This is a huge problem for Samsung. Individual recalls don't usually damage companies permanently; people understand that sometimes shit happens, and they quickly forget about it. But two in a row, when the replacements were supposed to be safe, is the kind of thing that etches itself much more deeply into public consciousness. Popular culture is now going to be associating "Samsung phone" with "time bomb" for a long time to come.
And the event taking place on an airplane is close enough to the nightmare scenario of catching fire during a flight that it will be firmly placed into the public consciousness.
I flew Emirates last week, and the preflight announcement about electronic devices said use of all devices was ok, except Galaxy Note 7 which need to stay turned off during the whole flight. I can't imagine much worse PR, when yoir products are routinely called out by neutral third parties for being an actual hazard source.
It was also mentioned on my recent flights in the USA and Europe on various OW airlines as well. Heck even in pre-boarding announcements at the gates. Really not the publicity you want.
I second this. Work trips are very different from personal travel, and much less fun than people assume. A well paying job with generous vacation time (real vacation, not "available via email" vacations) is better, in my opinion.
I had a job that involved a lot of travel back in the day. I worked for a telecoms installing unix workstations and oracle servers for planning radio networks (calculating signal strength per frequency over terrain and subscriber maps). I loved it, but it's not for everyone. Long periods on your own, sometimes in locked-down societies like Saudi Arabia. I ended up playing a _lot_ of Civilization 2. Still I got to go to Tanzania, South Africa, Bangladesh, Japan and lots of countries in Europe and the Middle East and occasionally got to do sight seeing at weekends. Not so great once you're married with kids.
Hm … I flew pretty much exactly two weeks ago in a couple Airbus A320 every damn airline seems to use to fly across Europe (I flew e.g. Amsterdam to Frankfurt). I wonder if that’s a recent change (to no longer mention the Note) or they just say it on certain flights (which to me would make little sense).
If the phone was powered down, it looks like this might be a chemical reaction in the batteries. Taking it out might just remove barriers between the source of combustion and flamables in the environment.
First I'm surprised Al Queda doesn't use a special OS or a virus to make phones explode on a plane. Second, it could be competitors who specifically target the Note 7 with a 0-day attack to harm Samsung's reputation.
All phones with a battery are a fire hazard if they get the wrong OS.
My RC aircraft group has a 55 gallon drum with salt water at our flying field. RC aircraft pretty much exclusively use lithium polymer packs, sometimes 2 the size of bricks in larger models / big helis. If a lipo starts smoking, you chuck it in the salt water and it shorts it out + cools it down. The reaction when they short internally (such as when they malfunction or get damaged e.g. When a heli crashes and smashes the pack -- they're not super rigid) is more thermite than dynamite, but it can still burn through things like flying tin can aircraft.
Typically there's quite a bit of warning in the form of smoke first. Not sure if the chemistry in the Samsung batteries but they're likely lithium polymer. There are tons of different chemistries though: http://batteryuniversity.com/learn/article/types_of_lithium_...
They aren't as high capacity (per cost/weight/volume) as LiPoly, so they aren't as common. Flying vehicles even less so as they are more sensitive to power/weight ratios.
This isn't their only appliance that has been catching fires. There are several washing machines in Australia, made by Samsung, that have caused house fires.
Samsung really needs to cut bait here, accept and admit fully that they made a major engineering mistake, come clean, and forcibly recall ALL the devices, before there is a major disaster.
The time for serious, adult action was several weeks ago. From here on out, they deserve what they get.
The thing is, this was a replacement Note 7, which therefore includes their fix for the issue. So either they made a second mistake, or this is a very unlucky coincidence, or something else is going on.
Samsung has issued a forcible recall for all the devices. This was not one of the recalled device, it's a new model without the original flaw. This must have been something different.
Which begs the question - given the hundreds of millions of smartphones with out there - how many, even without a manufacturing flaw, end up smoking/catching fire? 1 in a million? 1 in 10 million?
Either it's a new flaw, or their fix failed to adequately address the original flaw. There was a report of someone in China having a replacement Note 7 burn out on them as well[0], so this is not an isolated incident for the 'fixed' phones.
Interesting he's only been using wireless chargers. I used a Tylt wireless charger for a couple of Nexus 7s and both tablets now have a warped back due to overheating via prolonged charging.
Very curious if the fire was specifically caused by wireless charging.
I see the whole fiasco to be deeply related to how Samsung is run and controlled by the infamous Lee family.
Note 7's battery is made by Samsung SDI, one of Samsung's subsidiaries, and I assume that SDI gets most of its revenues directly from Samsung Electronics. When you (SDI) have Samsung as your guaranteed customer, you don't really have to compete or try to survive.
Besides, Samsung always set their flagship release dates based on expected Apple's iPhone releases, always trying to ship to market few weeks before Apple.
When your release dates are set to your competitors' pace, not your own, you will certainly make mistakes like this.
The replacement battery is henceforth not made by SDI. Around 30% of the existing Note 7s were made by Amperex Technology, so they only need to increase those numbers.
You're statement would also mean that if you're a department within Apple you also do not need to compete or try to survive. I don't think that's necessarily true. There are probably inefficiencies, but there is also a lot to gain as well. It just depends on the quality of the organization.
> Is it just unbalanced reporting or possibly sabotage? Seriously don't believe they got wrong what everyone else seems to have dodged.
It's happened to other companies in the past. It's entirely plausible that Samsung just screwed up in the design or manufacturing stage, and there is zero evidence of the conspiracies you suggest.
"Misunderstandings and neglect create more confusion in this world than trickery and malice. At any rate, the last two are certainly much less frequent." -Johann Wolfgang Goethe
"Let us not attribute to malice and cruelty what may be referred to less criminal motives. Do we not often afflict others undesignedly, and, from mere carelessness, neglect to relieve distress?" -Jane West
It's not hard to believe that Samsung has made mistakes, and maybe under the pressure to fix those mistakes has made yet more. It's unfortunate and probably speaks to some cultural issues at the top, but it hardly requires external forces.
Didn't they do the whole Mac vs. PC campaign a few years ago? Sure, they didn't point out a specific brand, but on more than one occasion it seemed very obvious what product/company they had in mind.
That was when they were the plucky underdog, like with IBM before that. They certainly aren't (and wouldn't accept opinions to the contrary) an underdog to Samsung.
Also, "PC" was never a specific company. You could infer things like Microsoft or Dell or HP or whatever, but they avoided specifically naming a company.
Apple commercial actor, Dos Equis most interesting man style:
I don't always charge my iPhone 7 (shows headphone plugged into the lighting port), but when I do...I do it without bringing down commercial airliners.
Does anyone else think like me this might be a one time failure that is caused by the replacement phone being dropped or mishandled? Or, perhaps, a setup by the competition?
Unless I see statistical evidence that replacement Note 7 is catching on fire (random, different circumstances), then I do not see a reason to believe Note 7 replacement is b0rked.
Unfortunately, most people do not reason like that. Samsung's reputation will suffer, even after this single "Replacement Note 7 on fire" incident.
Most people don't reason like that because there is no acceptable reason for a phone to catch fire from "mishandling" or "dropping".
This was even after they thought they fixed the issue, so of course it looks very bad. Not only did they build a dangerous consumer device, it seems they did not actually fix it the second time around.
When we flew with Lufthansa a few weeks ago they expressly forbade the use of the Galaxy Note 7. I have never heard something like that - its a real problem for Samsung.
I've flown a few times this month (Europe, multiple airlines), and on every flight there were verbal warnings and there were also signs at some of the airports when you check your luggage in. I'm pretty sure most commercial airlines and airports are aware of the issue and are making it widely known.
This is going to stick in people's minds – I overhead a couple of conversations where people were a bit confused about whether their phones were safe or not – they knew they had a Samsung, but many people don't differentiate between all the different models.
Same deal when I flew United the past weekend. Samsung Note 7s were not allowed to be turned on or charged on the plane. I think they are taking their cue from the FAA recommendation [0].
This is especially bad for Samsung, I think, because it doesn't just affect folks with a Note 7 -- everyone waiting at the gate hears the announcement. Talk about negative brand associations.
Both ANA and Air Canada had a Note 7 announcement at the start of their flights when I flew SEA-YVR-HND-YVR-SEA telling people not to use or charge their phones in flight.
Not really. It implies that the owner no longer has faith in Samsung products and has switched, so I'd say it's relevant. They could have said that he replaced it with "another brand," which would have been more appropriate, but I still think it's relevant.
It's still not relevant to the story, which is about the phone exploding. The owner losing faith in Samsung doesn't matter. The only way it would be relevant is if he has decided ahead of time that he was switching to the iPhone and Samsung tried to bump him off because of it.
I don't follow this at all. I definitely have a very skewed sample, but I haven't ever met a single person who didn't know exactly what type of smartphone they own. Phones are expensive, a Note 7 would be nearly brand new and is the most expensive and highest quality phone out there. I would guess that 99% of owners know what they have. People don't just pick up top-of-the-line flagships on a whim, only the most rich, lazy, AND ignorant person could settle on getting one without knowing exactly what they are buying. Anyone who is missing even just one of those qualities would end up with a different phone or know what they own.
And again, I've literally never met a person who couldn't immediately name their model smartphone, not the most dumbass poor person I've met nor my completely tech illiterate grandparents. Also, your breakdown seems fanciful anyway, who in the world would know that they have a Samsung "Galaxy"? No one cares about that name, it's only ever said in the middle of the whole title, it isn't a thing that people think about on its own.
Well, my parents were neither lazy or ignorant, they had top-of-the-line phones because I would pick them for them, but neither one of them could tell you which model they had, my mum knew she had an iPhone, and my dad knew he had an HTC. They were too busy running a business and putting food on our table to care about specific model of their phone, as long as it worked. My mum doesn't even know or care what car she drives exactly, apart from the fact that it's a silver nissan and it needs diesel fuel, because again, she's too busy making sure her 120 employees get paid on time each month and that the business keeps on running.
I don't know, I just have a massive issue with you calling people who don't know their phones lazy/rich/ignorant. It's really not fair.
Well the Galaxy Note 7 is a higher end device so maybe. But my parents both bought smartphones and they couldn't name the model. I tested this theory just now and my dad got the even the manufacturer wrong.
Indeed, I think at least for most older people their phone is what reads on it. If it says Nokia, it's Nokia and they likely have no idea what Android/iOS/Symbian/Tizen even mean.
Right - the parent was saying if you have the absolute latest flagship phone, you're likely to know it. The type of people who don't know the model of their phone are those who aren't buying the "Just released in last 60 days and is the most expensive in it's class" type smartphones.
Or they just got their first flagship and went with the most expensive one because the monthly cost didn't seem that large. I don't buy that most phone owners know the phone they own, but I could definitely see non-phone enthusiasts ending up with Note 7s
When I went to buy a Samsung Galaxy S4, the shop gave me a Galaxy Note 3 at the price of the S4. Interestingly enough, they did scan the Note 3 box in their register. I noticed the outside saying 'Note 3', but assumed it was some kind of advertising. I only checked the front of the phone in the box.
I called ahead to have them reserve the S4, they actually double checked the price, scanned it, etc. As I was wondering whether to buy a Note 3 or an S4 I concluded shop/fate decided for me with a nice discount ;)
I came from a much smaller phone so size wise I didn't notice. Only when unboxing and seeing the stylus.
> Green’s colleague went back onto the plane to retrieve some personal belongings and said that the phone had burned through the carpet and scorched the subfloor of the plane.
I'm surprised this airline still doesn't have Planegard or something similar on board their aircraft. Burning/exploding devices are going to happen often enough that this should be a necessity.
What a mess. I wouldn't want to be in Samsung quality control right now.
In what has to be the nerdiest humor I've ever come up with, I suggested to some astronomer friends here at NASA that this Samsung Galaxy line be rebranded the Samsung Seifert.
It's my understanding that all Lithium Ion batteries can fairly easily catch fire if they are not treated somewhat carefully, typically by a circuit that prevents loads that might cause it to heat up.
Is it theoretically possible that malware could be designed that would cause a Lithium Ion powered smart phone's battery to catch fire? I'm thinking it would be more of a low-level firmware update where a programmable logic device was used as part of the battery protection circuit.
Though I am only an electronics hobbyist I don't think this is possible. Most of the battery charging chips that you are talking about don't have firmware, that would require them to be I would guess 10x more expensive.
It's not that they'd loose the data centre, but VESDA environmental monitoring units are surprisingly sensitive so you could easily end up with the fire suppression system firing.
At best you've then got a >$10k invoice to refill and reset the system. More likely you've got damage to servers, people and/or the building as well as massive amounts of disruption to deal with.
The gas isn't even what has me worried here, though it's certainly a contributing factor. An untended hot car (basically a greenhouse) with a li-ion battery in it has me worried.
I recently flew to Munich/Prague with Air Canada and Lufthansa - the flight attendants said to both not charge a Samsung Note 7 and that they require them to actually also be turned off.
Initial conclusions indicate an error in production that
placed pressure on plates contained within battery cells.
That in turn brought negative and positive poles into
contact, triggering excessive heat. Samsung however
stressed that it needed to carry out a more thorough
analysis to determine “the exact cause” of battery damage.
I seem to recall an article not too long ago (perhaps here on HN?) that analyzed the Note 7 battery failures; their conclusion was along the lines that the phone was designed too slim for the battery manufacturing tolerance.
So in some percentage of the phones the battery will be under constant mechanical pressure because the battery is slightly bigger than the space allocated for it. This pressure may eventually force the plates inside the battery into contact with each other, or at least close enough to cause leak currents and overheating.
> Does turning them off prevent them from catching on fire?
Not necessarily. Assuming the cause is as Samsung describes it, it can happen even with the phone turned off. But overheating to the point of thermal runaway is more likely at higher voltages (during charging, or with fully charged battery), and probably more likely during high current drain (aka using the phone).
For more technical details, I suggest the Electrical Engineering Stackexchange.
Judging by the fact that the new version of the phone may still be catching fire, we may not know what the cause is. If Samsung had accurately diagnosed the problem in the first place then this incident probably wouldn't have occurred.
According to the article it said that he powered down the phone and put it in his pocket before it started smoking. Maybe it started combusting when he powered it off.
Nevertheless I would be freaking out if that happened mid flight.
It wouldn't even have been known to the public, if it happened only in Korea, because they have a complete control of the media in S Korea.
When it first happened it Korea, media tried to dismiss it as if it was a false report by black consumers who are trying to win some money by suing Samsung. I found it pretty funny because, in Korea, you never win against any big companies in the court. There are no scenarios where you can sue a company and win any money. Even if, you do end up winning, it won't be in $millions like in US, but will max $10000, which rarely happens at all. So no sane person will even try.
I am glad that it also happened in US, because Samsung does not have the same control in US as they do in Korea.
The only way for this to be properly investigated is to be done by US, not Korean government.
It was really ridiculous to see how all Korean media praised how great a company Samsung is when they announced a recall.
People are afraid to share anything that talks bad about Samsung, because they believe it will affect them negatively in the future when searching for jobs or such.
These phones should be returned immediately by the company before someone inadvertently is dead because think of the senario where someone is driving with this phone in the
drivers pocket & catches fire........ all OK if the car isn't doing 70 along a motorway otherwise - danger of a collision.... it has happened in the past re wasps & bees distracting the drivers attention which is a very serious matter. Any spontaneous combustion of anything must be resolved forthwith. So Are these phones being recalled ?
There are - after a bunch of really bad aircraft fires in the 90s caused by hazardous materials in the cargo holds, the FAA has mandated fire suppression systems in all commercial air cargo holds.
Still, though, airlines would rather avoid the problem entirely. Airline safety usually relies on defense-in-depth - you fix the root cause, and then you fix anything else that would've stopped the problem, because things go wrong in a cramped cylinder at 30,000 feet. For example, a fast-moving fire could easily burn through the hydraulics or electronics that would trigger the fire suppression system before it has a chance to go off.
And that is how I quickly explain ORM-D (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ORM-D) class items like small arms ammunition, which of course is allowed to be packed in small quantities in individuals' checked luggage: things that aren't particularly dangerous by themselves, but if in a plane's cargo hold in sufficient quantity, could accelerate a fire beyond the capabilities of those fire suppression systems.
Whereas few overly worry about shipping 1000+/- rounds by ground, except e.g. the movers that just moved me to my new home, they really can't afford to play the game of numbers with the few trucks they have (no batteries, or liquids (which could make a schedule breaking mess), either).
Big enough high energy batteries on planes, or too close to my skin ... those give me the heebie jeebies....
Side note: It's against FAA regulations to check bags containing lithium ion batteries. Sometimes they remind you at check-in and sometimes they don't. In theory, you could get into trouble for doing it.
Batteries in devices are allowed, because they are assumed to have the necessary protection from things like accidental short circuits. Bare spare batteries are what's prohibited from checked luggage.
I got a flight across Greece a week or so back. It's the first time a named device was singled out as "do not turn on, do not attempt to charge, please identify yourself to cabin staff"-type stuff since the 1990s when there was a bunch of - I think, Gateway - laptops that were known to catch fire, and they were regularly not allowed on flights.
The fact this is a replacement means the product has a major engineering flaw, and is likely to end up meaning the product is scrapped completely.
This could be the end of Samsung. They need to get on this and shut it down within a few days. Good luck to them.
This really could not. Samsung is a gigantic conglomerate. They make everything from power plants to super tankers and weapon systems. They could lose their phone business entirely and still be huge.
Not that easy unless you are a bit more into stock trading than the average retail investor, or willing to lump SSNLF in with a bunch of other South Korean companies in an index fund.
> The shares of Samsung don’t trade on major exchanges like Nasdaq and NYSE in the U.S. It is listed on the Korean exchange and available as GDR in London and Luxembourg. However, in accordance with Rule 144A of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act, U.S. citizens are prohibited from investing in GDR’s. The following options are available to U.S. investors:
> 1. Investors can either buy shares directly in the Korean stock market after proper paper work or through a local securities firm or bank (Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc. are eligible)
> 2. Investors can buy Samsung’s shares traded over-the-counter in the U.S.
> 3. Investors can opt to take exposure to Samsung along with other Korean companies by investing in a South Korea ETF, for example, the iShares MSCI South Korea Capped ETF (EWY) has a heavy exposure of 20.64% towards Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
We're going to add a site guideline asking not to post claims like this unless you have data. Otherwise it's just distracting rhetoric.
Everyone always thinks HN is biased against their view. Since all these positions contradict one another, they must stem from cognitive bias rather than reality. That explains why discussions based on them are never any good.
Yes. It is a pro-Apple bias that is causing people to be worried/upset about cell phone batteries that can spontaneously catch on fire. You've figured out the conspiracy.
I'm not sure why everyone is caught up with the competition between Apple and Samsung when the Blu R1-HD sells for $59. Most people I know would be indifferent between the Blu R1-HD and a higher end phone (considering performance, battery life, form factor, build quality, camera and screen quality).
I have here a Sony Xperia E1 and a Motorola Moto G (2nd gen)
The Xperia is also $59 and Sony is a more widely known brand so let's assume they're similar.
The Moto G was $179 new some years ago the Xperia is $59 today.
On paper, they're similar in terms of ram, cpu cores, flash, gpu, etc.
But in practice... there is an absolute world of difference, and we're not talking flagship phones vs cheap ones, we're talking one cheap phone vs a slightly less cheap phone, but still low-mid range.
The screen on the sony sucks by comparison, its all washed out and grey (not IPS), the speakers also suck, the camera sucks, the letters in the SONY logo are falling off it now says SO, the thing is a bastard to hold on to because the case is slippery. It's also just slower for some reason, even though the CPU is faster, so I assume the flash is crappy? And the digitizer sucks, scrolling goes wobbly all the time. (I thought, oh, I'll buy a cheap Sony, they make good stuff... I guess cheap shit is cheap shit no matter whose name is on it.)
and that's Sony, so I can only imagine Blu is worse.
(just FYI, flagships are better at everything in terms of speed, display quality, camera, feeling, etc, but they also do A LOT MORE physically, i.e. they have NFC, they're waterproof, they read fingerprints, they have multiple gyros, etc)
Why would you imagine that Blu is worse? Especially on the low end, a lot of the older brands can and do trade heavily on their established name and reputation to sell utter crap. There's little downside to this - as you demonstrated, if someone buys their stuff and it turns out to be a piece of shit they'll often just assume that everything else must be even worse.
From the specs I can find, the R1 HD has a 5-inch 720p IPS display and much better reviews than the Sony Xperia E1 did. Not only that, at the time of its release the E1 was competing with the Moto E which (like its bigger brother) also had an IPS screen and far better reviews than the E1.
I agree with this. I bought a Blu R1-HD when my iPhone 6 screen cracked, and decided to wait a few weeks so I could just replace it with an iPhone 7.
The few weeks using the Blu went a lot differently than I expected. The phone is very solid and the overall experience of using the phone is first-rate.
It would be one thing if we were talking about a $599 Android phone compared with a $749 iPhone. But this thing cost me $59 which is in a totally different ballpark. I would simply not have expected it to be anywhere close to iPhone quality but it is.
The only things that are "worse" than an iPhone 6 in my opinion are:
- the touch screen is slightly less accurate for taps, but this could also be because I'm less accustomed to Android.
- No compass. GPS works fine but panning the phone around doesn't re-orient the map when navigating which is a feature I like.
There are also several nice features which it has that the iPhones lack, such as support for SD card storage expansion (I immediately added a fast 64GB one I had lying around) and a second SIM card.
Not trying to nitpick features. Buying a R1-HD is like getting a one year old Ferrari for $12K.
It seems to be that Samsung is getting a lot of extra scrutiny based on their recall and the news is exploiting this. Phone batteries have been known to overheat and explode for years now and it is in no way brand specific. I think the way Samsung handled the whole situation was above and beyond how other companies may have responded. They identified an issue, and replaced everything.
I am not saying that Samsung could not have made another mistake, but I think it is unreasonable to try and link every single battery issue and explosion under the Samsung brand as something that is a precursor to another giant issue.
"I think the way Samsung handled the whole situation was above and beyond how other companies may have responded."
LOL, you mean like follow the proper legal process for filing a recall in the US? Yeah... they did none of that. What exactly was "above and beyond"?? Seriously, I'm not even joking, I'm genuinely curious as from my perspective they did the absolute bare minimum, and took an insane amount of time to even start addressing such a dangerous defect.
I've worked with companies that had a dangerous defect they discovered before any issues occurred, and the same day they stopped sales, contacted every potentially affected customer directly and requested they stop using the product and sent them a shipping label to get the gear back and replace it at no cost or traveling to a store for the user.
I define above and beyond as recalling all of their defective product with no questions asked, offering a substitute while they fix the problem, and then finally replacing the phones to anyone who wants to try them again.
If this is a poor company response please let me know who has done better as I would too like to do business with them instead. Clearly my experiences with companies have been drastically different than yours.
Informally issuing a recall without going through proper government channels and accepting returns for a consumer product that poses a danger to life due to a design defect is basically the bare minimum you could possibly do in a case like this. Shipping someone a replacement that still catches fire definitely isn't helping their perception with anyone who was going to give them a second chance.
Since it seems my opinion is entirely off base I am curious how you would have liked to have seen the replacements handled? What would be above and beyond in this case?
Go through the CPSC to initiate a recall properly instead of trying to do a fly-by-night recall that confuses all of phone providers. Give people actual information about why, how, and when these batteries fail instead of just nebulously blaming the batteries that came from your own factory. Don't ship people replacement phones that still spontaneously ignite.
Around 2001 there were all kinds of laptop battery recalls, where they would send you two new ones and a box to return the old one; that's above and beyond. Since battery replacement is not applicable and advance shipping a $$$ phone return is a big risk, Samsung could have worked with carriers to authorize replacement of carrier branded models at the carrier store, even if original purchased somewhere else. If the phones are serviceable, they could have made a replace the battery while you wait program, so people don't need to transfer data etc.
> but I think it is unreasonable to try and link every single battery issue and explosion under the Samsung brand as something that is a precursor to another giant issue.
I disagree. Given that this phone model already had battery problems, it is not at all irrational to assume the new battery problems are related to (or the same as) the old ones. That's far likelier than the new problems happening by pure coincidence, given that the base rate of phones catching fire is so small. I think what you're forgetting here is that, by far the most likely scenario is that Samsung just didn't fix the original problem correctly.
Perhaps I have more faith in a company whose decision it was to recall all of those phones. They knew that all eyes would be on them after the fact, and to mess up again could be the beginning of the end for their brand. I would think that extra care would have been given in making sure these issues were fixed before releasing them again. Another point to keep in mind is that in perspective, the amount of issues that did occur, compared to how many phones are out there made by Samsung indicates to me that we should have some amount of trust in their products.
On the other hand if they did not realize this, perhaps they do deserve all the bad press. Regardless nobody actually knows right now, and my opinion is that I believe this is all news hype bandwagon behavior right now.
I'm sure they felt if they waited too long the opportunity they had would be lost. (there was a ton of great press before the Note 7 launched, and I'm sure there was a feeling that this was their moment to really shine against an Apple launch)
But Samsung didn't issue a recall until forced to by the US regulator. At first they just issued a patch to limit charging to 60%. The US regulator is furious with Samsung for the way the handled this[0]. Meanwhile in China they delayed the recall there until negative media pressure forced them to do the same. "On 2 September, Samsung issued a recall of 2.5 million phones in certain countries, leaving out China."[1]. Samsung behaved appalling in this.
I was on a flight recently and the lady next to me had a large Samsung phone on which she was constantly playing games, etc. and I was very worried.
I was also afraid of questioning if it was a Samsung Galaxy Note 7 because the attendant made an announcement saying people should turn it off and she didn't. Next time I'm not going to be afraid. Can't imagine the consequence if it caught fire at 30,000 feet.
I'm much more worried about something like this in a check-in bag, where the fire can spread uncontrollably. At least in cabin you will notice the fire early and can use the fire extinguisher.
A fire extinguisher is not going to do much against a lithium fire. But at the same time, such fire would end before you even got up from your seat - the only concern would be something inside the plane catching fire, but literally everything inside the cabin is fireproof.
Fire inside the hold is another matter entirely, but there are fire suppression systems fitted into all planes nowadays.
Why are we allowing these on airplanes?! Are we waiting for someone to leave one of these devices in their checked luggage so it can start a fire that downs a commercial airliner before banning them?!
Well Samsung, that's what you get for using non-replaceable batteries.
I hope that this desaster forces either phone vendors or regulatory agencies to mandate replaceable batteries. The EU got through with mandating micro-USB, after all...
It's not fair to say that Samsung deserves this because of a non-removable battery. This could have happened with a removable battery too. Who knows the reason why this happened -- bad battery manufacturer, bad soldering internally, something wrong in the layout of pieces connecting the charger to the battery -- but it's unfair to say this is deserved because they removed something and added something in return, in this case water resistance.
Yes, but that still doesn't mean Samsung deserves it. The fact that they don't have a removable battery doesn't mean they deserve this, and it doesn't mean that the users who buy their products deserve this.
They can, but you can separate the device from the battery in case of recalls, thus preventing natural resource waste.
Also, my Galaxy Note 1 battery blew up on me because I used a cheap charger. I simply took it out, disposed of it at a city waste center, and put in a new battery for 15€. Try this with a "closed" phone. Either you can do it yourself, which requires at minimum 3h time + specialized equipment (e.g. regulated hot air gun), or pay 100€+ to a service center.
I can't speak for the Galaxy Note, but when I replaced the battery on my iPhone, it took me perhaps twenty minutes with minimal tools (screwdrivers, suction cup, plastic "spudger" -- all supplied with the battery) and no prior experience. Could probably do it in half the time with practice.
When I took out my Samsung Note 2 battery it took me perhaps ten seconds with no practice either. Twenty minutes for replacing a component they know is going to wear out the quickest of all components is long and a dick move by the company.
To give some perspective, this was for a phone that was around 4 years old, and which had been sitting in a box fully discharged for a while, destroying the original battery.
Twenty minutes of work over four years is not a big deal.
