Over one million safe Galaxy Note7 units are already in the wild
- D
- AnonD-259152
- fu%
- 04 Oct 2016
AnonD-312515, 30 Sep 2016Green battery icon. If you're talking about the technical a... moreI think they have done a good on this one otherwise, it will mark the beginning of their down fall
- D
- AnonD-312515
- Y7u
- 02 Oct 2016
Ren, 01 Oct 2016After the unfortunate events, i personally feel not so good... moreCan any company promise you that 100% of their phones will be 100% safe and foolproof?
- D
- AnonD-312515
- Y7u
- 02 Oct 2016
Anonymous, 01 Oct 2016NO wonder why there has lots of cases with Note 7 in china,... moreLOL very true, most of them are probably bootleg Chinese Notes.
- D
- AnonD-312515
- Y7u
- 02 Oct 2016
AnonD-591003, 30 Sep 2016Do you really trust Sammy? Apple is very trustable company.... moreLol that's part of the job of every company, to sell phones. You should've done your research.
- E
- Edgar
- bam
- 01 Oct 2016
Samsung the best cellphone company in the world! Nobody takes care of the clients like that
- ?
- Anonymous
- m%c
- 01 Oct 2016
Anonymous, 01 Oct 2016Where and when did I say they must? If it hasn't occurred t... moreMan u got it right when it came to a movie. One of my favorites.
I didn't mean either a specific company in this case Samsung. I also talk in general for most of companies out there.
But u are right we agree to disagree. Anyway it is not our problem what happens at that house now how they will fix those problems. Next day we will buy what ever brand we like or dont like (get screwed by some bastards).
Now i will watch Jack Reacher again
- ?
- Anonymous
- thi
- 01 Oct 2016
Anonymous, 01 Oct 2016I understand. I was eirler in the morning at home when i po... moreWhere and when did I say they must? If it hasn't occurred to readers how my original post does apply to every company out there which literally manufactures or assembles products, including but NOT LIMITED to mobile phones, I'm done arguing. Just because we are on a GSM site, when one says "company" or "product", some are limited to thinking of mobile phone companies or products. What existing companies that manufacture products one could or could not think of outside the smartphone industry? If one ever came to understand my original post, one should have noticed it was not targeting any particular company, product, nor consumer. Again, not a single utter of Samsung present there. Now, now, just because I posted on a Note7 article, does not necessarily mean my original post is intended to specifically target Note7 or Samsung for that matter.
To fend off all the seriousness, I'd rather end with a quote: "I didn't say "an" auto parts store. Which one stands out in your mind as "the" auto parts store?" Tom Cruise as Jack Reacher in Jack Reacher (2012)
- R
- Ren
- v0q
- 01 Oct 2016
After the unfortunate events, i personally feel not so good trusting samsung mobiles again. Considering that the new batch of replacements are rushed to production, you can't say that each units are 100% safe.
- E
- Edgar
- bam
- 01 Oct 2016
Samsung! The best of the best! Ever...
- ?
- Anonymous
- m%c
- 01 Oct 2016
AnonD-488454, 01 Oct 2016Ok my apologies, it is hard to see what's being quoted and ... moreI understand. I was eirler in the morning at home when i posted my original response then i went to work so it was another phone from which i argued with him. But his original post was that users must read manual and policy etc etc which was somewhat ok until he mentioned that rgose affected maybe have tried some shady move damaging their device on purpose so they can get insurence or refound. Which i thought it was out of line.
Thats what im trying to say fan or no fan there are rules set by plenty of people not kust manufacture. I explain that very well. Only lab can now determined what actually happened. Fraud or not. But the fact still remains and that is consumer are there to experience theri product in every possible way they can. No matter from which company that products come from. If that company is not delivering then consumer buys something else.
Off topic
Who is excited to try new pixel brand?
- D
- AnonD-488454
- u}v
- 01 Oct 2016
Anonymous, 01 Oct 2016Hehe it was not me i was quoting that other anonimus. Thats... moreOk my apologies, it is hard to see what's being quoted and what's not with no formatting tools.
- ?
- Anonymous
- m%c
- 01 Oct 2016
AnonD-488454, 01 Oct 2016I'm replying to your statement that "it was clear that user... moreHehe it was not me i was quoting that other anonimus. Thats why it got my nerves cooking as well.
- D
- AnonD-488454
- u}v
- 01 Oct 2016
Anonymous, 01 Oct 2016i think u are replying to wrong anonimus. Im supporting con... moreI'm replying to your statement that "it was clear that users/consumers who intentionally misuse products so they can take advantage of insurance company........"
Is that what you said? TBH I don't understand your post very well. If that's not what you want to suggest but what you try to question, then sorry I did not read you correctly.
- ?
- Anonymous
- m%c
- 01 Oct 2016
AnonD-488454, 01 Oct 2016You can keep saying "misuse" and "fraud" blablabla with no ... morei think u are replying to wrong anonimus. Im supporting consumer in this matter and not Samsung
- D
- AnonD-488454
- u}v
- 01 Oct 2016
Anonymous, 01 Oct 2016I understand what u are talking about but it was clear that... moreYou can keep saying "misuse" and "fraud" blablabla with no evidence whatsoever to accuse the user and find excuses for Samsung. But what is clear now is that so many cases of supposedly "safe" Note 7 has went up in flames, some with video evidence that clearly shows it's not in a microwave or on a stove, and Samsung still refuse to provide convincing evidence about what's wrong.
What Samsung did so far:
1. Released a statement on a couple cases saying it was due to external heat and not the battery.
2. Refused to release any detailed analysis report from 3rd party lab on those cases (which could have more convincingly cleared their responsibility, at least for the case tested), in fact it released no evidence to support its claim at all, just a blind statement suggesting "we looked at it and found nothing wrong with the phone".
3. Samsung intentionally use wording with blurred meaning such as "external heat", implying but not directly saying that the user heat it up on a stove or something. But battery supplier ATL's statement has been more clear, it says testing it did with Samsung showed that burning did not come from within the battery (which could still be from within the phone, due to short circuit etc).
4. Users from some of these cases has confirmed that Samsung quickly tried to negotiate with them on compensation. Why would you provide compensation if you're sure it is "misuse" and "fraud" and have evidence to back you up? You would sue them for fraud if you did have solid evidence to back you up. But so far I only see Chinese consumer starting to sue Samsung.
5. Samsung says nothing about all the other cases that keep coming up, stating that investigation is pending, despite during the first case it did the examination and reached a conclusion extremely quickly.
6. Samsung kept asking consumers from all cases to give up their burned phone, instead of agreeing to have it submitted and handled by a neutral 3rd party lab directly (not through Samsung).
Maybe a die-hard fans would still trust Samsung after this kind of behavior, but I know I won't.
- ?
- Anonymous
- M1v
- 01 Oct 2016
I understand what u are talking about but it was clear that users/consumers who intentionally misuse products so they can take advantage of insurance company or in this case manufacturer garanty so they can get new phone or refound. This phone is not even old. Why would anyone do anything like that if the product works no matter what is in newsstory.
I think that everybody knows already that manufacturer garanty doesnt cover water damage, fire damage, drop damage aka estetics, broken screen, broken motherboard etc. And emp.
What garanty cover is radiation and smoke because those two cant be proved at all. Smoke is part of pollution and radiation already exist in phone it self. And of course factory flaws, dead pixels, etc.
Then there is also a hidden garanty that says that product which purpose is made for must provide exactly what is made for. That means if you cant dial a number or establish a phone connection. The same product is defective according to that specific rule.
There is no missuse of phone wihtout breaking qaranty rules which i wrote earlier. If u drop the phone the garanty is not valid anymore. If u set phone on fire its not valid, if u temper by any means that causes battery to overload they will know.
The procedure goes something like this.
First they x-ray the phone in every aspect before opening it. And when i mean in every aspect in every angle not just for fraud reasons but to document why it happened. Then they open the phone and very carefully photograph peace by peace. There is always a weak link to everything. My quick response was that besides that some of your lines was neutral as it could be you message was clear. It sounds like u said.
That aome of those "affected" users missused their products so they can take advantage of insurance or garanty.
I think that people understand that already what is written in general manual and policy.
That is logic.
Lucky for Samsung that this is only about phones which what ever damage it causes it will be a minor one when in safety of car like car explosion it would have much serious consequences from what a few would recover as a company.
Let me point now something to u because u were so kind to do the same.
We as consumers consumes
That means food, products, services etc.
We are not obligated by any rules in consumption or what is determined by the law like in somw countries u cant consume alcohol on the street etc.
The consumer doesnt and are not obligated to care about products and such which are provided to him/her to think or have sympathy to well being of one company. U see the difference here.
Producer > consumer
One produce another one consumes.
One is taking money one is giving money
This is so simple.
Now on top of that u have regulations which are set by comission, government, assosiations, envorement agencies etc.
All of those benefit evolving and protecting plnty of aspects such as nature, people, health, economy, fair trade, competition etc
So your jov and mine is to consume if qe are to buy stuff etc. The reasoning is very simple. Quality and experience. Low cost or high cost. U know already this but i had urge to remind some basics
- D
- AnonD-488454
- u}v
- 01 Oct 2016
Anonymous, 01 Oct 2016One should remember that mishandling of products in general... moreWhatever you say man, as days go by it is becoming more and more clear that Note 7 with ATL batteries are not necessarily safe. Samsung is now fxxked more than ever.
Today another case of Note 7 combustion (again it is a supposedly safe ATL battery modal not included in recall) occurred in Hong Kong and was caught on security camera. This is HK's second case of ATL battery Note 7 going up in flames.
The Video:
http://tieba.baidu.com/mo/q/movideo/page?thumbnail=3912b31bb051f819be43fab8d2b44aed2f73e7da&video=2346500_84b2d85fc1ab4de49ed3f4a4a70b642e&cuid=35L4167I0BDAB22F2DE097852AAABEA9|665218730537168|com.baidu.tieba6.6.2×tamp=1475282970543&_client_version=6.6.2&nohead=1
In Shenzhen China a Note 7 consumer is now suing Samsung for making false claims that Chinese Note 7 are safe.
The news (in Chinese):
http://tech.qq.com/a/20160930/043179.htm
In Korea the first case of post-exchange Note 7 combustion has already been reported.
The news (in Korean):
http://news.kmib.co.kr/article/view.asp?arcid=0010967686&code=61121111&sid1=soc
These news take time to reach English media. Use google translate if you must.
- ?
- Anonymous
- thi
- 01 Oct 2016
Anonymous, 01 Oct 2016I dont need to crack location nor do i have urges to do non... moreRight, all it takes is one post as basis to jump to the realization that I must be a Samsung employee or a company bot. Sounds rude to me ;P
"One should remember that mishandling of products in [GENERAL] is never ground for a hardware defectiveness case and has never been synonymous with it."
Did you miss the description "general" such that you missed my point and it quickly occurred to you that I was defending Samsung? The adjective "general" should go a long way already. It should apply to company bodies that manufacture or produce products, which is not necessarily limited to electronics or phonemaker entities.
"Why your statement was about is to discourage othera avout some manuals and that is somebody elses fault why batteries are exploding."
I suggest you read my whole first post again, objectively this time I recommend. Take note that there was no mention of Samsung in any of my sentences. In fact, you should already get the gist by my first sentence. It should occur to you that my very first statement (i.e., "One should remember that mishandling of products in general is never ground for a hardware defectiveness case and has never been synonymous with it.") points out that mishandling or misuse of products differs from hardware defects or that hardware defects is not a result of mishandling or misusing products. To reemphasize it for you and shall we agree to disagree that mishandling or the misuse of products =/= hardware defects. In other words (and of course I would agree with you about it), it should not be the consumer's fault, whether they have read the product's manuals or not, if damage (such as battery explosions in Note7) to a product is caused by a hardware defect. Eventually, that is when consumer protection butts in. All right, all right, all right (Matthew McConaughey accent)
- ?
- Anonymous
- M1v
- 01 Oct 2016
Anonymous, 01 Oct 2016You think I wasn't aware of that already? I am not blind to... moreI dont need to crack location nor do i have urges to do nonsense like that. Nor do i need to track history of your wrighter skills history. All it takes in one post which doesnt make sense except defending company, problems, flaws, errors, cover ups etc. As i wrote before people are not stupid. There are people who are bots who try to manipulate social media coverage and defend good reputation even if all is a lie. This things happens in all segments of life especially politics. Your post was made trying to invalidated consumer rights by stating that its consumer fault that they didnt read manual or policy. That post is so shady and not valid with this case. U may be samsung empoyee or not that is not the point. As i said your post was so clear and the point of it was to invalidate consumer. Well i will write every time someone is trying to manipulate media or any site. For what u wondered eaelier about my knowledge regarding laws and rights is that i live in Sweden and we have tough laws which protects anyone. Every branch of goverment has their overwatcher which is maybe the toughest in the world. My statement haa nothing to do me proving u wrong but rather to do with truth and protecting and telling truth for other how thinga works. Why your statement was about is to discourage othera avout some manuals and that is somebody elses fault why batteries are exploding. So yeah i know my styff very well becauae when that day comes that my phone explodes or what ever which doesnt include water damage, fire, force (drop damage) emp etc which everybody understands. I will call consumer rigth assosiasion and get my thinga fixed what every u think or not. Got it!
P.S i already used coyple of times my rights and it works without any problems because those are my rights!!!