10-18-2016 10:30 PM
109 12345
tools
  1. nobrakes's Avatar
    I was having a hard time coming up with one - do you have a better suggestion?
    If there wasn't a recall would you have returned your Note 7 or you returned it because you thought it was a hazard to yourself and others?
    10-17-2016 10:04 AM
  2. Aquila's Avatar
    If there wasn't a recall would you have returned your Note 7 or you returned it because you thought it was a hazard to yourself and others?
    We ran out of space (there's a character limit) so I tried, "Absent a recall, would you have returned your Note 7 due to the reported issues?" Hopefully that basically says the same thing, but we can edit this question of yours in full into the beginning of the OP so everyone knows exactly what you're getting at.
    10-17-2016 10:07 AM
  3. nobrakes's Avatar
    We ran out of space (there's a character limit) so I tried, "Absent a recall, would you have returned your Note 7 due to the reported issues?" Hopefully that basically says the same thing, but we can edit this question of yours in full into the beginning of the OP so everyone knows exactly what you're getting at.
    That's fine thanks
    10-17-2016 10:28 AM
  4. Almeuit's Avatar
    Not trying to say N7 has no issue, but Samsung had to kill N7 because nobody gives them chance. Nobody is giving them time to investigate if reports are true, phones' companies started refunding/replacing N7 on their own, airlines started banning N7, all without any official statement from Samsung whether the replacement units are truly still defective.

    Of course high chance is N7 really still has an issue, but Samsung had to kill it so fast because they simply had no other choice.
    A chance? The new units were popping up with stories like the old one. Samsung didn't want to wait and take a chance if they were true or not. It's about people's safety.
    Jona005 and dakini03 like this.
    10-17-2016 12:01 PM
  5. steelers1's Avatar
    I'm not really sure what all the denial and defiance is about. Samsung has issued clear as day warnings and told everyone to turn their phones in. It's not as if anyone is on the hook for their 900 dollar phone...why fight what seems like common sense and the freedom to walk away from the phone cost free?
    The reason I haven't returned mine is because while I'm not on the hook for the whole $900. Right now i am on the hook for the $200 i put down on the device at target where I bought it won't refund me and neither will Verizon. Not to mention everywhere is sold out of the s7 edge. Does anyone know when you buy a phone at Target on the payment plan and put a down payment on it who gets the money? Target or Verizon?
    10-17-2016 12:47 PM
  6. Jona005's Avatar
    The reason I haven't returned mine is because while I'm not on the hook for the whole $900. Right now i am on the hook for the $200 i put down on the device at target where I bought it won't refund me and neither will Verizon. Not to mention everywhere is sold out of the s7 edge. Does anyone know when you buy a phone at Target on the payment plan and put a down payment on it who gets the money? Target or Verizon?
    From what I've seen on here with cases like yours, calling up Samsung and giving them an earful about this might be your best bet. I think they're pretty desperate to get these phones out of people's hands, so they might be able to remedy the situation.
    10-17-2016 01:24 PM
  7. rushmore's Avatar
    I would still have mine if no recall or flight ban. Guessing most would concur.
    Aquila likes this.
    10-17-2016 01:31 PM
  8. dejanh's Avatar
    If the second recall was not issued and the airline restrictions were lifted, no I would not have returned the Note 7.
    10-17-2016 01:40 PM
  9. dejanh's Avatar
    A chance? The new units were popping up with stories like the old one. Samsung didn't want to wait and take a chance if they were true or not. It's about people's safety.
    It's about Samsung's potential liability, not peoples' safety. Recall is a risk calculation question, not a feel-good exercise.
    10-17-2016 01:41 PM
  10. 7AndTRT's Avatar
    The argument of "I'm keeping it and I'm alone in assuming the risk" is only valid if one lives alone, works alone, and never goes anywhere or lived in a home without shared tenants or people around them - like stores, apartment buildings.

    Unless that's you, you are choosing to risk everyone around you. Over something as stupid as a cell phone.

    By all means, take the risk...but don't act surprised when someone around you who doesn't want to take that risk voices their displeasure.
    LeoRex, dakini03 and Jims S5 like this.
    10-17-2016 01:50 PM
  11. team420's Avatar
    The argument of "I'm knheeping it and I'm alone in assuming the risk" is only valid if one lives alone, works alone, and never goes anywhere or lived in a home without shared tenants or people around them - like stores, apartment buildings.

    Unless that's you, you are choosing to risk everyone around you. Over something as stupid as a cell phone.

    By all means, take the risk...but don't act surprised when someone around you who doesn't want to take that risk voices their displeasure.
    If someone around me didn't want to take that risk, I would politely remind them that they don't have to, and to take a hike :-)
    kevinpleasants likes this.
    10-17-2016 03:38 PM
  12. wcourtois's Avatar
    Just a question for all those who are so upset that some want to hang on to it... Is it safe to assume you NEVER talk while driving, eat while driving, have conversations with passengers, etc? A vehicle has a much higher chance of injuring/killing an "innocent bystander" than the N7. It's not a case of "when" it will happen, but "if" it will. Also, how many incidents have involved the injuring of a person other than the user? There are so many things that have a higher probability than this, but some are acting like it's the end of the world. SMH
    10-17-2016 04:11 PM
  13. bmitchell1876's Avatar
    No i would not returned it because of a very very low failure rate... Especially since it has a manufacturer warranty plus i pay $9 month for extended warranty.... 0.5 percent failure rate is not enough to scare me into a return.

    In fact I'm typing on it right now and I'm not going to return it until Verizon drops the price of the Note 5-64gb... Currently it's $399 for the 2 year upgrade and i refuse to pay another $100 for a phone that's 1 year old !!
    10-17-2016 04:12 PM
  14. 7AndTRT's Avatar
    If someone around me didn't want to take that risk, I would politely remind them that they don't have to, and to take a hike :-)
    Wow.
    10-17-2016 05:57 PM
  15. jacques200's Avatar
    No I would have kept the phone.
    10-17-2016 06:18 PM
  16. Milt K's Avatar
    I returned mine the day after my office put up signs saying that Note 7s were not allowed on the premises. Seemed like a lot of work for maybe a handful of of employees that even had the phone. It wasn't worth the risk of being caught and possibly terminated because of this.
    10-17-2016 07:43 PM
  17. Almeuit's Avatar
    It's about Samsung's potential liability, not peoples' safety. Recall is a risk calculation question, not a feel-good exercise.
    How are they different? Yes they don't want to be liable for putting people's safety at risk. They go hand-in-hand.
    Laura Knotek and Jona005 like this.
    10-18-2016 10:05 AM
  18. dejanh's Avatar
    How are they different? Yes they don't want to be liable for putting people's safety at risk. They go hand-in-hand.
    Fundamentally different. If the potential liability in direct monies and brand equity was lower than the cost of the recall Samsung would not have done it, public safety and all. Liability in direct monies isn't even the issue. The loss of public trust and impact on future revenue is the issue. The cost to brand equity is too much therefore a recall happens. Don't fool yourself that this is somehow altruistic and done in public's best interests. What's that? Recal optional? Samsung is treating the second Galaxy Note 7 recall as an optional scheme in South Korea - SamMobile
    10-18-2016 11:07 AM
  19. dejanh's Avatar
    No i would not returned it because of a very very low failure rate... Especially since it has a manufacturer warranty plus i pay $9 month for extended warranty.... 0.5 percent failure rate is not enough to scare me into a return.

    In fact I'm typing on it right now and I'm not going to return it until Verizon drops the price of the Note 5-64gb... Currently it's $399 for the 2 year upgrade and i refuse to pay another $100 for a phone that's 1 year old !!
    Ha 0.5% failure rate. No, the failure rate is somewhere south of 0.008%.
    10-18-2016 11:28 AM
  20. jgraves1107's Avatar
    Ha 0.5% failure rate. No, the failure rate is somewhere south of 0.008%.
    Well I was giving it more like .2%. Even then it's not high. Others have had closers to 10% and still did not recall. I will still buy what ever new spen device Samsung makes. Stuff breaks it's the nature of the beast. I have had laptops burn up repeatedly only to discover it was a piece of software causing it.
    kevinpleasants likes this.
    10-18-2016 11:32 AM
  21. dejanh's Avatar
    Well I was giving it more like .2%. Even then it's not high. Others have had closers to 10% and still did not recall. I will still buy what ever new spen device Samsung makes. Stuff breaks it's the nature of the beast. I have had laptops burn up repeatedly only to discover it was a piece of software causing it.
    This whole fiasco is all about saving face and protecting the brand. If it weren't for the massive sharing of the stories about Note7s going up in flames a recall never would have happened because brand damage would be minimal.

    Just to illustrate how crazy this whole thing has gotten, at the time of the recall being issued, you were equally likely to die from Parkinson's disease as you were to have your Note 7 catch on fire. Nay, you were more likely to die of Parkinson's disease than your Note 7 catching on fire because I assumed 200 units were faulty for a total of 2,500,000 shipped (if you count the "safe" variants that went out the denominator also goes up higher, making the % probability of failure even lower).

    Some stats on odds of dying... http://www.livescience.com/3780-odds-dying.html
    jgraves1107 likes this.
    10-18-2016 12:16 PM
  22. jgraves1107's Avatar
    This whole fiasco is all about saving face and protecting the brand. If it weren't for the massive sharing of the stories about Note7s going up in flames a recall never would have happened because brand damage would be minimal.
    Oh I agree with you on that.
    10-18-2016 12:19 PM
  23. Almeuit's Avatar
    Fundamentally different. If the potential liability in direct monies and brand equity was lower than the cost of the recall Samsung would not have done it, public safety and all. Liability in direct monies isn't even the issue. The loss of public trust and impact on future revenue is the issue. The cost to brand equity is too much therefore a recall happens. Don't fool yourself that this is somehow altruistic and done in public's best interests. What's that? Recal optional? Samsung is treating the second Galaxy Note 7 recall as an optional scheme in South Korea - SamMobile
    We can agree to disagree .
    10-18-2016 12:32 PM
  24. dejanh's Avatar
    We can agree to disagree .
    Sure why not
    10-18-2016 12:38 PM
  25. recDNA's Avatar
    Tired of reading about people telling others to return their Note 7s because they are endangering themselves and others. Really? I've seen videos of hammer tests and drop tests and abuse of the Note 7 and didn't see any explosions or fire. There is nothing wrong with this phone. Can anyone replicate the issue with normal use? Show me and I'll believe it. If it wasn't for the recall most of us probably wouldn't return the phone. I know I wouldn't have but I did cause I didn't want to deal with problems that may come from keeping it because I do travel. Or not being able to bring it in buildings or venues. There are risks with everything in life and the Note 7 wasn't one of them for me. People who are keeping it knows what the consequences are and that's their problem they have to deal with. Just because you returned your phone, don't use some lame excuse to why you think the next person should return theirs.
    I would have returned mine due to lag and poor screen sensitivity. Mine also got very hot while charging. Even if none had ever exploded I would have returned mine. I did love the camera and bright screen. That was about it. Overall mine was a disappointment. I expected blazing speed with those specs.
    10-18-2016 12:59 PM
109 12345

Similar Threads

  1. %1$s Issue
    By AC Question in forum Ask a Question
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 10-17-2016, 05:56 PM
  2. How often are you checking your order status?
    By Nechasin in forum Google Pixel & Pixel XL
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 10-17-2016, 10:08 AM
  3. Broadcast video/audio signal wirelessly to an HDMI input?
    By AC Question in forum Ask a Question
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-17-2016, 09:54 AM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD