The problem started with the tablet opening to the initial, introductory screen and, after four seconds, closing down to a black screen for another four seconds; then, without any prompting, opening up yet again. This pattern was repeated, going on and on until the sequence just phased out for some unknown reason. It could not be stopped by turning the power off.
Checking the Internet for other similar experiences and possible solutions, one discovered several answers posted by those who had suffered from the same frustrations. Some suggestions were so complex that one thought them best ignored as it seemed likely that they could cause more damage if implemented incorrectly, just with a slip of the finger. So the simple proposals were tried. These involved pressing different sets of buttons for different time periods in various combinations. None of these suggestions made any difference to the tablet’s performance, leaving one tempted to try the ‘final solution’ - the pressing of the buttons for a ‘factory reset’ - a ‘solution’ that came with the warning that all data would be lost. We did not want to lose anything on this tablet that had been used as a development tool with photographs of things that could be used with texts; and notes and ideas for articles that could be written. The tablet had also been used as a notebook for jottings, addresses, medicines, messages, and names that one wanted to record for recall. A ‘factory reset’ was going to be the last option. The worry is that the younger generation seems to see this choice as being the popular solution to all problems, the first choice.
So the tablet was put aside for a few days and then tried again. Who knows, it might correct itself in this time; but no. After a few more days, and more hopeful ad hoc attempts at button pressing and wishful thinking - one might be lucky - the manufacturer was contacted. Surely the Helpline had experienced this matter previously and could give advice on the solution. An Email was sent off; two weeks later, after having no response, another message was forwarded. After this was ignored, an Email was sent to the CEO’s office. The polite response told us that the matter would be attended to.
A week later we received a long, three-page Email with a summary of all the possible solutions. The first suggestions were the button pushing sequences that had already done nothing. We had advised the manufacturer of this in our first communication, so why were they mentioned here? Frustratingly, all the other solutions could only be implemented once the tablet had been opened. Why were they even mentioned when the problem was that the tablet would not open? The tablet was again put aside, with the occasional testing to see if the situation had changed. One tried it charged, or charging, but this made no difference. Everything was as it had started – on/off; on/off; etc.
It was decided to confront the manufacturer at one of the retail outlets that was promoted as a place for technical assistance. A young lady listened to the problem; the solution was a ‘factory reset.’ I was so insulted that I told her that the idea was irrational, and stormed off. Having to pass the shop again on my way out of the shopping centre, I went and spoke to another rep. He listened as I expounded the silliness of a ‘factory reset,’ noting that, if the battery was the cause, the data would be lost for no reason at all as the problem would still exist. I asked if there were any technicians who could help. I was referred to Google! I left unhappy; grumpy – some assistance!
A couple of weeks later we received an apology from the manufacturer for the delay, with an attachment that outlined the same set of ‘solutions’ as had been received previously. It was clear that the manufacturer was going to be of no use. Why do manufacturers not know their products intimately, or care enough to give issues the attention they deserve? If manufacturers are not interested in customers, one might have thought that product development would mean something to them? With some degree of resignation, the tablet was just put aside yet again. Weeks later it was picked up and tried – it might just happen to work, one never knows; this time only the black screen appeared. Even charging would not alter this outcome. If one had to guess, one would say that the battery was not just flat, it was worn out. A similar problem had once been experienced with a flat battery on an ipad that had to be started and quickly turned off over fifty times in order to get over the initial opening, flattening of the battery, and closing down cycle, just to start the charging of the battery. The only difference here was that our battery would no longer charge.
So Google was searched again as had been suggested. Can batteries in these tablets be replaced? One stumbled on adverts for batteries for tablets, and could look at You Tube videos showing the batteries being changed. The exact model of the tablet was checked: Samsung Tab S2 9.7 – T813. Could one get batteries for this? There seemed to be a surplus of options, with costs ranging from $16 to over $100, depending on how long one wanted to wait, and whether one wanted the branded battery.
And how were the batteries replaced? You Tube had videos showing the battery being replaced on the exact model of tablet: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V7Wq894u2eE; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CmQLnUcDsg4; and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aclGeXZIz_k # It only took about ten minutes. The battery could be purchased with the tools required for the task. It would be worth trying. But why did Samsung not suggest replacing the battery? Surely it must know the symptoms that define this problem?
Not being keen to meddle with such delicate unknowns as the insides of tablets, it was decided to give the local mobile phone/tablet repair shop a call to see if a more experienced set of hands could do the job. After explaining the problem, it was agreed that it could be the battery. This sounded hopeful. The details of the model were checked, and the explanation began. “It’s not good news. This model requires the glass to be cut out to get to the battery. It is highly likely that the glass will break. The replacement costs about $200- $300. The battery itself is over $100, so I am afraid it is not worth thinking about replacing the battery. Sorry. Goodbye.” #
I was left flabbergasted. I had just seen the job done on You Tube. There seemed little point in arguing with this person, as one did not want him to do the job in any case. It was decided to order a battery and tool kit and try the job myself. One was aware that it was not a straightforward exercise, as even the more skilled hands doing the work on the video struggled to get the back off the tablet using the specialist tools. Still, it was worth a go: even if I managed to break the tablet, little would have changed as I could get nothing out of an unresponsive screen. The battery and tool kit were ordered - $42.90. They arrived within a few days. The parcel was opened and checked; yes, these were the tools; and this was the battery. They were put aside until the next day when I could have a quiet time to face the challenge.
It had to happen sometime: the finest tool was taken up and used as seen on the video. There was no way this was going to work; should I even bother? Other possibilities using different tools were tried; nothing was going to open this extra tight, ‘seamless’ joint. I might as well give up now. A pin was picked up in order to clear the grime out of the fine gap. This made no difference; then the pin itself was tried. Eventually the back lifted a little, and then a little more. A plastic insert was squeezed into the opening to enlarge it for the lever tool. Once started, the lever tool worked wonderfully, flicking up the rear cover easily, until it came to the magnet mounts. Even the video examples had difficulty here, so one expected the same problem. More and more force was required. Eventually the back gave way to reveal a clutter of bits and pieces jammed into the tiny spaces around the large central battery.
My relationship with the tablet was changed immediately. One had spent years handling this glossy, ‘high tech’ instrument, using it to record, read, and search for nearly everything. One had an emotional relationship with this tool, one that was respectful and comfortable. The item was thin, slick, and smooth, a pleasure to hold; and it was wonderfully responsive to the touch. Now one could see it as a messy struggle to achieve a predetermined visual outcome. The interior had none of the organisation or rigorous order seen on a chip. It looked like a crammed lunchbox, tying to get all the sundry snacks and fruit in around the central sandwich. The added complication here was the preferred location of the switches, the cameras, the speakers, and the power input. This meant that cables had to zigzag across the tablet under the battery just to ensure the external ‘high tech’ appearance and easy function. Here style was truly skin deep. This ‘intelligent’ instrument was really just a jumble of bits and pieces assembled however just to maintain an appearance. The rear panel that I had removed was a scrappy piece of plastic with holes and tabs, and with other bits and pieces pasted on to it as needed. Technology was seen to be an ad hoc shambles, not something caring and organised. Is this why Samsung does chooses to not promote the replacing of batteries? One was reminded of a Heath Robinson contraption.
The fine screw driver was taken up, four screws were removed; the new battery was inserted and the screws replaced. The rear cover was pushed back into place, just as seen on the video. But would it work? The start button was pressed; the introductory screen opened; well, that was good, but will it close down again? No! It worked! When fully open, Google was searched; it worked! Not wanting to press my luck, I put the tablet on the charger as suggested by the video.
It is still working. It was the battery! Why did it take so long to get nowhere? What is going on in this world that fears the diagnosis of the replacement of a battery? Why does Samsung not make it easier to remove the back to replace the battery? It would not take much to do this, but it would change the slick, ‘look no hands’ appearance of the preferred ‘high tech’ identity. All that is needed if screws are such a worry, is an easy starting point to make the removal of the back a simple chore. It will also require simpler clips and no adhesive. It is not rocket science; changing the battery is not a complex matter. Why did the ‘expert’ repairer not know this? Why did Samsung not know this? The tablet is working fine now. One has to be pleased that the easy ‘factory reset’ option the Samsung rep recommended was ignored. All the files are in tact.
To overcome this gross illusion of the exotic wonder of technology, maybe clear rear covers should be used, ones that are easy to take off and replace, just to let users actually see the shambles that ‘thinks’ for them, to not be conned by things visually slick, smart, and ‘intelligent.’ The present shroud is not unlike the humanoid face and gestures used on robots. It is a totally unrelated skin that covers the crude machine parts below, and carries its own, unique message. Watches have been made transparent for years now, but the manufacturers do have something to show off – precision and care. We need such exposure on our tablets and phones now to highlight the illusion created by the opaque, ‘oh! fake’ skin that shapes a different belief in these products. One might not yearn for a unique brand when one knows all gadgets are merely a shabby collection of much the same bits and pieces crammed into a pretty shell.
Apple got close to a transparency with its Mackintosh iMac G3 that had a coloured, translucent skin; it achieved total transparency with the Mackintosh SE that came as a bespoke rarity in a clear plastic case. There has been nothing like this since. We have seen the ‘old’ landline telephone made from clear plastic just as a fun, fashion item. We need such clarity with our gadgets now not for fun or play, but to reveal what they really are. We also need to make everything much easier to repair. Installing batteries in items that are not readily opened or accessed, only creates more trash in a world that is racing ahead to nowhere with so-called ‘ever-better-and-faster’ tools that do 'more and more,' enhancing the concept of technology promoted by the visuals that are quickly outdated, made unfashionable by the new PR, prompting folk to dispose of the old and move on with the new, just to maintain appearances – look at ME and MY identity. It is all only about how one is seen – “Look, mine folds,” promoted as ‘expanding one’s vision of the world’!## - as if this unfolding might do anything but unfold. We also need to do away with the instruction that tells the user that there is nothing to repair inside.
It is a situation that we also see in architecture. The skin is the substance; it truly is ‘skinny’ architecture, with ‘skin-deep’ meaning in a fanciful layer that covers crude frames and voids. Take for example Hadid’s Aquatic Centre built for the London Olympics. The roof has a mass of steel framing nearly equal to the weight of a destroyer, but the image we are asked to admire is a floating, flowing, slick skin. Likewise with Gehry’s Bilbao Museum where the top one third of the building has no function but grand, external display. Nouvel’s Abu Dhabi Louvre dome is a slick top and bottom skin over plated structural steel elements threaded with services. Here elegance is just skin deep, with nothing meaningful inside.
Then there is the parallel with the repair. How easy are these flash new buildings to repair; to extend; to restore? Does one merely discard them once they are unfashionable too? Consider the complications in repairing the Gehry UTS Business School ‘paper bag’ building in Sydney, where every brick was placed to GPS co-ordinates. The skin is made pretty only for the sake of the appeal. The integrity of the structure means very little. The surface is there just whenever, however, just to achieve the ‘vision,’ as with the Louis Vuitton Foundation glass building in Paris. We can see the repair of Hadid’s Chanel Mobile Art Pavilion building outside the Arab Institute in Paris. Here the translucent tensile roof over the offices must have been leaking at the junction with the shiny shell. The repair places handfuls of sealant as huge blobs, tubes-full, along the joint, to seal it. It is not a pretty sight, but is out of view for most who choose not to look into gutters, so it does not matter. The situation only highlights the skin deep idea of the visuals.+
We need greater depth to our buildings; we need skins that resonate with the substance below, with necessity, not with personal preferences or the quirky prettiness we see in car design. Ours is an era of ‘skinny’ architecture. Thin edges are preferred, and thin buildings, like the slim surfaces themselves. Meaning is only skin deep and shallow; frivolous; decorative in intent. This is all a charade; a ‘make-believe’ architecture that is there for much the same reason as the stage set, and with just as little depth and substance.* Appearance is the core matter – and difference. We need better than this ‘skinny’ architecture that is shaped by preferences for performances rather than ordinary living.
We can start by recognising the fraud for what it is, and by designing our mobile phones, tablets, and architecture with a coherent rigour, for easy repair and reuse rather than merely recycling them as trash and moving on. Greater transparency is needed here, a clarity that can start with the obviously cliché glass, but ‘transparency’ must become far more subtle as a metaphor for legibility in good design in all aspects of our lives. Skins allow for a pretence that conceals the lack of rigour, meaning, and depth with clever distractions and slick indulgences. They are like fancy dress. Transparency means the exposure as experience of rigour, meaning, and understanding in a naturally rich complexity, coherence, and clarity for the enrichment of the everyday. It has nothing to do with arrogant display or personal preferences.
#
The most difficult way to replace the battery:
Disassembly video of Samsung Tab S2 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5xixKKbConQ
*
The late Jim Woolley, Senior lecturer at the QUT in Brisbane, once pointed out how the sizeable instrument he had purchased for his research was basically an empty black box, such was the schism between the visual identity and the working parts!
+
Here one recalls Griffith University’s present intention to demolish its Environmental Sciences Building on the Nathan Campus in Brisbane. The building was designed by John Andrews International. The building has been put forward for heritage recognition in an attempt to have it preserved. Surely it has a better future than rubble?
##
The actual wording in the advertisement that comes with many other cliché promises is: Expand your world with Galaxy. This uses the physical idea of opening up - of 'expanding' a tablet - as a simplistic reference to something much more meaningful, as if the possibility of this transformation might necessarily be so, as a matter of course. This misleading message of hope is just what all advertisements try to present, and needs to be exposed for its hollow, its fake message. It is highly unlikely that Samsung can 'expand your world' when it is unable to diagnose a battery problem in the tablet it manufactures.
NOTE: New tower buildings are literally skinny in every way.
30 JAN 22
This site gives complete details on the replacement of the battery by removing the glass: https://www.ifixit.com/Guide/Samsung+Galaxy+Tab+S2+9.7+SM-T813+Battery+Replacement/108099 One wonders why the much simpler and more straightforward method that removes the back is not preferred. This method requires the back to be taken off, and four screws to be removed to replace the battery. The approach illustrated in this site requires the tablet to be almost completely disassembled.
15 APRIL 2022
NOTE
The Open Hand edited by Russell Walden; foreword by André Wogenscky: MIT Press, 1982.
p.323
“Thin and precise” became a modern movement canon.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.