Thanks for mentioning that again. I will definitely be reaching out to them to see if they can make me a satisfied and happy customer again. 
The difference is we were FORCED to return a phone we wanted and pushed into another phone that wasn't our first choice!!
Yes, I do feel this is on Samsung first, but Verizon should be pushing back on them to make this right. They all stand to lose, not just the consumers! If I am forced to stay in a phone I never wanted, I will not trust Samsung or Verizon again. I'm tired of being made to feel that this is my fault not theirs. I paid off my previous phone to get the note 7. I didn't ask them to do that. But then i was told to give it back! Now I'm expected to pay this phone if I want the note again? To me that is a scam and a way for samsung to recoup their losses over their error!!!
I suggest every previous Note 7 owner contact their state's Attorney General's office and ask them to investigate Verizon for fraud (using coercion) for the way Verizon is treating Note 7 customers.
Note 7 customers had every right to expect Verizon to act in good faith when the Note 8 arrived and they are NOT!
At the very least every Note 7 customer should be afforded the same terms with the replacement device agreement that they had in the Note 7 agreement- specifically, a 12 month upgrade. I, for one, was not informed that this part of my agreement was removed with the replacement device.
I was lead to believe that I was signing for a replacement device under the same terms as the Note 7.
I think that with enough customers contacting them they would at least force Verizon to explain themselves.
Note 7 customers were coerced into signing agreements for replacement phones with the understanding that they would be put back into a Note phone as soon as possible WITHOUT being required to pay $500 up front.
The coercion was due to the fact that our previous phone was traded in on the Note 7. We had no choice but to sign an agreement to get ANY phone! We were acting in good faith with the understanding that Verizon would get us back into a Note phone without needing to completely pay for the phone that we were coerced into signing for!
If Verizon would have explained that fact at the time, I would NOT signed the agreement and forced Verizon to give me back my original phone!
It's very suspicious that Verizon's 12 month upgrade program for the phones that replaced the Note 7 was available 30 days earlier but conveniently missing when the replacements took place!
Hi, I had to create an account just to ask you if YOU feel that it's a wise business decision to have customers pay full price for a phone that replaces a defective phone purchased a year ago? Forget the semantics, forget the analogies, just if you feel it would be in the best interests of a company to alienate a fairly large group of consumers.
My wife and I purchased phones when the Note 7 came out. She opted for an S7, while I traded in my Note 4 for a Note 7. We were both happy, and I had planned on upgrading to a Note 9 in the future as we often skip a generation of phones - even though our contracts allowed us to upgrade every year (50%).
My Note 7 was recalled, and I had to wait in line to trade it back in for a Note 7 that had the shiny green "it's SAFE!" battery icon. This was an inconvenience as I have always customized my phones to a very specific way I like them with apps and themes - but eliminating a potential fire hazard took precedence. I had the new Note 7 for less than a month, and Samsung announced a complete recall for the line. We were then told that we could choose a replacement phone without the upgrade fee and would receive a refund for any accessories. Samsung even offered a $100 dollar credit for our inconvenience!
This made me feel valued and appreciated as a customer. I had a lesser phone (picked a matching S7 like the one my wife enjoyed), but at least I knew that Samsung would develop a Note 8 soon enough, and would periodically check tech sites for a potential release date as well as features. I don't enjoy the battery life or size of the S7, but it does what I require as an interim device. Before the Note 8 was to be released, I was satisfied from a business stand-point. I had a working device, and knew that the model I wanted would be released soon.
Where things went awry is that as the release was announced, I went to check if I had paid 50% of my phone's balance so I could choose to upgrade, and noticed that it required me to pay 100% of the balance before I could upgrade. I asked specifically when in the store if I could still upgrade when the Note 8 arrived and had been told "yes, of course". My fault for not reading the new contract closely, but it's also possible that the sales associate wasn't aware either. The Note 7 debacle was a plethora of misinformation and we as customers were being told several different things until it was all said and done. (I didn't even have to turn in my old Note 7 for MONTHS after I received my S7 due to the lack of organization) My wife's phone? She can upgrade RIGHT NOW, no problem. She's happy with her S7 for the time being however, so I'm in the position where I have to justify paying $400 dollars for the balance of a depreciating phone that I want to replace, or try to figure out how to use her contract (I've seen folks do this, but not sure how) to replace my phone for a Note 8.
Now I'm not a very happy or satisfied customer. Samsung is offering a special deal for Note 7 users, which is great - except I would have to nullify any real benefit by paying the up-front cost of my contract. Verizon is offering a similar offer to EVERYONE, except for those that really want to take advantage - they have to pay off their phones due to some clever contract use. The best part of this? The deal expires at the end of September (when many have their phones ready for upgrade in OCTOBER). That largely eliminates the loyal Note customer base as many of us simply either don't have the $400+ or can't justify paying off technology early that depreciates by the day. Why would a company intentionally exclude a group of customers when they don't have to?
Seems like a poor business decision to me.
Verizon knows who had a Note 7, and they should open up upgrades (full-cost financed is fine) for folks already with a poor taste in their mouths from this entire debacle. The traded-in devices will be resold; recouping much of the cost, new accessories can be sold as Note 7 owners likely didn't hold onto their USB-C accessories, and they would maintain a HAPPY client base. Make the GOOD business decision to keep loyal customers happy, and the financial impact will balance itself out. Many people shop with their emotions; it would make logical sense to me for them to give the warm and fuzzy as a $130 billion dollar company that can easily absorb any temporary costs to keep their client base satiated.
My 2 pennies.
So I pre-ordered the note 8 a few weeks ago with my local Verizon store the lady from there just called to explain to me that the only way I can get the phone is to pay 250$ for a bundle package!!!! Are you kidding me! They want me to pay for a screen protector a charger and some other crap i can't even remember what she said. There is no way I am paying 250 with all the mess I done been through with this phone!
Is it a Corporate store or a franchise? The franchise branches do not have to follow Verizon Corporate policies; they make their own "deals" and this sounds like a way to drum up money.
No one should be forced to buy accessories in order to get the phone. Check the item costs individually on places like Amazon or other third party sites and see the actual cost. I'd be interested to see if your store's "bundle" deal cost is inflated.
I want to stress to everyone to contact the executive team via the link provided earlier.
Verizon once again impressed me with their stellar customer service and have went above and beyond to satisfy me as a customer.
Be courteous and remember that this company deals with people all around the world.
Thanks for mentioning that again. I will definitely be reaching out to them to see if they can make me a satisfied and happy customer again.
I don't think the carriers owe customers. Period. Any deals had to come from Samsung. I can't think of any retailer that foots the bill for a manufacturer mistake and recall.
Baby seats, auto recalls, etc, etc. the retailer refunds and the consumer buys another product.
Im sick to death of people thinking the phones are one with service. They aren't. If the carriers were smart, they would stop selling phones altogether which would end this problem, the pesky warranty and insurance problems and the defaulting on phone payments.
The US market is messed up. It's the only country where people buy phones on payments
"....Samsung is offering a special deal for Note 7 users, which is great - except I would have to nullify any real benefit by paying the up-front cost of my contract...".
FYI the Samsung offer does not require you make a lump sum payment to Verizon to pay off the S7
You can continue to pay on the S7 and get the $425 off the Note with Samsung.
That's not true. I would call that employees supervisor. Anyone tried that on My They could kiss their job good bye. I hope you told them to taking a flying leap
Start a new topic or ask questions in the open forum.
