Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 Internet speed test! ×
United States Hardware

Samsung Says Over 96% of Galaxy Note7 Phones Returned To Date (venturebeat.com) 62

Samsung said today that over 96 percent of all Galaxy Note7 phones have been returned following a recall that started in September. From a report: First introduced in August, the latest Note7 smartphone received positive reviews until reports surfaced that some devices caught fire after their batteries exploded. After a "thorough inspection" of its phones, Samsung opted to issue a mandatory recall, but only after the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) issued its own recall notice. Achieving a 96 percent return rate took about four months, but it wasn't all done organically, as Samsung revealed in December that it would issue a software update to permanently disable charging on the outstanding Note7s. Until that point, the company had received 85 percent of affected devices. The FAA said today that DoT has informed airlines that they can stop pre-flight warnings about Galaxy Note7 smartphones.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Samsung Says Over 96% of Galaxy Note7 Phones Returned To Date

Comments Filter:
  • Note 7 (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 11, 2017 @03:25PM (#53649501)

    You'll have to pry my Note 7 from my cold dead h

  • by elrous0 ( 869638 ) on Wednesday January 11, 2017 @03:33PM (#53649559)

    Waiting to be shipped back once the cool down.

  • I bet an intact Note 7 will be worth some money to collectors in a few dozen years. Problem is keeping it working and not exploded until then.

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward

      How could antiquated malfunctioning electronics do anything BUT appreciate in value?

    • I bet you're wrong.

      There's nothing worthy of declaring a run of the mill product with a very standard design flaw a "collectors item".

      • by ausekilis ( 1513635 ) on Wednesday January 11, 2017 @04:29PM (#53649915)
        Seems you don't have a collector's mindset.

        Two easy counter-examples, Cheetahmen II [pricecharting.com] and Action 52 [pricecharting.com] for the NES. The cartridges were both unlicensed and "run-of-the-mill" products in that they were among the crappy NES titles of the time. Action-52 contains lots of crappy games that certainly wouldn't be worth the initial asking price for the cartridge. Today you can have one for ~$240, making it the 25th most expensive NES item. Cheetahmen II wasn't mass produced and only 1500 copies exist, but that can go for $1000.

        Still not enough? Here's another list [mentalfloss.com] of random crap that's worth a lot today. The Super Soaker Monster XL sold for $500.

        I couldn't find a list of things that have been recalled that are now collectible, but I seem to remember a baseball card with a profanity hidden on it being recalled/reprinted and the original is worth a hell of a lot more.
        • Oh I do have a collector's mindset. The problem is that the Note 7 is nothing like what you linked to.

          Old games, especially rare games are collectors items in the grand scheme of collecting such items. The ones you cited are especially more so given that they have actual history in their creation stemming from illegal unlicensed content at the time, plagiarism and other shady crap that went into them. There was a limited run and now they are incredibly rare.

          The Note 7 on the other hand is an incredibly gene

          • The Note 7 on the other hand is an incredibly generic device, one with a design flaw that makes it unstable. From the outside it looks just like any other smartphone, but on the inside it's something that will either catch fire or not work at all after a few years. It is what makes it in general, generic looking crap with nothing of interest.

            The 1955 double die cent on the other hand is an incredibly generic coin, one with a design flaw that makes it illegible. From a glance it looks just like any other Lincoln penny, but on the head is something that will either annoy you or go unnoticed for years. It is what makes it, in general, generic-looking crap with nothing of interest.

            Oh I do have a collector's mindset.

            No, you don't. Anything rare, unique, or that is itself physical proof of an error committed by a powerful entity (governments, corporations, militaries, etc.) is a pr

        • by GuB-42 ( 2483988 )

          Several problems :
          - The Note7 was $850, quite expensive. It means that has to really be exceptional for its collector value to exceed its functional value.
          - 2.5 million of Note7 were sold, with a 96% return rate, it means that 100000 phones are remaining, these are not one-of-a-kind items by a long shot.
          - I doesn't seem to be a turning point in anything, it didn't cause anything major besides a costly recall, which Samsung handled quite well financially. It is just a defective phone with no distinguishing f

    • I bet an intact Note 7 will be worth some money to collectors in a few dozen years.

      Is the next ice age expected so soon?

  • However, we can still look forward to another decade of airport announcements regarding Note7.
  • by khr ( 708262 ) <kevinrubin@gmail.com> on Wednesday January 11, 2017 @04:15PM (#53649831) Homepage

    DoT has informed airlines that they can stop pre-flight warnings about Galaxy Note7 smartphones

    But do they now have to give pre-flight warnings about not using Samsung washing machines on the plane?

  • Hard to believe there was no way to fix the phones. I read somewhere it was an issue with the battery. Surely they could have just replaced all the batteries?

    • by SeaFox ( 739806 )

      Hard to believe there was no way to fix the phones. I read somewhere it was an issue with the battery. Surely they could have just replaced all the batteries?

      Possibly, except the batteries were likely not designed to be easily replaced to start with. They certainly weren't made to be user-replaceable. In new forced-obsolescence style, I'm sure their plan was for customers to just buy a new phone by the time the battery ran out. Replacing the batteries would mean collecting the handsets, keeping track of whose was whose, going through the labor of replacing the battery, and shipping them back to the consumer, all on Samsung's dime.

      Just collecting all the phones i

      • by tlhIngan ( 30335 )

        Possibly, except the batteries were likely not designed to be easily replaced to start with. They certainly weren't made to be user-replaceable. In new forced-obsolescence style, I'm sure their plan was for customers to just buy a new phone by the time the battery ran out. Replacing the batteries would mean collecting the handsets, keeping track of whose was whose, going through the labor of replacing the battery, and shipping them back to the consumer, all on Samsung's dime.

        Just collecting all the phones i

        • I just replaced the battery on a Nexus device. Even after watching multiple youtube videos and using the supplied tools from a battery 'kit' I bought on ebay, it still took me minutes of frustration to jimmy the case open.

          $10 provided me with an hour of 'fun' and will extend the life of the phone for another 18 months.

          But if the phone I had was deemed a fire hazard as a battery, there's no way I'd have been tinkering around with a Torx screwdriver to replace it.

        • by SeaFox ( 739806 )

          Just because something is not "user replaceable" doesn't mean it isn't replacable. iPod batteries aren't user-replaceable. iPhone batteries aren't, either. And yet you can change them, with requisite skill.

          Batteries made to be non-user replaceable take longer to replace. Labor costs money. You have to factor that in to which recall choice they'll make.

          And if it was a battery problem, it's easy to change as well. Samsung would just collect the phones, replace the batteries and send them back out. They won't worry about whose phone is whose phone - they'd just replace the battery, reflash them and send them back.

          ...and deal with the inevitable complaints from some people about the phone they get back having damage/wear, while the one they took such good care of and sent in, did not? Remember, smartphones are expensive enough that many people resell them or trade them in when they get their new one. The condition the old device was in would play a role in deducing value.

    • by Desler ( 1608317 )

      They did replace the batteries with ones from a completely different company. Those were the second-wave of Note 7s that were supposedly safe until even they caught fire.

    • Replace a battery?! What did you just wake up from 2007? Replacing the battery will be like replacing the CPU, the Screen or the Memory.

      Ohh. That joke made me sad.

    • Surely you could have Googled it [google.com].

  • ... burned up in the atmosphere.

He who steps on others to reach the top has good balance.

Working...