Looks like they will push a safety update on Nov 5th in Australia. I wonder if this will happen in the US?
Samsung Crippling the Note 7 in Australia
- Thread starter avalvo
- Start date
jmnesq
Well-known member
- Jul 19, 2013
- 112
- 0
- 0
Samsung to cripple its Galaxy Note 7 phone with forced update | afr.com
Here's some proof of same.
I'm obviously concerned that this is going to hit the US phones.
Here's some proof of same.
I'm obviously concerned that this is going to hit the US phones.
Those who don't give it up are being very risky and stupid. You just don't know what will happen and when. It's a phone for crying out loud! It's been recalled because there is a problem. Turn it in.
In New Zealand, Samsung has advised - "From 18 November 2016 customers still using the Note 7 will no longer be able to connect to any New Zealand mobile network services to make calls, use data or send SMS messages."
With the national news reports now spreading this morning of exploding Samsung washing machines.... It's just a matter of time. Probably sooner than later.
Samsung is now in full damage control...
donm527
Well-known member
- Aug 21, 2014
- 4,352
- 120
- 63
That's gonna suck for all the Note 7 owners in New Zealand.... guessing... 11 owners in New Zealand? lol. 
donm527
Well-known member
- Aug 21, 2014
- 4,352
- 120
- 63
ultravisitor
Well-known member
- Aug 29, 2010
- 2,788
- 238
- 0
Indeed. I hope it does. And I hope that Samsung announces and enforces a cutoff date for refunds and exchanges of Note 7s.
Why are you concerned? Why hold on to a phone that is/will be a brick and worthless in the near future? No support, updates, possibly banned on networks here in the US. Definitely should get your money back for the phone while you still can.
jmnesq
Well-known member
- Jul 19, 2013
- 112
- 0
- 0
Why am I concerned? Because I am enjoying using the phone.
Why hold on to a phone that is/will be a brick and worthless in the near future? Because I am enjoying using the phone. It is not a brick. It may be a brick in the future; that is my concern. Worthless? No. It will always be worth what I paid for it, and I can get that back from Sprint. It likely will be worth more -- check the eBay closed sales on the phone.
No support, updates, possibly banned on networks here in the US. I don't care about support or updates. I'm happy with the phone as it is. If it is banned on a network, then I will return it to Sprint. However, that's what I'm concerned about.
Definitely should get your money back for the phone while you still can. Why? Why can I not enjoy the phone for the foreseeable future, until the S8 is out? If it is taken off of the networks, I'll return it to Sprint. Until then, why am I not allowed, m3lover1, to enjoy my device?
Why do you feel the need to come onto a Note thread and put those of us down who care to use the phone?
jmnesq
Well-known member
- Jul 19, 2013
- 112
- 0
- 0
I don't like the precedent that this sets. No telco or corporation should be allowed to dictate what happens to a product that a person owns. This reminds me of the Playstation OtherOS argument with Sony and other cases of similar nature. If I bought the product, or received it as a gift, or whatever it may be and I own it, I should not be dictated to in respect to how I am going to use it or what features I can and cannot use. Further to this, if telcos and corporations can do this unilaterally, what's stopping them employing the same tactic in other cases? Yeah, there are deeper reaching implications of this relating to control and ownership of the goods you paid for. More and more we do not own the things we buy.
donm527
Well-known member
- Aug 21, 2014
- 4,352
- 120
- 63
If they are doing it because they are concerned for the owners safety then I say why not. At this point they could said we did what we needed, met our legal need, and wash their hands of it if they really thought there was nothing wrong and they were sabotaged by media. I might not like it if I had one in hand and refuse and don't believe there is an issue with blowing up but makes me think they must believe it enough to do something.
- Apr 17, 2012
- 32,273
- 23
- 38
This. If they were just doing it for some random reason sure but when it comes to safety it is another story.
jmnesq
Well-known member
- Jul 19, 2013
- 112
- 0
- 0
Litigation purposes.
Should another one blow up, Samsung can point to the 500 alerts that are out there and advise that it was the assumption of the risk. Similarly, since Sprint/Verizon/AT&T/T-Mobile sells the items, they can also be named in a suit. If they are named, they point to all of the alerts that they have sent.
Trust me, the only reason that any company would care -- at ALL -- about your safety -- is to make sure that you can continue to work and continue to pay your bill.
Random entities don't get to enforce safety. This is completely nonsensical. They have no legal obligation to do this, no liability. I see this as a matter of protecting access to basic services. This is on top of the fact that the whole argument of "protecting safety" is pretty tired, seeing as we are constantly getting our rights and freedoms taken away in the name of safety, and everyone is either ignorant of it or complicit in it. Anyway, once again let's just agree to disagree as we are not going to see eye-to-eye on this. I strongly believe that this is wrong behavior, and that it sets a precedent.
- Apr 17, 2012
- 32,273
- 23
- 38
I wouldn't count the people who build the phone (the ones who said "oops we messed up and made a safety hazard") as a "Random Entity" in this case.
Similar threads
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram