Exactly. The whole point is, despite the battery failures that have most certainly occurred, the Note 7 is not a ticking time bomb, or a bomb in any sense, at all. Shorted, melted, burst, burning batteries are a spectacular failure, yes. But that has never been the whole picture, and many people, including Samsung, have been rash in their reactions to it.

 

I wonder what the calculated 'normal' failure rate was expected to be, and what the actual rate ended up being - at least as best as they could determine, anyway.

 

Maybe we'll finally get a plausible explanation for the battery melting problem by year's end!!?

http://www.phonearena.com/news/Samsung-said-to-announce-the-Note-7-recall-cause-by-years-end_id88398

 

I've been reading responses to this new report, in various places, and some agree with it, while others disagree, for several reasons. I'm still waiting to hear what Samsung says before anticipating possibly feeling like I have enough information to form my own conclusion about it all. I say possibly instead of definitely because I don't doubt for a second the possibility for Samsung to try and spin and/or distort, rather than go for simple and full disclosure. I think this third party analysis is a valuable piece to contribute to the total investigation, if for the very least, the basic details of the design and engineering it supplies, if not the conclusions it makes about them.

 

Samsung may be getting ready to say they simply can not come up with any definitive causality for the Note 7 battery short circuiting:

http://www.nashvillechatterclass.co...nufacturing-flaw-in-the-note-7-devices/20883/

 

If you're been following along, you'll know that at least a dozen various tech rags have taken the unsolicited report from the engineering company (Instrumental) about the Note 7 battery fault cause and fanned it into a raging dumpster fire, in terms of making it sound like the cause of the problem has been officially pronounced. It seems kind of bizarre. And Samsung still remains silent.

 

I saw it mentioned somewhere that they have shared the results with some outside labs first, for vetting. I haven't dug for more details or confirmation. But, that would seem like a sensible enough thing for them to do, rather than keep repeating the same mistake of hanging onto all responsibility for their conclusions and rushing to action in response, rather than consulting around first, to try and confirm their findings and actions to take in response?

 

Interesting information from the Chosun reference in this article:

http://bgr.com/2017/01/16/galaxy-note-7-fires-probe/