“Samsung has found itself in a row with Chinese consumers, with some accusing the firm of being biased against them,” BBC News reports. “The South Korean firm has not issued a recall of its Galaxy Note 7 in China, despite local media reports of two devices catching fire. Samsung said it had concluded that the damage was caused by ‘external heating’ so a recall was not necessary.”
“China is the world’s largest smartphone market and of key importance to manufacturers. On 2 September, Samsung issued a recall of 2.5 million phones in certain countries, leaving out China,” The Beeb reports. “In the last week, Chinese media have reported that two of the devices appeared to have caught fire. Pictures posted online appeared to show charred Note 7 devices. Some Chinese consumers said Samsung’s lack of action showed that it was biased against China. ‘Caused by external heating? The heat of a person’s body temperature can cause a phone to explode. Sure,’ said one user sarcastically on micro-blogging site Weibo. ‘Samsung doesn’t dare raise a fuss overseas but in China as soon as explosions are mentioned they blame other people,'” another person commented. ‘China is a big market. Be careful Samsung, don’t bully China,’ warned one user.”
“‘I think consumers are pretty unhappy with Samsung,'” Ben Cavender of China Market Research Group told the Associated Press news agency,” The Beeb reports. “He said Chinese consumers ‘start to feel like they are being taken advantage of, that they are not being accorded the same respect here as they are abroad.'”
MacDailyNews Take: Life is too short to waste your money on bad imitations. Get the real thing.
While we’d much prefer that people recognized a knockoff for what it is and refused it immediately on moral grounds — instead of buying fake Coke and pretending to enjoy it as much as real Coke only to turn on the producer once it started poisoning them — we’ll take whatever justice Karma, lovely, beautiful, gorgeous Karma, chooses to bestow.
Jeep charging a Samsung Galaxy Note 7 (left) and a Jeep charging an Apple iPhone (right)
Garage charging a Samsung Galaxy Note 7 (left) and a garage charging an Apple iPhone (right)
The same reason we get MacKeeper & Windows 10 adverts. They are willing to pay a lot of marketing money to ad servers. It doesn’t matter what your surfing habits are they want to be seen everywhere on the web.
I thought everybody understood this already, but obviously not. So, here ya go:
Contextual advertising: Contextual advertising systems scan the text of a website for keywords and return advertisements to the webpage based on those keywords.
In this case, the presence of “Samsung” in the text of this article triggers the ad placements you’ve noticed.
MDN is not placing them. MDN is not selecting them. MDN is not selling them. They run automatically.
I find it humorous that MDN in effect gets paid by Samsung while running articles that completely disparage Samsung.
I would tend to agree, but the same thing happened on the next article – about the cost of build materials of the iPhone 7. It seems that it only takes one mention of “SamSoNot” phones to produce such adds.
As if you say the word trash and you see tons of adverts about trash.
The best schadenfreude is that every time you get onto an airplane the staff will announce to the passengers that if you have a Samsung device (the Note 7) to please do not power it on during the whole trip.
No better advertisement that Samsung is crap then this, and this will be announced going forward for foreseeable future. Personally, they shouldn’t even allow the devices onto the plane (powered off or not).
Ah, the Amperex batteries in question in these cases in China are the batteries Samsung is using to replace the ones previously used in the rest of the phones that have been exploding elsewhere, which were from Samsung’s 20%, owned by them, battery company.
So I can see one reason they are reluctant to even think about a recall, and they may be right, to a certain extent. We don’t know where those phones were when they went out. A glove compartment in a hot car, in the sun? It’s possible.
Hmm. Apple hires Amperex to provide batteries as well.
But I’m betting there’s more going on here than just battery manufacturers. From what you’ve stated, I can foresee ScamScum replacing Note 7s with newer phones that have THE SAME PROBLEM, thus leading to a second recall. That would be historic. I’ll bring the champagne. 🎉🎊
The Chinese and Koreans have a long history of conflicts. If the formers believe that they are not being treated fairly, this could become a major headache for Samsung.
Again, this points to a Samsung Galaxy Note 7 design flaw. Have they redesigned the phone before selling it again in the US? Highly doubtful. And now they are pawning their polluted product back into their naive consumers hands?
Who knows what’s real, between stupid Samsung and China: Criminal Nation. But to be fair, here’s a quote about the situation from Ars Technica, dated 9/2/2016:
The percentage of affected phones is small—estimated at 24 out of every 1,000,000 phones—but Samsung only has one battery supplier in each of the countries in which the phone has shipped. All units could potentially be affected, though the models sold in China apparently include batteries that are unaffected by the flaw.
As of the official recall last Thursday, the reality is almost 4x as bad… because out of the roughly 1 million Note 7 phones actually sold to end users (out of the 2.5 million *shipped*), there were already 92 reports of battery overheat/fire/explosions.
Note that I provided the DATE for the Ars Technica article. That was nearly three weeks ago. We know damned well the 24/1,000,000 number was a ridiculous guess pulled out of some ScabScrape orifice.
You misunderstood the intent of my posting that. It was to highlight the very fact that their initial, official estimate was way short of reality. It was not a criticism of your choice of quote or meant to suggest that you’re not up to date.
Several things going on: one, the Chinese historically feel victimized by foreigners; two, Samsung’s battery problems were isolated to one factory squeezing the battery too tightly in manufacture, thus the anode and cathode coming into contact causing a short, and then fire. Presumably the Chinese shipments were from a factory without the problematic batteries. Three, because China has a developed “compensation” mentality, they believe if they have a faulty phone, they not only can get a new one, but they can also get “compensation” for their trouble. That’s why Samsung believes these reported problems in China may actually be scammers looking to make a quick buck on their problems. And, it is a PR problem given the context.
Apple established the trillion-dollar market cap club, followed (as usual) by perpetual Apple-follower Microsoft. Last week, Google parent Alphabet Inc…
On January 24, 1984, Apple Computer unveiled its much-anticipated Macintosh computer, a sophisticated, affordably priced personal computer designed for…
Apple has resolved the “weird errors” that on Friday caused an App Store outage that prevented some users from completing purchases, updating apps, or…
I am seeing 4 Samsung Galaxy Edge adverts in a row on MDNs web page, In between comments and reply.
How ironic is that. I have never looked for or searched for Samsung phones, so I just don’t know why I would see this.
The same reason we get MacKeeper & Windows 10 adverts. They are willing to pay a lot of marketing money to ad servers. It doesn’t matter what your surfing habits are they want to be seen everywhere on the web.
I thought everybody understood this already, but obviously not. So, here ya go:
Contextual advertising: Contextual advertising systems scan the text of a website for keywords and return advertisements to the webpage based on those keywords.
In this case, the presence of “Samsung” in the text of this article triggers the ad placements you’ve noticed.
MDN is not placing them. MDN is not selecting them. MDN is not selling them. They run automatically.
I find it humorous that MDN in effect gets paid by Samsung while running articles that completely disparage Samsung.
I would tend to agree, but the same thing happened on the next article – about the cost of build materials of the iPhone 7. It seems that it only takes one mention of “SamSoNot” phones to produce such adds.
As if you say the word trash and you see tons of adverts about trash.
Perhaps the dearth of iPhone ads in the ad pool biases the ads shown to other products that may be mentioned in the article or posts.
Just got back from a plane trip from Europe.
The best schadenfreude is that every time you get onto an airplane the staff will announce to the passengers that if you have a Samsung device (the Note 7) to please do not power it on during the whole trip.
No better advertisement that Samsung is crap then this, and this will be announced going forward for foreseeable future. Personally, they shouldn’t even allow the devices onto the plane (powered off or not).
If the whole affair is not seen as a deliberate Samsung suicide, I simply do not know what it could be otherwise.
Samsung’s Board of Directors and executives must be absolutely frozen in place and unable to even move their mouths.
Ah, the Amperex batteries in question in these cases in China are the batteries Samsung is using to replace the ones previously used in the rest of the phones that have been exploding elsewhere, which were from Samsung’s 20%, owned by them, battery company.
So I can see one reason they are reluctant to even think about a recall, and they may be right, to a certain extent. We don’t know where those phones were when they went out. A glove compartment in a hot car, in the sun? It’s possible.
Hmm. Apple hires Amperex to provide batteries as well.
But I’m betting there’s more going on here than just battery manufacturers. From what you’ve stated, I can foresee ScamScum replacing Note 7s with newer phones that have THE SAME PROBLEM, thus leading to a second recall. That would be historic. I’ll bring the champagne. 🎉🎊
The Chinese and Koreans have a long history of conflicts. If the formers believe that they are not being treated fairly, this could become a major headache for Samsung.
Collect these POS as bombs when Zombie Apocalypses.
Again, this points to a Samsung Galaxy Note 7 design flaw. Have they redesigned the phone before selling it again in the US? Highly doubtful. And now they are pawning their polluted product back into their naive consumers hands?
So I’ve seen news reports of 2 Galaxy S7 Edge’s and 1 Galaxy S7 Phone also exploding???!!
Why is the media only talking about the Note 7 issues? It’s all current Samsung products that have the issues and not just while charging!
If you do a search for exploding iPhones, there have been some cases reported now and again. Earlier this year an iPhone 6 burst into flames onboard a plane (http://www.bidnessetc.com/65828-curious-case-exploding-apple-iphone-6/). Also a case in 2013 where an iPad Air on display in a shop in Canberra, Australia had flames burst from its charge port (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/apple/10440625/iPad-Air-explodes-in-Australian-phone-shop.html). Just because a few devices of a particular model have burst into flames doesn’t mean the entire group is bad. We know the S7 Notes are bad, the others may just be pegged to the more rare defective black sheep of a batch.
Who knows what’s real, between stupid Samsung and China: Criminal Nation. But to be fair, here’s a quote about the situation from Ars Technica, dated 9/2/2016:
Samsung will recall Galaxy Note 7 because of exploding batteries [Updated]
The percentage of affected phones is small—estimated at 24 out of every 1,000,000 phones—but Samsung only has one battery supplier in each of the countries in which the phone has shipped. All units could potentially be affected, though the models sold in China apparently include batteries that are unaffected by the flaw.
Apparently NOT.
“estimated at 24 out of every 1,000,000 phones”
As of the official recall last Thursday, the reality is almost 4x as bad… because out of the roughly 1 million Note 7 phones actually sold to end users (out of the 2.5 million *shipped*), there were already 92 reports of battery overheat/fire/explosions.
Note that I provided the DATE for the Ars Technica article. That was nearly three weeks ago. We know damned well the 24/1,000,000 number was a ridiculous guess pulled out of some ScabScrape orifice.
You misunderstood the intent of my posting that. It was to highlight the very fact that their initial, official estimate was way short of reality. It was not a criticism of your choice of quote or meant to suggest that you’re not up to date.
Ah, thank you. We are attuned.
Several things going on: one, the Chinese historically feel victimized by foreigners; two, Samsung’s battery problems were isolated to one factory squeezing the battery too tightly in manufacture, thus the anode and cathode coming into contact causing a short, and then fire. Presumably the Chinese shipments were from a factory without the problematic batteries. Three, because China has a developed “compensation” mentality, they believe if they have a faulty phone, they not only can get a new one, but they can also get “compensation” for their trouble. That’s why Samsung believes these reported problems in China may actually be scammers looking to make a quick buck on their problems. And, it is a PR problem given the context.