[Note 7 Questions & Answers] PhoenixJedi:
In response to what you posted I feel the need to respond.

You say overheating is safer than catching fire or exploding. However, if they're using the term for catching fire and exploding it does not make the term not include standard overheating. People have been pushed to panic about the Note 7 to the point where a warm phone could be reason for them to complain and make a report.

My math isn't fuzzy. just because I read the statement as 92 instead of 96 doesnt mean the math for 92 is incorrect. So, its still way less than 0.0001% even with the extra 4.

You can't prove its at the 150 unit point. And even if it is its still less than 0.0001% of devices.

I'm not asking for it to make a return. I do think that people on this forum should stop ATTACKING people who keep their note 7s though.

The NY Times (a reputable paper) has made the announcement that Samsung cannout replicate the explosions: http://www.phonearena.com/news/NYT-...e-Galaxy-Note-7-explosions-in-the-lab_id86469

The September 9th date was based on the first report I was able to find via searching online. Either way, people here on XDA have been claiming that the devices exploded without EVER having been plugged into a charger. If the first report was 8/24, then that's still enough time that a unit would have had to be plugged in to a faulty charger or used with a faulty cable making that a possible cause.

Now, you say that Samsung found that the problem was a battery cell issue. If it was a battery cell issue, the first recall would have solved it. Therefore, as the first recall did not solve it, that statement that it is a battery cell issue is automatically false. The likelyhood the same exact issue would occur between two seperate battery manufacturers is exponentially low.

As for your complaints regarding the three things that users could have done that could have compromised the charging system: the software controlling charging, the USB C issues and the people abusing their phones beyond the specifications.. I'm just saying, these things could VERY EASILY been the things that compromised the phone in all 96 reported cases.

As for having a nearly dead battery and plugging it into a 5v 10A charger, it will NOT PULL 10A unless the software/hardware combination ALLOWS IT TO. This is seen when you plug an iPhone into an iPad charger. (There are programs that let you see the charge rate on Jailbroken iPhones. Even with a 2400mA charger meant for an iPad, it refused to go over 1000mA). Hence it requires that the software or hardware are damaged in some way to pull that from the charger. I understand how lithium ion batteries work. I also know that on these batteries (including the Note 7s battery) there is a protection board that CUTS the circuit completely should charge rate or discharge rate be too high.

Now in response to your last comment, yes, I still believe it was the media's overattention to the situation that forced samsung's hand. Yes people got injured and property was damaged, but this is not the first device ever made that has caused injuries and property damage. There have been devices in the past that have been recalled and not discontinued as well as devices that have not even been recalled that have cased injuries and property damage. It happened to dell laptops too a while back, and to macbook pros (which had an irreplaceable battery) They didn't discontinue the products using those batteries. But yes, with so little of the devices catastrophically failing, I believe for sure that it was the Media keeping on the story so attentively that diverted Samsung's attention away from the investigation. For all we know at the moment they may have made a mistake discontinuing the device and issuing the second recall when it could all be fixed by a firmware update or with a warning not to use uncertified cables. Key word here COULD.

Now, am I going to say that I'm 100% right about everything I've said in this thread? NO. I can't prove most of it, but via the information that is out there, you can make logical conclusions. Quite a few things can damage a device (especially with a li-ion battery) to the point where it'll fail. My thought is it's just one of the things I've laid out in the first post, or a combination of two of them. This IS the first device of this size that samsung has ever put a USB-C port on. It is entirely possible they didn't protect the port in the ways other companies are doing now.

Now here is what NEEDS to happen... and I'm sure you can agree on this. Samsung and other agencies now need to stop trying to force people who do not want to turn the Note 7 in to turn them in. They need to focus on the investigation and if they find out that it was something that could be simply fixed in software, or something external that damaged the hardware, rather than a defect in the internals of the device, they need to RESUME support for the devices that are still out there (even if they don't restart production), and find a way to not scrap the note line forever.