Samsung Issues Update To Brick Remaining, Spontaneously Combusting Galaxy Note 7 Phones, Verizon Refuses To Pass It On

from the bomb-in-your-pocket dept

Wed, Dec 14th 2016 2:47pm — Karl Bode

If you hadn't been paying attention, Samsung hasn't been having a very good year. The company was forced to recall the original Galaxy Note 7 in early September after numerous reports of spontaneous combustion. That was followed by a formal recall by the US Consumer Product Safety Commission. Samsung then doubled down on its incompetence, releasing an "updated" version of the phone that suffered from the exact same problem. By October Samsung was engulfed in an honest-to-goodness PR disaster as it failed to explain how it could "fix" the initial problem by somehow making things worse.

Samsung says that 93% of US-sold Note 7 devices have now been returned, which still leaves around 133,000 phones unaccounted for despite the endless media coverage of the issue. So the company last week came up with a solution: an update to the phone's software that prevents the device from being charged (as in, ever again), effectively "bricking" the device. In a statement posted to Samsung's website, the company said this "bold" step will begin on December 19, as the company works with carriers to finally force the issue:

"To further increase participation, a software update will be released starting on December 19th and will be distributed within 30 days. This software update will prevent U.S. Galaxy Note7 devices from charging and will eliminate their ability to work as mobile devices. Together with our carrier partners, we will be notifying consumers through multiple touchpoints to encourage any remaining Galaxy Note7 owners to participate in the program and to take advantage of the financial incentives available."

T-Mobile has said it will release the device-crippling update on December 27. AT&T confirmed it planned to release it on January 5. Sprint said it will deploy the software update to its customers on January 8. Verizon, however, posted a statement to its website stating that it wouldn't be passing on the update to consumers for fear of ruining their holiday seasons:

"Verizon will not be taking part in this update because of the added risk this could pose to Galaxy Note7 users that do not have another device to switch to. We will not push a software upgrade that will eliminate the ability for the Note7 to work as a mobile device in the heart of the holiday travel season. We do not want to make it impossible to contact family, first responders or medical professionals in an emergency situation."

It's kind of a strange stand by Verizon, which has long been criticized for taking longer than is reasonable to pass on necessary Android security updates. One, because users can exchange the phone at any Verizon store for free. Two, the Verizon-cited risk of not being able to make a call kind of pales in comparison to the risk of carrying around a phone that doubles as a hand grenade. After all, given the FAA has banned the phone from being taken on planes, these users are putting themselves (and potentially those around them) at risk by ignoring the recall.

It's certainly possible that Verizon actually is being sincere here and doesn't want people without a phone for the holidays. But it's just as likely that Verizon's just tired of the entire PR fracas, and doesn't want its customers thinking that it was somehow responsible for their phones not working when the update is released. Regardless, the onus remains on customers who, for whatever reason, think it's nifty to ignore recalls and carry around a potential fire hazard during the holidays.

Update: It looks like Verizon has just as quickly reversed course without explanation, and now says it will deploy the device-bricking update on January 7.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: galaxy note 7, updates
Companies: samsung, verizon

63 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Chris-Mouse (profile), 14 Dec 2016 @ 2:52pm

I wonder if Verizon is also going to accept liability when one of their customer's phones explodes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 14 Dec 2016 @ 4:05pm
  
  Re:
  I wonder if the companies pushing this update will accept liability when someone dies because they can't call 911.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 14 Dec 2016 @ 5:49pm
    
    Re: Re:
    I wonder if the people who refuse to trade in their phone for a less combustible one will accept liability for concealing a known explosive.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Hxbxhxn, 18 Dec 2016 @ 2:46am
    
    Re: Re:
    Well, there is easy fix .... Exchange the phone. The update is anounced long in advance.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- jack, 15 Dec 2016 @ 7:03am
  
  Re:
  As someone who still uses there verizon note 7, I will say that verizon nor samsung have any remaining liability. I've been warned constantly to shut this phone down via text and notifications that show when you open the phone. If this phone burst into flames it will be entirely my fault. With that being said, I'll proly still use it till then as it's been a good phone, it's free since I've been refunded, and I have a backup.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 15 Dec 2016 @ 8:58am
    
    Re: Re:
    You must also enjoy playing Russian Roulette. You are playing a game that you will regret winning. People have had their entire cars go up in flames because of the Note 7.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 15 Dec 2016 @ 9:10pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Yeah, I know what you mean. People have also had their entire cars go up in flames because of gasoline leaks. Yet, people still put gasoline in their cars. Stop the madness!
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Roger Strong (profile), 16 Dec 2016 @ 2:47pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Some people recognize a difference between necessary and unnecessary risks.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 17 Dec 2016 @ 10:03am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Oh, you've never heard of electric cars? I see. Or is it just "unnecessary" when it applies to somebody else?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Roger Strong (profile), 17 Dec 2016 @ 10:24am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I've been hearing of electric cars for over 40 years. They're finally a reality for the wealthy, but not yet for the average person.
        
        A Tesla Model X will cost you $80,000 here in Canada. Most people are buying cars for under $25,000. The savings in fuel costs would get erased by financing costs.
        
        In a couple years your response might look a bit less out of touch with reality.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 18 Dec 2016 @ 9:39am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        The reality is that there are alternatives today. In fact, many people do without a car at all. I get the impression that you're the type that likes to tell other people what is and isn't necessary for them, or what to or not to do. For their own good, of course, since you know better than they do what that is.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Roger Strong (profile), 19 Dec 2016 @ 10:43am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I haven't owned a car in several years. Transit is all I currently need to commute to work. But then the kids have grown up and left home and I'm now in an apartment on a street with the best transit service in the city.
        
        Still, I acknowledge reality: A large fraction of the population isn't in this situation. They have no transit service at all - like my last home - or very poor transit service. Or their workplace isn't served by transit.
        
        And many simply have kids. Taking a couple hours off work to take a kid to an appointment becomes an entire day if you rely on transit. With a couple kids, that can be often. It also means much more groceries, impractical on transit.
        
        Reality. You should acknowledge it some time.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Roger Strong (profile), 14 Dec 2016 @ 3:01pm

"We do not want to make it impossible to contact family, first responders or medical professionals in an emergency situation."

Or any other vital assistance.

(Note 7 bursts into flames)

"The beacons are lit! Gondor calls for aid!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Paul, 14 Dec 2016 @ 3:13pm

Or they are some clueless little old lady that has no idea.

I don't like the precedent. Whats next, You phone has a 1/100000 chance of releasing toxic materials when cracked, We are bricking it tp protect you. Your phone is last years model, who knows what could happen with such antiquated Electronics, we are bricking it.

In the meantime someone who brought a dud now gets the additional punishment of having it rendered useless, when they may not know or be eligible for any recompense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 14 Dec 2016 @ 4:13pm
  
  Re:
  > Or they are some clueless little old lady that has no idea.
  
  I'm just wondering how a clueless little old lady wound up with a Galaxy Note 7.
  
  I mean it's possible, but still...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 15 Dec 2016 @ 12:00am
    
    Re: Re:
    It depends on what your idea of a clueless little old lady is. Plenty of grandparents in their 60s and 70s have smartphones. Even if they aren't up to things like email, social media, the internet, and app; the phone, texting, and video/camera functions make it more than worthwhile. Easy to keep in contact with the kids. Easy to get sent pictures of the grandkids. Easy to take pictures or video to show off later. The larger phone with the bigger screen would probably be more popular with them, with their eyesight not what it'd used to be.
    
    And just because they have the phone, doesn't mean they follow any of the news where the recall would be mentioned.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Michael, 15 Dec 2016 @ 4:56am
    
    Re: Re:
    Bricking it without notice seems a bit of a harsh response. Why not push an update that lets the phone continue to work but forces regular notifications on the phone about needed to return the device to the place it was purchased?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 15 Dec 2016 @ 9:35am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "Together with our carrier partners, we will be notifying consumers through multiple touchpoints..."
      
      IIRC, Note 7s have been getting constant push notifications about the recall since September or so as well.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 15 Dec 2016 @ 9:36am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      They've been doing this for a month. Notifications pop up, I'm sure they got e-mails, wouldn't surprise me they even snail mailed them the old fashioned way.
      
      Still got over 100k out there.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- MrTroy (profile), 14 Dec 2016 @ 5:18pm
  
  Re:
  
  In the meantime someone who brought a dud now gets the additional punishment of having it rendered useless, when they may not know or be eligible for any recompense.
  
  That's the whole point of this update. People who don't realise they are eligible for recompense can take the phone back to the store and get recompense. Everyone who owns the phone is eligible for recompense, because the phone is under recall.
  
  The only people being punished are those people who are putting other people at risk by keeping a phone that may burst into flames.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- art guerrilla (profile), 14 Dec 2016 @ 5:26pm
  
  Re:
  ...perhaps 133,000 have already blowed up, blowed up r-e-a-l gooood ! ! !
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Dec 2016 @ 3:13pm

I find the line of reasoning odd... the update disables charging, and I presume also displays a note saying what's happening. This gives plenty of time for customers to get a replacement phone.

Meanwhile, anyone traveling with a Note 7 will have it confiscated if they plan to travel by air; seems to me this is a worse situation than having it refuse to charge.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 14 Dec 2016 @ 3:44pm
  
  Re:
  > This gives plenty of time for customers to get a replacement phone.
  
  Oh yeah, a day or less is plenty of time.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Thad, 14 Dec 2016 @ 4:41pm
    
    Re: Re:
    
    Oh yeah, a day or less is plenty of time.
    
    If this is the very first time a Note 7 owner has heard that this particular model of phone has problems with overheating and combusting, then they're sure not using their phone very often. At least, not to access the Internet.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Dec 2016 @ 3:27pm

Why not have the update give a notification each time you use the phone that it has been recalled?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
crade (profile), 14 Dec 2016 @ 3:28pm

In other words, you do not own any of your phones at all. You are just using it for as long as samsung chooses to allow you to. Don't worry, you can (have to) put your faith in them that they won't take it away unless they really feel it's necessary. If you don't like it, you should have thought about that before you thought you bought the phone.

Extreme cases make for bad precedent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Chris Brand, 14 Dec 2016 @ 4:50pm
  
  Re:
  Yeah, they shouldn't be bricking devices that don't belong to them, regardless of the reason.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Dec 2016 @ 3:36pm

And this is why I flashed CyanogenMod on my S5. My phone is MINE, not anyone else's.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Dec 2016 @ 4:46pm

what will probably be posted online by Samsung after this mess has passed.
The exploding phone was a feature that Samsung designed for the government to aid their spy program. You know have a deadly device appear as a benign object.

Unfortunately the design for the government was mixed in with the general consumer design specs because of a lack of communication due to some NSLs that we had received.

We won't say we are sorry because of the recent results of the court case rolling stones vs. UVA. Also we know that within a few days this post will be censored because it looks bad on use and the government.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Dec 2016 @ 5:08pm

Lets not forget about their washing machine fiasco.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Dec 2016 @ 5:16pm

I'm with Verizon on blocking the updates, though I don't necessarily agree with their reasons.

Today, Samsung is bricking phones for safety because they might explode.
Tomorrow, Samsung is bricking phones because there's a critical security issue in software and they can't be bothered updating it.
Next week, Samsung is bricking phones because it's been two years and they want you to buy a new one.

Very surprising TechDirt didn't touch on the precedent this sets.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Dec 2016 @ 5:19pm

I read somewhere that they already updated the phone to bug you to return them every time you turn on the screen. If that is the case then you cant say people didn't have some warning if they make that message say you have X days to replace your phone before it stops working.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Brad (profile), 14 Dec 2016 @ 6:08pm

All hail the Death Note 7.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Dec 2016 @ 6:13pm

You don't really own what you own
Not sure if I agree or disagree with Verizon or Samsung here, but this is just more proof you don't really own what you think you own.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- MrTroy (profile), 14 Dec 2016 @ 6:56pm
  
  Re: You don't really own what you own
  Is there a particular reason you want to own a phone that may burst into flames?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - That One Guy (profile), 14 Dec 2016 @ 9:02pm
    
    Re: Re: You don't really own what you own
    ... easy way to score a Darwin Award, or at least an Honorable Mention?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Roger Strong (profile), 14 Dec 2016 @ 9:13pm
    
    Re: Re: You don't really own what you own
    To impress your friends with your security measures. You tell them that it burst into flames because a hacking attempt was detected.
    
    "In security circles it's called the Kervorkian Dodge."
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Wyrm (profile), 16 Dec 2016 @ 9:35am
      
      Re: Re: Re: You don't really own what you own
      Or tell them it's that "firewall" thing they probably heard about.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 14 Dec 2016 @ 9:25pm
    
    Re: Re: You don't really own what you own
    > Is there a particular reason you want to own a phone that may burst into flames?
    
    He didn't say that he did. Is there a particular reason you want to try to pretend that he did?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - MrTroy (profile), 14 Dec 2016 @ 9:55pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: You don't really own what you own
      Ok, I concede that it's possible to complain about an OTA update bricking a device and the lack of control over the things you own without actually wanting to own said device.
      
      But at that point, isn't the story basically "Old man yells at cloud"?
      
      I mean, seriously: "I yearn for the good old days, when the faulty devices we owned were OUR faulty devices, and we had to check the back of the paper every day if we cared to find out if it had been recalled yet"
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 15 Dec 2016 @ 2:17am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: You don't really own what you own
        You either own your devices or you don't.
        
        Having one's device made inoperable because of public safety concerns and having one's device made inoperable because Samsung don't like your face are both accomplished by the same "Samsung own and control the device you paid for, have title to and responsibility for" mechanism.
        
        Like it nor not, these are the kind of "think of the children!" compulsory, public safety updates that will be used to argue that you should not be allowed to update your not-owned devices with whatever software you choose to put onto them.
        
        In much the same way that Techdirt's traffic stop stories are all about protecting the rights of drivers who were searched illegally but who really did have ten kilos of cocaine hidden in the doors of their car, sometimes we also have to argue that people have to be allowed to retain ownership and functionality of devices that are known to unexpectedly explode because they are their devices.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        crade (profile), 15 Dec 2016 @ 8:30am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You don't really own what you own
        It's for your own good! If you had more freedom, you would surely only hurt yourself.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Ninja (profile), 15 Dec 2016 @ 3:11am
  
  Re: You don't really own what you own
  I don't think you meant that way but nobody here seems to be worried that Samsung/Verizon/whoever can brick your gadget at will. Of course this is on par with things like Microsoft being downright obnoxious with the 'get windows 10' shoved down the users collective throats via updates.
  
  I don't know, this is worrying for me.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
horkus (profile), 14 Dec 2016 @ 6:16pm

Hrm, I read it as "we need more time to vet this update for compliance with our built in spyware."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
MrTroy (profile), 14 Dec 2016 @ 6:55pm

Slippery slope?
Come on, folks. There are currently one hundred thousand phones unaccounted for that could burn down homes and injure people, and you're calling foul on Samsung trying to prevent that?

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/slippery-slope

If they start actually treading the slippery slope, that's plenty of time to bring out the pitchforks and disable phone updates.

For those of you who think it's your god-given right to own items that could hurt other people or burn down the building, I feel sorry for anyone who ever shares an apartment building with you. Please go live in the desert where you can't hurt anyone else.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 15 Dec 2016 @ 1:51am
  
  Re: Slippery slope?
  
  For those of you who think it's your god-given right to own items that could hurt other people or burn down the building
  
  So... a box of matches? Any decently heavy or sturdy object? Firearms? Who's using logical fallacies again?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 15 Dec 2016 @ 6:48am
  
  Re: Slippery slope?
  > Please go live in the desert where you can't hurt anyone else.
  
  Let's get rid of sharp pointy objects too. But wait, that still leaves bare hands that can hurt people. I guess we need to put everyone in shackles.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Dec 2016 @ 8:17pm

Regardless, the onus remains on customers who, for whatever reason, think it's nifty to ignore recalls and carry around a potential fire hazard during the holidays.

I drive around in a potential fire hazard. I blow-dry my hair with a potential electrical hazard. When I go on holiday, I fly in a potential building-collapse agent. (Or more realistically, a potential flaming-debris field.) Hell, when I drink, I potentially suffer debilitating heavy-metal poisoning.

Fewer than a thousand of the about 2 million phones have caught fire. Possibly fewer than 200.

Everyone chooses the level of risk they are willing to accept. For some, that means hanging on to a phone that others consider unwise.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Roger Strong (profile), 14 Dec 2016 @ 9:20pm
  
  Re:
  So a one-in-10,000 to one-in-2000 chance that your Note 7 has caught fire.
  
  But that's when they were BRAND NEW. Imagine what the numbers will be after two or three years of wear and tear and flexing.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Frozen Njal (profile), 15 Dec 2016 @ 4:40am
    
    Re: Re:
    It depends if the ones that were more likely to burn up were more likely to do so at the start. It may be, given that the exact causes are unknown, that the longer you have a phone, the less likely it is to combust.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pixelation, 14 Dec 2016 @ 8:45pm

C'mon!
I'm thinking this is a good move on Samsung's part. How else are they going to prevent terrorists from using Note 7's to blow up airplanes?

Oooor, this whole thing could be planned...

Removes tinfoil hat...

All is well! :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ehud Gavron (profile), 15 Dec 2016 @ 2:38am

TD missed the boat
TD usually opines that once a device is purchased the user should be its owner, not empowered nor disempowered by software updates from the manufacturer.

And yet... "the onus remains on customers who, for whatever reason, think it's nifty to ignore recalls and carry around a potential fire hazard during the holidays."

No. The onus doesn't. Nifty doesn't mean what you think it means.

These people bought hardware and they intend to use it. Apparently the "sweet sweet offers" aren't so sweet so that 133,000 devices are still out there.

Stop blaming the "victims" and stop suggesting that the mfg gets to brick devices. The problem isn't the users/victims.

Clue. By. Four.

E
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Ninja (profile), 15 Dec 2016 @ 3:20am
  
  Re: TD missed the boat
  What if it was a car that had the same risk of failing and causing a catastrophic accident but the car maker could disable the cars remotely if people didn't turn in for a recall? Would it be fair?
  
  I do agree with the update issue. The fact that they can disable the device via updates is worrying. Sure if they start using such 'power' without care they'll lose trust from people but this kind of power may be abused by, let's say, Governments. It's a legitimate worry but the 'victim blaming' you are referring is nothing like that. These people should have returned their devices already and they are morons for not doing so given the exposure the issue had.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Frozen Njal (profile), 15 Dec 2016 @ 4:43am
    
    Re: Re: TD missed the boat
    People still drive Vauxhall/Opel Zafiras which love to spontaneously combust far more destructively than Note 7s, but people are still buying and driving them, and no-one has bricked them...
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Ninja (profile), 15 Dec 2016 @ 5:51am
      
      Re: Re: Re: TD missed the boat
      Until they brick themselves, no?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
me, 15 Dec 2016 @ 6:28am

notify and replace for free
Verizon should:
1. send a notification to all remaining Galaxy Note 7 owners that their phone has been recalled and that they need to return it to the Verizon store immediately

2. replace the returned Galaxy Note 7s on the spot as soon as the users return the phones

3. FIXED: no one is without a phone because they're replaced on the spot & users are not paying any money for their free replacement phones
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 15 Dec 2016 @ 9:40am
  
  Re: notify and replace for free
  THIS ^ has been happening since at least October, yet still 130k out there.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 15 Dec 2016 @ 9:45am
  
  Re: notify and replace for free
  I'm pretty sure this exact system is already in place.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Dec 2016 @ 8:12am

Alternate explanation
Techdirt notes that Verizon has a reputation for not passing on security updates in a timely manner. Perhaps this is just more of the same: their internal process for passing updates is such a pain that they hate doing updates, and try their best not to do any that are not obligated by law (or by lawyers screaming of liability). Since neither of those reasons obligates them here, they are declining to do the update, then using the quoted PR statement as a nice-sounding justification for their inaction. It is much easier to issue a PR statement, especially one that on the surface sounds so altruistic, than to do the work of actually issuing the update.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TimothyAWiseman (profile), 15 Dec 2016 @ 9:04am

Some sense, but not entirely
Verizon's explanation here makes sense to me. This could be a very bad time for some people to have the issue forced. But AT&T seems to have found an intermediate approach of planning to issue the update after the end of the holiday travel season. It seems like Verizon could easily follow that course...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Coyne Tibbets (profile), 16 Dec 2016 @ 12:49am

Panic Attack
I really like the party line buy-in that, "EVERY SAMSUNG NOTE 7 WILL EXPLODE IN FIFTEEN SECONDS...TICK...TICK...TICK...!!!"

Yes, Samsung had a problem. But it was "dozens of phones" out of 2.5 million. "Dozens" is a bit nebulous but, if it is still the correct term, then probably not over a gross (144). On that basis the chances of a Note 7 failing are 1-in-17360, about the same as that of your dying next year in an automobile accident.

Oooo...and there's 133,000 of those Note bombs still out there, "...ANOTHER EIGHT MIGHT EXPLODE!!!"

Sigh. Way overblown.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 16 Dec 2016 @ 1:12pm
  
  Re: Panic Attack
  Numbers? Math? What is that?
  I reject your reality and substitute my own!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Randy, 26 Dec 2016 @ 6:36am

Do we have to accept
Does anyone know if us few note 7 owners have to accept the over the air update that Bricks the phone or is it done with out our consent ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]