![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
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.
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: 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?
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:
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.
Please support Geekzone by subscribing, or using one of our referral links: Samsung | AliExpress | Wise | Sharesies | Hatch | GoodSync | Backblaze backup
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"
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:AT&T Stops sales of Note7 Again
http://www.theverge.com/2016/10/9/13219054/att-samsung-galaxy-note-7-stop-sales
Geektastic:tripp:
AT&T Stops sales of Note7 Again
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.
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.
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...
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |