Arthur T Knackerbracket has found the following story:
Starting December 19, Samsung will begin distributing a software update that prevents the phones from charging and "will eliminate their ability to work as mobile devices." The software update will be rolled out over 30 days.
[...] Samsung is encouraging anyone who has not yet returned their device to power it down and contact their carrier to obtain a refund or exchange, or visit its Note 7 recall website for more information. The company recalled the device earlier this year because the battery on some units overheated and caught fire. Samsung also permanently stopped production of the phone.
But leading US mobile carrier Verizon has decided not to push out the update, citing safety issues. Here's the statement it released:
"Verizon will not be taking part in this update because of the added risk this could pose to Galaxy Note 7 users that do not have another device to switch to," the statement read. "We will not push a software upgrade that will eliminate the ability for the Note 7 to work as a mobile device in the heart of the holiday travel season. We do not want to make it impossible to contact family, first responders or medical professionals in an emergency situation."
Related Stories
BGR reports that Samsung is to offer the Galaxy Note 7 FE, a mobile phone built with components from the company's recalled Galaxy Note 7. The device is set to go on sale in South Korea on 7 July for "below 700,000 South Korean won ($616)".
Previously:
Source of Samsung Note 7 Fires Announced
"Galaxy Note 7" Wi-Fi SSID Delays U.S. Flight
Samsung Software Update Will Brick Few Note 7s Left in the Wild
Samsung Takes Out Full-Page Ads to Apologise for the Note 7
Samsung Posts 30 Percent Profit Plunge on Note 7 Crisis
Samsung 'Blocks' Exploding Note 7 Parody Videos
UPDATE: Samsung Halts Galaxy Note 7 Production
Samsung Faces the Prospect of a Second Galaxy Note 7 Recall
Florida Man Sues Samsung Over Galaxy Note 7 that Exploded in His Pants
Samsung Recalls Galaxy Note 7 due to 'Exploding' Batteries
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 13 2016, @03:51AM
so what happens in this case:
american guys lives overseas. comes back here, brings back like 10 of these things from Best Buy for people since electronics are about 1/3 less here. How exactly are you supposed to return and exchange this crap?
and yes, this use case happens a lot.
(Score: 1) by Francis on Tuesday December 13 2016, @03:54AM
Do people actually save money like that?
Serious question. When I used to live in China, the country where a ton of those sorts of things are made, there was no savings to be had for buying it there. In many cases, like with Apple products, you'd actually pay a premium over what you'd pay in the US. I know people would bring in iPhones and immediately sell them to the locals because that was cheaper than buying them locally.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 13 2016, @04:08AM
You're missing his point. He's talking about buying in the US, where electronics are typically cheaper, then returning to their overseas home.
(Score: 1) by anubi on Tuesday December 13 2016, @04:29AM
You would think in a case like this, any retailer of Samsung products would buy-back the affected phone; getting reimbursed by Samsung - regardless of where the phone was purchased. Its not like one is expecting the retailer to take the hit for this. Personally, I would expect Samsung to reimburse the retailer the set price for the phone ( publicly announced ) along with a premium for handling the transaction - thereby getting the problem phone off the streets.
Kinda like taking used motor oil back to any retailer participating in the recycling of used motor oil. Failing to involve businesses to encourage individuals to recycle the stuff only causes the stuff to end up in inappropriate places, greatly increasing the costs of dealing with it.
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 13 2016, @04:39AM
You would think that but it isn't so. Samsung doesn't treat Canadian customers as good as US customers wrt replacing exploding washing machines. Fuck Samsung.
(Score: 2) by hamsterdan on Tuesday December 13 2016, @11:24AM
I'd like to know, because someone I know is getting theirs fixed for free, which is exactly what they are doing in US
(Score: 2) by quacking duck on Tuesday December 13 2016, @02:22PM
It's if you *don't* want it fixed, and try going for the rebate, where Canadians get screwed.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/samsung-note7-galaxy-washer-electronics-exploding-phones-1.3887154 [www.cbc.ca]
So that's a double "screw you" to Canadians by Samsung if you want to dump them. Sadly for us Canadians, getting screwed on remediation compared to the US is not new, nor limited to Samsung.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 13 2016, @07:18PM
We invited you to join our revolution; in return you burned our capital. So yes, screw you, Canadians. You brought this on yourselves when you refused to assimilate.
(Score: 2) by archfeld on Wednesday December 14 2016, @06:04AM
PLEASE, disregard the AC response and come back and burn our capital now, only this time get it right and do it when congress is IN SESSION.
For the NSA : Explosives, guns, assassination, conspiracy, primers, detonators, initiators, main charge, nuclear charge
(Score: 2) by jimshatt on Tuesday December 13 2016, @09:18AM
(Score: 2) by quacking duck on Tuesday December 13 2016, @02:34PM
A little harder to do with electronics, especially expensive ones. They surely check against the serial number.
(Score: 2) by halcyon1234 on Tuesday December 13 2016, @04:57AM
Original Submission [thedailywtf.com]
(Score: 2) by stretch611 on Tuesday December 13 2016, @05:26AM
Is anyone else concerned that there even exists the ability to remotely brick every phone?
I think a better question here is if anyone is actually surprised by this ability.
It is already known and we see the occasional news story about how a ebook on amazon is removed from a kindle... or how google can remotely uninstall apps. Heck, if you have a car with on-star, they can remotely disable your ignition and slow your car down until it stops; effectively "bricking" your car until they turn it off. (and trust me, they still have this ability even if you do not subscribe to on-star as long as it was installed on your car.)
So, again, does it suprise anyone here that a phone manufacturer can brick your phone?
Now with 5 covid vaccine shots/boosters altering my DNA :P
(Score: 1) by Scruffy Beard 2 on Tuesday December 13 2016, @05:27AM
Microsoft can do that to every PC made since 2006 or so.
But yes, it is a little creepy.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 13 2016, @03:42PM
More likely since Win95sp1 when they went to bed with NSA.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 13 2016, @05:38AM
um... no, the ability does not exist. this is why they need the software update to happen.
if you can control whether or not the update happens on your phone, then you are still the one in control.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 13 2016, @11:14AM
You don't have that much control. A lot of these devices have locked bootloaders and don't grant root access for users. Control what be if 100% of the software was free software, if the bootloader was unlocked, and root access were granted to the users.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 13 2016, @05:53AM
If it isn't illegal why is it illegal for others to do the same?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 13 2016, @12:39PM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 13 2016, @04:55PM
Hmm I'm sure some malware authors can pop up a consent dialog box.
Especially one that does it Microsoft style: https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/229040-microsofts-latest-trick-clicking-x-to-dismiss-windows-10-upgrade-doesnt-stop-upgrade-process [extremetech.com]
(Score: 2) by stormwyrm on Tuesday December 13 2016, @07:32AM
Numquam ponenda est pluralitas sine necessitate.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 13 2016, @07:39AM
I'm pretty sure apple can do completely silent updates.
they refused to do it in the case of that nutcase with the guns, and the fbi made a big stink about it.
don't you remember?
(Score: 2) by stormwyrm on Tuesday December 13 2016, @08:02AM
Numquam ponenda est pluralitas sine necessitate.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 13 2016, @11:28AM
Nope. In fact, many people have bewailed the possible security problems of updates that are blindly trusted from OS companies. This is one of many, many possibilities.
It isn't the first time it's happened, either - Nest bricked some "unsupported" home automation devices via update, devices that were, AFAIK, legally owned by people who were in fact not Nest. It's probably ridiculously easy to do this; if you want to effectively brick a Wintel machine and have access to the firmware, you can probably do it just by writing a JMP instruction to just the right place, and you'd need to replace the BIOS chip to fix it. It's probably ridiculously easy to do this with the update. I'd guess it's just a few thousand assembly instructions, tops, overwriting the boot loader. Anything else is probably just there to make it "pretty," e.g. a message that pops up on the screen to explain the situation to the owner.
There is something in this that you, and everyone else, should keep in mind. If a company can update the OS of your computer or computer-based device, they can 100% literally do almost anything they want to that device at any time they choose. I'm quite sure we will see much worse things coming down the pike thanks to the endless mantra of blindly trusting every update shoved at you on the assumption that the company is acting in the customer's best interests, instead of its own best interests.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 13 2016, @12:08PM
You should now go read "The Right to Read" by Richard Stallman
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.en.html
As usual, what Stallman predicted, long ago, that far too many dismissed as paranoia is actually now coming true.
Except now, it will be very hard to undo the damage.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 13 2016, @05:15AM
I paid for ownership of my phone and I should be able to do whatever the fuck I want with it, without some big brother motherfucker interfering.
(Score: 2) by isostatic on Tuesday December 13 2016, @07:01AM
Free market, invisible hand. Choose a network that doesn't force you to update if you're that concerned
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Tuesday December 13 2016, @05:44PM
When was the last time you read an EULA? It probably wasn't this century.
(Score: 5, Funny) by Bogsnoticus on Tuesday December 13 2016, @05:45AM
"Verizon will not be taking part in this update because of the added risk this could pose to Verizon. We would rather our customers sie in blazing agony, than risk them getting another device and contract from a different provider."
Genius by birth. Evil by choice.
(Score: 2) by zocalo on Tuesday December 13 2016, @09:35AM
The way I see it though, in the unlikely event of a Verizon connected Note 7 melting down and causing physical harm to someone other than its owner (whose persistance in retaining the phone has probably negated any chance of successfully suing for damages by now) then Samsung's insurers will no doubt be pursing Verizon to recoup any damages they may have to pay out for that harm. Assuming the plaintiff(s) don't go straight for Verizon with their claims for damages, that is. That seems like a valid high impact, low probability risk - so just what *are* they putting in the reward column to offset that? Surely there are not all that many Note 7 owners left on Verizon specifically that makes another month of guaranteed fees and a little less aggravation for support worth it alone?
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
(Score: 3, Insightful) by theluggage on Tuesday December 13 2016, @05:12PM
although I'm not exactly sure what Verizon is putting in the "reward" column here
I expect Verizon's lawyers have weighed up the risk of three scenarios:
(a) Getting successfully sued by a GN7 owner who's house has been burned down by a faulty phone after they wilfully ignored Samsung and Verizon's repeated and well-documented efforts to warn them of the risk and offer them a refund/replacement.
(b) Getting successfully sued by a GN7 owner who's hose has been burned down by a faulty toaster oven but who couldn't call the fire department because their GN7 had been deliberately disabled by Verizon.
(c) Getting hit by a class-action lawsuit started by an ambulance-chasing lawyer based on the theory that even stupid customers who want to go on using a fire-risk phone still own their property and Verizon doesn't have the right to take the law into their own hands by remotely destroying it... not sure who would win that one, but the likes of Verizon probably don't want their terms of service picked over too closely and publicly in court.
...and decided that (b) and (c) outweigh (a).
Reality is that the risk of an individual GN7 going foom was always low, and the only substantial risk was to a vendor responsible for thousands of the things. Verizon are probably happy that they've already done enough to deny liability.
(Score: 3, Funny) by krishnoid on Tuesday December 13 2016, @06:36AM
It had to be edited a little from the first pass:
"We will not push a software upgrade that will eliminate the ability for the Note 7 to work as an incendiary device in the heart of the tightly-packed holiday travel transport venues. We do not want to make it less likely to require the need for first responders or medical professionals in an emergency situation."
But hey, this is what happens when you underpay interns.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 13 2016, @08:12AM
People are already avoiding updates after they got bitten by Windows 10. Now this will teach people that not it's not only Windows updates they should avoid if they want to control their own system, it's all updates.
If big companies continue this arrogance, soon they won't need to bother with security updates at all, because nobody will install them.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 13 2016, @04:44PM
i see. latest disclosed zero-day gets fixed if device is newer the 2 years ... maybe .. in 6 months.
nevermind that more or less the whole life and identity is now stored in the phone.
-but-
if the device might be used as a bomb or arson tool then the device gets a "update" pronto.