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.
As an iOS app developer I can only say that Apple occasionally reject apps for futile reasons, not related to its own app policy.
"...but the company regularly turns down apps it feels compete too closely with its own"
Do you have even a single example where this has been true? There are tons of examples to the contrary. Just a few examples of Apple's competitors on iOS: Kindle, Spotify, WhatsApp, Overcast, Google Maps, Dropbox, Samsung Smart View, Gmail, Skype, etc... The list goes on and on.
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.)
You poison the well for everybody else.
Airlines, or other public transportation systems, may be hesitant to allow any Samsung phones on a flight, or any smartphones at all for that matter, for the simple reason that it is difficult for the crew to quickly distinguish a Note 7 from many other devices. Better to ban them all than take a chance.
Your entitlement to ownership ended when The Consumer Product Safety Commission required a recall. I hope that some group sues Verizon to make that happen.
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.
You can read exactly what I'm talking about and what I'm referring to and the other 3 users that liked the comment seem to do, too.
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?
I know is Verizon shell shock? Come on the thing may explode. Yeah you may need it for an emergency. Yes your own. Oops can't call 911 my phone is on fire. Really Big Red.
It's funny how there's so many people out there freaking out about the possibility of Note 7 being out there. You are more likely to die by: getting assaulted, hit by a car, by medication, by a disease, getting struck by lightning, crashing on a plane, and/or your food choices . I hope everyone that is this paranoid of Note 7 is this conscious about other things in their lives. Most likely not.
There have been other phones that have caught fire from other brands, Note 7 is not the only one. As a matter of fact Samsung has had S6 and S7 catch fire, but they never recalled. The only reason why Note 7 became such a scandal was because it was the most expensive phone in the market. No way are people going to tolerate that, hence fat lawsuit. That's why Samsung worked with government to Recall, to minimize their potential lawsuit. Now they have the inconvenience lawsuit because it's not fair to Note 7 owners having to return and still not get full compensation for it. Verizon is well aware of the situation, hence why they're giving Samsung the finger. Samsung should do a full refund and pay additional damages to owners returning the phone; they currently only doing it IF you stay with their brand and buying a phone.
There have been other phones that have caught fire from other brands, Note 7 is not the only one.
Hey there, shill.
The only reason why Note 7 became such a scandal was because it was the most expensive phone in the market.
Not even remotely close. It’s a scandal because it’s systemic with this pile of shit that only existed to beat Apple to market. It’s like racing to beat someone to the top of Everest and finding you climbed K2 instead.
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?).
Jesus Christ... Can you possibly feign more indignance?? Look, they said in EU the update caps charge at 30%, thus crippling the device & STRONGLY encouraging replacement, yet leaving it available for your hypothetical emergency phone call. Does that please your highness enough?? Can we at least agree that SOME measure to get the last of these f'ing things off the streets is a good thing??
Comments
Airlines, or other public transportation systems, may be hesitant to allow any Samsung phones on a flight, or any smartphones at all for that matter, for the simple reason that it is difficult for the crew to quickly distinguish a Note 7 from many other devices. Better to ban them all than take a chance.
Your entitlement to ownership ended when The Consumer Product Safety Commission required a recall. I hope that some group sues Verizon to make that happen.
There have been other phones that have caught fire from other brands, Note 7 is not the only one. As a matter of fact Samsung has had S6 and S7 catch fire, but they never recalled. The only reason why Note 7 became such a scandal was because it was the most expensive phone in the market. No way are people going to tolerate that, hence fat lawsuit. That's why Samsung worked with government to Recall, to minimize their potential lawsuit. Now they have the inconvenience lawsuit because it's not fair to Note 7 owners having to return and still not get full compensation for it. Verizon is well aware of the situation, hence why they're giving Samsung the finger. Samsung should do a full refund and pay additional damages to owners returning the phone; they currently only doing it IF you stay with their brand and buying a phone.
Not even remotely close. It’s a scandal because it’s systemic with this pile of shit that only existed to beat Apple to market. It’s like racing to beat someone to the top of Everest and finding you climbed K2 instead.
Look, they said in EU the update caps charge at 30%, thus crippling the device & STRONGLY encouraging replacement, yet leaving it available for your hypothetical emergency phone call.
Does that please your highness enough?? Can we at least agree that SOME measure to get the last of these f'ing things off the streets is a good thing??