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.:
@Dashrender said in Samsumg to Brick Galaxy Note 7's starting on the 19th - Verizon refuses to participate.:
According to Scott, those owners of the Google Pixel's that Google bricked a few weeks ago because the tax fraud thing, that would be illegal too.
I wonder if anyone will take them to court over it, even though Google backed off, the end user, according to Scott, was wronged.
Googled this, find nothing. What is this event that you are speaking of?
https://www.extremetech.com/mobile/239728-google-suspends-accounts-used-resell-pixel-phones-profit
they might not have turned off the phones, they might have only disabled their Google accounts.
Right, so many levels of "not similar to this situation." I knew that they suspended service for people who didn't purchase that service. That's like taking back a phone that someone stole from you. THe situation is reversed, Google was the one being stolen from, not the person who had the service disabled.
-
@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.:
In this case, Samsung said "well F, these things are killing people, we better recall all of them"
Purely your speculation. If there was serious concern about that, we would know it from the government making a mandatory recall. They did not, so we know that the US does not agree with your opinion.
My speculation, how is this my speculation on what happened?
Read the news about this recall, and the incidents of harm that these phones caused. I'm certain the government hasn't seen a reason to force a government recall because the voluntary recall has pulled in 93% of all of these phones.
-
@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.:
In this case, Samsung said "well F, these things are killing people, we better recall all of them"
Purely your speculation. If there was serious concern about that, we would know it from the government making a mandatory recall. They did not, so we know that the US does not agree with your opinion.
My speculation, how is this my speculation on what happened?
You are...
- Making up that the government not recalling is because Samsung did, that's not even kind of how that works.
- Determining the risk on your own, clearly no one agrees with that risk level.
- Deciding WHY Samsung did something that they were not required to do as if you know their business concerns, costs, marketing, etc.
Every part of it is speculation, and not likely nor logical speculation. Samsung's long term behaviour doesn't support this, nor does the US government's behaviour. You are taking some inflated media headlines and making crazy, disconnected business determinations from them that just don't add up.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Samsumg to Brick Galaxy Note 7's starting on the 19th - Verizon refuses to participate.:
Read the news about this recall, and the incidents of harm that these phones caused. I'm certain the government hasn't seen a reason to force a government recall because the voluntary recall has pulled in 93% of all of these phones.
That's not how government recall determinations work. BUt you can be certain all you want, it's not logical, reasonable and the result is that Samsung and Verizon have no right (unless a judge steps in to say otherwise as the closest precedence and standing laws say otherwise) to make these kinds of judgment calls outside of a federal mandatory recall, period.
-
@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.:
@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.:
In this case, Samsung said "well F, these things are killing people, we better recall all of them"
Purely your speculation. If there was serious concern about that, we would know it from the government making a mandatory recall. They did not, so we know that the US does not agree with your opinion.
My speculation, how is this my speculation on what happened?
You are...
- Making up that the government not recalling is because Samsung did, that's not even kind of how that works.
- Determining the risk on your own, clearly no one agrees with that risk level.
- Deciding WHY Samsung did something that they were not required to do as if you know their business concerns, costs, marketing, etc.
Every part of it is speculation, and not likely nor logical speculation. Samsung's long term behaviour doesn't support this, nor does the US government's behaviour. You are taking some inflated media headlines and making crazy, disconnected business determinations from them that just don't add up.
Show me proof otherwise.
It is in Samsungs interest to take the phones back (media coverage and good faith).
-
@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.:
@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.:
In this case, Samsung said "well F, these things are killing people, we better recall all of them"
Purely your speculation. If there was serious concern about that, we would know it from the government making a mandatory recall. They did not, so we know that the US does not agree with your opinion.
My speculation, how is this my speculation on what happened?
You are...
- Making up that the government not recalling is because Samsung did, that's not even kind of how that works.
- Determining the risk on your own, clearly no one agrees with that risk level.
- Deciding WHY Samsung did something that they were not required to do as if you know their business concerns, costs, marketing, etc.
Every part of it is speculation, and not likely nor logical speculation. Samsung's long term behaviour doesn't support this, nor does the US government's behaviour. You are taking some inflated media headlines and making crazy, disconnected business determinations from them that just don't add up.
Show me proof otherwise.
It is in Samsungs interest to take the phones back (media coverage and good faith).
I don't need to, you have no grounds for your opinion. You are making up reasons based on nothing and then saying to prove that they didn't. Doesn't work that way. That it is in Samsung's interest to take them back is without question, or they would not do it. but that the reason is to protect people is totally made up by you and we have zero reason to believe that to be true or even likely, but we DO know that their delays and denials in doing so show that they did not have that interest initially, so having it now would be unlikely.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Samsumg to Brick Galaxy Note 7's starting on the 19th - Verizon refuses to participate.:
It is in Samsungs interest to take the phones back (media coverage and good faith).
Do you see why this is unrelated to your claims before? You adjusted the statement to make it viable. It's not what we were discussing.
-
Here are the factual foundations as I see them, AFAIK there is no dispute for these:
- People bought the phones by choice, no one forced them.
- Samsung agreed to the sale.
- Samsung has adequately offered to take them back for a good market value.
- Samsung has gone out of their way to make sure that everyone knows that they should return them or risk burns.
- The US government has declined to issue a mandatory recall.
- People have the legal right to keep the phones as there is nothing official that even suggests that they should have to give them back.
- Risk issues, such as from flying or driving, are the issues for the phone owners and agencies like the FAA and DOT, and have nothing to do with Samsung or Verizon now that the recall is underway and well publicized.
- People using the phones in safe ways are in no danger to the public (while driving, flying, etc. is an unrelated issue see above.)
- The value of the phones to the owners is unrelated to its market value which in turn is unrelated to its initial sale value. This is just basic day one economics.
- The value that Samsung is offering is based on initial sale and not market or personal value.
- In the US, all legal sales are based on personal value alone.
- In the US, all sales are voluntary.
- The value to an individual is unrelated to the sale price and could be many times higher based on any number of personal factors.
-
@DustinB3403 add some tags so we can find this post easier.
-
@Dashrender said in Samsumg to Brick Galaxy Note 7's starting on the 19th - Verizon refuses to participate.:
@DustinB3403 add some tags so we can find this post easier.
Done and sorry ML, the tags field is so obscure (that I always overlook it)
-
@DustinB3403 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.:
@DustinB3403 add some tags so we can find this post easier.
Done and sorry ML, the tags field is so obscure (that I always overlook it)
agreed. It would be nice if it was a required field.
