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.
-
@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.
-
@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.:
@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.
That's my argument here. Driving with a GN7 poses as much public risk as flying with one does.
Because of some reason 7% of these are still out there, Samsung has repeatedly said to turn these in, they can and likely will blow up in your face. Don't take the risk.
And has made a severe push to collect these phones. So move your data off of the phone, and trade it in.
You're putting others at risk, not just your self by continuing to keep and use these damn phones.
-
@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.:
@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.
I agree. But that's not what we are talking about here. We are talking about a foreign company vandalizing our personal property, NOT a government telling us what is dangerous to carry on public roads while operating a motor vehicle. That's a red herring here.
I can own a gun in NY but I can't drive with it (except under certain conditions.) Your are stating the car thing as if, like the plane, it's okay to steal anything from people that isn't advisably to keep in a moving car... like guns or beer.
-
Knowing huh - so today they don't allow the update, but later on down the road they get the hell out of hte way, and then samsung makes a public announcement that they are going to brick another phone..
you're saying that Verizon (and all ISPs) have to block that because they would otherwise knowingly be allowing this 'illegal' activity to happen?
-
@DustinB3403 said in Samsumg to Brick Galaxy Note 7's starting on the 19th - Verizon refuses to participate.:
That's my argument here. Driving with a GN7 poses as much public risk as flying with one does.
So do guns and beer. So those should be taken by force from people? Because under the wrong conditions they can be used improperly?
-
@Dashrender said in Samsumg to Brick Galaxy Note 7's starting on the 19th - Verizon refuses to participate.:
Knowing huh - so today they don't allow the update, but later on down the road they get the hell out of hte way, and then samsung makes a public announcement that they are going to brick another phone..
you're saying that Verizon (and all ISPs) have to block that because they would otherwise knowingly be allowing this 'illegal' activity to happen?
Of course, if they know that their business partner intends to use their network for a crime, what would you think that they should do?
-
@DustinB3403 said in Samsumg to Brick Galaxy Note 7's starting on the 19th - Verizon refuses to participate.:
Because of some reason 7% of these are still out there, Samsung has repeatedly said to turn these in, they can and likely will blow up in your face. Don't take the risk.
What does Samsung have to do with this? only the government, ONLY the government can demand a recall. Samsung's opinion is irrelevant here.
