Samsung could disable charging on all US Galaxy Note 7 handsets next week

[midian182]

Despite the risk of it catching fire and burning their home/body/pants, some people are still clinging to their Galaxy Note 7 handset. Samsung doesn’t want this, and has decided the best way to stop owners from using the Smartphone is to send out an update that completely prevents it from charging.

The news come from The Verge, which shared an image of an alert sent to one Note 7 owner stating that, “As of December 15th, Samsung will modify the software to prevent the Galaxy Note 7 from charging. The phone will no longer work.”

Nothing’s been confirmed yet by Samsung or any of the US carriers, but the move wouldn’t come as a huge surprise. The company has already tried other methods of getting owners to hand over their Note 7s, such as limiting charging past 60 percent. That same update also introduced a popup every time the phone was turned on, reminding people that the handset had been recalled.

Samsung has already turned the remaining Note 7s in Australia, Canada, and New Zealand into expensive paperweights by disabling their cell and data services. If that wasn’t enough, owners also found their Bluetooth and Wi-Fi capabilities had been removed.

There are still an estimated 285,000 Note 7s in the US. Samsung will doubtlessly hope that bricking them will convince people to hand the handsets in for a replacement device or full refund. But don’t expect all of them to be returned; a few will probably turn up on eBay in a few years time.

Permalink to story.

https://www.techspot.com/news/67346-samsung-could-disable-charging-all-us-galaxy-note.html

 

[VitalyT]

Jokes on this one were exhausted long time ago, and nobody really cares anymore.

 

[Kibaruk]

If they know there is a high risk of it bursting into flames and still want to use it, hell... let them. I don't wish anyone bad, but they've been warned so much already that they know by now the risks.

 

[Skidmarksdeluxe]

I can't imagine why anybody would want to hang onto their N7's, it's not as though it's value will ever increase... unless one was found somewhere still in working order and not burnt out in about about 200 years from now. I can imagine it's discoverer saying "Samsung? Who the hell has ever heard of that brand?"

 

[Kibaruk]

I can't imagine why anybody would want to hang onto their N7's, it's not as though it's value will ever increase... unless one was found somewhere still not burnt out in about about 200 years from now.

Maybe they are looking for the one

 

[Theinsanegamer]

If they know there is a high risk of it bursting into flames and still want to use it, hell... let them. I don't wish anyone bad, but they've been warned so much already that they know by now the risks.

I would be for that, but how do you ensure they dont hurt anyone else? If they were to sneak the phone onto a plane and had it burst into flames, or have it start a fire in, say, an apartment complex without a sprinkler system, other people could easily be hurt or killed.

If it weren't for that, I'd say let them keep it, and let natural selection take it's course.

 

[Lionvibez]

If they know there is a high risk of it bursting into flames and still want to use it, hell... let them. I don't wish anyone bad, but they've been warned so much already that they know by now the risks.

ya no.

You cannot trust people to do what is right sometimes they are stubborn. This is the best interest of the public regardless if your Note 7 never catches fire.

If these users lived out in the sticks close to no one I would say let them charge.

 

[Kibaruk]

Yeah that is something I didn't think about, but you are right, they don't have common sense so... it might not end up only affecting them.

 

[Neojt]

Nothing will prevent a user from installing a cyanogenMod and use the device anyways

 

[Techstar]

When you buy a phone, you only buy the hardware, the software that runs it is NOT yours at all, you just get a license to use it as long as they deem fit to allow you to. So, this is fine by me, and who cares what a company does with it's own property anyhow?

 

[Kenrick]

Let it go, let it go
Turn away and charge the phone
I don't care
what they're going to say
Let the flames rage on.
The cold never bothered me anyway

 

[Kotters]

When you buy a phone, you only buy the hardware, the software that runs it is NOT yours at all, you just get a license to use it as long as they deem fit to allow you to. So, this is fine by me, and who cares what a company does with it's own property anyhow?

Numbers are not property.

 

[Nobina]

If they know there is a high risk of it bursting into flames and still want to use it, hell... let them. I don't wish anyone bad, but they've been warned so much already that they know by now the risks.

Samsung won't alow them because if those people get hurt, no matter how dumb they might be, it will hurt their already ruined reputation.

 

[captaincranky]

If they know there is a high risk of it bursting into flames and still want to use it, hell... let them. I don't wish anyone bad, but they've been warned so much already that they know by now the risks.

Because this is the USA, and nobody is responsible for their own actions. That's been going on for at least about the past four decades.

So, the owner keeps the phone. The phone blows up at an undetermined time in the future. Given all of the recalls, a product liability lawsuit is unlikely to gain much traction. (Plus, the statute of limitations has run out for a tort claim), So then, we find another shyster to file a federal suit, claiming, "Samsung is violating the civil rights of individuals, by not letting them keep the phone without repairing it". Public sentiment grows on the claimant's part, and the court capitulates by finding against Samsung.

Remember, the "Bill of Rights", has become a "one size fits all solution", for every tiny bit of inconvenience to, or any act of overt stupidity by, a US citizen.

 

[MasterChief86]

That's actually a smart move... wait, will users still be able to stay online and avoid the update With custom firmware?

 

[Skidmarksdeluxe]

Maybe they are looking for the one

THE ONE. Yeah maybe that's it, because for the life of me I can't see why anyone would want to hang onto theirs, it's useless and redundant now.

 

[Uncle Al]

Well, anyone that has refused a full refund and wants to continue taking the risk should be allowed to do so, with them carrying full liability for any further accidents or failures .... besides, it has made for a few great YouTube video's and one can never have enough of those!~

 

[poohbear]

I can't imagine why anybody would want to hang onto their N7's, it's not as though it's value will ever increase... unless one was found somewhere still in working order and not burnt out in about about 200 years from now. I can imagine it's discoverer saying "Samsung? Who the hell has ever heard of that brand?"

Well u see old Nintendos from the 80s selling for thousands of dollars...I'm pretry sure with the controversy around it it'll become a collectors item in the 20s/30s

 

[Trillionsin]

So, they can remotely disable charging?

So, what.. cant the users turn off updates to avoid this?

Who knew... good idea for hackers, spoof the update servers to push out a hacked firmware version that causes phones to do what they want... like... disable charging, audio and video capture, steal all data on the phone, maybe overheat it and cause it to EXPLODE!

Is the joke funny again, yet? or is it in the "oh god not another exploding phone joke" stage still?

 

[captaincranky]

So, they can remotely disable charging?

So, what.. cant the users turn off updates to avoid this?

Who knew... good idea for hackers, spoof the update servers to push out a hacked firmware version that causes phones to do what they want... like... disable charging, audio and video capture, steal all data on the phone, maybe overheat it and cause it to EXPLODE!

Is the joke funny again, yet? or is it in the "oh god not another exploding phone joke" stage still?

Perhaps any of that is possible. But at the end on the day, it all depends on the customer's stupidity, willfulness, ignorance, laziness, and whatever other derogatory adjective you can level at them, for not turning the damn thing in when they had the chance.

So perhaps any and all of the things you describe are entirely possible. This is another "exploding phone joke", aimed directly at the recalcitrant customer. Kept the phone did ya? And you say you got all your information stolen, then the phone exploded? So what? F*** you if you can't take a joke....

 

[Skidmarksdeluxe]

Well u see old Nintendos from the 80s selling for thousands of dollars...I'm pretry sure with the controversy around it it'll become a collectors item in the 20s/30s

II agree but those old Nintendo's are still in working condition. What are the chances that the N4 battery will still be working in 20~30 years time... assuming it doesn't self destruct long before then?

 

[cliffordcooley]

Forced obsolescence will always be seen as a negative in my book. Forced obsolescence is exactly what the option to disable charging is. Especially when they have the power to limit runtime, by capping charge cycle to a specific percentage.

This pretty much tells me I don't want a Samsung cellphone. Because in 5+ years, I still want my device to work at full capacity. Not be crippled by a manufacturer, who thinks it is time to sell another device.

 

[DaveBG]

I have custom ROM already so they can suck my **** now with those crap updates.

 

[captaincranky]

Forced obsolescence will always be seen as a negative in my book. Forced obsolescence is exactly what the option to disable charging is. Especially when they have the power to limit runtime, by capping charge cycle to a specific percentage.

Well Cliff, I'm not exactly what's got your panties in a bunch today, but your anger and wrath seems, (at least to me), to be a bit misdirected. You can't have, "planned obsolescence" in a phone which is still being operated by "Rogue Users", against the Empire's, er I mean factory's mandatory recall. Samsung is making good on the battery issue the only way they can. Either by replacing it, or killing it outright.

All the rest of the nonsense by users refusing to turn their phone(s) in, sounds suspiciously like, "you can have my Galaxy Note 7, when you pry it out of my cold, dead, hand". This is a slogan more suited to the defense of our 2nd Amendment rights, not some stupid cellphone

This pretty much tells me I don't want a Samsung cellphone. Because in 5+ years, I still want my device to work at full capacity. Not be crippled by a manufacturer, who thinks it is time to sell another device.

And Samsung wants you to be able get on an airplane with their phones, in defense of their reputation, and your convenience.

As far as "planned obsolescence" goes, we all embrace it like a lover when it gives us "new improved toys" to play with. IE: better graphics cards, 4K resolution in TVs and monitors, faster CPUs, DX-12, and such. Need I go on. We don't call it "planned obsolescence when dealing with those things, we call them, "the next thing I simply have to own, before my neighbor gets one"..

 

[cliffordcooley]

Samsung is making good on the battery issue the only way they can. Either by replacing it, or killing it outright.

What users do with their devices is not any concern to a manufacturer. That's why we have laws to govern how people use what they buy. The banishment of such devices is not the manufacturers call to make. Nor should they have built in options to do so. The fact that they do have such options in place is negligence from our governments to serve its people. Instead they want to bicker about our skin color or sexism in who should live in the White House. Then once we have a President-Elect, the damage is done and the media goes dark.

If it is not illegal to have a Galaxy Note 7, why should Samsung even care about "Rogue Users"? If Samsung issued a mandatory recall, then the continued use should not concern them. Their job is finished. Oh no wait; they want to cross a line and have a morally objectionable stance, with the power to turn everyone's device down a notch or two prematurely.