This could be the refurbished Galaxy Note 7 with a 3,200 mAh battery

Comments

  • Ipse

    That’s sad news for Canadians…A 400$ Note 7R is eons better than the equivalent ZTE and Alcatel garbage they feed us in that price range.
    But I’m speculating on the price….

    • TP

      Even if Samsung sells Note 7R in Canada, there is 0 possibility it will be $400.

    • Garrett Cooper

      No way it would be $400. I could see a 30% discount, so if the original was $1k, I think you’re still realistically looking at $700 outright. They’ll at least start there to see what the market will allow. There were a lot of people who gave up their N7 that didn’t want to. Who would gladly buy back in.

    • Spencer Navarra-Chew

      Yeah, but the reason is likely that Samsung just wants us to forget about the Note 7 fiasco and not detract from the S8 launch.
      Either way, not selling the refurbs works in their favour.

  • TP

    LOL this is why I can’t help hating the company from moral & commitment perspective. Back in October, Samsung confirmed they would ‘dispose of’ recalled Note 7 phones.

    • thereasoner

      But there 2 was a backlash from environmentalists who pictured landfills being filled with discarded Note 7 parts so Samsung understandably put the devices to their original use.

    • h2oflyer

      Samsung doesn’t care about the environment. Removing the battery would have made the device disposal safe…But they would have had to pay a fee to the recyclers to mine the phones for rare materials.

      This is a better alternative, they should give the phones away to those regions where affordability is an issue. Low cost PR.

    • thereasoner

      If they care about PR, which is obvious, then refurbishing the phones was a given considering the negative backlash associated with disposal.

    • TP

      Kind of get where the decision is from, but still I expected all devices to be safely disposed of, rather than putting a smaller battery and renaming it to ‘R’ and selling again. If a carmaker released a brand new generation of a very popular premium car model, and that was entirely recalled for a serious safety issue…after 6 months the same car is sold with a slightly different engine? I would be very concerned just to be on the same road with that car.

    • Garrett Cooper

      Your comparison is a poor one because if, say BMW, launched a new 3 series with a motor that some spontaneously exploded, they would have no problem doing a recall, installing an updated engine and reselling. The car industry would 100% do this instead of crushing every car.

    • TP

      Just giving an example, and it may happen in car industry tomorrow too. It never happened in phone industry either, before Note 7. Things like this, there were the same replies – ‘just swap the battery and get done’…well it didn’t fix the problem so Samsung had to stop selling and collect all sold phones.

    • h2oflyer

      It seems everyone wants to buy into Samsung’s repeated battery failures and that there was nothing else wrong with the Note7. They were just storing the phones until they could put in new batteries… and it took them this long to figure out how to do this.

      The biggest spin was the proposed environment issue and now Samsung is going to save the planet and try to recover a few dollars. Right!

    • TP

      Well, still, they should have not committed to dispose of them at the beginning then.

    • thereasoner

      Funny that you mentioned cars. Volkswagen did exactly that with the buy back program of millions of cars found to be cheating on emissions. They are to be resold in markets with no such restrictions.

      I’m sure that the Note 7 is now safe with a new smaller battery, they’re presumably undergoing the same rigorous testing the new S8 models are.

    • TP

      I’m not against the idea of ‘reselling’ itself. I’m against the idea of reselling a product that was once declared as serious safety risk and was even promised to be disposed, now all the bad press is gone and the company comes up with ‘refurbished’. VW never committed to dispose of the cars. VW emission was not safety related. If Note 7 had a bootloop issue and Samsung recalled and changed all motherboard and said ‘phone is fine’, then I am good with that too. This is a phone that caught fire, and the maker itself tried to exchange, phone still exploded, maker said they would get rid of them. I guess they just kept them in a huge warehouse until all bad press disappears, and now’s the perfect time for come back?

    • thereasoner

      If VW had committed to disposing of the cars and faced the same backlash for that as Samsung did then they, or any other company for that matter, would bend to environmentalists demands.

      Samsung is doing the right thing by not wasting these phones and not just by environmental standards but it’s also good PR when you do what the environmentalists want. So if anything, refurbished Note 7’s aren’t the bad idea here, the bad idea was Samsung saying that they would dispose of them.

      BTW, VW cheating emissions is considered a health risk in jurisdictions like California, just sayin.

    • TP

      I am with you on your points, and I do think recycling is a better idea. I have been talking about the company from ‘commitment’ perspective. They don’t seem to be doing business responsibly. This means that from the moment they said phones would be disposed of, they were actually collecting the phones in warehouse for non-disposal purpose.

    • thereasoner

      Actually, they were collected for testing purposes and were not allowed to be disposed of until Samsung and those independent labs in Korea and the United States had completed and confirmed the true cause/causes of the Note 7 debacle.

      Could you imagine the backlash Samsung would have faced had they started disposing of Note 7 phones before those independent labs were done with them? It would have been far worse than environmentalists complaints about landfills being filled with Note 7 parts, cries of Samsung trying to cover up things by disposing of the evidence would have been huge !!

    • h2oflyer

      Too much sleazy Samsung spin going around.

      Did the “independent” labs need to check every one of the millions of returned phones?

      Anyone tell me where I can read a copy of the independent labs reports?

    • thereasoner

      I find the opposite to be true, so much sleazy Samsung hate going around.

      Don’t know how many phones were checked overall but at least Samsung wasn’t fool enough to start tossing them out beforehand so to make it easier for the haters to scream “cover up”.

      What do you need to read? Does your paranoia and hate run so deep that you believe that even American labs are in kahoots with Samsung?

    • h2oflyer

      No paranoia, just common sense. There was a lot of noise made about independent labs arriving at the failure reason which was announced by Samsung. I don’t recall seeing a report published by any of these independent labs.

      These agencies were hired by Samsung who rightfully got the reports they paid for.

      What makes you believe that Samsung has been totally honest on the Note7 failure. Have you read independent reports that explain their findings. Or have you just accepted Samsung’s deepest apology.

      Samsung makes great phones and I love my S7, BUT as a corporation, I can only use one word to describe their shortcomings, and that is SLEAZY.

    • thereasoner

      Yep, sounds like paranoia to me as you seem to believe that even American UL(Underwriters Laboratories), the largest safety certification company in the world who’s tested more electronics than any other for decades can be bought yet not a shred of evidence to back up said paranoia at that.

      All 3 labs, UL, Exponent and TUVReinland all in Samsungs back pocket despite statements from UL that more testing needed to be done still?, yet in your world these labs were still risking their highly respected business in being bought off ? and nothing to back that up but paranoid presumptions presented as some kind of twisted description of “common sense “? Really? Lmao! I’m not going to jump to paranoid conclusions without any evidence like you do and unlike you I also understand the meaning of the term common sense, there’s none of that in your point of view, just a presumptuous attitude based on paranoia is all I’m seeing from you.

      As for what I’ve chosen to believe, what I have for a perspective is at least backed up by credible reports and professional labs that, like the Korean lab, were hired by a government consumer safety agency and ordered to investigate , NOT Samsung, the fact that all these labs had nothing to gain and everything to lose by taking payoffs and/or staying silent had their findings been different and that they’re all reported as the same conclusion being drawn. UL did say that despite the findings they wanted to keep looking for other cause but that’s it, nothing else was found or we would all know about it obviously! That kind of news can’t be kept secret even if they tried, it would surely leak out ! There’s simply no reason to hide anything anyways, it’s not like it could be any worse for Samsung!

      So what have you got besides a conspiracy theory, paranoia and zero evidence to back it up? Oh, that’s right, NOTHING!

    • h2oflyer

      You are so paranoid you can’t see straight. No one has said that there is a conspiracy and secret pay offs.

      You talk of credible reports from these agencies. Where are the reports? Your belief and perspective is backed up by these credible reports ! You must have seen these reports that no one else has.

      You wave around all the impressive credentials of these agencies, yet you can’t​ point me in the direction of these reports. Common sense in this case is asking to see the reports to confirm what Samsung is saying. We’re talking a highly technical investigation into a serious safety issue….Why would I or others not be interested.

    • thereasoner

      Again, what’s to read? These reports mirror Samsung findings as at least UL confirmed first hand when they , like the other labs, agreed with the battery issue. They just said they wanted to test more for other causes (your holy grail) yet have come back with nothing!
      – Why wouldn’t they or others say so if something else was found?,
      – why wouldn’t we know about it?
      – Why wouldn’t secrets leak with so many people involved if there were any?
      – Can you not answer any questions at all or are you so consumed by paranoia that you’re blind to those common sense questions?

      Every single credible news agency and online source has reported this so YES I do have good reason for my perspective so again, I’ll ask you to back up your paranoid conspiracy theory that there is something more being hidden with any evidence of your own. So far you have produced nothing !

      I’m sorry, but it’s not “common sense” to presume that these labs are helping Samsung in a cover up with out a shred of evidence to back up that claim. What it is, plain and simple, is text book paranoia !

      I deal in available information unlike you paranoid types not conspiracy theories, I’m done here! In the meantime between your Bigfoot sittings you might want to read this direct from UL;
      “The Underwriters Laboratories investigation concluded that thin separators could have contributed to the risk of short circuits in both Note7 batteries. In addition, “higher energy density” in batteries such as those used in the Galaxy Note7 “can exacerbate the severity of a battery failure,” Sajeev Jesudas, the president of UL’s Consumer Business Unit, said at a public Samsung press conference.”
      – source, Consumer Reports

    • h2oflyer

      I deal in facts , not spin. You’ve done a search for credible lab reports and came up with one PR statement at a Samsung press conference which we’ve all seen. Samsung’s batteries are designed and manufactured to a certification standard. Where is the UL report outlining if the failure is a design defect or poor manufacturing. I’ve read other UL reports on other lith-ion devices which include detailed analysis of their investigation.

      The saddest part of this UL statement (not a report) is the generic reference to lith-ion batteries that experience failures worse than other battery types. A known fact for the last 20 yrs. What does this have to do with the Note7 failures. NOTHING, yet you want to believe that a silly generic lith-ion statement is part of a comprehensive UL investigation.

      There is no conspiracy. You want to believe in statements made by those you believe are more important than you.

      You refer to my Note7 battery management issue as ” the holy grail”, wrong. We all use lith-ion devices today and should be concerned why they fail. Do some simple research and discover why 99% of catastrophic lith-ion failures happen while being charged.

    • thereasoner

      It’s NOT a PR report, it’s a direct quote from UL that summarises the report conclusion in plain english.

      I couldn’t​ read any more of your garbage because the first sentence of your post proves without a doubt how far gone you really are! I’ve seen you post on many topics and most are very negative which is typical of you paranoid types and here you have admitted that you believe, for no good reason what’s so ever, that the UL executive lied at that press conference for the benefit of Samsung.
      – UL confirmed and validated Samsungs results in acknowledging that they too came to the same battery explanation.
      – neither Samsung or the UL found any other causes but the UL executive did say that they would continue testing in an effort to find any.
      – since that time time UL have brought forth NOTHING in terms of other causes.

      Game over! You will have better luck at getting a selfie with Bigfoot than pulling off this conspiracy theory, lol.

      BTW, Yes, we did go to the moon and No, the world is not flat 🙂

    • h2oflyer

      If you could read without drooling and foaming at the mouth you word see that I have many positive posts and posts that provide information that I have learned from actual experience on products I use.

      I’m glad that you believe that the UL/Samsung PR statement that lith-ion batteries like those used on the Note7 can suffer catastrophic failures​.This was investigation in it’s highest and clearly helped explain the reason for the Note7 failure. That really was earth shattering news..And was meaningless

      It’s People like yourself that have zero knowledge of battery chemistry and battery limits and how battery management is supposed to work.Just keep on drinking the Kool aid. You also don’t understand how investigative and Approval agencies work and who gets the private (not public) report.

      That’s your homework assignment…Find out how batteries work and how the approval agencies deliver their reports…Good Luck and have a nice day.

    • TP

      Thanks for explanation, it is understandable why they stored them and now resell them. Still kinda see why Samsung decide to sell them in select developing countries only. If they do sell them in North America, I will believe they are doing it for good will.

    • thereasoner

      What I want to know is if a production run of the Note 7 with the new smaller battery is planned or are they simply selling off the 2-3 million made up to the point of those recalls?

      If they’re only selling those that were made already then I can understand the limited distribution to 3rd world markets. There obviously wouldn’t be enough of them to sell in huge markets like China or North America.

    • Spencer Navarra-Chew

      No new production, they’re just trying to recoup some of the massive writedowns associated with the recall.

    • h2oflyer

      Actually they weren’t collected for testing purposes. They were returned dangerous phones being stored until Samsung decided on the next step.

      You’re as bad as Samsung making up information. Could you please tell us who was ordering Samsung on what to do with the stored Note 7s.

    • thereasoner

      Obviously they were recalled , they kept them (collected) instead of tossing them out because they needed to test them.

      You’re certainly not the brightest bulb in the house to say the least, lol.

    • h2oflyer

      You talk about bulb brightness and are convinced all the millions of phones were tested.

      Costs to test each phone would probably come close to assembly costs for the phone … You’re so smart, figure that one out. You really shouldn’t be talking about stuff you know nothing about.

      Samsung doesn’t need your help in making up statements.

    • h2oflyer

      Typical Samsung greed. Attempting to turn an accidental crap into a revenue stream.

  • h2oflyer

    Interesting to find out what else has been changed besides just the battery.

  • MoYeung

    Firmware update?

  • Spencer Navarra-Chew

    Looks like they’ve limited it to QuickCharge 2.0 instead of the 3.0 it originally had.
    The first screenshot shows “Rated: 9V 1.67A”.
    QC3.0 uses 12V

    • h2oflyer

      I believe the 9v 1.67 is the battery rating. The S7 fast charges at 1.6 or below when measured on my ampmeter. I still say there was a battery management hardware issue besides the battery problem.

    • Spencer Navarra-Chew

      Can’t be a battery raiting, lithium cells run at 4.2v max (less as they discharge) and they’re rated in milliamp/hours (current discharge over time).
      Also, QuckCharge 3.0 supports from 3.2v to 20v depending on the availability from the charger, so you’re only charging moderately quick at 6v. Was that with your OEM Samsung charger? Also what was your battery level at? The charging slows down as the battery charges to keep the thermal levels lower.

      I share your belief that battery management was a factor which is why I think they kneecaped the refurbished units. Higher charging speeds push temperatures higher.

    • h2oflyer

      What I meant by battery rating is charging value. Same as the 9v 1.67A on my S7. I use the OEM charger or an Anker 2.0 Qualcomm battery pack and never see higher than 1.5-1.6A on either charge method. I get the same values from my battery monitoring app as my external amp meter.

      And yes charging current drops as battery voltage increases. The maximum temperature during charge that I have seen is 34c and that has been consistent for the last 5 charges.

      The battery management​ on my S7 with Exynos works great and that is why I’m reluctant to trade up to the S8.

    • Spencer Navarra-Chew

      Yes, battery charging is exactly what I was talking about.
      I’ve just done a quick bit of research thay shows that Samsung kneecaped all S7’s at QC2.0 due to the Exynos not supporting QC3.0 (although the SD820 does) to keep charging consistent across all SKUs.
      Apparently they did the same on the Note 7, so yes it is kneecaped, no it’s not new.

    • h2oflyer

      Forgot to clarify the charging temperature. The 34c was on the wireless charging pad and most of that 34c is transferred from the charging pad.

      If I go from on screen use with temp. around 25c-30c to cable charging, the temp actually drops to ambient while charging.

      So , no issues with high charging temps with the Exynos S7

    • Spencer Navarra-Chew

      According to my research, the same 1.67 amps as the S7, although that’s second hand information, and I don’t know the temps. I’ve verified your findings on the S7 charging personally (using a friend’s phone – I don’t use Samsung phones, personally)

  • Garrett Cooper

    I have no issue with this if they’re all safe. What’s the point in wasting all of those raw materials? I could see this having a ~30% discount, and being pretty popular actually. Many people were forced to give theirs up when they didn’t want to. Even with the concern of it possibly blowing up.

  • Pingback: Microsoft officially drops support for Windows Vista today | Newze()