Active Topics



Thread Tools
Posts: 617 | Thanked: 2,024 times | Joined on Nov 2010 @ USA
Posted mainly for the "remote bricking" story. (But certainly any N900 owner can at least sympathize with the desire to never part with a beloved device.)

Verizon is still trying to get the last Samsung Galaxy note 7 owners to return their recalled splosion-phones, but several thousand users have "somehow" avoided the remote-bricking software . . . let's say "update" for lack of a better word.

Fortune magazine reports that VZW is now sending all non-emergency calls made from the device to their customer service department instead of the dialed number. (Never dealt with VZW customer service, but if they're like other service providers, that might be worse than having your house burned down )

The article states that a few users "somehow avoided the killer upgrade and are still using their relatively dangerous smartphones". I think the reporter could have fleshed out the "somehow" part with a google search, but whatever.

The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to robthebold For This Useful Post:
gerbick's Avatar
Posts: 6,590 | Thanked: 14,589 times | Joined on Jul 2007 @ undecided.
Wow. That does suck.

I mean, it's not like the N900 had a fatal flaw in it like an USB port that might fall out and it was denied by this forum initially and by Nokia as well. No, that never happened...


In the end, all of these devices are fallible. But what Verizon is doing is setting a new precedent.
gerbick | iPhone X [ 256GB iOS 11.4 Beta ] | iPad Pro [ 256GB iOS 11.4 Beta ]
Former Maemo Council Member - 2015

The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to gerbick For This Useful Post:
Community Council | Posts: 4,375 | Thanked: 10,831 times | Joined on May 2012 @ Southerrn Finland
Actually I am a bit suspicious is such an operation Verizon is conducting even legal? (And I am sure in Finland it would not be allowed)

Does it say in their contract that they are allowed to retroactively destroy devices that are in customers possession, or are the devices not sold but rented out on some contract which gives them permission to do so?

And this business of rerouting the calls from their customers off-track; If I call my grandma's number I probably except to reach granny and not Verizon's tech support...

The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to juiceme For This Useful Post:
pichlo's Avatar
Posts: 5,347 | Thanked: 16,354 times | Joined on Sep 2012 @ UK
gerbick, there is a difference between a flaw that may incapacitate the device and a flaw that may threaten the life or property. Not that I condone Verizon's action but I can understand it.

juiceme, as I understand it, the firmware update came from Samsung, not Verizon. I do not know if it is possible to avoid a system update on Samsung devices; on Jolla it is kind of possible but the phone keeps pestering you to no end. Forwarding calls is a different matter altogether. I do not know about the US but I am sure it would be illegal in the EU. I would be rather peeved if my operator did that to me, especially if they charged me for the call. If that happened, I would leave them in a heartbeat.
In particle accelerators atoms are indeed not only touching each others. But banging together in a massive explosive orgasm.
-- nieldk in a TMO post

The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to pichlo For This Useful Post:

Thread Tools

Forum Jump

All times are GMT. The time now is 03:13.