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

[captaincranky]

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.

And yet,as I understand it, you're running a copy of Windows 10. M$ has the power to "summarily decide" whether or not it's legal to be on your computer. And I also assume, should they, (or the consumer product safety commission), suddenly decide Win 10 is dangerous, they would likely shut it down, at least until a solution was found.

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.

It actually is illegal to have one on an airplane.

In this particular case, the reputation of the company is predicated on the use of the product. OK,if they were killing phones to make you buy a new one, that would be unconscionable. But they're not. What they're actually doing is babysitting the most obstinate segment of American consumers.

I simply can't fathom why you automatically make the leap to assume they'll start killing a working serviceable phone, just because you've had it more than couple years. It's possible I suppose. It's also a paranoid fantasy.

 

[cliffordcooley]

And yet,as I understand it, you're running a copy of Windows 10. M$ has the power to "summarily decide" whether or not it's legal to be on your computer.

Yet if they did, I would still have the option to use my computer. That is an apple to orange comparison if I ever saw one. Samsung is bricking a device at a hardware level and you bring up software.

It's also a paranoid fantasy.

That may be the case. Still yet I don't trust any company to stay off of the button that will promote sales, if it will keep the public oblivious.

 

[captaincranky]

Yet if they did, I would still have the option to use my computer. That is an apple to orange comparison if I ever saw one. Samsung is bricking a device at a hardware level and you bring up software.

And you have conveniently missed replying to the part of my post which to which actually did attach to, "hardware", the Galaxy note. Here, let me repeat that for. I'm sure it was simply an oversight on your part.

It actually is illegal to have one on an airplane.

In this particular case, the reputation of the company is predicated on the use of the product. OK,if they were killing phones to make you buy a new one, that would be unconscionable. But they're not. What they're actually doing is babysitting the most obstinate segment of American consumers.

I simply can't fathom why you automatically make the leap to assume they'll start killing a working serviceable phone, just because you've had it more than couple years. It's possible I suppose. It's also a paranoid fantasy.

 

[cliffordcooley]

And you have conveniently missed replying to the part of my post which to which actually did attach to, "hardware", the Galaxy note. Here, let me repeat that for. I'm sure it was simply an oversight on your part.

You mean the irrelevant **** you keep spewing. I'm ignoring that on purpose. Just like the gun rights activist ignoring those who use a gun outside of the law. It doesn't give our government the right to take our arms.

 

[captaincranky]

You mean the irrelevant **** you keep spewing. I'm ignoring that on purpose. Just like the gun rights activist ignoring those who use a gun outside of the law. It doesn't give our government the right to take our arms.

Does carrying a Note 7 really fall under the protective umbrella of the 2nd Amendment? Well, unless the Note 7 has been identified as a weapon by intent and manufacture, I don't think it has any standing for protection under the 2nd Amendment. I mean after all, #2 says, "the right to keep and bear arms". So now who's spouting "irrelevant asterisks"?

 

[cliffordcooley]

You really do not know how to stay in context do you?

 

[captaincranky]

You really do not know how to stay in context do you?

Let's just say you respect other people's opinions as long as they coincide with yours.

That's really the only context I see coming out of this.

 

[captaincranky]

The ability to brick a phone certainly isn't anything new. For example, at one point, you had fully locked phones which wouldn't work on another network. So, if you didn't pay your bill, the phone company shut of your service, which was pretty much tantamount to "bricking the phone".

Then, everybody was whimpering about the phone companies "tracking them". It seems to me, they had to know where you were, and who you called to be able to bill you.

All that silly a** s*** was settled more that five decades ago for land lines, when they broke up ATT.

So, you can go off whine and whimper about "principles being at stake", all you want. When it comes right down to it, any other reason you can come up for not turning in the phone is either out of laziness, (I just transferred all my porn to that phone), pure stupidity combined with, arrogance "it can't happen to me, a phone explode, right", or greed, "it might become a collector's item someday. (But with the latter, you would have to have never taken it out of the box to begin with, at least if you wanted top dollar).

 

[thedrelle]

And yet,as I understand it, you're running a copy of Windows 10. M$ has the power to "summarily decide" whether or not it's legal to be on your computer.

Yet if they did, I would still have the option to use my computer. That is an apple to orange comparison if I ever saw one. Samsung is bricking a device at a hardware level and you bring up software.

It's also a paranoid fantasy.

That may be the case. Still yet I don't trust any company to stay off of the button that will promote sales, if it will keep the public oblivious.

That's where your argument fails. That so-called button exists with any manufacturer who creates devices that run on some sort of operating system. All of them have the ability to force brick their software, and many of them have built in failsafes that immediately brick a device if it's used in a manner they don't approve of. (remember apples big todo about their phones bricking if you tried to fix them?)

That possibility is always there, any device could be rendered inoperable at any time by the manufacturers who supplied it, and yet they never do, because if they really did behave in that manner, people would stop buying their devices, for the reasons you rightfully declare.

Samsung's position is perfectly reasonable. they are offering a full refund for returned phones, so the argument of forced obsolescence is in no way correct. they are trying hard to right a bad, expensive mistake, which is going to hurt their image enough without people making wild assumptions about their motives.

 

[cliffordcooley]

That's where your argument fails. That so-called button exists with any manufacturer who creates devices that run on some sort of operating system.

Not all have the capability to phone home, so NO not all devices. Although with IOT, I can see a time where they all will be.

 

[lamscaperoool]

I'd love to know how people are rooting and installing new roms considering the boot-loader on the Note 7 is locked among all carriers.