SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Arthur T Knackerbracket has found the following story:
Starting December 19, Samsung will begin distributing a software update that prevents the phones from charging and "will eliminate their ability to work as mobile devices." The software update will be rolled out over 30 days.
[...] Samsung is encouraging anyone who has not yet returned their device to power it down and contact their carrier to obtain a refund or exchange, or visit its Note 7 recall website for more information. The company recalled the device earlier this year because the battery on some units overheated and caught fire. Samsung also permanently stopped production of the phone.
But leading US mobile carrier Verizon has decided not to push out the update, citing safety issues. Here's the statement it released:
"Verizon will not be taking part in this update because of the added risk this could pose to Galaxy Note 7 users that do not have another device to switch to," the statement read. "We will not push a software upgrade that will eliminate the ability for the Note 7 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."
(Score: 5, Funny) by Bogsnoticus on Tuesday December 13 2016, @05:45AM
"Verizon will not be taking part in this update because of the added risk this could pose to Verizon. We would rather our customers sie in blazing agony, than risk them getting another device and contract from a different provider."
Genius by birth. Evil by choice.
(Score: 2) by zocalo on Tuesday December 13 2016, @09:35AM
The way I see it though, in the unlikely event of a Verizon connected Note 7 melting down and causing physical harm to someone other than its owner (whose persistance in retaining the phone has probably negated any chance of successfully suing for damages by now) then Samsung's insurers will no doubt be pursing Verizon to recoup any damages they may have to pay out for that harm. Assuming the plaintiff(s) don't go straight for Verizon with their claims for damages, that is. That seems like a valid high impact, low probability risk - so just what *are* they putting in the reward column to offset that? Surely there are not all that many Note 7 owners left on Verizon specifically that makes another month of guaranteed fees and a little less aggravation for support worth it alone?
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
(Score: 3, Insightful) by theluggage on Tuesday December 13 2016, @05:12PM
although I'm not exactly sure what Verizon is putting in the "reward" column here
I expect Verizon's lawyers have weighed up the risk of three scenarios:
(a) Getting successfully sued by a GN7 owner who's house has been burned down by a faulty phone after they wilfully ignored Samsung and Verizon's repeated and well-documented efforts to warn them of the risk and offer them a refund/replacement.
(b) Getting successfully sued by a GN7 owner who's hose has been burned down by a faulty toaster oven but who couldn't call the fire department because their GN7 had been deliberately disabled by Verizon.
(c) Getting hit by a class-action lawsuit started by an ambulance-chasing lawyer based on the theory that even stupid customers who want to go on using a fire-risk phone still own their property and Verizon doesn't have the right to take the law into their own hands by remotely destroying it... not sure who would win that one, but the likes of Verizon probably don't want their terms of service picked over too closely and publicly in court.
...and decided that (b) and (c) outweigh (a).
Reality is that the risk of an individual GN7 going foom was always low, and the only substantial risk was to a vendor responsible for thousands of the things. Verizon are probably happy that they've already done enough to deny liability.