Hacker News Reader

Comment by MBCook | Hacker News Reader

I remember reading an article that said the head of Samsung had a health issue a year or two ago. He basically hasn't been working since then, but because of the traditions of Korean conglomerates no one can take over his place while he's alive without being shameful. So his lieutenants/sons (can't remember which) are sort of doing their best but they don't have the force of being the actual head of the company. According to the article that made it harder for Samsung to respond.

If I'm remembering it correctly I don't know how true it is. Either way I don't see why it means that they've botched two recalls now.

The rest is pure nonsense.

View on HN

I don't know details, but I think the new ruler (Lee Jae-Yong) has full authority over Samsung. Samsung's upper class is a very hierarchical bunch, and they (especially the now incapacitated father Lee Kun-hee) did everything reasonable and unreasonable to ensure smooth power transition.

If anyone was loyal to the father, they would be loyal to the son because that's what the father wanted. (Whether they will stay loyal, of course, is anyone's guess...)

If anything, the widely suspected reason the father Lee is not yet officially dead is that they're still fixing loose ends on their... creative accounting so that the son can inherit the group without paying due tax.

(Well, it could be just another conspiracy theory, but anyone following news on South Korea would concede that it's a very plausible theory.)

His son is meant to take over. There's some issues with it happening. It's being discussed during World Service discussion of Note 7. Doesn't seem to be likely to affect the battery/combustion issue, but is affecting the conglomerate overall. They didn't go into enough detail so that's all I can add.

Batteries were switched from 70% Samsung subsidiary SDI, 30% Amperex to mostly Amperex (TDK) for the replacement. TDK shares are now suffering too.

Haha it is hardly nonsense. Corporate sabotage is part of what any company has to deal with. Considering that Apple and Google are poised to gain, with Apple shares rising it is obvious Apple had the most to gain.

There is also geopolitical motors involved, as well as the highly aggressive US spying cartels that want to insure they maintain a monopoly of insecure products around the world.

Too many vectors pointing at sabotage to dismiss it as nonsense. Sure, commercially they'll dismiss it as so, but I highly doubt it is as easily dismissive when taking into account _all_ factors.

Your only "vectors" are that Samsung has competitors and countries have spies. That's not nearly specific enough to be interesting

So it follows that Antennagate and Bendgate were the result of corporate espionage as well?

So by all means, cite your evidence.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com