Home / News / Mobile Phone News / Exploding Galaxy Note 7 batteries were made by… Samsung

Exploding Galaxy Note 7 batteries were made by… Samsung

by

Note 7 charred

Samsung’s Galaxy Note 7 recall is set to cost the company over $1 billion dollars, not to mention untold amounts in lost future sales and damage to its reputation.

Surely, the firm will be on a warpath for the supplier who makes those faulty, prone to explosion battery units? Well perhaps it would if the batteries weren’t made by a Samsung subsidiary called Samsung SDI

Related: Samsung Galaxy Note 7 recall - FAQ

Reports on Friday reveal Samsung has been forced to turn to a third-party in order to make up for the shortcoming of non-exploding batteries.

According to a report from IBTimes, Samsung has dramatically upped its orders from China’s ATL to provide batteries for the Note 7.

"A high-ranking Samsung official last week asked ATL to increase the monthly supply to 4 million battery cells and we have decided to do so," said an ATL executive.

Previously Samsung had been making 60 to 70 per cent of Note 7 batteries, while 30 to 40 per cent were being made by ATL.

Reports of exploding Galaxy Notes are still prevalent despite the global recall.

Just yesterday, we brought word of a Florida couple whose Jeep was engulfed in flames after leaving a Note 7 charging in the car.

If you’re one of the folks out there still using a Galaxy Note 7, just hope the battery unit was made by China ATL.

Prem Desai

September 9, 2016, 4:59 pm

I wonder what would have happened if the battery was user replaceable - like previous Note models ....

Menorca Man

September 9, 2016, 5:11 pm

Not quite true!! After much research on the Internet (far too much plagiarism between sites!!) I've concluded that, of the 60 to 70 percent quoted above, a number of those were actually manufactured by South Korean company TMI. However, given that Samsung's SDI battery division were responsible for outsourcing these TMI batteries, Samsung has accepted (quite rightly) overall responsibility for the problem. Kudos to them for doing the right thing by recalling the effected Note 7s

shrike1978

September 9, 2016, 7:05 pm

Then we would have zero water resistance.

It's Me

September 12, 2016, 12:45 am

Unfortunately, you're operating under a misconception. Early speculation put the blame on defective battery packs from "ITM Semiconductor". This was never directly attributed to anyone at Samsung. Samsung later put out an official statement and they place the blame on defective battery cells, which ITM isn't even involved in producing. The cells come from two companies: Samsung SDI and a Chinese company. The WSJ is reporting that Samsung Elec has dropped Samsung SDI for Note batteries now (they previously supplied 70%) because of their screw up.

Samsung never mentioned ITM though the echo chamber picked up on one writers speculation and ran with it as fact. Samsung has dispelled that myth, though I wouldn't be surprised if they had originally planted the ITM rumour.

Also, the "recall" isn't a recall. It's a voluntary customer service exchange program, which continues to put people at risk. The CPSC has now apparently convinced them of the need for a formal recall, but has not yet been announced. Without a formal recall, stores can still sell defective notes and regulators, like FAA, are left in the dark as to the real extent of the risk.

Far from kudos for Samsung, they've done as little as possible. They've usually just ignored defects in the past, so kudos for reacting at all, but the potentially lethal consequences of this defect forced some action.
Ideally they would have done a proper recall immediately instead of weeks later.

adi

September 13, 2016, 7:42 am

So, do you often talk underwater?

adi

September 13, 2016, 7:43 am

It "percent" from "percentage" not from "/cent".

Peter_T

September 13, 2016, 3:46 pm

ATL only supply the 30% of Galaxy Note 7 which are sold in China, which none had exploded yet. The rest 70% sold world-wide are made by SDI. I guess now ATL is seen to be more reliable than SDI now and its stock price is sure to go up.

Prem Desai

September 13, 2016, 8:59 pm

Not true.

Just lazy designers or pig-headed like Apple.

Several cheapo waterproof cameras have removable batteries and memory cards. Even the Note 7 has a removable memory card.

If Samsung had included a removable battery in the spec, the phone might have look marginally less stylish (not sure to whom), but would have avoided this ridiculous situation Samsung is now.

I bet the next Note model will have a removable batter!!

shrike1978

September 14, 2016, 6:31 pm

Who said anything about talking underwater?

shrike1978

September 14, 2016, 6:40 pm

Those designs have some severe limitations. The SIM/SD tray on the Note S7/S7E/Note 7 has a thick rubber gasket in it and it isn't intended to be opened and closed with regularity. Having the battery in an accessible location would create an area where a large seal is present that is susceptible to being continuously opened and closed, and thus, easily damaged.

It's just really hard to guarantee waterproofing on something that isn't totally sealed externally unless you completely waterproof the interior components with an aquaphobic as well, which is extremely difficult and expensive. Those cameras you are referring to typically use common, cheap, off the shelf alkaline or NiMH batteries, not LiPo/Li-Ion in specialized packaging. If the batteries get damaged in them, no big deal, and if the seal fails and water gets into the body, they have far fewer internal electronic components that require aquaphobic coating.

Prem Desai

September 16, 2016, 10:17 pm

No mate. My sub £200 Olympus camera is waterproof (submersible) and has a removeable SD card along with a lithium ion battery.
It can be done, easily and cheaply. Samsung chose not to do it.
I bet the next gen Note will have a removeable battery!

Alan

October 6, 2016, 3:27 pm

False, the S5 was waterproof but had a removable battery. Samsuck just decided to copy Apple with the S6 and now the S7, but at least they put the SD card and waterproofing back. Now it's time for them to quit messing around and give us removable batteries again.

Bob

October 10, 2016, 9:27 pm

The facts strongly imply that Samsung has done as little as possible to rectify the situation, to address is publicly, and have not done an official recall, which they should do. Samsung is NOT to be applauded here, but should suffer some serious consequences to its reputation.

photohounds

October 11, 2016, 10:32 am

Samsung has been very honourable - Especially in comparison with Apple's stonewalling on faulty chargers.
Houses burnt, people injures all due to faulty chargers (apple outsources almost EVERYTHING).
.
How honourable was APPLE?
Not 13 DAYS to accept responsibility,
It took APPLE 13 YEARS as the problem came with the first ipods!
.
http://www.smh.com.au/digital-...
.
http://www.smh.com.au/digital-...
.
ABSOLUTELY SHAMEFUL of Apple. 13 YEARS!

photohounds

October 11, 2016, 10:34 am

Indeed - completely unlike the company selling outdated expensive phones - see post below ...

photohounds

October 11, 2016, 10:42 am

As unlucky and unfortunate as ths is, it still pales compared with the EXTREMELY poor service apple offered until 13 years of faulty chargers went by ...

Apple is lucky THEIR (ignored) problem wasn't nearly as "portable".. Samsung have been 100x as honourable.
Another example . . "Only 9 bent iphones" - so apple said.

I knew 5 such VICTIMS - in ONE office!

Let's compare apples with apples ..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

comments powered by Disqus