Galaxy Note 7

[gorcorps]

It's telling how you have to resort to lying.

Show me a SINGLE report of an exploding Note 7 after the recall. There are tons of them still out there as many have refused to give them up.

I'll wait.

You're quite the delusional whackjob... Aren't you? How anyone can be in this much denial still is embarrassing.

 

[Crono]

You're quite the delusional whackjob... Aren't you? How anyone can be in this much denial still is embarrassing.

There's some kind of experimental brainwashing beam tech that got put into the Note 7 that causes it's owners to display irrational attachment to what is still a Samsung device (albeit their best one). Unfortunately the beam processor tends to run hot, which is why the explosive Note 7 problem exists.

 

[Kazukian]

https://forums.anandtech.com/threads/aapl-7-for-1-split.2386115/

No wonder he hates Apple

Ok here's the truth Zaap, I work for a company contracted to Apple and the competitors of Samsung to take them down, we found 100 people around the world, had them buy Note 7's, sent a tech to these people and modified their phones to catch on fire, and to bring down Samsung. It worked.

It was easy compared to our work with the 9-11 stuff and covering up the alien spacecraft crash in New Mexico.

 

[Commodus]

It's simple logic as to why you're not hearing about fires after Samsung discontinued the Note 7.

While fires might still be happening, there's both less chance of them in the first place and less reason to report them. Many owners have turned their Note 7s in, so the odds of reports are bound to go down. And if the device catches fire while someone still has it at this point? Well, we know that there's still a problem, and anyone who purposefully holds on to their Note 7 is asking for trouble, however statistically unlikely a fire may be.

Besides, as they say: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If you insist that there's something shady going on with the lack of reports, then the burden of proof is on you. And if you don't have any evidence, then don't harp on it!

 

[Kazukian]

Not to go on topic or anything, this would be awesome if they do this in the US

http://www.theverge.com/2016/10/24/...an-note-7-owners-a-50-percent-discount-on-the

 

[Commodus]

Not to go on topic or anything, this would be awesome if they do this in the US

http://www.theverge.com/2016/10/24/...an-note-7-owners-a-50-percent-discount-on-the

Wouldn't be surprised. Samsung doesn't just have to worry about customers who immediately replace their Note 7s with rival phones -- it has to worry that they only stick with Samsung for the replacement and switch as soon as there's a new phone on the block. I'm sure DJ Koh has nightmares of customers turning down the Note 8 next summer in favor of an iPhone 8 Plus.

 

[Kazukian]

I'm seeing rumors they'll give a straight up trade for the next generation Note for the replacement devices, if accurate, and I suspect it is, that would go a long way towards keeping their customers happy.

 

[Zaap]

What am I lying about? They were recalled, Samsung and the CPSC say they needed to be recalled.

And again .. you resort to lying.

Why do you feel the need for that?

No one disputed the recall, simpleton.

I said you can't find a single report of a note 7 exploding since the final recall, let alone it being widespread. And you can't.

And yes, people still holding onto note 7s is still news, and one expoding would be big news. Just the likihood is super rare.

Now go back to lying that anyone disputes the recall.

 

[Kazukian]

Zaap, precisely what/who am I lying about?

Look at what others are posting, they're calling you delusional.

Samsung and the CPSC recalled the phone, the failure rate and potential liability for Samsung was potentially massive.

I'm seeing reports of S7 Edges batteries running away and burning up. Samsung has a flipping mess on their hands. I wondered about the Edge, they're pretty much a stylus free Note 7.

 

[Zaap]

Can you keep your babifed nonsense to P&N please? Because you can't read what's been said lie about what's been said is your problem.

 

[Kazukian]

Can you keep your babifed nonsense to P&N please? Because you can't read what's been said lie about what's been said is your problem.

I really don't understand what you're talking about. Can you post some links to articles to explain what you're on about?

Here's an article about the Edge's catching fire, that makes 4 that are public in the last 30 days or so.

http://www.computerworld.com/articl...tching-fire-too-2-fires-in-the-last-week.html

 

[WelshBloke]

It's simple logic as to why you're not hearing about fires after Samsung discontinued the Note 7.

While fires might still be happening, there's both less chance of them in the first place and less reason to report them. Many owners have turned their Note 7s in, so the odds of reports are bound to go down. And if the device catches fire while someone still has it at this point? Well, we know that there's still a problem, and anyone who purposefully holds on to their Note 7 is asking for trouble, however statistically unlikely a fire may be.

Besides, as they say: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If you insist that there's something shady going on with the lack of reports, then the burden of proof is on you. And if you don't have any evidence, then don't harp on it!

Eh?

Wouldn't the burden of proof work the other way?
You have to prove something happens (like exploding Note 7s) rather than something not happening (like non exploding Note 7s).

I actually suspect that there aren't that many exploding, it's just that Samsung doesn't know the reason why the ones that did immolate did it. So they had a risk that had a lower boundary and an unknown upper boundary.

 

[esquared]

Kazukian and zaap:


Knock it off, or I will remove you both from this thread.


esquared
Anandtech Forum Director

 

[Raduque]

I only turned mine in because Oculus removed support for it from the GearVR app. :/

 

[Kazukian]

Kazukian and zaap:


Knock it off, or I will remove you both from this thread.


esquared
Anandtech Forum Director

Got it. Ignore function engaged.

 

[Commodus]

Eh?

Wouldn't the burden of proof work the other way?
You have to prove something happens (like exploding Note 7s) rather than something not happening (like non exploding Note 7s).

I actually suspect that there aren't that many exploding, it's just that Samsung doesn't know the reason why the ones that did immolate did it. So they had a risk that had a lower boundary and an unknown upper boundary.

Not in this case, I'd say. The extraordinary claim here is that the sudden silence on Note 7 fires is suspicious -- that it's not just because the fires are non-news, or that there just haven't been more reported fires. You'd have to show evidence of a plot ("we'll act as if there are a ton of fires to force the Note 7 off the market! All hail our glorious Apple overlords!") for that suspicion to be warranted.

Think of it the way you would the classic "this rock scares away tigers" logical fallacy. Zaap is effectively claiming that the rock must scare away tigers because there's no evidence of tigers nearby. I'm pointing out that it's probably because he lives in a part of the world where tigers don't live, and that he needs more proof to debunk the more logical explanation.

 

[Kazukian]

Samsung facing fallout in SK, it's unheard of to criticize/sue them, they've really pissed people off. Class action suit and a group targeting Jay Y. Lee-it's very unusual to specifically name someone in their culture.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...isis-sows-seeds-of-rebellion-on-its-home-turf

 

[WelshBloke]

Not in this case, I'd say. The extraordinary claim here is that the sudden silence on Note 7 fires is suspicious -- that it's not just because the fires are non-news, or that there just haven't been more reported fires. You'd have to show evidence of a plot ("we'll act as if there are a ton of fires to force the Note 7 off the market! All hail our glorious Apple overlords!") for that suspicion to be warranted.

Think of it the way you would the classic "this rock scares away tigers" logical fallacy. Zaap is effectively claiming that the rock must scare away tigers because there's no evidence of tigers nearby. I'm pointing out that it's probably because he lives in a part of the world where tigers don't live, and that he needs more proof to debunk the more logical explanation.

I'd say that the most obvious reason for less reported fires is less fires myself. Anything else is just assumption and guesswork.

There weren't actually that many fires in the first place (I actually assumed that there were a lot more than a hundred out of the couple of million N7s) and the dodgy ones had likely gone "poof" already. That in combination with the recall probably means that there aren't that many going up in flames now.

That seems a far more likely explanation than the press suddenly deciding that they don't want to report any more fires.

 

[core2slow]

Unless you guys are samsung stock holder, I find it funny that this thread is now 26pgs and going. The phone has been put to rest by samsung, there's no need to rehash the same talk that you guys been doing for the past 2wks. Fire or no fire after the final recall, WGAS anymore. Life goes on, earth will continue to rotate, the sun will rise tomorrow...etc...no need to beat a dead horse into a bloody pulp.

 

[Kazukian]

I think with the transportation bans, most are in Samsung's hands now, and Samsung is wanting them to catch fire so they can figure out what the heck went wrong.

 

[WelshBloke]

Unless you guys are samsung stock holder, I find it funny that this thread is now 26pgs and going. The phone has been put to rest by samsung, there's no need to rehash the same talk that you guys been doing for the past 2wks. Fire or no fire after the final recall, WGAS anymore. Life goes on, earth will continue to rotate, the sun will rise tomorrow...etc...no need to beat a dead horse into a pulp.

I'm just curious as to what the issue was in the first place.

At first I assumed that it was Samsung cocking up their USB-C charging circuit as its the first time they've used it.

Now I just think that they pushed the energy density of the batteries too far.
The push is for more battery life and thinner devices, at some point you're going to hit a wall where you get more failures.

 

[Commodus]

Unless you guys are samsung stock holder, I find it funny that this thread is now 26pgs and going. The phone has been put to rest by samsung, there's no need to rehash the same talk that you guys been doing for the past 2wks. Fire or no fire after the final recall, WGAS anymore. Life goes on, earth will continue to rotate, the sun will rise tomorrow...etc...no need to beat a dead horse into a bloody pulp.

It's more that the nature of the discussion has evolved. Now, it's more about what the Note 7 fiasco means for Samsung, not just the company but also the products that we're going to buy. Will there be a Note 8? Will the S8 ship on time? Will there be significant changes to these phones? And is the underlying cause something Samsung has to worry about in the future?

 

[dawheat]

It's impossible to claim that this was anything but a real issue and the rate of failures on the Note 7 were trending closer to two orders of magnitude higher than any other flagship. One-off isolated cases will occur to all phones - it's the nature of any device with a lithium ion battery from any number of factors. But the failure rate was high enough I fully support any transportation service from banning the device - and at that point the device was DOA.

The S7 Edge has been out for 6 months, has sold in the tens of millions, and I do think you will see a handful of cases just like you will for the iPhone over a full year, some IMO stemming from customer abuse and a few from just plain bad luck.

 

[core2slow]

I'm just curious as to what the issue was in the first place.

At first I assumed that it was Samsung cocking up their USB-C charging circuit as its the first time they've used it.

Now I just think that they pushed the energy density of the batteries too far.
The push is for more battery life and thinner devices, at some point you're going to hit a wall where you get more failures.

It's more that the nature of the discussion has evolved. Now, it's more about what the Note 7 fiasco means for Samsung, not just the company but also the products that we're going to buy. Will there be a Note 8? Will the S8 ship on time? Will there be significant changes to these phones? And is the underlying cause something Samsung has to worry about in the future?

Both valid concerns, though I don't think samsung will explicitly tell the public of what really happened if they did find out. Deny all plausibility seem to be that of corporate culture, and admitting fault/guilt would open up the rabbit hole to design/engineering/vendor issues that it'll make consumers leery to that specific aspect when purchasing a new phone (from Samsung).

 

[dawheat]

Both valid concerns, though I don't think samsung will explicitly tell the public of what really happened if they did find out. Deny all plausibility seem to be that of corporate culture, and admitting fault/guilt would open up the rabbit hole to design/engineering/vendor issues that it'll make consumers leery to that specific aspect when purchasing a new phone (from Samsung).

If they can't convince the public they know what went wrong and that it's truly "fixed" in the S8, then they're done in the flagship segment. They could have gotten by a bit with smoke and mirrors if they had gotten the first recall right and the issues didn't continue.