So.. advanced warning, this is going to be long.
A replacement phone is acceptable. Why would it not be? Samsung has identified the problem and is correcting it. There is no way that Samsung didn't identify the problem, initiate and recall and a plan to replace them all, without identitying the problem.
Circuitry or bad cells, doesn't matter, the issue is still in the battery, whether it is the circuitry in the actual battery or just bad cells. Samsung identified the problem, very doubtful Samsung is going to tell the exact details, but that isn't really necessary to identify and correct the problem.
Again, looking at this logically and from just a business standpoint, there is no way that Samsung exposed the problem, did a voluntary recall, and didn't identify the exact issue, correct it and then rush it. They have been looking at this long before the recall was announced. It wouldn't make business sense at all for Samsung to do all that and then replace bad phones with phones that they were not positive, corrected the problem and were safe. That would be corporate suicide. Samsung isn't going to risk that on the Note 7 line. While Samsung sells a lot of phones, Samsung Mobile is a tiny drop in a very big bucket of the business that is Samsung. No way Samsung Global would risk all of Samsung over the projected 12-14 million Note 7's that Samsung Mobile expected to sell this year. They wouldn't risk their reputation, the wouldn't risk lawsuits over putting out corrected phones that weren't actually corrected. I seriously doubt that Samsung's insurance company and Samsung Global would let the tiny division of Samsung Mobile, risk the entire company by sending out phones as replacements that haven't completely identified and corrected the problem.
It seems from previous postings of yours that you think CPSC is not only needed to ensure that the replacement phones are safe, but that they actually know more about the issues that are a problem and how to correct them. Samsung wouldn't be making replacements that they know aren't safe. I have yet to see a rush where this is concerned. What we found out last Friday is that Samsung has been looking into this longer than they even publicly said, before the recall.
Also one reason that CPSC wanted to be involved is because they said they wanted to ensure exchanges were done quickly. They said they could ensure they were done quicker than Samsung could. I trust Samsung to figure out the problem, correct it completely and exchange quicker than I trust CPSC. CPSC isn't necessary to ensure all recalls are done quickly and correctly. In fact, CPSC is needed when a company ignores an issue and doesn't do a recall. When a company does a voluntary recall and replaces all of a product, CPSC isn't really needed. CPSC involved doesn't mean that ensures that it will be correct. CPSC is needed for things like the the Takata airbag issue. The reason CPSC was needed is because that company was not doing a voluntary recall and making sure the problem was corrected. CPSC was necessary to force the company to correct their issue. No one had to force Samsung. In fact if Samsung ignored the issue and waited until the government required a recall, it would be much longer and many more cases of it happening or after several deaths and/or serious injury.
The Takata airbag problems started about 10 years before the recall was done. There have been 13 deaths worldwide specifically due to the airbags, and over 100 injuries. Congress was calling for criminal charges against Takata and there were at least 8 deaths and 100 injuries and 10 years before a recall was forced. The government did not do what they should have done and initiated a recall when Takata ignored the issue.
Now Samsung has done just the opposite of Takata, they didn't ignore the exploding phones, they investigated it quickly and did a voluntary recall and there were no deaths or injuries. The government is needed when a company ignores and issue and doesn't correct it, which is not at all what Samsung is doing. Seems to me if Takata did what Samsung did, there would be less death and injury and it would have been handled much quicker. The government didn't act, they didn't step in when they should have, in fact they contributed to deaths and injuries by not requiring a company to do a recall years ago when the company ignored the problem.
So which recall is better and safer? A recall a company quickly identifies the problem, takes responsibility, does a voluntary recall and does it very quickly, even before there are any deaths, much less injuries.. Or the government waiting 10 years, several deaths, hundreds of injuries, before they force a recall? I can't figure out why you seem to think the government being involved is necessary or will ensure things are done quickly and done when and how they should be? I trust a company more that sees an issue and immediately decides they need to do a recall, fixes the problem and replace the problem product and they aren't forced to do it, more than I trust a government required recall that the government itself ignored for years and through many deaths and injuries.
We don't see a ton of voluntary recalls and that isn't because the government is watching over us and making sure everything is safe. The reason we don't see a lot of voluntary recalls is because many companies won't admit there is a problem without being made to, and then very quickly correct the problem and make sure the unsafe product is off the market.
I work for the government on a local and state level and I deal with the federal government also a lot with my job. I can assure you, the government being involved in something does not ensure that something is done quickly and correctly. Generally the more the government is involved in anything, the worse it ends up being. Many times if the government is riding in to save the day, you might want to run the other way and ask them to please not save you.
Now this isn't "political" saying this about the government, but just what happens with recalls and other things the government gets involved in. It is similar to the difference in a person that does something wrong and no one knows, but they determine the right thing to do is admit what they did, take responsibility for it, and correct it versus someone that knows they did something wrong and they keep it to themselves, cover it up, do nothing to correct it or stop it in the future. Then eventually this person is caught and exposed, they then admit the issue, the person that exposed them ignored the issue when it was happening for a long time, the guilty person only takes responsibility for it because they have been exposed and are forced to do so and never would have admitted it and corrected it, if they were never caught.
Which one would you consider more trustworthy and would you trust to actually take care of the problem? Myself, I would trust the first person, because they weren't forced, they could have kept quiet and done nothing if and until they were found out and forced. Samsung and companies that do voluntary recalls fall into the category of the "first person" and Takata falls into the category of the "second person" and the government is the person that ignored the issue and finally exposed the second person. Samsung did the right thing and did it quickly and very few companies will do that and very few, if any, government recalls are handled this quickly. I just don't understand why you seem to think the government is necessary to make sure it is done correctly and quickly, over a company that makes their own issue public and corrects it. What Samsung has done is how every company should handle a recall in a perfect world. The one thing that is good that can come from the government involved, is that Samsung will have to handle the phones that were bought from individuals, bought online at places like Swappa and eBay, or people that traded devices with individuals. As of right now, Samsung isn't handling those phones, but I would guess they have a plan for that maybe after the exchanges are done for people that bought from them, carriers and retail stores. Samsung very obviously wants all bad phones off the market so there is no question if someone has a Note 7 before the corrected ones and if it is safe. This will also stop anyone from selling a pre-recorded Note 7, at least in the USA, because selling the defective phone will be illegal. But again, Samsung could have already had a plan in place to make sure the phones that were defective, be unusable and no one would buy it anyway. We don't know if Samsung had a plan in place to deal with those two issues, but I can't imagine them doing a worldwide recall voluntarily, replacing the phones and not making sure those issues were addressed. So the government being involved isn't even necessary for those issues at this point, Samsung could have also handled those issues. It wouldn't even make business sense to do all this recall, considering the financial hit and PR hit that Samsung is taking and them not to address those two issues at some point. It might be the only two things the government will be "forcing" Samsung to do, and they possibly were already going to address and take care of. Samsung didn't even have to approach CPSC today and agree to work with them. They could have waited until our government forced the official recall. Even the South Korean government isn't forcing a recall. While Samsung hasn't done everything perfect with this at this point, this is an unprecedented event in the phone industry, they have no previous experience to draw upon, but they are handling this in an extremely professional and correct manner and NO ONE made them do that. They did it on their own and a company doing this is also unprecedented. Thinking the government being involved means it is being handled the best way and the safest is like thinking our airports are safer because TSA is there. In fact our airports are really less safe. Many people think that TSA ensures our airports are safe so now there is a false sense of security on flights. Now that many think TSA makes the airports more safe, the general public tends to ignore red flags they see by some passengers. They have the view of "well TSA wasn't concerned about them, they got through security so they must be safe and I am overreacting". Then they don't report the issue to anyone and behind the scenes TSA is failing 95% of the tests that are supposed to stop these red flag people. That false sense of security and TSA failures is exactly what makes our airports less safe than pre 9/11. The government handling a recall can be that same false sense of security, especially when the company is like the public was right after 9/11 with the "see something, say something" attitude. The "see something say something" attitude of the public makes our airports much safer than the false sense of security that TSA gives. In many cases a false sense of security is much more dangerous than something that is actually dangerous. I think CPSC getting involved is wrong to do here, very wrong, unnecessary and likely to discourage companies to do a voluntary recall in the future.
The one thing that a forced recall accomplishes that a voluntary recall never does, is the ability to force huge fines on the company. Quite a thing to do.. Force large fines on a company that was going way above and beyond any government forced recall, they were even supplying loaner phones, giving out gifts for the inconvenience, stopping future releases that will make them money and replacing phones on the market first. They could have kept on with their releases and worked on the exchange program all while taking many of the corrected phones and still doing releases so they could make money also.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram