I do not like that move either, but let me play the devils advocate in this particular case:
Imagine your friendly neighborhood independent repair shop turns out to be a shoody place, and replaces your old and tired Apple Genuine battery with a Galaxy note 7 Class battery...
If something, anything happens, who will get the bad publicity, bad reps and possible lawsuits?
Will the press hold off sensationalist headlines until mnore info is known? Will you admit not doing and original repair? Will the shoody place p
The entire industry already went through this. Early phones with Li-ion batteries had the charge circuitry built into the battery (this enabled a phone to operate with either Li-ion or NiMH batteries). This circuitry was especially important to Li-ion batteries - they can catch fire or explode if you overcharge or over-discharge them. People bought the phones, balked at the price of a spare battery, and purchased a "compatible" battery from China off eBay. The eBay batteries didn't have any charge protection circuitry in them. Consequently the phone would over-charge them, and they'd catch fire or explode.
They tried blaming the owner for buying a cheap fake battery, but the idiots in the media smelled blood and always portrayed the story as "phone catches fire" thus implying the manufacturer was to blame. The industry fixed the problem by moving the charge protection circuitry to the phone. It would measure the voltage of any Li-ion battery you installed (factory or cheap knockoff) and refuse to charge it if the voltage was too high or too low. Locking it to a specific brand battery like Apple is doing is entirely unnecessary, and nothing more than a further attempt at lock-in.
Also, the Note 7 battery was the first major product of Samsung's (then) new battery division. Despite being the same company, the different divisions at Samsung usually operate as if they are different companies. e.g. Samsung Semiconductor gave priority to Apple over Samsung Mobile in producing SoCs and memory components because Apple was paying more. Since the battery division was new, Samsung Mobile probably placed an order with them as a personal favor (the company is owned by a single family). With disastrous consequences which are always a risk when you give a contract to a new company without the experience and proven track record to back up their products. The problem in their case was apparently inadequate shielding between the individual cells in the battery, allowing the battery to short if slightly damaged (by impact or heat).
Dick move buuuut.... (Score:3)
I do not like that move either, but let me play the devils advocate in this particular case:
Imagine your friendly neighborhood independent repair shop turns out to be a shoody place, and replaces your old and tired Apple Genuine battery with a Galaxy note 7 Class battery...
If something, anything happens, who will get the bad publicity, bad reps and possible lawsuits?
Will the press hold off sensationalist headlines until mnore info is known?
Will you admit not doing and original repair?
Will the shoody place p
Re:Dick move buuuut.... (Score:2)
They tried blaming the owner for buying a cheap fake battery, but the idiots in the media smelled blood and always portrayed the story as "phone catches fire" thus implying the manufacturer was to blame. The industry fixed the problem by moving the charge protection circuitry to the phone. It would measure the voltage of any Li-ion battery you installed (factory or cheap knockoff) and refuse to charge it if the voltage was too high or too low. Locking it to a specific brand battery like Apple is doing is entirely unnecessary, and nothing more than a further attempt at lock-in.
Also, the Note 7 battery was the first major product of Samsung's (then) new battery division. Despite being the same company, the different divisions at Samsung usually operate as if they are different companies. e.g. Samsung Semiconductor gave priority to Apple over Samsung Mobile in producing SoCs and memory components because Apple was paying more. Since the battery division was new, Samsung Mobile probably placed an order with them as a personal favor (the company is owned by a single family). With disastrous consequences which are always a risk when you give a contract to a new company without the experience and proven track record to back up their products. The problem in their case was apparently inadequate shielding between the individual cells in the battery, allowing the battery to short if slightly damaged (by impact or heat).