No, Dan. The only hypocrite here is you.
You are just trying a new dance routine, again trying to mischaracterize what I said by what you OMIT from my statements, which is NEVER what you typically claim I said, because you ALWAYS misquote me. I pasted my original post on this to you above exactly as written, no omissions, no additions. YOU CONFABULATED A LOT INTO IT THAT IS NOT THERE!
You have this severe case of reading comprehension and an even worse problem with interpretation of facts presented clearly and succinctly. You LOVE to take statements out of context of people you disagree with and build straw men out of those ex-contextual claims to be able to build a huge hissy-fit straw castle on which you build your cases. This whole thread has been a prime example of such a nonsense case of your typical fallacy type of arguments.
Perhaps you have a problem with just plain ignoring what is plainly said: in this instance you've taken my explanation about a typical electronic problem that is now beginning to show up with age in a well-out-of-warranty electronic product that was being forced to use non-lead solder that is perhaps inconveniencing a very tiny set of its users and pointing out IT IS NOT THE EQUIVALENT of a brand new product which has a growing number bursting into flame and/or exploding, literally injuring its users and destroying its users' property, and building a huge idiotic strawman illogical claim based on zero evidence to obfuscate the fact that Samsung's Note 7 is a dangerous product to use.
You are the hypocrite for harping on this and trying to make this false equivalency. I have not made this equivalency, you did. YOU are the one who somehow thinks that the users of this dangerous product should not be notified of the dangers or the recall. Are you wanting more property damage, more injuries? That's what's truly hypocritical!
What I am on record of is as stating plainly that the iPhone 6/6 plus "Touch Disease" problem is being a non-issue on a product that has been on the market for over TWO YEARS, is now out-of-warranty, and is showing a problem developing with age which inconveniences a very tiny number of a huge installed based of users, and as such is not the same level of severity of problem as a NEW PRODUCT that has been on the market for ONE WEEK that is showing a SEVERELY DANGEROUS problem from day one.
You say:
92 confirmed issues for 1 million units sold.
But you are conflating the data. "92 confirmed issues" actually equals FIRES, with 55 reports of property damage and 25 cases of persons with second and third degree burns but those are the ones reported to the Consumer Product Safety Commission ONLY in the United States of America. But then, you go off the deep end with the "for 1 million units sold" because that figure is actually, according to Samsung, the total sold into consumers' hands for the entire world out of the 2.5 million shipped. You are using the damage date for one part of the world against the sales figure for the entire world. That's a no-no, Dan. That's called statistical fraud to whitewash the problem.
You are again confabulating the data. Samsung is recalling all 2.5 million Note 7 phablets shipped WORLD WIDE of which APPROXIMATELY ONE MILLION OF THOSE 2.5 MILLION HAVE BEEN SOLD TO END USERS WORLD WIDE. Approximately 1.5 million Note 7s were still in the inventory channels or being shipped to carriers or retailers, unsold, at the time of the recall. This one million or so which were sold throughout the world as stated by Samsung, not just in the UNITED STATES as you allege! Let me repeat that: Not all of those one million or so were sold in the United States, Dan. Do I need to say it again? Samsung sold Note 7s in South Korea, Australia, Canada, the UK, and the United States, which totaled the approximate one million which reached consumers before Samsung suspended sales and instituted the recall.
Furthermore, the number of fires/explosions in the US is now somewhere over 150, approaching 200, which further distorts your claimed rate. There are a lot more fires and explosions in the other countries of the world where the Note 7s were sold that were NOT reported to the US CPSC because the US CPSC has no jurisdiction in those areas of the world. How difficult of a concept is that to grasp?
You keep deliberately excluding data you just don't want to exist. . . and deliberately misinterpreting what data there is to put a rosy glow on it. No matter how much you polish a dog turd, it is still a dog turd, Dan. And no matter how much you try to diminish it, it still stinks.
You are trying to get a percentage rate based on the fires/explosions reported ONLY in the UNITED STATES that have been reported to the CPSC, despite the fact that the CPSC gets reports late and only those that get the involvement of Fire Departments. . . AND you are ignoring the fact that those one million sold were the number sold all over the world in multiple countries, not just in the USA, and YOU ARE DELIBERATELY IGNORING THE DAMAGE AND INJURIES FROM THE REST OF THE WORLD WHICH IS NEVER REPORTED TO THE U.S. CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION. . . because it is not at all within their jurisdiction.
Your response says NOTHING about my point. As expected from a hypocrite.
YOU STILL DON'T GET IT! I answered you specifically to your point in detail, and you either did not bother to read it, or you didn't understand a word I wrote, or choose not to. Perhaps it is sheer ignorance.
You don't understand statistics at all, do you? Dan, you have to normalized your data to do any comparison that means anything. You cannot compare a product that has been on the market for TWO YEARS and has sold 250 million units, and has X number of failures which have mainly occurred with age, without extending the one week's worth of failures of your new product and multiply them by the equal number of weeks in TWO YEARS, 104, and normalizing sales numbers, so you are comparing like numbers and time periods! Otherwise, Dan, you are comparing two completely different sets of data. Otherwise, the rates cannot be compared at all. One is failures per 104 weeks on a huge number set, and the other is failures per 1 week on a small number set. . . yet in your ignorance YOU see absolutely ZERO difference.
Try doing the statistical projection math and PROPERLY extending it over time and see what you get. . . this is something I am well versed in as a Economist. You won't like the answer you'll get.
If you do apply the statistical projection, you will find that at the rate they were failing, that over time the failure rate approaches unity, which means that by the time the Note 7 had been on the market for two years EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM WILL HAVE A VERY HIGH CHANCE OF CATCHING FIRE by the time it reaches two years old! That's not a risk, that's certainty.
That's why Samsung is recalling the Note 7, and it's not because they are just doing it out of the goodness of their hearts as you allege. It is a very dangerous product for them to leave on the market. They are terrified of the number of lawsuits that will be coming their way because of injuries and property damage. Just from the numbers in the CPSC reports there are 25 potential personal injury and 55 property damage lawsuits from the FIRST WEEK in the wild ALONE! Do you even know what "existential threat" means?
(You do know you’re being trolled?)
CASE 1: A 0.05% defect rate, defect is definitely design related: no problem, nothing to worry about, the company should have zero responsibility.
CASE 2: A 0.0092% defect rate, with a solution already IN PLACE and replacements shipping for free: the company is terrible, you cannot trust them, unnamed sources say the fix is no good.
THAT is Swordmaker logic. THAT is hypocritical.
All your other postings are trying to cover that very, simple thing.
You support FUD - pure and simple. The point is very clearly laid out right here, case 1 and case 2. A higher rate, design-related defect from Apple is a non-issue in your words. A lower rate, supplier-related defect with a fix already in place, replacements being shipped from Samsung is a serious matter that means you should avoid them at all costs.
You're worse than Dan Rather.
Swordmaker again posting facts - but those who continue to be members of a “Conservative” message board who choose to ignore facts (like Liberals) will not pay attention. They will continue to post lies and garbage...
BUT - I will say this, Swordmaker - my iPhone 6+ that is 16 months old seems to be starting the “touch disease” - it all started after the Apple Store replaced the screen assembly for another known issue - a bad batch of microphones (though a much less widespread issue). All starting with the Apple Store repair...
And my iPhone has never been abused or “bent” in a pocket. It has always been in a protective case. And sadly, the problem is so intermittent, I haven’t been able to get it to demonstrate the issue AT the Apple Store (which is a 90 minute drive away).