So glad I didn't get the HTC One X

[reeneebob]

What is this personal vendetta you have to try and make Jerry look bad?

Give it up.

Sent from mah brainzzzzz via Galaxy S III and Tapatalk 2

 

[Kevin OQuinn]

Samsung admitting that it's a problem and that they'll fix it is enough confirmation for me. I don't need more evidence than the manufacturer telling a reputable Android news site that this is true.

Oh, and this is a Touchwiz issue, and could affect any Touchwiz device. It's a problem with the tables that assign the values being slightly different from device to device. Easy fix for them, they just need to roll it out.

 

[kkapoorr]

So basically, my horse is better than your horse.


Author of NoobTech:
http://wp.me/2uu9r

 

[funkylogik]

whipping a dead horse more like lol

 

[tohio]

See THIS thread. Guess I don't need to source Samsung since IEEE says OLED of all varieties suffers from this.

But if that's not good enough here's THIS.

Google is amazing. It helps me find sources for things that I already know to be true.

I sent a copy of the article (attached) that Kevin has touted as proving that Samsung takes responsibility for screen burn in and will replace the phone: Here is Samsung's reply:


Dear *****,

Thank you for your recent correspondence. We understand that you want to clarify the issues regarding the replacement of the phones regarding on the screen burn issues.

We are aware that there are official-looking websites online that have statements regarding recalls, but these are not Samsung sites, and this information is not accurate.

If you have any issue with your Samsung Galaxy S3 from AT&T, we invite you to call Samsung Customer Support by phone at our toll free number 1-888-987-4357 between the hours 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. Monday thru Friday, and 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Saturday, Central Standard Time.

Thank you again for your comments as we are committed to your satisfaction.

Sincerely,

Ronn
Technical Support

So that clears up the second glaring error in this thread. We can now return to our regularly scheduled programming.

 

[dmmarck]

I sent a copy of the article (attached) that Kevin has touted as proving that Samsung takes responsibility for screen burn in and will replace the phone: Here is Samsung's reply:


Dear *****,

Thank you for your recent correspondence. We understand that you want to clarify the issues regarding the replacement of the phones regarding on the screen burn issues.

We are aware that there are official-looking websites online that have statements regarding recalls, but these are not Samsung sites, and this information is not accurate.

If you have any issue with your Samsung Galaxy S3 from AT&T, we invite you to call Samsung Customer Support by phone at our toll free number 1-888-987-4357 between the hours 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. Monday thru Friday, and 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Saturday, Central Standard Time.

Thank you again for your comments as we are committed to your satisfaction.

Sincerely,

Ronn
Technical Support

So that clears up the second glaring error in this thread. We can now return to our regularly scheduled programming.

Not to say that's not damning, but you really think a CS rep would (1) care, and (2) actually understand or know? Maybe I'm just used to Verizon and Samsung reps, but neither have done well, neither have admitted faults, yet both have no problems with warranty claims and returns with the faults that they deny.

Secondly, these are not glaring errors. These are issues the community sees and reports. That's the point of a forum, a community, etc.--to help when no help may be available. If you find them antithetical to your opinion, or your worldview, that's fine. But to label them as "errors" undermines the very point, idea, and proposition behind a forum and community--at least IMO.

 

[Kevin OQuinn]

I sent a copy of the article (attached) that Kevin has touted as proving that Samsung takes responsibility for screen burn in and will replace the phone: Here is Samsung's reply:


Dear *****,

Thank you for your recent correspondence. We understand that you want to clarify the issues regarding the replacement of the phones regarding on the screen burn issues.

We are aware that there are official-looking websites online that have statements regarding recalls, but these are not Samsung sites, and this information is not accurate.

If you have any issue with your Samsung Galaxy S3 from AT&T, we invite you to call Samsung Customer Support by phone at our toll free number 1-888-987-4357 between the hours 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. Monday thru Friday, and 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Saturday, Central Standard Time.

Thank you again for your comments as we are committed to your satisfaction.

Sincerely,

Ronn
Technical Support

So that clears up the second glaring error in this thread. We can now return to our regularly scheduled programming.

I'll take the word of someone higher up the food chain than "Ronn" from technical support. I'm sure they are trained to not admit any specific fault to anyone that happens to send in an email.

I'm surprised he even answered you and it wasn't someone from PR.

You clearly have no idea how these things (companies admitting issues exist) work. They aren't going to release a statement, or press release. You'll get a guy that knows to admit to someone that cares that it happens. The guy will be high enough within the company (and will have been vetted, if not publicly acknowledged who they are) that it will be trustworthy information.

Sent from my HTC One X using Tapatalk 2

 

[tohio]

I'll take the word of someone higher up the food chain than "Ronn" from technical support. I'm sure they are trained to not admit any specific fault to anyone that happens to send in an email.

I'm surprised he even answered you and it wasn't someone from PR.

You clearly have no idea how these things (companies admitting issues exist) work. They aren't going to release a statement, or press release. You'll get a guy that knows to admit to someone that cares that it happens. The guy will be high enough within the company (and will have been vetted, if not publicly acknowledged who they are) that it will be trustworthy information.

Sent from my HTC One X using Tapatalk 2

"They aren't going to release a statement, or press release." And yet you provide an article (Choson) that claims that is exactly what they did.

Kevin, you cite an unknown newspaper blog (Choson) as your proof of your point and I present a cite from an actual Samsung employee as proof of my point. Do you seriously think your cite is more believable than mine? I wish I could do a poll of the readers of this thread and ask them which is more believable, your Choson article or an email from a Samsung employee. Even your defenders would have to agree with me. You've lost this particular argument, why not be man enough to admit it.

 

[dmmarck]

"They aren't going to release a statement, or press release." And yet you provide an article (Choson) that claims that is exactly what they did.

Kevin, you cite an unknown newspaper blog (Choson) as your proof of your point and I present a cite from an actual Samsung employee as proof of my point. Do you seriously think your cite is more believable than mine? I wish I could do a poll of the readers of this thread and ask them which is more believable, your Choson article or an email from a Samsung employee. Even your defenders would have to agree with me. You've lost this particular argument, why not be man enough to admit it.

With all due respect, most folks who have dealt with Samsung, major carriers, Google, etc. know that a snake oil salesman on a 4am infomercial is more reliable, informed, and honest than 99.8% of the CS reps out there. It's the nature of the beast.

 

[Kevin OQuinn]

"They aren't going to release a statement, or press release." And yet you provide an article (Choson) that claims that is exactly what they did.

Kevin, you cite an unknown newspaper blog (Choson) as your proof of your point and I present a cite from an actual Samsung employee as proof of my point. Do you seriously think your cite is more believable than mine? I wish I could do a poll of the readers of this thread and ask them which is more believable, your Choson article or an email from a Samsung employee. Even your defenders would have to agree with me. You've lost this particular argument, why not be man enough to admit it.

No, that site spoke to someone at Samsung, which is a far cry from releasing a press release or statement on their site.

Besides, OLED panels suffer from burn in. It's a known fact of the technology. Samsung makes them, which means all samsung OLED panels suffering from it. If samsung WON'T cover it then that's an extreme disservice to their customers that paid good money for the phone.

So the fact that you're even arguing against burn in is moot, since it's a known issue with the screen technology itself and not just this particular panel in this particular phone.

Sent from my HTC One X using Tapatalk 2

 

[tohio]

No, that site spoke to someone at Samsung, which is a far cry from releasing a press release or statement on their site.

Besides, OLED panels suffer from burn in. It's a known fact of the technology. Samsung makes them, which means all samsung OLED panels suffering from it. If samsung WON'T cover it then that's an extreme disservice to their customers that paid good money for the phone.

So the fact that you're even arguing against burn in is moot, since it's a known issue with the screen technology itself and not just this particular panel in this particular phone.

Sent from my HTC One X using Tapatalk 2

Now you are a mind reader? Where in that article does it say that they spoke to someone at Samsung. From the actual words in the article they could have been regurgitating information from an unreliable source just like you are doing. No where do I see the words, "a spokesman, source, rep, insider, janitor, etc. for Samsung said. Lawyers have a saying, "When the facts are against you argue the law, when the law is against you argue the facts."

You don't even stick to the facts. When have I ever said I was arguing against burn in. For once cite proof of your accusation.

I am arguing aginst your claim that Samsung has taken responsibility for burn it and will replace the phone. An actual Samsung employee has said the article you cite is incorrect. Your squirming away from the facts and substituting unrelated issues is very apparent.

 

[dmmarck]

Now you are a mind reader? Where in that article does it say that they spoke to someone at Samsung. From the actual words in the article they could have been regurgitating information from an unreliable source just like you are doing. No where do I see the words, "a spokesman, source, rep, insider, janitor, etc. for Samsung said. Lawyers have a saying, "When the facts are against you argue the law, when the law is against you argue the facts."

You don't even stick to the facts. When have I ever said I was arguing against burn in. For once cite proof of your accusation.

I am arguing aginst your claim that Samsung has taken responsibility for burn it and will replace the phone. An actual Samsung employee has said the article you cite is incorrect. Your squirming away from the facts and substituting unrelated issues is very apparent.

Heh, and when nothing is for you, argue as loudly as possible and pound the table. Sounds familiar.

 

[tohio]

With all due respect, most folks who have dealt with Samsung, major carriers, Google, etc. know that a snake oil salesman on a 4am infomercial is more reliable, informed, and honest than 99.8% of the CS reps out there. It's the nature of the beast.

Do you seriously think the Samsung rep lied in his response to me? You and I both know attacking the source of the information rather than the information is a diverting tactic. What would you cite as the best evidence, a blog post with no reference to where their information came from or an actual Samsung employee? I know what you say to me in private but will you admit it on the forum?

 

[Kevin OQuinn]

Do you seriously think the Samsung rep lied in his response to me? You and I both know attacking the source of the information rather than the information is a diverting tactic. What would you cite as the best evidence, a blog post with no reference to where their information came from or an actual Samsung employee? I know what you say to me in private but will you admit it on the forum?

Lied? No. Skirted the issue and avoided your question by not answering directly? Yes.

Sent from my HTC One X using Tapatalk 2

 

[tohio]

Heh, and when nothing is for you, argue as loudly as possible and pound the table. Sounds familiar.

You seem to be a reasonable individual who isn't prone to ad hominem attacks. But seriously, what does this add to the discussion?

 

[tohio]

Lied? No. Skirted the issue and avoided your question by not answering directly? Yes.

Sent from my HTC One X using Tapatalk 2

"We are aware that there are official-looking websites online that have statements regarding recalls, but these are not Samsung sites, and this information is not accurate."

How on earth is that skirting the issue?

 

[Kevin OQuinn]

"We are aware that there are official-looking websites online that have statements regarding recalls, but these are not Samsung sites, and this information is not accurate."

How on earth is that skirting the issue?

He didn't say they were or weren't covering them. "Not accurate" can apply to any part of that article. How many times have people used "that's not entirely accurate" as a defense when they get caught with their hand in the cookie jar?

Sent from my HTC One X using Tapatalk 2

 

[dmmarck]

Do you seriously think the Samsung rep lied in his response to me? You and I both know attacking the source of the information rather than the information is a diverting tactic. What would you cite as the best evidence, a blog post with no reference to where their information came from or an actual Samsung employee? I know what you say to me in private but will you admit it on the forum?

I'd cite common sense--that tech support knows what they know, and that's little to nothing. Having dealt with the laughable support at both Verizon and Samsung, this is neither a stretch nor an unreasonable conclusion.

And honestly, I trust Jerry, Kevin, and the bloggers here moreso than I would tech support. Believe it or not, they may just know more than them.

You seem to be a reasonable individual who isn't prone to ad hominem attacks. But seriously, what does this add to the discussion?

It adds as much to the discussion as (1) the past X amount of pages and you personally going after mods and admin alike, pounding on the table and trying to create as much noise as possible; (2) creating a new post while slyly referencing this one in an attempt to justify your points, claims, and arguments in this thread; and (3) endeavoring on what appears to be a crusade just to clear your name and prove your point after having "lost" (perceptively) a prior argument.

Just because my post was more blunt than yours does not mean the same tactic has not been employed in this thread, around this forum, and in every perceptible waking moment that I see this thread pop up in the new posts search.

You have a point and opinion, they have a point and opinion. Enough's enough already.

 

[tohio]

I'd cite common sense--that tech support knows what they know, and that's little to nothing. Having dealt with the laughable support at both Verizon and Samsung, this is neither a stretch nor an unreasonable conclusion.

And honestly, I trust Jerry, Kevin, and the bloggers here moreso than I would tech support. Believe it or not, they may just know more than them.



It adds as much to the discussion as (1) the past X amount of pages and you personally going after mods and admin alike, pounding on the table and trying to create as much noise as possible; (2) creating a new post while slyly referencing this one in an attempt to justify your points, claims, and arguments in this thread; and (3) endeavoring on what appears to be a crusade just to clear your name and prove your point after having "lost" (perceptively) a prior argument.

Just because my post was more blunt than yours does not mean the same tactic has not been employed in this thread, around this forum, and in every perceptible waking moment that I see this thread pop up in the new posts search.

You have a point and opinion, they have a point and opinion. Enough's enough already.

I guess you definition of adding to the discussion is different than mine. I see your buddy hasn't provided on shred of evidence that I don't believe burn in happens. Doesn't that bother you? He also never provided one shred of evidence that I claimed the S G III was without bugs. He has continued to side step my direct questions as to his statements. But you continue to defend him. Disappointing.

 

[tohio]

He didn't say they were or weren't covering them. "Not accurate" can apply to any part of that article. How many times have people used "that's not entirely accurate" as a defense when they get caught with their hand in the cookie jar?

Sent from my HTC One X using Tapatalk 2

I really had to laugh out loud at this response. He did not say that's not entirely accurate. He said the article was not "accurate", Why didn't you apply the same skepticism to the Choson article as you do to a Samsung employee's email? You based your entire argument on that article but applied absolutely no critical evaluation, accepting it at face value.