I wonder how the probability of exploding varies over time. Is it the case that defective batteries fail early? Or does the probability remain level or increase as time passes?
Posted on 12/09/2016 7:54:14 PM PST by Swordmaker
I don’t blame Verizon. It could expose them to significant liability issues.
First Samsung sells an exploding phone to the public. Then it devises a scheme to cripple the phone, against the wishes of the people who bought and thought they owned the device. Who owns the phone?
PING for your Android list. . . if your Android users have NOT taken advantage of Samsung’s recall and replacement of the Samsung Galaxy Note 7 phablet phone, shortly after Christmas, it WILL become a brick unless your phone carrier is Verizon.
However, it looks as if Verizon’s refusal to allow Samsung to brick the Note 7s for safety reasons may mean Verizon will be on the hook for all further fires/explosion damages because Samsung has provided a sure-fire means (pun intended) to render them safe and Verizon has refused to allow its use, thereby continuing the risk to their customers that could have been avoided by bricking the devices.
See my comment above. . . it may be worse for them to not let the bricking proceed.
But what if it's yours?
I wonder how the probability of exploding varies over time. Is it the case that defective batteries fail early? Or does the probability remain level or increase as time passes?
The real question is who holds the liability if that phone explodes or catches fire and maims or kills someone, or burn down a building? It will not be the owner of the phone. Now it may not be Samsung as they came up with a way to render them harmless but Verizon decided to block that method from working for their customers putting them at risk of the that very thing happening, to avoid another very possible scenario. Hmmmm.
Dilemma, meet horns.
The real question is who holds the liability if that phone explodes or catches fire and maims or kills someone, or burn down a building? It will not be the owner of the phone. Now it may not be Samsung as they came up with a way to render them harmless but Verizon decided to block that method from working for their customers putting them at risk of the that very thing happening, to avoid another very possible scenario. Hmmmm.
Dilemma, meet horns.
Apple did the same thing with updates to iPhones, the updates would brick the phones, rendering them useless
Apple’s Response? Buy a new phone.....
No, it is actually a lot more. The model is defective due to not having enough expansion space between the battery and the casing. The model itself was demonstrating a battery failure rate 3,000 times greater than any other cellular phone. That was unheard of. It was not the battery itself, but not allowing enough room for the installed battery for normal expansion when it goes through a normal charge discharge cycle. They WILL eventually fail catastrophically. The 0.01% were those that just initially were failing in the first month of use. Multiply that rate of failure out and you quickly reach 100% failure over a two year product life. THAT is why Samsung recalled all of them! The NORMAL failure rate is one in 10M to 12M per year! They had over 250 of these fail in less than a month in fewer than 2.5 million shipped and only half of that number actually sold through to the public! 26 resulted in severe injury, and 96 in property damage outside of the phone itself.
LIAR! There were no fires associated with IPhones and Apple never sent out a deliberate update to brick any iPhones. This never happened.
You can't help yourself from posting these lies, can you?
Calm down now
Apple did release updates to iPhones that did render them useless (Brick them) and the company response was
“Buy a new iPhone”
Think Different, Think Different Buddy
I don’t travel much, but in October I had occasion to fly Jet Blue to two different locations on two separate week-ends.
They don’t let Samsung phones on their planes. So that’s pretty much a deal killer in terms of buying Samsung phones. Fortunately, I had a Motorola, but if I had had a Samsung, that would have given me plenty of incentive to get rid of it and buy something else.
No, they did not. They had some iPhones which had some specific apps installed that did not complete updating that required being updated by being connected to a computer to be reset to factory before accepting an update. BIG DIFFERENCE to being bricked. No one was told "Buy a new iPhone." That was a facetious claim from Apple Haters like you. A weak later a fix to the problem was released that prevented even the initial problem from occurring.
You forget that I have been running the Apple Ping List for 12 years and have run a business supporting Apple and Microsoft products for over 35 years, and I know the history of all of these off-the-wall claims you make. . . and you are always wrong because you go with the hyperbolic over-the-top hysteria posted by the anti-Apple type press you love to find based on a few initial complaints, not the factual information based on research and the experiences of the vast majority of iPhone and Apple device users.
The world population is too stupid to not charge their phone.
We are lost.
individuals own the phone but only license the software - true of nearly all computers nowadays as well...read the fine print...
Have you got a link for that?
Or are you just spreading misinformation?
Actually, I state the truth, you post propaganda
obviously you don’t like that.
Those iPhones were bricked by Apple and Apple’s response was “Buy a new iPhone”
You try to bring in stuff that either, never happened, or has nothing to do with what we are talking about.
I proved you wrong numerous times, and one of your responses to me was “I was joking” so, are you running the Apple parody joke ping?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.