Samsumg to Brick Galaxy Note 7's starting on the 19th - Verizon refuses to participate.
-
@Dashrender said in Samsumg to Brick Galaxy Note 7's starting on the 19th - Verizon refuses to participate.:
You can be assured if we had self driving cars that had this type of flaw, they would be allowed to roll out a kill switch because public safety.
Not like this they would not, not even maybe.
-
@Dashrender said in Samsumg to Brick Galaxy Note 7's starting on the 19th - Verizon refuses to participate.:
@scottalanmiller said in Samsumg to Brick Galaxy Note 7's starting on the 19th - Verizon refuses to participate.:
@dafyre said in Samsumg to Brick Galaxy Note 7's starting on the 19th - Verizon refuses to participate.:
@DustinB3403 said in Samsumg to Brick Galaxy Note 7's starting on the 19th - Verizon refuses to participate.:
@dafyre said in Samsumg to Brick Galaxy Note 7's starting on the 19th - Verizon refuses to participate.:
This is a smart move by Verizon. It sucks that Samsung is having to do this.
Smart how?
If 7% of these are still out there and explode while someone is on the road, how are they going to call for emergency help anyways?
Because that particular 7% is still working. That's not to say they won't blow up tomorrow, but if an update happens right as somebody is leaving for a trip that bricks thier phone...
I figure Verizon should wait until January 2 or so before they start pushing it out.
Shouldn't push it out ever.
No, they shouldn't push it out ever, but some dipshit verizon customer will have a phone blow up on them in 2 months, then try to sue verizon because verizon knew about it and didn't stop them.. and some damn liberal judge will agree with the idiot and verizon will be out millions of dollars.
yeah.. let's not push this out.it's not like they won't get a new phone if they bring it back to the store.
Yeah TRY to sue, and fail. But if they brick the phones and ANYONE ever has an issue because of it, they will sue and win.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Samsumg to Brick Galaxy Note 7's starting on the 19th - Verizon refuses to participate.:
@dafyre said in Samsumg to Brick Galaxy Note 7's starting on the 19th - Verizon refuses to participate.:
No doubt about it that it is illegal. Unethical -- I would say very unethical if they were not refunding money.
Unethical because forcibly taking something that doesn't belong to them and then giving an amount of money that they determine for it is stealing, plain and simple. If I come into your house and steal anything I want and "leave money for it", it's still unethical.
Your argument here is that the phones aren't being returned at purchase value. They are, plus there is a $100 incentive to return the phones to use on anything else at the trade in location.
You're point is invalid.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Samsumg to Brick Galaxy Note 7's starting on the 19th - Verizon refuses to participate.:
And Samsung has mandates that every carrier take the phones back, and has provided incentives to customers trading the phones in.
This is simple the next step to ensure that no one else gets hurt or killed.
And that matters why? Samsung has no legal or ethical right to demand that. Offering good deals for doing so, yes. Recommending it heavily, yes. Warning people, yes. Forcing? Not in any way shape or form.
-
The only room I'm personally willing to give Scott in this discussion is that if you brick the phone, the user might not have their data backed up.
OK fine, don't brick it, disable the phone calling feature. Then when you call the carrier to get it fixed, the carrier will inform them that due to public safety reasons they are not supporting that phone and the customer needs to come and get a refund and decide if they want to buy a new phone.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Samsumg to Brick Galaxy Note 7's starting on the 19th - Verizon refuses to participate.:
Your argument here is that the phones aren't being returned at purchase value.
Incorrect and irrelevant. I said nothing of the sort.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Samsumg to Brick Galaxy Note 7's starting on the 19th - Verizon refuses to participate.:
They are, plus there is a $100 incentive to return the phones to use on anything else at the trade in location.
You're point is invalid.
You've said nothing that relates to my point. The value of the phone NOW is determined by how much someone is willing to sell it for. Those that are not accepting the current return de facto have set that value above the original purchase value. Taking it back at the purchase price is stealing, plain and simple. That they "got their money back" is irrelevant as is the $100 bonus, as you well know.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Samsumg to Brick Galaxy Note 7's starting on the 19th - Verizon refuses to participate.:
@DustinB3403 said in Samsumg to Brick Galaxy Note 7's starting on the 19th - Verizon refuses to participate.:
Your argument here is that the phones aren't being returned at purchase value.
Incorrect and irrelevant. I said nothing of the sort.
Yes you did.
@scottalanmiller said in [Samsumg to Brick Galaxy Note 7's starting on the 19th - Verizon refuses to participate.]
Unethical because forcibly taking something that doesn't belong to them and then giving an amount of money that they determine for it is stealing, plain and simple. If I come into your house and steal anything I want and "leave money for it", it's still unethical.
The phones are being taken back at the carriers for purchase value. 100% plus the incentive.
-
@Dashrender said in Samsumg to Brick Galaxy Note 7's starting on the 19th - Verizon refuses to participate.:
The only room I'm personally willing to give Scott in this discussion is that if you brick the phone, the user might not have their data backed up.
Or might not have another phone set up and ready to take over. Or be in a dangerous situation. Or have wanted to keep the phone accepting the risk. Doesn't matter why, maybe it has sentimental value to someone. It's not our position to determine why it has the value that it has, only respect that theft is always wrong, as is vandalism.
-
I suppose a legal way - because sadly I do agree that this is probably illegal - is for the carriers to simply turn off service to any phone listed as a Note 7 - pretty sure the carriers know that.
In this case, they can claim that in the best interest of their customers, they have disabled the service to reduce the likeliness that a customer will continue using a phone that has been deemed so hazardous.
Then when customer calls in and says phone's not working, offer refund/replacement.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Samsumg to Brick Galaxy Note 7's starting on the 19th - Verizon refuses to participate.:
@scottalanmiller said in Samsumg to Brick Galaxy Note 7's starting on the 19th - Verizon refuses to participate.:
@DustinB3403 said in Samsumg to Brick Galaxy Note 7's starting on the 19th - Verizon refuses to participate.:
Your argument here is that the phones aren't being returned at purchase value.
Incorrect and irrelevant. I said nothing of the sort.
Yes you did.
@scottalanmiller said in [Samsumg to Brick Galaxy Note 7's starting on the 19th - Verizon refuses to participate.]
Unethical because forcibly taking something that doesn't belong to them and then giving an amount of money that they determine for it is stealing, plain and simple. If I come into your house and steal anything I want and "leave money for it", it's still unethical.
You are reading in something that I didn't say. No where did I say that the money left was less than the purchase price. You are making that part up and then using it as the sole argument.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Samsumg to Brick Galaxy Note 7's starting on the 19th - Verizon refuses to participate.:
The phones are being taken back at the carriers for purchase value. 100% plus the incentive.
Right... and how does that matter? That's not what makes something theft or not. Purchase value is 100% irrelevant. What matters is the value to the owner, which we know must be higher than that. Making this absolutely, unquestionably theft. No grey area that I see whatsoever.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Samsumg to Brick Galaxy Note 7's starting on the 19th - Verizon refuses to participate.:
@DustinB3403 said in Samsumg to Brick Galaxy Note 7's starting on the 19th - Verizon refuses to participate.:
They are, plus there is a $100 incentive to return the phones to use on anything else at the trade in location.
You're point is invalid.
You've said nothing that relates to my point. The value of the phone NOW is determined by how much someone is willing to sell it for. Those that are not accepting the current return de facto have set that value above the original purchase value. Taking it back at the purchase price is stealing, plain and simple. That they "got their money back" is irrelevant as is the $100 bonus, as you well know.
So lets use a car as an example.
if I buy a car today and put 100000 miles on it, I should expect that the car has increased or remained with the same value?
You're insane! Clearly the car (phone) has lost value.
The fact that Samsung is offering full refunds for the phone, and then offering the $100 on top of it means they are willing to pay more than market value as a brand new phone to get these damned things away from where they may due harm.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Samsumg to Brick Galaxy Note 7's starting on the 19th - Verizon refuses to participate.:
. Or have wanted to keep the phone accepting the risk.
This isn't about the risk to an individual, it's about the larger risk - hence why planes don't allow them onboard.
-
@Dashrender said in Samsumg to Brick Galaxy Note 7's starting on the 19th - Verizon refuses to participate.:
I suppose a legal way - because sadly I do agree that this is probably illegal - is for the carriers to simply turn off service to any phone listed as a Note 7 - pretty sure the carriers know that.
That's legal but with a lot of risks and, again, would put the carriers at risk for no good reason. Why do anyone feel that any carrier, ever, should get involved here? ANY action from the carrier puts them into the risk pool, letting it stay between Samsung and the customer they do not.
-
@Dashrender said in Samsumg to Brick Galaxy Note 7's starting on the 19th - Verizon refuses to participate.:
@scottalanmiller said in Samsumg to Brick Galaxy Note 7's starting on the 19th - Verizon refuses to participate.:
. Or have wanted to keep the phone accepting the risk.
This isn't about the risk to an individual, it's about the larger risk - hence why planes don't allow them onboard.
That's unrelated. The FAA refuses to let people fly with all sorts of things. Do you feel that ANYTHING no allowed by the FAA should be forcibly taken from peoples' homes against their will? Should only things that are legal to fly in the US be allowed to be owned?
-
@scottalanmiller said in Samsumg to Brick Galaxy Note 7's starting on the 19th - Verizon refuses to participate.:
@Dashrender said in Samsumg to Brick Galaxy Note 7's starting on the 19th - Verizon refuses to participate.:
I suppose a legal way - because sadly I do agree that this is probably illegal - is for the carriers to simply turn off service to any phone listed as a Note 7 - pretty sure the carriers know that.
That's legal but with a lot of risks and, again, would put the carriers at risk for no good reason. Why do anyone feel that any carrier, ever, should get involved here? ANY action from the carrier puts them into the risk pool, letting it stay between Samsung and the customer they do not.
in that case - getting the hell out of the way, and allow samsung to push the update themselves.
-
@Dashrender said in Samsumg to Brick Galaxy Note 7's starting on the 19th - Verizon refuses to participate.:
In this case, they can claim that in the best interest of their customers, they have disabled the service to reduce the likeliness that a customer will continue using a phone that has been deemed so hazardous.
It's fine that they claim altruism. But theft and/or vandalism in the "name of the victim" is just adding insult to injury. It's just mocking them. It's not their place to do this, legally or ethically.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Samsumg to Brick Galaxy Note 7's starting on the 19th - Verizon refuses to participate.:
@Dashrender said in Samsumg to Brick Galaxy Note 7's starting on the 19th - Verizon refuses to participate.:
@scottalanmiller said in Samsumg to Brick Galaxy Note 7's starting on the 19th - Verizon refuses to participate.:
. Or have wanted to keep the phone accepting the risk.
This isn't about the risk to an individual, it's about the larger risk - hence why planes don't allow them onboard.
That's unrelated. The FAA refuses to let people fly with all sorts of things. Do you feel that ANYTHING no allowed by the FAA should be forcibly taken from peoples' homes against their will? Should only things that are legal to fly in the US be allowed to be owned?
lol of course not, but do I think that the gov't should be allowed to say you can't drive with a Note 7 in your car for the same reason, yes.
-
@Dashrender said in Samsumg to Brick Galaxy Note 7's starting on the 19th - Verizon refuses to participate.:
@scottalanmiller said in Samsumg to Brick Galaxy Note 7's starting on the 19th - Verizon refuses to participate.:
@Dashrender said in Samsumg to Brick Galaxy Note 7's starting on the 19th - Verizon refuses to participate.:
I suppose a legal way - because sadly I do agree that this is probably illegal - is for the carriers to simply turn off service to any phone listed as a Note 7 - pretty sure the carriers know that.
That's legal but with a lot of risks and, again, would put the carriers at risk for no good reason. Why do anyone feel that any carrier, ever, should get involved here? ANY action from the carrier puts them into the risk pool, letting it stay between Samsung and the customer they do not.
in that case - getting the hell out of the way, and allow samsung to push the update themselves.
That's a problem if the update comes over the carrier's network. Knowing allowing a crime to be committed and putting customers at high risk is very, very illegal. If one, any one, 911 call doesn't go through because they "let Samsung disable 911" is a federal violation that should have any carrier that does so shut down and people arrested. This is VERY serious.
