Verizon turns down Note 7 'kill' update as Apple rejects 'Samsung Pay Mini' at App Store

Posted:
in General Discussion
Verizon won't be joining other U.S. carriers in pushing out a "kill" update for the fire-prone and now defunct Samsung Galaxy Note 7, according to an announcement. In the meantime, Apple has allegedly rejected a "Samsung Pay Mini" app at the iOS App Store, possibly deflecting competition for Apple Pay.




Verizon customers won't be getting Samsung's software update "because of the added risk this could pose to Galaxy Note 7 users that do not have another device to switch to," the carrier said. It also expressed concern about killing the device "in the heart of the holiday travel season," especially since some people might need it in an emergency.

The update, which eliminates the ability to charge the Note 7, will begin rolling out to American owners on Dec. 19. Samsung has claimed that 93 percent of units sold in the U.S. have already been returned, and is trying push the few remaining people with a working device to take advantage of refund and exchange programs, which in some cases come with extra financial incentives.

As a safety measure and to encourage participating in the recall, U.S. owners are already limited to a 60 percent charge. On Dec. 15, Samsung will release an update in the U.K. restricting phones to a 30 percent charge, TechCrunch reported on Monday. Canadian owners will soon have all wireless functions disabled, joining a measure already taken in New Zealand.

Samsung Pay Mini

With its rejection at the App Store, Samsung will concentrate on bringing Pay Mini to non-Samsung Android phones, South Korea's ETNews said. Apple's reasons for blocking the app are unknown, but the company regularly turns down apps it feels compete too closely with its own -- something that could potentially create legal trouble in Korea if it's felt that Apple is being anti-competitive.

The app should launch on Android in January. To date, Samsung Pay has been limited to more recent Samsung devices. Unlike Apple Pay, or even Google's Android Pay, Samsung's platform can be used even with merchants that don't normally support wireless payments.

ETNews claimed that Apple is considering launching Apple Pay in South Korea in the first half of 2017. The company hasn't made any announcements in that regard, but the platform's international reach has expanded substantially through 2016, making South Korea a natural place to continue given the size and wealth of the market.
gilly017
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 30
    That's a lot of ball for Samsung to sneak in Samsung Pay (yeah, right, it's only a "Mini" version. )
    caliwatto_cobra
  • Reply 2 of 30
    apple ][apple ][ Posts: 9,233member
    Verizon customers won't be getting Samsung's software update "because of the added risk this could pose to Galaxy Note 7 users that do not have another device to switch to," the carrier said. It also expressed concern about killing the device "in the heart of the holiday travel season," especially since some people might need it in an emergency.
    What's the greater risk, that a user wont have another device to switch to, or that the phone might explode, causing massive injury, death and possibly burning their entire house down? :#
    caligeorgie01mobiusmwhitewatto_cobrajony0
  • Reply 3 of 30
    There are lots of payment Apps in The App Store. I doubt it was blocked because of competition, but because it didn't meet some Apple requirement. But Samsung and the haters will try to spin it as Apple being anti-competitive. Just like all those whiny developers (and Spotify) do when Apple legitimately rejects an App.
    caliDeelronstompyPifmansingularitypscooter63watto_cobrajbdragonjony0
  • Reply 4 of 30
    It's also an emergency when the phone explodes and hurts people. Deadly when it explodes in-flight. 
    caliwatto_cobrajony0
  • Reply 5 of 30
    I agree with Verizon on this one.  There are plenty of safety related recalls in the automotive world, and I wouldn't want someone kill-switching my car with bad brakes or airbag because I haven't gotten around to taking it in.  If I want to take the risk, it's my risk to take.  (Having said that, I expect 95% percent of Galaxy Note 7s that haven't been turned in are sitting uncharged in a drawer somewhere, so this will make no difference either way.)
    califreshmakermystic_truthmacgui
  • Reply 6 of 30
    There are lots of payment Apps in The App Store. I doubt it was blocked because of competition, but because it didn't meet some Apple requirement. But Samsung and the haters will try to spin it as Apple being anti-competitive. Just like all those whiny developers (and Spotify) do when Apple legitimately rejects an App.
    This is exactly right. Yet, cue another lawsuit, another Cote/Bromwich freak show...

    Ugh.
    edited December 2016 watto_cobrajony0
  • Reply 7 of 30
    slurpyslurpy Posts: 5,317member
    Why the hell should Apple allow Samsung Pay? Knowing Samsung it probably included some tracking and privacy abusing garbage. Also, there's no Apple Pay for Samsung devices, and I doubt a single iPhone user wants or needs Samsung Pay.
    macseekercaliDeelronsingularitypscooter63watto_cobra
  • Reply 8 of 30
    I agree with Verizon on this one.  There are plenty of safety related recalls in the automotive world, and I wouldn't want someone kill-switching my car with bad brakes or airbag because I haven't gotten around to taking it in.  If I want to take the risk, it's my risk to take.  (Having said that, I expect 95% percent of Galaxy Note 7s that haven't been turned in are sitting uncharged in a drawer somewhere, so this will make no difference either way.)

    Okay so I am expected to drive with lowered safety because you are too lazy to fix your car and thus being a potential risk for all other drivers includig me? You can't be serious. Where I live you would be the only one getting punishment on this one and I think your country is handling it the same way. 
    calicharlesatlasmwhitepscooter63tycho24jony0
  • Reply 9 of 30
    sflocalsflocal Posts: 5,736member
    I agree with Verizon on this one.  There are plenty of safety related recalls in the automotive world, and I wouldn't want someone kill-switching my car with bad brakes or airbag because I haven't gotten around to taking it in.  If I want to take the risk, it's my risk to take.  (Having said that, I expect 95% percent of Galaxy Note 7s that haven't been turned in are sitting uncharged in a drawer somewhere, so this will make no difference either way.)
    What an ignorant statement.  Assuming you're not trolling - and it's a really fine line - if one of those remaining Note7's acts as an ignition source that kills people - takes down an airplane, burns a house down, etc.., now Verizon is on the hook for a serious lawsuit, in addition to suing the pants off the owner of that phone whom we all know will flat out LIE that they had NO IDEA their phone was dangerous.  If you want to take the risk, go right ahead.  Stupid people should also be allowed to do whatever they want to themselves.  However, no way in hell should you be allowed to put my life at risk by sneaking that Note7 in your carry-on into an airplane.  

    The reality is that in today's internet-connected world, the tech is there to disable dangerous devices which I actually support as the right thing that Samsung is doing.  Using your tired car analogy, if FORD had the ability to remote-disable a vehicle that could spontaneously catch fire, they would do it to those remaining 7% of cars sitting in garages probably not being used anyways.  Ford could easily disable a car that is not being operated with the engine turned off.  Stop being so melodramatic.
    calicharlesatlasmwhitepscooter63tycho24jony0
  • Reply 10 of 30
    I agree with Verizon on this one.  There are plenty of safety related recalls in the automotive world, and I wouldn't want someone kill-switching my car with bad brakes or airbag because I haven't gotten around to taking it in.  If I want to take the risk, it's my risk to take.  (Having said that, I expect 95% percent of Galaxy Note 7s that haven't been turned in are sitting uncharged in a drawer somewhere, so this will make no difference either way.)

    Okay so I am expected to drive with lowered safety because you are too lazy to fix your car and thus being a potential risk for all other drivers includig me? You can't be serious. Where I live you would be the only one getting punishment on this one and I think your country is handling it the same way. 


    What are you talking about?  I'm not against recalls.  If you get a recall notice, go ahead and take your car in.  In fact, everyone should.  But we as consumers are in the best position to decide when we should do that.

    Are you suggesting that your life in in danger because some people haven't turned in their Galaxy devices yet?  Consider that they are already banned from being on planes.  And what is the actual failure rate?  It's probably less than 1%.  So a complete recall is perfectly justified, but I think the remote kill command is over the top.

    mike1mystic_truthtycho24
  • Reply 11 of 30
    calicali Posts: 3,494member
    "In heart of the holiday travel season"

    if a plane burns down i hope they sue Verizon for everything they got.


    samsung Pay most likely had tracking software. 
    edited December 2016 watto_cobra
  • Reply 12 of 30
    herbapouherbapou Posts: 2,227member
    slurpy said:
    Why the hell should Apple allow Samsung Pay? Knowing Samsung it probably included some tracking and privacy abusing garbage. Also, there's no Apple Pay for Samsung devices, and I doubt a single iPhone user wants or needs Samsung Pay.

    imo Apple should accept Samsung pay if the app meets requirements and why can't Apple make an android Apple Pay app?
    Same goes for FaceTime, Apple music, ... 

    edited December 2016 singularity
  • Reply 13 of 30
    maestro64maestro64 Posts: 5,005member
    I agree with Verizon on this one.  There are plenty of safety related recalls in the automotive world, and I wouldn't want someone kill-switching my car with bad brakes or airbag because I haven't gotten around to taking it in.  If I want to take the risk, it's my risk to take.  (Having said that, I expect 95% percent of Galaxy Note 7s that haven't been turned in are sitting uncharged in a drawer somewhere, so this will make no difference either way.)

    I personally do not have an issue with you taking personal risks and killing yourself, it is called the natural selection process at work, however, when your risk taking also includes me and other people, I am not interest in your attempts to win the Darwin award. Otherwise, do what you like and make sure you video it so the rest of us can enjoy your demise. 
    edited December 2016 apple jockeyshikotsumyakupscooter63tycho24apres587
  • Reply 14 of 30
    sflocal said:
    I agree with Verizon on this one.  There are plenty of safety related recalls in the automotive world, and I wouldn't want someone kill-switching my car with bad brakes or airbag because I haven't gotten around to taking it in.  If I want to take the risk, it's my risk to take.  (Having said that, I expect 95% percent of Galaxy Note 7s that haven't been turned in are sitting uncharged in a drawer somewhere, so this will make no difference either way.)
    What an ignorant statement.  Assuming you're not trolling - and it's a really fine line - if one of those remaining Note7's acts as an ignition source that kills people - takes down an airplane, burns a house down, etc.., now Verizon is on the hook for a serious lawsuit, in addition to suing the pants off the owner of that phone whom we all know will flat out LIE that they had NO IDEA their phone was dangerous.  If you want to take the risk, go right ahead.  Stupid people should also be allowed to do whatever they want to themselves.  However, no way in hell should you be allowed to put my life at risk by sneaking that Note7 in your carry-on into an airplane.  

    The reality is that in today's internet-connected world, the tech is there to disable dangerous devices which I actually support as the right thing that Samsung is doing.  Using your tired car analogy, if FORD had the ability to remote-disable a vehicle that could spontaneously catch fire, they would do it to those remaining 7% of cars sitting in garages probably not being used anyways.  Ford could easily disable a car that is not being operated with the engine turned off.  Stop being so melodramatic.


    Please point out the hyperbole in what I wrote. 

    To use your tired Ford scenario (apparently such things get tired after one use), Ford would be extremely reluctant to do such a thing because of the very real chance that the harm caused by the remote-kill would be more damaging than the risk they are trying to prevent.  It's easy to imagine someone not being able to get to a hospital in an emergency, for example.  Obviously, the stakes are probably lower in this Note 7 example (oh no, I missed a Cyber Monday sale!), but there are risks (e.g., what if the Samsung update accidentally remote kills all Samsung phones?  Is that impossible?).

    edited December 2016 mystic_truth
  • Reply 15 of 30
    maestro64maestro64 Posts: 5,005member
    sflocal said:
    I agree with Verizon on this one.  There are plenty of safety related recalls in the automotive world, and I wouldn't want someone kill-switching my car with bad brakes or airbag because I haven't gotten around to taking it in.  If I want to take the risk, it's my risk to take.  (Having said that, I expect 95% percent of Galaxy Note 7s that haven't been turned in are sitting uncharged in a drawer somewhere, so this will make no difference either way.)
    What an ignorant statement.  Assuming you're not trolling - and it's a really fine line - if one of those remaining Note7's acts as an ignition source that kills people - takes down an airplane, burns a house down, etc.., now Verizon is on the hook for a serious lawsuit, in addition to suing the pants off the owner of that phone whom we all know will flat out LIE that they had NO IDEA their phone was dangerous.  If you want to take the risk, go right ahead.  Stupid people should also be allowed to do whatever they want to themselves.  However, no way in hell should you be allowed to put my life at risk by sneaking that Note7 in your carry-on into an airplane.  

    The reality is that in today's internet-connected world, the tech is there to disable dangerous devices which I actually support as the right thing that Samsung is doing.  Using your tired car analogy, if FORD had the ability to remote-disable a vehicle that could spontaneously catch fire, they would do it to those remaining 7% of cars sitting in garages probably not being used anyways.  Ford could easily disable a car that is not being operated with the engine turned off.  Stop being so melodramatic.
    I do not know this as legal fact, however, the fact the Carriers and Samsung have made many attempts to recover these phones and the fact Airline today make many announcements about not allowed to have this phone on a plane, I am willing to bet the liability will fall squarely in the person who ignore all the warnings. As the saying goes you can not fix stupid and there is plenty of stupid out there ready to take people with them.

    randominternetpersonwatto_cobra
  • Reply 16 of 30

    ...

    "However, no way in hell should you be allowed to put my life at risk by sneaking that Note7 in your carry-on into an airplane."  Excellent point.  You really demolished the "people should sneak Note7s onto planes despite the TSA prohibition" argument that I never made.

    To use your tired Ford scenario (apparently such things get tired after one use), Ford would be extremely reluctant to do such a thing because of the very real chance that the harm caused by the remote-kill would be more damaging than the risk they are trying to prevent.  It's easy to imagine someone not being able to get to a hospital in an emergency, for example.  Obviously, the stakes are probably lower in this Note 7 example (oh no, I missed a Cyber Monday sale!), but there are risks (e.g., what if the Samsung update accidentally remote kills all Samsung phones?  Is that impossible?).

    Sorry I upset your life by having a different world view.


    There would be no purpose in Samsung disabling devices if everyone obeyed the rules. It's safe to say that people are using the phone in potentially unsafe circumstances despite what's been said, such as sneaking the phone onto to airplanes. A 1% failure rate is not an argument for personal liberty because a person won't know if they're in that 1% or not. A person's liberty can't take meaningful responsibility for the harm or death of another person unless it can also heal or bring back the life of that person.

    Though I'm not saying that I think disabling the phones is definitely the best solution here—forcing people into good behaviour does not overall have a good long term effect. 
  • Reply 17 of 30
    randominternetperson said:

    To use your tired Ford scenario (apparently such things get tired after one use), Ford would be extremely reluctant to do such a thing because of the very real chance that the harm caused by the remote-kill would be more damaging than the risk they are trying to prevent.  It's easy to imagine someone not being able to get to a hospital in an emergency, for example.  Obviously, the stakes are probably lower in this Note 7 example (oh no, I missed a Cyber Monday sale!), but there are risks (e.g., what if the Samsung update accidentally remote kills all Samsung phones?  Is that impossible?).

    Sorry I upset your life by having a different world view.


    If those Fords were banned from being on the road but someone decided to ignore the recall and kept it in a public parking garage where it burst into flames and destroyed a bunch of cars including yours, somehow, I think your "world view" would be a little different.
  • Reply 18 of 30
    1st1st Posts: 443member
    apple ][ said:
    Verizon customers won't be getting Samsung's software update "because of the added risk this could pose to Galaxy Note 7 users that do not have another device to switch to," the carrier said. It also expressed concern about killing the device "in the heart of the holiday travel season," especially since some people might need it in an emergency.
    What's the greater risk, that a user wont have another device to switch to, or that the phone might explode, causing massive injury, death and possibly burning their entire house down? :#

    (1) phone explored - Samsung's liability
    (2) killed phone without another device to switch to - just in case of emergency case- VZ's liability. 
    randominternetpersonfreshmaker
  • Reply 19 of 30
    cali said:
    "In heart of the holiday travel season"

    if a plane burns down i hope they sue Verizon for everything they got.


    samsung Pay most likely had tracking software. 
    If course Samsung wants to kill off their problem - a problem that customers PAID for. 

    If if they really cared, they should have issued new hardware is a forced exchange program. They could have given users a push notification every day or every time they open their phones, giving them 30 days or so to go to the nearest store and exchange. 

    But no. Easier to just steal the money and ruin their device. 

    And of course samsung pay had tracking. Remember the seemingly innocuous Jay Z/Samsung app back a few years? Seemed innocent... until it was revealed as basically a Trojan horse app. 

    Apple Pay is used so much because people TRUST Apple. They've earned it. 

    Nobody trusts Samsung. And they've earned that reputation as well. 
    singularitymystic_truthwatto_cobra
  • Reply 20 of 30
    "There are lots of payment Apps in The App Store. I doubt it was blocked because of competition, but because it didn't meet some Apple requirement. But Samsung and the haters will try to spin it as Apple being anti-competitive. Just like all those whiny developers (and Spotify) do when Apple legitimately rejects an App." Ericthehalfbee I concur, I don't think Apple is worried about competition as much as consumer experience, security, and privacy - none of which are a hallmark of SAMSUNG.
    watto_cobra
Sign In or Register to comment.