In a packed press conference at its offices in southern Seoul Monday, the world's biggest smartphone maker again apologized to customers around the world for the bungling of its product release. Phones were initially recalled and replaced, but the replacement devices also began to catch fire.
Presentations at the announcement by outside investigators backed up Samsung's findings, which indicate batteries from supplier A were shorting because of a design flaw or in some cases a lack of insulation tape. And batteries from supplier B — which were issued in the replacement phones following the initial recall — were catching fire because of a separate manufacturing defect.
A story at Ars Technica provides additional information:
[Continues...]
In its report, Samsung refers to the battery manufacturing partners in generic terms—possibly to help those partners save face. This "Battery A," "Manufacturer A" obfuscation really won't fool anyone who is paying attention, since Samsung identifies "Battery A" as "from the first recall," and the first recall exclusively targeted batteries made by Samsung SDI.
For the Samsung SDI batteries, Samsung's investigation determined that the corner of the battery casing was too small, which resulted in the negative electrodes in the corner of the battery being bent. This made it easier to short-circuit the battery and cause a "thermal runaway" situation where the battery explodes or catches fire. Exponent, one of the consulting companies in Samsung's investigation, said that this "unintended damage was present in all of the cells examined by Samsung and Exponent." This means that in the first round of Galaxy Note 7s, nearly 100 percent of devices were defective. (Think of that as a one-more-time warning for the 4 percent of Note 7 customers who still haven't returned their devices.)
Samsung also identified an "additional contributing factor" with Battery A: the negative electrodes were too long, which led to them being bent in the curve on the long side of the battery.
With the first recall underway, "Battery B"—which previous reports said was manufactured by ATL—was used in all the replacement Galaxy Note 7s. Battery B didn't have any of the Battery A defects; it had a defect all its own. When connecting the positive tab to the battery, "Manufacturer B's" welding process—which Exponent called "poorly controlled"—created high, sharp welding burrs. Normal expansion and contraction of the battery electrodes during charging and discharging caused the welding burrs to scrape against the insulation between battery layers. Eventually this scraping could penetrate the insulation and short out the battery, causing fireworks.
Another "additional contributing factor" to the failure of Battery B sounds rather alarming: some batteries were missing insulation tape. The tape helped reinforce certain trouble spots, and apparently ATL forgot to attach it to many units.
The story goes on to report that Samsung has now instituted an 8-point battery safety check as part of its manufacturing process.
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: 2) by requerdanos on Tuesday January 24 2017, @11:18AM
Besides the fact that this stretches the bounds of probability a bit, I am curious about a possible fix: Perhaps ignore the conventional wisdom's advice about "Always use the safer, genuine batteries, never the cheap counterfit/'compatible' batteries" and just order the cheapest possible batteries from your favorite grey market source. They would be bound to be safer than the official original equipment, would they not?
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Tuesday January 24 2017, @11:43AM
All I see is lawyers licking their batteries.... errrr.... chops.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 3, Insightful) by WillR on Tuesday January 24 2017, @02:44PM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 24 2017, @05:08PM
Besides the fact that this stretches the bounds of probability a bit, I am curious about a possible fix: Perhaps ignore the conventional wisdom's advice about "Always use the safer, genuine batteries, never the cheap counterfit/'compatible' batteries" and just order the cheapest possible batteries from your favorite grey market source. They would be bound to be safer than the official original equipment, would they not?
This sounds a bit silly for multiple reasons, but the biggest one which springs to mind is warranty. If these fires were being caused by a 3rd-party item (in an imaginary world where the batteries were replaceable), there is no way Samsung would be recalling the devices and replacing them for free. When you buy official items they have a vested interest in making sure it works. The cheap knock-offs are far more incentivized for a transactional "cheapest item at any cost" style sale.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 24 2017, @05:26PM
This. And how many other devices used the original batteries and caught fire? What about the replacement batteries? Where both batteries manufactured solely for the Note 7?
Something smells like feet.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 24 2017, @03:41PM
That is because the customers have their data on the devices, and that data will never be deleted no matter what kind of "factory reset" option they try.
Samsung may have intentionally added the bad battery to their devices because they want customers' intimate details.
This happens all the time with product recalls. The product may be a phone or a car or anything in between. Here is how I suspect it:
1. Sell product to unsuspecting victim
2. Victim uses product, adding his unique fingerprint to the device
3. Company issues notice to return device containing customer data
4. Victim sends back device, thankful to the manufacturer
5. Manufacturer studies customer data
Not paranoid enough?
(Score: 3, Touché) by tibman on Tuesday January 24 2017, @03:58PM
Nah. Since they shipped the software with the phone then they could have already taken all your data if they wanted it. The only thing the physical return of a phone gets them is physical things.
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 24 2017, @04:15PM
Conspiracy fantasies are generally logic-proof to a depth of 2 kilometers.
The correct solution is the application of more conspiracy.
The NSA is intercepting return shipments in order to record all of that information and to get DNA samples left in the crevices of the device.
(Score: 2) by Anne Nonymous on Tuesday January 24 2017, @04:07PM
Sounds like the 7 isn't the only thing getting fired.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Tuesday January 24 2017, @06:19PM
Can we get thicker phones with not-so-packed batteries inside, now?
Also, the whole recall fiasco and widely advertised ban wouldn't have happened if people had been able to swap batteries (twice, really).
How much did that lesson cost, in dollars and brand damage?
(Score: 1) by Scruffy Beard 2 on Tuesday January 24 2017, @07:48PM
Not being able to pull the battery has privacy implications as well.
If you installed crapware that lets people remotely activate your camera, there is not much you can do to shut it off other than hold down the power button.
(Score: 1) by AssCork on Tuesday January 24 2017, @10:08PM
Disclosure: I have almost all Samsung appliances/products in my household (all purchased about 5 years ago, before their QA went to absolute shit)
Still rocking a Note 3 (2013) on it's third replacement battery. Seems like I have to change it out every year.
Hm, Note7's battery is 3500mAh. I ponder, I weigh the pros/cons, I wind up grabbing a few Soldier 7800mAh portable battery-chargers.
Then the Fires start. Everywhere.
Samsung starts a recall, then a second recall. Now talks about remote-killing remaining Note7s.
If the Note8 doesn't have a removable battery and microSD slot, I'm going to get a Prya or a Python handheld [pyra-handheld.com]
Just popped-out of a tight spot. Came out mostly clean, too.