Galaxy Note 7 Announcement and Owners' Thread

Forums › Android › Galaxy Note 7 Announcement and Owners' Thread

1 | ... | 63 | 64 | 65 | 66 | 67 | 68 | 69 | 70 | 71 | 72 | 73 | ... | 85

3848 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1220

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1647982 9-Oct-2016 13:54

kiwired23: Looks like they might be a hot topic for the forseeable future. http://www.theverge.com/2016/10/8/13214272/samsung-galaxy-note-7-fire-replacement-battery-minnesota-again

Hang on, how the hell does a 13 year old afford a note7 lol.

Dratsab

3964 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1728

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1648019 9-Oct-2016 15:06

ibuksh: As unlucky as it might sound for Samsung:

http://www.gsmarena.com/galaxy_note7_deemed_safe_catches_fire_on_a_plane-news-20902.php

This doesnt seem to be going in favor of Samsung

I'm a little skeptical about some of this. The first picture article shows is of a burnt looking phone above which it says "the picture below purportedly shows the phone after smoke stopped coming out of it". The handset owner apparently quickly threw it on the floor. A colleague of his later went back onto the plane to retrieve some personal belongings and "noticed that the phone burned through the carpet and managed to scorch the subfloor of the plane".

So, in a nutshell the article is purporting:
- a phone started smoking on a plane
- its owner threw it on the floor
- the plane was evacuated
- the phone was left to do whatever (no indication of fire extinguishers being used or emergency services being called)
- a passenger (colleague of phone owner) was allowed to re-board the plane while the phone was still in-situ
- this passenger claimed a hole had been burnt through the carpet and there was burning on the sub-floor

Meanwhile the picture of the offending phone, allegedly, on carpet besides an aircraft seat shows no evidence of carpet being burnt through. Did someone risk moving a potentially extremely hot device away from the area where it burnt through the carpet in order to take that nice photo?

Scouring through a number of news articles about this, it seems the passengers' wife (who wasn't actually on the plane and received a phone call later telling her what happened) is the one doing all the talking.

Meanwhile Southwest have a slightly different version: "Southwest Airlines Co. spokesman Brad Hawkins said a passenger reported smoke coming from a Samsung device and that everyone got off the plane through the main cabin door. No one was injured in the evacuation, but the plane’s carpet suffered minor damage where the phone was dropped, fire officials said."

I think the last two points above are most likely BS. That makes me wonder if it is actually a new phone that's caught on fire or if it's someone looking for their 5 minutes of fame. [/conspiracytheory]

kiwired23

90 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 5

#1648121 9-Oct-2016 18:04

And a third (with a conspiratorial turn): http://www.theverge.com/2016/10/9/13215728/samsung-galaxy-note-7-third-fire-smoke-inhalation

Geektastic

18009 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8465

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1648237 9-Oct-2016 21:33

kiwired23: And a third (with a conspiratorial turn): http://www.theverge.com/2016/10/9/13215728/samsung-galaxy-note-7-third-fire-smoke-inhalation

Would NZ carriers do what the US carriers are doing and offer full refunds etc?

eracode

Smpl Mnmlst
9333 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6203

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1648250 9-Oct-2016 22:41

Geektastic:

kiwired23: And a third (with a conspiratorial turn): http://www.theverge.com/2016/10/9/13215728/samsung-galaxy-note-7-third-fire-smoke-inhalation

Would NZ carriers do what the US carriers are doing and offer full refunds etc?

Surely it's driven by Samsung, not the carriers. Why would the carriers want to do that?

Sometimes I just sit and think. Other times I just sit.

richms

29099 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10210

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1648253 9-Oct-2016 23:10

eracode:

Surely it's driven by Samsung, not the carriers. Why would the carriers want to do that?

Because if the carrier sold it in their store, they have the CGA burden on them.

Richard rich.ms

Dyson

Shop now for Dyson appliances (affiliate link).

eracode

Smpl Mnmlst
9333 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6203

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1648262 10-Oct-2016 04:20

richms:

eracode:

Surely it's driven by Samsung, not the carriers. Why would the carriers want to do that?

Because if the carrier sold it in their store, they have the CGA burden on them.

Wouldn't that result in a reactive stance rather than the proactive one apparently taken by the US carriers?

Sometimes I just sit and think. Other times I just sit.

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
80652 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 41045

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#1648279 10-Oct-2016 07:57

I have now seen reports of four replacement phones catching fire. I wouldn't touch this with a stick.

Referral links: Quic Broadband (free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE) | Samsung | AliExpress | Wise | Sharesies

Support Geekzone by subscribing (browse ads-free), or making a one-off or recurring donation through PressPatron.

ibuksh

524 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 23

#1648282 10-Oct-2016 08:03

freitasm: I have now seen reports of four replacement phones catching fire. I wouldn't touch this with a stick.

Lets hope that our Telcos are proactive and are in liaison with Samsung right now about a "Total Recall"

eracode

Smpl Mnmlst
9333 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6203

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1648284 10-Oct-2016 08:06

freitasm: I have now seen reports of four replacement phones catching fire. I wouldn't touch this with a stick.

Yeah but that's not a lot of help to those of us who bought them in good faith.

Sometimes I just sit and think. Other times I just sit.

tripp

3848 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1220

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1648293 10-Oct-2016 08:39

AT&T Stops sales of Note7 Again

http://www.androidpolice.com/2016/10/09/att-is-the-first-us-operator-to-halt-all-sales-of-the-safe-galaxy-note7/

http://www.theverge.com/2016/10/9/13219054/att-samsung-galaxy-note-7-stop-sales

Dell

Shop now for Dell laptops and other devices (affiliate link).

Geektastic

18009 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8465

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1648306 10-Oct-2016 08:53

tripp:
AT&T Stops sales of Note7 Again

http://www.androidpolice.com/2016/10/09/att-is-the-first-us-operator-to-halt-all-sales-of-the-safe-galaxy-note7/

http://www.theverge.com/2016/10/9/13219054/att-samsung-galaxy-note-7-stop-sales

Seems fairly clear that the carrier itself has decided this, not Samsung. They won't even supply "safe" replacements now.

tripp

3848 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1220

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1648319 10-Oct-2016 09:10

Geektastic:
tripp:

AT&T Stops sales of Note7 Again

http://www.androidpolice.com/2016/10/09/att-is-the-first-us-operator-to-halt-all-sales-of-the-safe-galaxy-note7/

http://www.theverge.com/2016/10/9/13219054/att-samsung-galaxy-note-7-stop-sales

Seems fairly clear that the carrier itself has decided this, not Samsung. They won't even supply "safe" replacements now.

Yes it is AT&T doing it, but they are said to be the 3rd biggest customer of samsungs.

DaveB

1139 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 456
Inactive user

#1648332 10-Oct-2016 09:19

freitasm: I have now seen reports of four replacement phones catching fire. I wouldn't touch this with a stick.

It's interesting that (I believe) in all 4 cases, the affected users are refusing to hand back their phones to Samsung. I wonder why?

In the Kentucky case Samsung paid the guy to have it X-rayed, but again he would not allow the phone out of his possession. I find it quite all quite strange.

Geektastic

18009 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8465

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1648354 10-Oct-2016 09:50

DaveB:

freitasm: I have now seen reports of four replacement phones catching fire. I wouldn't touch this with a stick.

It's interesting that (I believe) in all 4 cases, the affected users are refusing to hand back their phones to Samsung. I wonder why?

In the Kentucky case Samsung paid the guy to have it X-rayed, but again he would not allow the phone out of his possession. I find it quite all quite strange.

That is odd.

For the US instances, it may be a desire to hold on to evidence so that you can sue Samsung in due course and retire...

1 | ... | 63 | 64 | 65 | 66 | 67 | 68 | 69 | 70 | 71 | 72 | 73 | ... | 85