3 ms·
Thank for the insights! I think the damage Samsung suffered was simply too high, so they had to release information that would show that they really solved the
by annnnd 10y ago
Thank for the insights!
I think the damage Samsung suffered was simply too high, so they had to release information that would show that they really solved the issue. Otherwise there would be permanent brand damage if people suspected that they don't know what was causing incidents. So what we are seeing is actually some very well thought out PR.
- roddux 10y agoSeconded with the "well thought out PR" part. The piece was worded well, all fault points away from Samsung.
- martin-adams 10y agoI would be curious to see how they would have handled the PR if Samsung were at fault. I would like to think the exact same.
- mcguire 10y agoThe original batteries were manufactured by a Samsung subsidiary.
- rasz_pl 10y agoyou misunderstood, which means Samsung misinformation worked rather well. The FULL blame is on Samsung and its subsidiaries.
- blktiger 10y agoSeeing as how Samsung did produce the original faulty batteries, you are seeing exactly how they shift the blame away from themselves. Instead of calling out the bad batteries they made, the specifically avoid discussing who made the bad batteries so it looks like they did a lot of investigation into the cause but it doesn't look like they were at fault.