Who Framed The Note 7?
Moderators: Junior Moderator, Jr. Admin
- Global1
- Alliance Member
- Posts: 169
- Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2017 7:08 am
Seems like Samsung scored an 'own goal' through poor quality management of the two battery suppliers.
Neither come out well, although it is still difficult to accurately assess true risk-level for those of us who continue to use the Note 7 until the Note 8(or equivalent) will be shipping.
Neither come out well, although it is still difficult to accurately assess true risk-level for those of us who continue to use the Note 7 until the Note 8(or equivalent) will be shipping.
- juliesdroidsync
- Haggard Whore
- Posts: 504
- Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2017 12:57 pm
Agree, agree...Global1 wrote:8836 Seems like Samsung scored an 'own goal' through poor quality management of the two battery suppliers.
Neither come out well, although it is still difficult to accurately assess true risk-level for those of us who continue to use the Note 7 until the Note 8(or equivalent) will be shipping.
Yes, because with all the technical explanations, they still did not provide numbers re: failure percentages *compared against* say... the iPhone? or even failure percentages compared against nothing else...
the normalcy bias here makes me a tad insane! It is FAR more dangerous to yourself, your loved ones, and the general populace to hop in the car and drive to the corner store for a gallon of milk, as you may crash through the front of the store and hurt/maim/kill multiple people... horrible thought, but it is an accurate analogy.
How do I know? Check deaths by car crashes in the last quarter, or in any quarter. That number will be bigger than ZERO, which is the number of fatalities from the Note 7...
So, we're left to wonder if it is more likely that we will succumb to spontaneous HUMAN combustion, (without help from our beloved Note 7's) or merely be abducted by aliens...
I admit, my inner geek rejoiced at knowing the inner workings of the failure. I love that stuff. BUT! At the end of the press release, I don't have any more information than I did to begin with... at least information that can help me make a super-informed decision.
For example - I don't know the real failure rate because they didn't tell me how many of the 96 reported incidents were faked / otherwise not verifiable. I don't know how many of the 96 incidents were from Battery B. There was a loose statement that "results from Battery B testing were similar to those failure rates in the field". Well, what WERE those failure rates?
Do you see what I mean? They told us a lot, without telling us anything at all, at least nothing that we hadn't already pretty much figured out on our own. At least that's how I see it.
And you know what? On a vindictive side note, (pun intended!) I hope the idiots from the company Instrumental that came out with the first "engineering ANALysis", with a sample size of ONE, I might add, have learned their lesson. You know, the company that said the problem was the clearance between the battery and the chassis was not enough. No one in their right mind would ever use this company now...
Rant over!
