[RIP] Samsung Galaxy Note7 Thread: Share ur last thoughts

[LiLAsN]

Anyone with package disabler pro that didn't get it? I used package disabler pro but today, got the update and cannot charge past 60%

Using it. Still no update.
Make sure this is completely disabled.

 

[saggice]

Anyone knows what happens if I cannot make it to the refund at the stated address?

There was no option to amend lol

 

[-nzy90]

Using it. Still no update.
Make sure this is completely disabled.

Yeah. I disabled that already. WiFi not on at night also.

 

[LiLAsN]

Yeah. I disabled that already. WiFi not on at night also.

Hmm.. Weird. I always turn on my Wi-Fi at home all the way till this morning without this issue.
I'll keep on monitoring if there's any changes.

 

[-Avenged-]

Be warned - Turning off Wi-Fi oso of no use. After few days of ignoring SS notification to upgrade fw, it finally auto updated via mobile data!! (While I took a leak & left it by bedside for just 5 mins!!). Luckily my replacement's coming on Sat...

Seriously, **** Samsung and their backdoor tactics. Had been postponing the update for days now, then I woke up this morning just to find that it'd auto-applied the update.

Sneaky sons of bitches, I'd love to throw my 60%-ed Note 7 in their ****ing CEO's face.

 

[-nzy90]

Seriously, **** Samsung and their backdoor tactics. Had been postponing the update for days now, then I woke up this morning just to find that it'd auto-applied the update.

Sneaky sons of bitches, I'd love to throw my 60%-ed Note 7 in their ****ing CEO's face.

I guess we should blame those who insist on not returning. They got to make this phone as undesirable as possible.

 

[JAPDestiny]

After the forced update this morning, (wifi was off), my shortcut keys on top are also gone. Now hv to manual to to settings to turn Wifi and bluetooth on.

Can set back the previous short cut keys?

I guess limiting to 60%, N7 battery power still better than my previous N3.
my phone exchange is 22 nov, another few more weeks to go.

 

[-Avenged-]

I guess we should blame those who insist on not returning. They got to make this phone as undesirable as possible.

No, at this point, I don't blame those who aren't returning. I wholly blame Samsung.

Samsung could have waited until all the Note 7s were either refunded or exchanged, before crippling the rest of their customers. By force-applying their ****ed up update so soon, before most people have had the chance to get a refund or switch to their shitty S7, they're just begging to leave an even more sour taste in their customers' mouths, especially those who have already signed up to refund or exchange.

What difference would another 20 days have really made in the grand scheme of things? I'd have bet my last dollar the incident rate wasn't going to suddenly double. They should have only forced the update AFTER they'd run their scheme - then anyone by then who hasn't changed can take it upon themselves to figure out what to do.

This is just pure stupidity by Samsung.

 

[Flanky]

Using it. Still no update.
Make sure this is completely disabled.

just this single process will do?
no other processes required to be disabled?

 

[Flanky]

actually just a thought.
IF someone were to say they do not want the refund or exchange, or before the exchange / refund takes place, technically the ownership of the phone belongs to that person correct?
So how come SS is allowed to "change" the features of the phone when they do not have ownership of the product anymore?
Or got some clause hidden somewhere that says they have the right to modify the phone anyway they wish?

I mean its like, you go into the shop, you buy something, later on the street, someone says to you:
"ay, I am the inventor of this item, I do not want you to have it anymore because of XXXXXX reason.
Even though you love it, I do not want you to have it.
I'm going to offer you $RRP back."
Then that person take out a spray paint and deface it, or to forcefully snatch from you to enable to built in "kill switch".
Q: Does that person have the right to do it?

Or say Lenovo laptop, last time they have the spyware hoohar, can they push out a BIOS update to cripple the laptop and offer $XXX to the owners?
Must the owners accept that offer?
Can't the owners choose not to accept the $XXX if they deem they are ok with a spyware infested computer?
If that "spyware" was powerfully enough, no doubt the computer perhaps will be banned by companies, prevent people from bringing in the laptop into a building, taking a plane, enact measures that if you take that item near a govt building, it will land you in prison, arrest your family etc etc.
BUT if the owner chooses to accept the risk, can lenovo still push out a forced update, if the owner chooses to live with the risk?

Just some thoughts I suddenly have.
OK, I think too much. lol

 

[Zappalapa]

my phone was auto-updated at 1++ using mobile data fug.

 

[Jumpman23]

The latest version of Package Disabler Pro has already hid these processes from being disabled, most likely requested by Samsung. From Google Play store: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.ospolice.packagedisablerpro&hl=en

"WHAT'S NEW

Following packages won't be seen in the list ;(
- com.wssyncmldm
- com.sec.android.fotaclient
- com.ws.dm
- com.samsung.sdm
- com.sec.android.soagent"

Don't waste your money to buy the app. The only way now to prevent the battery update is to restore the firmware using Smart Switch and root the device.

 

[-nzy90]

For those who want to get back 100% only way is root. Samsung is determined to stop people using this phone. Odin or smart switch method won't work.

Only flashing custom recovery and firmware will work. Any "official" method that doesn't trip Knox will fail. Tried on one of my note 7. The rest on custom ROMs not affected.

 

[-nzy90]

actually just a thought.
IF someone were to say they do not want the refund or exchange, or before the exchange / refund takes place, technically the ownership of the phone belongs to that person correct?
So how come SS is allowed to "change" the features of the phone when they do not have ownership of the product anymore?
Or got some clause hidden somewhere that says they have the right to modify the phone anyway they wish?

I mean its like, you go into the shop, you buy something, later on the street, someone says to you:
"ay, I am the inventor of this item, I do not want you to have it anymore because of XXXXXX reason.
Even though you love it, I do not want you to have it.
I'm going to offer you $RRP back."
Then that person take out a spray paint and deface it, or to forcefully snatch from you to enable to built in "kill switch".
Q: Does that person have the right to do it?

Or say Lenovo laptop, last time they have the spyware hoohar, can they push out a BIOS update to cripple the laptop and offer $XXX to the owners?
Must the owners accept that offer?
Can't the owners choose not to accept the $XXX if they deem they are ok with a spyware infested computer?
If that "spyware" was powerfully enough, no doubt the computer perhaps will be banned by companies, prevent people from bringing in the laptop into a building, taking a plane, enact measures that if you take that item near a govt building, it will land you in prison, arrest your family etc etc.
BUT if the owner chooses to accept the risk, can lenovo still push out a forced update, if the owner chooses to live with the risk?

Just some thoughts I suddenly have.
OK, I think too much. lol

Nope. They can update the firmware anyway they like. With this is recall, I doubt the consumer can do anything also. Cuz it isn't like Samsung is limiting battery but not offering refund. Try suing them and you'll lose cuz Samsung gave an alternative if you don't want a disabled phone.

 

[-nzy90]

Hmm.. Weird. I always turn on my Wi-Fi at home all the way till this morning without this issue.
I'll keep on monitoring if there's any changes.

I guess like someone posted here, package disabler pro now doesn't allow you to disable those services that prevent the updates. Only way is to go for custom firmware now.

 

[fortunecat]

actually just a thought.
IF someone were to say they do not want the refund or exchange, or before the exchange / refund takes place, technically the ownership of the phone belongs to that person correct?
So how come SS is allowed to "change" the features of the phone when they do not have ownership of the product anymore?
Or got some clause hidden somewhere that says they have the right to modify the phone anyway they wish?

I mean its like, you go into the shop, you buy something, later on the street, someone says to you:
"ay, I am the inventor of this item, I do not want you to have it anymore because of XXXXXX reason.
Even though you love it, I do not want you to have it.
I'm going to offer you $RRP back."
Then that person take out a spray paint and deface it, or to forcefully snatch from you to enable to built in "kill switch".
Q: Does that person have the right to do it?

Or say Lenovo laptop, last time they have the spyware hoohar, can they push out a BIOS update to cripple the laptop and offer $XXX to the owners?
Must the owners accept that offer?
Can't the owners choose not to accept the $XXX if they deem they are ok with a spyware infested computer?
If that "spyware" was powerfully enough, no doubt the computer perhaps will be banned by companies, prevent people from bringing in the laptop into a building, taking a plane, enact measures that if you take that item near a govt building, it will land you in prison, arrest your family etc etc.
BUT if the owner chooses to accept the risk, can lenovo still push out a forced update, if the owner chooses to live with the risk?

Just some thoughts I suddenly have.
OK, I think too much. lol

As long as it concerns safety, they probably won't be blamed for doing all these. You might think they do not have the right to do so but others will feel they are Irresponsible for letting consumers use it as per normal.

Sent from Note 7 using GAGT

 

[-nzy90]

As long as it concerns safety, they probably won't be blamed for doing all these. You might think they do not have the right to do so but others will feel they are Irresponsible for letting consumers use it as per normal.

Sent from Note 7 using GAGT

Yeah. With the recall and everything, I think anyone who decides to go against Samsung legally well surely lose.

 

[Bonn]

Imagine your Note 7 brings down a Boeing 777-300 with a full flight of people. I think that doesn't go well with anyone including Samsung. Thats why now all the notifications are shown at the check in counter. Totally banned Note 7. So you can only use it privately and it will be a pain later since the Note 7 can do more than that.

 

[Fellowes]

Those steel teeth die also don't want to return their Note7, be prepared to face your own consequences. Risking your life of your own, family, and those people around you.

All never kena can just talk only, when really explode i laugh at you. 铁齿是没有好下场的， 不听老人言吃亏在眼前。

Samsung Galaxy Note 7 to be cut off from all New Zealand carriers starting November 18th
http://www.phonearena.com/news/Sams...aland-carriers-starting-November-18th_id87416

Hope a global cut off to be implement soon so i can laugh at those keeping a potiential worthless explosive brick.You better don't come near me or invite people sit close to you. Well i cannot blame them as some people aren't very bright. Yes, you love the phone but is it worth the risk? Common sense key here.

 

[BraveCloudy]

The latest version of Package Disabler Pro has already hid these processes from being disabled, most likely requested by Samsung. From Google Play store: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.ospolice.packagedisablerpro&hl=en

"WHAT'S NEW

Following packages won't be seen in the list ;(
- com.wssyncmldm
- com.sec.android.fotaclient
- com.ws.dm
- com.samsung.sdm
- com.sec.android.soagent"

Don't waste your money to buy the app. The only way now to prevent the battery update is to restore the firmware using Smart Switch and root the device.

I updated and I still see the following with tick enabled.

- com.wssyncmldm
- com.sec.android.soagent


I still have my "software update" tick enabled but the rest don't have.
The rest doesn't matter because whatever I ticked blocked last week is still there, like knox, security updates, etc.
I guess the above mentioned 2 is important as it concerns the software update.