Confirmed by samsung holland..

Maybe package disable pro can do it...

 

[br0adband]

I don't actually see this as a problem considering the devices have been recalled worldwide.

 

[Ryland Johnson]

Block service: Urgent fw update and software update in your note.
Samsung is pushing a update that makes your note 7 unusable!
Confirmed by samsung holland..

Maybe package disable pro can do it...

Why would you want to prevent Samsung from disabling a dangerous device they sold? Have you not been offered a return of your cash by Samsung? IN a few months Samsung will release its S8 series then we can take a look at that.

I need someone to explain why its imperative to keep ownership of a dangerous device that has been recalled twice losing the company multi billions of euros?

Ryland

 

[The Phone Company]

They need to ban the iPhone too. I mean who would be comfortable knowing someone was carrying a device so dangerous it has been REPORTED it spontaneously explodes even when off?

The iPhone is DANGEROUS people. Ban it! I read about it in the news:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-college-student-s-iPhone-explodes-class.html

 

[br0adband]

*snip*

 

[svache]

Why would you want to prevent Samsung from disabling a dangerous device they sold? Have you not been offered a return of your cash by Samsung? IN a few months Samsung will release its S8 series then we can take a look at that.

I need someone to explain why its imperative to keep ownership of a dangerous device that has been recalled twice losing the company multi billions of euros?

Ryland

It's not so much that it is imperative to keep ownership of these devices. It's the point that it is a voluntary recall, and Samsung sending out an update that disables these devices makes it a bit involuntary. Plus, if someone has paid the phone in full, don't they legally own it? For Samsung to disable it in that situation is a bit much I'd say. This is of course all regardless of whether it is a good idea to keep the phone or not, but that's not the discussion here.

 

[Ryland Johnson]

They need to ban the iPhone too. I mean who would be comfortable knowing someone was carrying a device so dangerous it has been REPORTED it spontaneously explodes even when off?

The iPhone is DANGEROUS people. Ban it! I read about it in the news:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-college-student-s-iPhone-explodes-class.html

I have to fight one battle at a time. I am mourning the loss of my Note 7. I don't want to be rude and certainly not confrontational when I write I don't care if the fruity brand goes bust and ceases to trade, no concern of mine. What is of concern to me is my families welfare to that end I hope I don't see someone with a Note 7 on an aircraft or public transport.
Every opportunity has been offered to return this defective device. There are zero excuses if an owner keeps one and causes others damage.

Ryland

---------- Post added at 10:48 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:39 AM ----------

It's not so much that it is imperative to keep ownership of these devices. It's the point that it is a voluntary recall, and Samsung sending out an update that disables these devices makes it a bit involuntary. Plus, if someone has paid the phone in full, don't they legally own it? For Samsung to disable it in that situation is a bit much I'd say. This is of course all regardless of whether it is a good idea to keep the phone or not, but that's not the discussion here.

So its morally incorrect for Samsung to block the use of a defective dangerous device but not morally incorrect for us to use them in public? Double standards me thinks?

Samsung are NOT going to take away your device. You can still own one as long as the recall where you live is not[/U] official, its the carriers who will block the phone etc. Samsung will not honour further warranties nor offer updates.
Can you explain why you would not want to cooperate with Samsung over the recall?

Ryland
I just noticed you live in the USA where the recall is official.

 

[PhoenixJedi]

I have to fight one battle at a time. I am mourning the loss of my Note 7. I don't want to be rude and certainly not confrontational when I write I don't care if the fruity brand goes bust and ceases to trade, no concern of mine. What is of concern to me is my families welfare to that end I hope I don't see someone with a Note 7 on an aircraft or public transport.
Every opportunity has been offered to return this defective device. There are zero excuses if an owner keeps one and causes others damage.

Ryland

---------- Post added at 10:48 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:39 AM ----------



So its morally incorrect for Samsung to block the use of a defective dangerous device but not morally incorrect for us to use them in public? Double standards me thinks?

Samsung are NOT going to take away your device. You can still own one as long as the recall where you live is not[/U] official, its the carriers who will block the phone etc. Samsung will not honour further warranties nor offer updates.
Can you explain why you would not want to cooperate with Samsung over the recall?

Ryland

One good reason: I don't get my replacement phone until at least 10/28 because thats the day Pixel XL's ship.

 

[br0adband]

It's the point that it is a voluntary recall, and Samsung sending out an update that disables these devices makes it a bit involuntary.

It's not a voluntary recall in the United States since Thursday at 3PM Eastern time (October 13 2016), it's mandatory:

https://www.cpsc.gov/Recalls/2017/s...-Additional-Incidents-with-Replacement-Phones

If Samsung were to issue a "magic bullet" over the air that does brick/disable the Note 7 models that people are refusing to return as part of the worldwide recall process all that does is force the customers to do it anyway: they're not going to be happy with a dead/bricked device but they still have the option - even after all that BS they've gone through - to return it to Samsung and get a refund on their costs.

Again, I don't see a negative here.

 

[svache]

So its morally incorrect for Samsung to block the use of a defective dangerous device but not morally incorrect for us to use them in public? Double standards me thinks?

Samsung are NOT going to take away your device. You can still own one as long as the recall where you live is not[/U] official, its the carriers who will block the phone etc. Samsung will not honour further warranties nor offer updates.
Can you explain why you would not want to cooperate with Samsung over the recall?

Ryland

No double standards at all. If I want to use the device in a fire proof bunker, then that would be totally up to me as long as this is a voluntary recall. Disabling the device makes it impossible to use it, and renders it to nothing but a paperweight. The double standard is there when Samsung disables the device while you own it and calls it "voluntary".

Nobody is saying anything about not cooperating. As a matter of fact, my own and the wifes are both going back sometime early this coming week. But this isn't about that, this is about Samsung possibly disabling a device, rendering it useless while people may have paid over 800 bucks for it.

 

[br0adband]

But this isn't about that, this is about Samsung possibly disabling a device, rendering it useless while people may have paid over 800 bucks for it.

I just covered that aspect in the post right above yours.

 

[svache]

It's not a voluntary recall in the United States since Thursday at 3PM Eastern time (October 13 2016), it's mandatory:

https://www.cpsc.gov/Recalls/2017/s...-Additional-Incidents-with-Replacement-Phones

If Samsung were to issue a "magic bullet" over the air that does brick/disable the Note 7 models that people are refusing to return as part of the worldwide recall process all that does is force the customers to do it anyway: they're not going to be happy with a dead/bricked device but they still have the option - even after all that BS they've gone through - to return it to Samsung and get a refund on their costs.

Again, I don't see a negative here.

Where do you read that it is mandatory?

Please, read the small prints at the CPSC site, there's a whole article on the matter. But in short, it is a manufacturer initiated recall, making it voluntary. It is not the CPSC that initiated it, which otherwise would make it mandatory.

 

[Ryland Johnson]

One good reason: I don't get my replacement phone until at least 10/28 because thats the day Pixel XL's ship.

Okay. I can see you are, like me, upset about the loss of your Note 7. I get it I truly do.

It is fine for you to take a pee in your own home swimming pool. You paid for it your water blah blah however, when you visit your local public swimming pool and despite the fact you pay an entrance fee is it okay for you to pee in your public swimming pool even though you have paid for entrance?
I hope your answer to that is no? Its no longer a question of morality when an action we make jeopardises the health and safety of the community we share and live in.
There is another post on this forum where a father and mother have returned their Note 7's as they have a young child in the house. Some call that stupidity I call that responsibility.
Providing you don't endanger others I don't have any objection to another person owning a Note 7. I fear that scenario in real life doesn't exist though?

Ryland

 

[svache]

Okay. I can see you are, like me, upset about the loss of your Note 7. I get it I truly do.

It is fine for you to take a pee in your own home swimming pool. You paid for it your water blah blah however, when you visit your local public swimming pool and despite the fact you pay an entrance fee is it okay for you to pee in your public swimming pool even though you have paid for entrance?
I hope your answer to that is no? Its no longer a question of morality when an action we make jeopardises the health and safety of the community we share and live in.
There is another post on this forum where a father and mother have returned their Note 7's as they have a young child in the house. Some call that stupidity I call that responsibility.
Providing you don't endanger others I don't have any objection to another person owning a Note 7. I fear that scenario in real life doesn't exist though?

Ryland

To take your analogy for a moment, it wouldn't be up to the water company to stop delivering water if he wanted to pee in the water of a public pool, though. That's a bit the issue I'm having with Samsung if they do this. I totally agree with you on the other points, but I also feel Samsung shouldn't be doing that next step.

 

[PhoenixJedi]

Okay. I can see you are, like me, upset about the loss of your Note 7. I get it I truly do.

It is fine for you to take a pee in your own home swimming pool. You paid for it your water blah blah however, when you visit your local public swimming pool and despite the fact you pay an entrance fee is it okay for you to pee in your public swimming pool even though you have paid for entrance?
I hope your answer to that is no? Its no longer a question of morality when an action we make jeopardises the health and safety of the community we share and live in.
There is another post on this forum where a father and mother have returned their Note 7's as they have a young child in the house. Some call that stupidity I call that responsibility.
Providing you don't endanger others I don't have any objection to another person owning a Note 7. I fear that scenario in real life doesn't exist though?

Ryland

Here's the thing. The phones that verizon is offering as possible replacements (top of the line units) that you can switch the note 7 with include the iPhone 7, Pixel, Pixel XL, V20, S7, S7 Edge and a few others. Three of those phones are not out yet, therefore the Note 7 should not be allowed to be killed off until such a time as it HAS been replaced by the company with another phone. I get it, the phone can be dangerous, but people have lives and they've only given us ONE upgrade to replace it with. Why force people to waste it on a device they're not going to want when there are three brand new devices coming out that are eligable as replacement coming out?

 

[themissionimpossible]

It's the point that it is a voluntary recall

About the possible "voluntary" term misunderstanding... maybe you and others missed this explicative post about this definition:

Why do people think voluntary recall is any less serious?
"Most recalls of defective products are characterized as “voluntary,” a confusing term that can lead consumers to believe that the recall is optional. But voluntary recall is just government-speak for a deal that a manufacturer or retailer of a hazardous product has negotiated with the federal agency in charge of overseeing the safety of that product category. Voluntary recall would also seem to indicate that there are “mandatory recalls” that can be issued by the government should manufacturers or retailers refuse to cooperate, but nearly all the recalls announced last year were voluntary.


In light of this definition, consumers affected by this (or any other) recall should never assume voluntary implies:
less urgency for the need to comply with the recall, or that the recall is a preliminary measure taken by the company strictly out of an abundance of caution, i.e. that it would not otherwise be mandated by the regulating authority.
Do not be confused by the language: it is absolutely imperative that you take action and comply with the recall as soon as possible if you haven’t done so already."

This is from food safety site, but definition stands.


Aldo regarding liability:

"In some cases, a firm or company may initiate a recall voluntarily—meaning without a mandate from the CPSC. Such recalls are often the product of a negotiation between the product manufacturer/retailer with the federal agency that oversees their product category’s safety. Almost all announced recalls are voluntary. Voluntary product recalls are considered to be safeguards against potential lawsuits and sticky legal situations."

http://forum.xda-developers.com/showpost.php?p=69116188&postcount=21


To sum up:

• voluntary means that the recall has been asked "voluntarily" by a manufacturer/seller (Samsung in this case)
• mandatory means that an authority has imposed the recall on a manufacturer/seller

Therefore the "voluntary" has nothing to do with a possible customer's option to comply or not with the recall!

I hope these 2 terms are more clear now...

 

[aengus4h]

For Samsung, bottom line is that with all the commentary here and elsewhere of folks insisting they will keep the device regardless, they've little choice but to force an update to ensure the unit is disabled. Sure it will upset some owners and may lose them a few customers, but it is the right thing for them to do given the situation. What the folks shouting about keeping them they aren't seeming to care about the risk they will be placing other innocent parties under.

Sure I liked the 7 overall, only -ve for me was the edge glass, I've been in since the original note-1 came out. Mine is sat in its box waiting to be shipped back and I've switched to SIM only and reverted back to the note-3 until something better than current offerings are available. For me it makes no sense at all to hold onto the 7 even if they were not actively disabled by an update/IMEI block. No way am I prepared to take the risk of it failing while I am driving/travelling, am with my family/friends or at work, thereby putting other lives at risk.

Bit like driving drunk really, sure you may be ok and get home safely 98% of the time, but that one time when you don't, how many others got hurt and who's fault was it, the maker of the alcohol, the publican who served you, or you yourself for exercising poor judgement?

If you do continue to keep the device and go the custom ROM route to try to evade disable measures, you are fully and personally liable for whatever transpires thereafter. Can you really afford to compensate an airline for the loss of an aircraft? All the families for their loss? The cost of search and recovery operations?

Bear in mind too that just being there with a note-7 may lead to being implicated even if the device was not the initial cause, just because it's a known hazard and you hadn't returned it...

 

[svache]

About the possible "voluntary" term misunderstanding... maybe you and others missed this explicative post about this definition:


http://forum.xda-developers.com/showpost.php?p=69116188&postcount=21


To sum up:

• voluntary means that the recall has been asked "voluntarily" by a manufacturer/seller (Samsung in this case)
• mandatory means that an authority has imposed the recall on a manufacturer/seller

Therefore the "voluntary" has nothing to do with a possible customer's option to comply or not with the recall!

I hope these 2 terms are more clear now...

Thanks, reading that I think there may indeed a bit of a misunderstanding on both sides.


The rest of what I said still stands, though. While I agree people would be best to comply with the situation, I feel it should not be up to Samsung to actually disable the devices if someone paid them in full, and that was my point really. If providers at the other hand stop serving them, stop allowing them on their network and whatnot, then that would be a different situation entirely, but the device shouldn't be bricked.

 

[Ryland Johnson]

No double standards at all. If I want to use the device in a fire proof bunker, then that would be totally up to me as long as this is a voluntary recall. Disabling the device makes it impossible to use it, and renders it to nothing but a paperweight. The double standard is there when Samsung disables the device while you own it and calls it "voluntary".

Nobody is saying anything about not cooperating. As a matter of fact, my own and the wifes are both going back sometime early this coming week. But this isn't about that, this is about Samsung possibly disabling a device, rendering it useless while people may have paid over 800 bucks for it.

I truly understand your point. I think, perhaps, our wires are getting crossed. Maybe we are getting hung up on the word 'voluntary' as apposed to obligatory?

Perhaps, I don't know, so far Samsung have requested owners help them resolve this nightmare by returning their mobiles for a swop or full refund. I took the refund and will wait till March when the new devices are out.

Now, lets place ourselves in the shoes of Samsung. They produced arguably the most technologically developed mobile phone to date and we loved them. (trying to avoid the word 'best' as its subjective). Most unfortunately for us also Samsung, the said device has a major safety issue. Proof of that is Samsung has recalled the mobile twice, lost multi billions of euros and its another unknow what the brand damage fall out will be.

Has Samsung the legal right to block an unsafe device they released for public sale? I don't know? I know here in Europe once a recall is made 'official' it IS illegal to own, store, trade or sell such an item. I didn't need for the recall to be made 'official' Once I saw Samsung taking this massive blow I realised this was for real and I had to return both my devices twice.
Can you imagine how you would feel if while driving down the motorway your Note 7 decided to go pop and you swerved and caused an accident. WE cant claim ignorance after the fact. This is world wide news. I am sick and tired of seeing people take the pi55 out of the Note 7 and Samsung and us. The sooner all owners cooperate and return the mobile the sooner the vultures will stop circling and both Samsung and we can move on in safety.

You have the freedom of speech to walk into a cinema and shout 'FIRE'. With freedom comes responsibility.

Ryland

 

[PhoenixJedi]

Here's the one thing though. What if they find that it wasn't a random issue and that the overheating was actually caused by some stupid people using defective USB-C cables with the phone (as that is a likely possibility, a bad USB-C cable can damage the phone in a way that the battery protection board and/or the charging circuits could be damaged). That would then prove the phones were not defective but were made defective by an external uncertified device. Then, anyone who DID keep their Note 7 is completely screwed even if its found that a faulty device/cable was plugged into the unit.

And don't say its not a likely scenario. They are still investigating, they can't replicate the situation in the lab, and this is a commonly known issue with USB-C cables that Samsung wouldn't try in the lab. CPSC says 92 units out of 1.9 million sold in the US overheated. It is completely possible there are 92 idiots in the world who don't know what a USB-IF certification is.