To be fair, Samsung has manufactured millions of phones prior to the S7 that didn't have the same design flaws, so I do give them a chance that they will be okay with the S8, but this must be very shaky ground for them right now. Just *one* report of a fire with the S8 and the media is going to go nuts!
The above report by AppleInsider does seem rushed a bit, and this is disappointing. They wrote:
In addition, while different suppliers may provide components for different individual handsets, the Galaxy S8+ taken apart by iFixit was built by the same manufacturer as "some" Note 7 batteries.
So the "phone" was built by the same manufacturer as some "batteries"? Hmm? Did they mean the "battery" in the S8+? Or am I being too picky about the wording?
As I keep on saying, and has been confirmed, the problem wasn't caused by defective batteries. It was caused by a last minute replacement of the expected battery with a larger one that was too tight for the battery compartment. That was the problem. So all Samsung needed to do here was to make that compartment a bit more spacey, and the problem should be taken care of.
its never a good thing to at the last minute, replace a major component in a product, for any reason. It always needs a new round of testing, and there was not time for that, as the phone itself was rushed out earlier than expected to better compete with the 7+. It was a major mistake, AMD one I would expect Samsung won't make again.
The Note 7 batteries did have two separate manufacturing issues. The "squashed" plates in the corner and the missing overlap for an insulating layer. So I see no reason these batteries should be unsafe. Just amazed they could have two different faults with the same battery.
iFixit gave both S8's a 4/10 for ease of repair, iPhone 7 received 7/10. iPhone wins yet again.
I still regard iFixit's "repairability score" as a fictional metric designed to draw attention to their niche cause, which they claim is about helping the environment (self-repair vs. replace), the validity of which is debatable (Apple has a recycling program as well as a robot that can disassemble old iPhones for recycling, something that their scores don't account for).
I also believe they post tear-down porn of new gadgets to promote themselves, and tech sites obligingly post links to it.
The Note 7 batteries did have two separate manufacturing issues. The "squashed" plates in the corner and the missing overlap for an insulating layer. So I see no reason these batteries should be unsafe. Just amazed they could have two different faults with the same battery.
iFixit gave both S8's a 4/10 for ease of repair, iPhone 7 received 7/10. iPhone wins yet again.
I still regard iFixit's "repairability score" as a fictional metric designed to draw attention to their niche cause, which they claim is about helping the environment (self-repair vs. replace), the validity of which is debatable (Apple has a recycling program as well as a robot that can disassemble old iPhones for recycling, something that their scores don't account for).
I also believe they post tear-down porn of new gadgets to promote themselves, and tech sites obligingly post links to it.
That robot is a proof of concept, not an actual tool being used. It needs separate parts and programming for every device disassembled. The only way it'll go into real usage is if Apple standardized on one or two devices for a long time and the tech gadget community goes ballistic without arbitrary and dramatic changes every year.
The Note 7 batteries did have two separate manufacturing issues. The "squashed" plates in the corner and the missing overlap for an insulating layer. So I see no reason these batteries should be unsafe. Just amazed they could have two different faults with the same battery.
iFixit gave both S8's a 4/10 for ease of repair, iPhone 7 received 7/10. iPhone wins yet again.
I still regard iFixit's "repairability score" as a fictional metric designed to draw attention to their niche cause, which they claim is about helping the environment (self-repair vs. replace), the validity of which is debatable (Apple has a recycling program as well as a robot that can disassemble old iPhones for recycling, something that their scores don't account for).
I also believe they post tear-down porn of new gadgets to promote themselves, and tech sites obligingly post links to it.
That robot is a proof of concept, not an actual tool being used. It needs separate parts and programming for every device disassembled. The only way it'll go into real usage is if Apple standardized on one or two devices for a long time and the tech gadget community goes ballistic without arbitrary and dramatic changes every year.
Not necessarily. According to Apple, the line of Liams is taking apart over a million iPhones per year. Apple hasn't make that many different iPhone designs. Not too difficult to create change parts and programming as they introduce new products. Probably part of the overall project scope for each new model.
The Note 7 batteries did have two separate manufacturing issues. The "squashed" plates in the corner and the missing overlap for an insulating layer. So I see no reason these batteries should be unsafe. Just amazed they could have two different faults with the same battery.
iFixit gave both S8's a 4/10 for ease of repair, iPhone 7 received 7/10. iPhone wins yet again.
I still regard iFixit's "repairability score" as a fictional metric designed to draw attention to their niche cause, which they claim is about helping the environment (self-repair vs. replace), the validity of which is debatable (Apple has a recycling program as well as a robot that can disassemble old iPhones for recycling, something that their scores don't account for).
I also believe they post tear-down porn of new gadgets to promote themselves, and tech sites obligingly post links to it.
That robot is a proof of concept, not an actual tool being used.
Citation, needed, please. This article says otherwise:
The issue with the Note 7 was with the battery itself rather than the phone. So it really doesn't matter that it has the same layout.
Totally incorrect. The issue of Note 7 is 75% design and 25% battery. Even after multiple battery replacements, Note 7 was still exploding. To be at safe side 100%, Samsung really needed to redesign the layout of their phone innards. Since they didn't, S8 is as risky as N7. Not that I care, though, but a similar fiasco will mark the end of Samsung galaxy lines.
someone needs to x-ray those batteries to see if the internal show they came issue as the S7 note phone. I still believe Samsung had a design issue more than manufacturing variability issue.
I hear Samesung is X-Raying every phone to make sure there are no problems. How true that is?!?!
Okay I read the about the Quality and Inspection process they put in place which includes x-raying the batteries. They did not say it is a 100% activity. They are try to make it sound like it was part of a new design and test method. In reality all they are doing is an incoming inspect on the same battery design for design defect before they make it into the phone. Verse redesigning the battery so it does not have these kinds of defects. As soon as someone does not do what they should of the type of defect changes you can expect a reoccurrence.
As I keep on saying, and has been confirmed, the problem wasn't caused by defective batteries. It was caused by a last minute replacement of the expected battery with a larger one that was too tight for the battery compartment. That was the problem. So all Samsung needed to do here was to make that compartment a bit more spacey, and the problem should be taken care of.
its never a good thing to at the last minute, replace a major component in a product, for any reason. It always needs a new round of testing, and there was not time for that, as the phone itself was rushed out earlier than expected to better compete with the 7+. It was a major mistake, AMD one I would expect Samsung won't make again.
That was only speculation.
No, it was not. The head of the USA Consumer Product Protection agency made that statement rather definitely. It was also confirmed by other organizations. Samsung tried to play that down in its own report. But that was because it made them look stupid. Ha I g defective batteries is one thing, but rushing an improper battery into a product at the last minute, which was verified, is embarrassing at best.
The story that came out, as has been stated here, by me, and others, and most everywhere else, was that Samsung thought, from rumors, that the iPhone 7/7+ was going to be "boring" because of the similar case style. Also the word was that (as happened to be true) Apple put a larger battery in. As Apple's 6S+ had already beaten the Note 5 slightly in battery testing, they were concerned at how the 7+ would perform in that. They also thought the lack of a headphone jack would impact iphone sales. So they put a bigger battery in, and released the phone early, to get ahead of Apple's iPhone announcement, thinking they would get a head start.
obviously, it backfired. It also turned out that going to a different battery manufacturer for the same capacity battery didn't fully solve the problem, because that battery was also thicker than the battery originally specc'ed for the phone. That's why the discontinuation of the model.
As I keep on saying, and has been confirmed, the problem wasn't caused by defective batteries. It was caused by a last minute replacement of the expected battery with a larger one that was too tight for the battery compartment. That was the problem. So all Samsung needed to do here was to make that compartment a bit more spacey, and the problem should be taken care of.
its never a good thing to at the last minute, replace a major component in a product, for any reason. It always needs a new round of testing, and there was not time for that, as the phone itself was rushed out earlier than expected to better compete with the 7+. It was a major mistake, AMD one I would expect Samsung won't make again.
Isn't Note 7 much thinner than Galaxy S8?
It isn't the overall thickness that matters, but the amount of room given to the battery compartment. Obviously a thicker phone should have more room there, but who knows? I would expect that Samsung is terrified that something like this happen again, particularly to the S series. The Note, while high profile, doesn't sell as many as the straight off S series does. Overall, Samsung sells between 40 and 45 million S series and Notes a year.
The Note 7 batteries did have two separate manufacturing issues. The "squashed" plates in the corner and the missing overlap for an insulating layer. So I see no reason these batteries should be unsafe. Just amazed they could have two different faults with the same battery.
iFixit gave both S8's a 4/10 for ease of repair, iPhone 7 received 7/10. iPhone wins yet again.
I still regard iFixit's "repairability score" as a fictional metric designed to draw attention to their niche cause, which they claim is about helping the environment (self-repair vs. replace), the validity of which is debatable (Apple has a recycling program as well as a robot that can disassemble old iPhones for recycling, something that their scores don't account for).
I also believe they post tear-down porn of new gadgets to promote themselves, and tech sites obligingly post links to it.
I regard it to be entirely self serving. Their entire business is the selling of tools and repair parts, as far as I can ascertain.
Comments
The above report by AppleInsider does seem rushed a bit, and this is disappointing. They wrote:
So the "phone" was built by the same manufacturer as some "batteries"? Hmm? Did they mean the "battery" in the S8+? Or am I being too picky about the wording?
I also believe they post tear-down porn of new gadgets to promote themselves, and tech sites obligingly post links to it.
https://www.apple.com/environment/
http://www.businessinsider.com/apples-iphone-robot-liam-update-2017-3
"Liam "production line" systems are currently operating in California and the Netherlands, Apple said in a report published on February 21."
The story that came out, as has been stated here, by me, and others, and most everywhere else, was that Samsung thought, from rumors, that the iPhone 7/7+ was going to be "boring" because of the similar case style. Also the word was that (as happened to be true) Apple put a larger battery in. As Apple's 6S+ had already beaten the Note 5 slightly in battery testing, they were concerned at how the 7+ would perform in that. They also thought the lack of a headphone jack would impact iphone sales. So they put a bigger battery in, and released the phone early, to get ahead of Apple's iPhone announcement, thinking they would get a head start.
obviously, it backfired. It also turned out that going to a different battery manufacturer for the same capacity battery didn't fully solve the problem, because that battery was also thicker than the battery originally specc'ed for the phone. That's why the discontinuation of the model.
I regard it to be entirely self serving. Their entire business is the selling of tools and repair parts, as far as I can ascertain.