Note 7: when plan B fails.

[whoololon]

Although I am not at all interested in mobiles that cost more than 50 €, it is true that the issue of Samsung and its supposedly flagship product, the Galaxy Note 7, has made me follow the related news with quite a bit of interest.

At this point, no one is surprised anymore about why this device became... well, "became" so famous, and it is also common knowledge that, unless we resort to second-hand through some distracted handyman, said device is no longer for sale.

But, was it really that dangerous?

We must begin by pointing out, and this is very important, that the vast majority of the population does not know how to react appropriately to the fire and/or explosion of a lithium battery in any of its compounds.

Having said this, we return to the device itself, and the first suspicions fell on the batteries. Batteries that, according to what was leaked, were significantly larger than they should be, manufactured by Samsung SDI (Samsung Display and Digital Interface and Internet component Source) had to be forced into the assembly line to be introduced into the device, compressing the corners in such a way that the internal bonding could be damaged, leading to a short circuit.

The confirmation of the truthfulness of this fact is that they decided to resort to their second battery supplier, ATL (Amperex Technology Ltd.)
However, the problems were not solved and cases of devices catching fire continued to appear.

!

According to various opinions, the water protection feature causes the battery to suffer excessive pressure, which could provoke the effect described above.

Obviously, not all these cases were strictly true, either because they were simple rumors or because of unorthodox manipulations; which led to a somewhat intriguing theory: what if everything was part of a campaign orchestrated by a powerful competitor with ulterior motives?

It could very well be. In the era of the internet and social networks, in just one minute a news can go around the globe and be translated into several languages. We all know what happened with something related to a dog that liked a cocoa cream from a well-known brand, and we didn't have the internet back then; so that theory was feasible.

But again something happened that disproved this theory: Samsung orders the withdrawal of the Galaxy Note 7 from the market.

The economic impact of this for the Asian giant is unknown, whether it is "pecata minuta" and an acceptable loss, when, to make matters worse, they offer compensation (in some places in money, in others in a Galaxy S7) to users who bought it, whether or not they had problems with the terminal.
What seems more feasible is that it really had problems that were not identified in time.

And that's it...? well, no. The thing continues.
The last thing we have heard is that the problems of the Galaxy Note 7 have not been able to be reproduced in the company's laboratories, which could lead to the conclusion that there was some truth in the conspiracy theory.

Actually, it doesn't have to be.
With a little investigation, we get that such tests are carried out in such controlled environments, that even if you want to recreate "real" conditions, you either pass or don't reach them; speaking of course of private facilities for non-forensic tests.
If we add to that, for more or less obvious reasons, experts do not have access to networks, and the reports are written, we get that any relevant data will remain within the company, at the discretion of the management.

To this day, the production of the Note 7 is on hold, and with the launch of the S8 on the horizon, it is an enigma what will become of this soap opera.

Oh, by the way. Let it be known that I have not made any reference to Apple at any time.

What do you think?

[Yorus]

Well, some conspiracy had crossed my mind, not because someone tried to make them explode or burn to harm Samsung, but because of how the cases have been leaked when I'm sure it happens to more brands. I would like to know under what conditions the phone was treated (shocks, temperature it was subjected to, etc...).

[cobito]

What I think is that I find it strange that these kinds of things don't happen more often. Lithium batteries have a very high energy density and any physical damage can release all that energy in a very short time. If to that you add the mess of putting the battery under pressure because some smart person forgot to measure or take something into account, the chances of failure multiply. And I say that I find it strange because if Samsung dares to do these kinds of things, I don't even want to imagine the Chinese time bombs that many people carry in their pockets, most of them without a brand image to take care of and without any kind of control from any organization that certifies anything or that can sanction anyone if anything happens. And of course with their hands completely washed as far as responsibility and warranty are concerned.

What I don't find strange is that the failure can't be reproduced. Samsung sold 2.5 million Note 7s and how many have gone up in flames? It's said that about 1000 could be defective. Statistically Samsung would have to test 2500 phones to see how one fails.

From my point of view, probably the best thing Samsung can do is to forget about the Galaxy brand and release its next phone under another name, although who knows what comes cheaper for them: if washing the image of the current flagship or having to give fame to the new one.

[Bm4n]

It's something that happens all the time, you'll remember the scandal with the laptop batteries that caught fire about 5 or 6 years ago. If it happens in a couple of units it's not news but if there are dozens of units catching fire from a top-selling model from the first mobile phone manufacturer, and it costs €700, the scandal quickly jumps. This happens regularly with iPhone problems, they're not always important things, but in this case they talk about losses of more than 15,000 million.