The Galaxy Note 7 recall is one of Samsung’s biggest mishaps in history. But is it a signal that there might be something wrong with more of Samsung’s smartphone batteries at large? Samsung cited 35 instances of malfunctioning batteries when it officialized the Galaxy Note 7 recall almost two weeks ago.
Since then, we learned that more than 70 Galaxy Note 7 units exploded in the US alone, but that’s not all. We also saw reports of other Samsung smartphones going up in flames.
DON’T MISS: 8 cool iOS 10 features you probably haven’t found yet
This doesn’t necessarily mean that all Samsung batteries are bad. But it certainly doesn’t look good for Samsung.
A 6-year-old boy used what was initially believed to be a Galaxy Note 7 that exploded in his hands. It turns out it was a different phone that exploded, not a Galaxy Note 7. Many pointed out that fact. But the focus here is still on Samsung. That other phone was a Samsung-made Galaxy Core Prime, and it still exploded.
If that’s not enough, a Galaxy S7 edge exploded in the hands of an owner, and it was all caught on camera. It really isn’t pretty:
Meanwhile, as per Bloomberg, Samsung has decided to employ ATL batteries for the Galaxy Note 7, rather than the ones made by its SDI affiliate.
Samsung has already discovered the problem with the batteries, and it all has to do with manufacturing them. “Initial conclusions indicate an error in production that placed pressure on plates contained within battery cells,” Bloomberg notes. “That, in turn, brought negative and positive poles into contact, triggering excessive heat. Samsung, however, stressed that it needed to carry out a more thorough analysis to determine ‘the exact cause’ of battery damage.”
Smartphone explosions do occur from time to time, and all smartphone makers have experienced them. But there never was an epidemic of faulty batteries before, certainly nothing like the Galaxy Note 7. These Galaxy S7 and Galaxy Core Prime incidents are likely isolated, but they certainly don’t look good for Samsung right now.
[ad_2]
Source link
0 comments:
Post a Comment