No matter how much I would like to leave the situation with the failure of the Samsung flagship last year, but its echoes will cause questions for a long time, some of them – in this release.
The worst-case scenario is hard to imagine. The world leader in the production of smartphones releases a new device, which is tipped with the laurels of the best smartphone in the history of the industry. Admirable reviews quickly appear and the prospect of good sales in the fall and the pre-New Year period begins to confidently emerge, as well as the opportunity to 'take back' part of the lost market share. But then a small part of the apparatus begins to overheat and ignite. The company is trying to respond decisively and quickly to the problem and announces the recall and exchange of several million devices already delivered. Such a move is very risky and, of course, expensive, but the company is initially praised for trying to positively deal with a difficult problem. Consumers are reassured that the problem is most likely not with the phone itself, but with the battery from one of the third-party suppliers (ironically, most blame Samsung SDI, a subsidiary of Samsung Electronics).
And then the unthinkable happens. The same problems show up in replacement devices, and the company has to stop production and sale of the device, convince telecommunications partners and retail partners to follow their example, and users to stop using their smartphones.
Adding fuel to the fire, the US Consumer Product Safety Commission is also issuing public warnings to stop using the device, and the Federal Aviation Administration and major global airlines are issuing an additional alert that has been heard on virtually every flight over the past few weeks: luggage or carry-on luggage, charge and turn on / use Samsung Galaxy Note 7 on board. '
This is an example of perhaps the most negative publicity of technology ever. The long-term implications for the Samsung brand have yet to be determined, but it's clear to anyone that there are no positives. At the time of this writing (mid-October 2016, translator's note), it is clear that Note 7 is likely to be completely withdrawn from the market, it will cost the company billions of dollars, and further support for the Note line by the company is questionable. Part of the problem is not only the product itself, although it turned out to be rather unstable, but also the very demeanor of the company in this situation. The reaction quickly changed from an endorsement of Samsung's swift and decisive action to address the issue, to a lack of confidence that the company would allow a second batch of defective devices to enter the market.
If you look at the situation from above, then a decent number of important, but unanswered questions remain. From a practical point of view, if not the battery itself (battery circuit), what was the source of the problem and could other devices face a similar hazard? Why did Samsung rush to replace the devices without even finding out the real cause of what happened? What kind of testing was (or was not) carried out to determine the safety of the devices sent for replacement?
After such short-term questions, it is worth moving on to more serious problems that can further have a serious impact on the mobile electronics market. To begin with, what kind of procedures should be put in place to prevent similar situations in the future? Can any government agency or organization in the industry (other than Samsung) take responsibility for implementing them? Will more thorough / longer testing procedures subsequently be required to obtain approval to enter the market? Will reviewers have to test devices for safety in order to provide readers with arguments about the quality and value of the product? How can sellers and suppliers avoid these problems, and do they have mechanisms for this if the situation repeats with other devices?
Some might argue that these questions are overreacting to a single slip from a single manufacturer. And for the sake of fairness, Samsung should be aware of the incidents of fires and security issues mentioned over the next few years for devices from other manufacturers, including Apple. But when people's lives and health are at stake (as has been the case in some cases involving the Note 7), doubting that existing rules and procedures are sufficient to ensure safety does not seem illogical. Our collective dependence on battery-powered devices is growing, so it may be time to take a closer and more rigorous look at the safety testing process and the requirements for it.
Given the rapid pace of development and the highly competitive environment in which battery-powered devices operate, the industry is likely to move to a longer or more financially costly testing cycle. As the situation with the Galaxy Note 7 has made clear, speed doesn't always bring the desired results when it comes to security.
Finally, the mobile electronics industry needs to take the above points seriously and identify potential self-control methods. If they don't, and we hear about new stories of exploding, flammable, or human-damaging devices, then we can be sure that either a political or government body is using the massiveness of the news as an incentive to start introducing more stringent requirements. As the famous saying goes, 'measure seven times, cut one'.
Original material by Bob O'Donnell
In the process of getting acquainted with the materials about the problem with Note 7, the thought that there may be a kind of conspiracy to massively 'scourge' Samsung, which made such a mistake and, as a result, can no longer claim the laurels of the most successful smartphone manufacturer. I think everyone understands who benefits from the formation of such an opinion among the mass of consumers.
What can now be said about the situation under consideration, about the measures taken and the decisions made? All this time inside the company there was an investigation, identifying possible culprits in the situation. In mid-December, materials appeared in some news resources that the investigation was completed, the cause of the problem was found, and the results were sent for confirmation to a third-party Korean laboratory. Officially, the results have not yet been announced, apparently, Samsung representatives are waiting for confirmation of their arguments in order to be 100% confident in their statements and actions. At the same time, the company is doing its best to avoid any leaks, including information about the new flagship.
In parallel with the aforementioned investigation, a team of independent experts studied the internal structure of the Note 7 smartphone and came to certain conclusions. The SGN7 battery is located in a CNC-machined recess that allows 0.1-0.5 mm to expand the battery when heated. Ideally, for sufficient heat exchange in the battery and its free expansion, Samsung engineers should have left at least 0.5 mm, or better – a little more. Lack of this extra space can cause explosions as the battery expands. In hot spots, cells will expand at an incredible rate.
Is this the reason? Will we hear Samsung's promised official response this month? It's not clear yet. It is only clear that the latest operating in the networks of the operator's smartphones Note 7 will soon be disabled through an update, this will affect, for example, T-Mobile devices. Perhaps collectors will keep a copy of such a promising smartphone at their own peril and risk, perhaps as a museum piece. Let's leave this story in the past and hope that the market will learn its lessons.