Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
IT Technology

Samsung's Calls For Industry To Embrace Its Battery Check Process as a New Standard Have Been Ignored (cnet.com) 51

Months after the Galaxy Note 7 debacle, the topic remains too hot for the rest of the wireless industry to handle. From a report on CNET: With Samsung's Galaxy S8 to launch next week, a renewed discussion of the Note 7, which had an unhealthy tendency to catch fire and which had to be recalled, is inevitable. Samsung opened that door in January when it embarked on a mea culpa tour. Beyond spelling out the cause of the overheating problem in its popular phone, the company unveiled an eight-point battery check system it said surpassed industry practices, and it invited rivals to follow its model. But two months after the introduction, what's the industry response? A collective shrug. Interviews with phone makers and carriers found that while all placed a high priority on safety, few would talk specifically about Samsung's new battery check process or the idea of adopting it for themselves.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Samsung's Calls For Industry To Embrace Its Battery Check Process as a New Standard Have Been Ignored

Comments Filter:
  • Mobile phone manufacturers place a high priority on battery safety, as long as they don't have to actually do anything about safety. Especially if it costs any money. Or doesn't allow phones to continue their evolution towards paper thin.
    • Samsung is kind of a special case, as they are a huge company and probably manufacture their own batteries. I think that most phone manufacturers outsource that job to a third-party battery supplier. They give the the battery manufacturer the specs, and it's their job to build it.

      • by hij ( 552932 )
        Not only that, but it is kind of shocking that other companies do not want to go to every rooftop and shout out how they are on par with Samsung with respect to battery safety.

        "Hey everybody, our batteries meet Samsung's safety standards!"

        • Not only that, but it is kind of shocking that other companies do not want to go to every rooftop and shout out how they are on par with Samsung with respect to battery safety.

          "Hey everybody, our batteries meet Samsung's safety standards!"

          Except it was Samsung that had battery issues, not the other companies. Agreeing to use a new battery check process would admit that there's fault in their testing process which there wasn't. Samsung will try to make this appear like other companies are ignoring the issue when Samsung had the major recall.

    • by dnorman ( 135330 )

      or, they have their own safety tests in place and don't want to subject themselves to licensing or other fees to samsung Why would a company want to adopt Samsung's battery safety methodology? It has no track record since the battery exploding thing from their last model.

      • by gnick ( 1211984 )

        Take the number of batteries in the field, (A), and multiply it by the probable rate of failures that would be prevented, (B), then multiply the result by the average out-of-court settlement, (C). A times B times C equals X. If X is less than the cost of the testing procedure, we don't do it.

  • by Junta ( 36770 ) on Friday March 24, 2017 @01:53PM (#54104355)

    Is Samsung. They are talking *loud* about something they purport to be a super better thing. It would help their narrative if they make it sound like all the competitors are ready to fail at any moment.

    So the competitors going along with it and making it look like Samsung is *leading* in battery safety would just play into Samsung's hands.

    In terms of the actual relative merit, who knows, but from a perspective of marketable storytelling, it is very much not in the interest of Samsung's competitors to play up Samsung's process. If there is merit that their competitors are told about and recognize, expect them to silently improve their process, but in no way publicize that fact.

    • by dj245 ( 732906 )

      Is Samsung. They are talking *loud* about something they purport to be a super better thing. It would help their narrative if they make it sound like all the competitors are ready to fail at any moment.

      So the competitors going along with it and making it look like Samsung is *leading* in battery safety would just play into Samsung's hands.

      In terms of the actual relative merit, who knows, but from a perspective of marketable storytelling, it is very much not in the interest of Samsung's competitors to play up Samsung's process. If there is merit that their competitors are told about and recognize, expect them to silently improve their process, but in no way publicize that fact.

      As someone who has been exposed to business litigation and insurance cases, to me it seems more that they are stacking wood against any current and future litigation. Not only did they correct the problem, but they are going above and beyond the minimum required.

      Even well-built batteries do sometimes fail, usually due to abuse, but proving abuse is difficult if the battery is reduced to a small mound of melted plastic. Any Samsung battery failure like now or in the near future are going to have a pack

      • by Gr8Apes ( 679165 )

        Publicising their QA process now serves to help defend against current and future litigation.

        It doesn't do squat against current litigation. Litigation already in progress related to a past event isn't going to be helped by what you started doing today to prevent said event in the future.

    • by c ( 8461 )

      It would help their narrative if they make it sound like all the competitors are ready to fail at any moment.

      Yeah, instead it's just giving competitors an opportunity to fire back with a "well, it's nice that Samsung is finally taking battery testing as seriously as we've been all along..."

      Immediately after making a massive fuck up in a particular field isn't really the time to publicly tout your expertise in that field. It takes a bit of time to demonstrate that you've actually learned from your mistake an

    • It would help their narrative if they make it sound like all the competitors are ready to fail at any moment.

      We had an iPhone 5 catch fire at work (actually the first ever case of a phone fire I had heard of was from an iPhone). I had my GPS unit catch fire while attached to my camera. Today I read in the news that someone's wireless headphones burst into flames while on an aircraft burning their face. Google any phone model + fire and you'll likely find results.

      Sure nothing has failed as spectacularly as the Note 7 but it's worth remembering that the original fault was from one battery manufacturer and the subseq

  • should listen to Samsung's advice about batteries!

    • Re:Because everybody (Score:5, Informative)

      by freeze128 ( 544774 ) on Friday March 24, 2017 @02:16PM (#54104527)
      Yes. Everybody *SHOULD* listen to Samsung about batteries, because Samsung suffered a HUGE SETBACK with the exploding phones, and therefore are committed to that NEVER HAPPENING AGAIN! They cannot allow it. They cannot afford it.

      If Samsung implements their battery check procedure, do you think they will ever having a problem with exploding phone batteries again? I don't think they will.
      • Yes. Everybody *SHOULD* listen to Samsung about batteries, because Samsung suffered a HUGE SETBACK with the exploding phones, and therefore are committed to that NEVER HAPPENING AGAIN! They cannot allow it. They cannot afford it. If Samsung implements their battery check procedure, do you think they will ever having a problem with exploding phone batteries again? I don't think they will.

        Samsung had processes in place before the exploding battery issue. It's not like they blindly created batteries and this snuck up on them. So they are putting more red tape in place but that doesn't mean an issue can't slip by in the future. Nobody predicts problems. They just happen.

    • should listen to Samsung's advice about batteries!

      Yes, that's how every industry works. They build the future on the ashes of past failures. Samsung is the expert in this process now as they have invested considerably to identify weak points in their processes. They should be listened to.

  • You currently are on the bottom of the battery safety ladder. No one is going to listen to you now.

    Yes, I know you think you've developed an industry-leading battery safety design and procedures, but maybe give it a little time and wait til you are closer to the top of the ladder before asking other companies to join in, and maybe you'll get a better response.
  • by Anonymous Coward

    without reading the article, because I cannot get passed the headline - is that "new standards have been ignored" or "a new standard has been ignored"?

    has and have are not that confusing, it's not like it is an Oxford comma or anything

    • "Have" is correct. Let me help you parse the sentence...

      "Samsung's Calls For Industry To Embrace Its Battery Check Process as a New Standard Have Been Ignored."

      "Samsung's Calls...Have Been Ignored"

      (It is not "Samsung's New Standard Have Been Ignored" as you seem to be reading it.)

    • by Anonymous Coward

      'Past' and 'passed' aren't that difficult either, but you managed to fuck it up.

    • by green1 ( 322787 )

      It would greatly help your case if you hadn't mixed up past and passed yourself. However after reading your comment, it is very difficult to take your criticism seriously.

  • Do what I say, not what I do.
    I mean, of course Samsung really needs a new battery check process, doesn't mean others also need it.
    In order for anyone to follow Samsung's advices, they need first to prove it's worth for other companies, not only that it's needed for themselves not to f*ck up things further.
    And in the end, it was a design flaw that caused the whole deal. Samsung rushed the process, cut corners (figuratively AND literally) to release the phone faster, ignored warnings, which ultimately lead to

    • Other companies would follow if Samsung had lower rates of failures, not the opposite.

      That is not how industries work. Companies who experience epic failures are likely to invest the most in ensuring they don't happen again. They are most definitely the ones to lean from.

  • I think it will be enough if Samsung applies to itself - after all, Samsung is the on-fire company, aiming to reignite the public's interest with its flaming successes.

Logic is a systematic method of coming to the wrong conclusion with confidence.

Working...