WaterproofGate: Samsung's high end Galaxy S7 fails Consumer Reports tests

Posted:
in iPhone
Despite being "IP 68 certified" to resist extended liquid intrusion in up to five feet of water for 30 minutes, Samsung's most expensive Galaxy S7 model repeatedly failed tests performed by Consumer Reports.




Consumer Reports said it can't recommend the ruggedized Galaxy S7 Active, which sells at a $100 premium over the standard model, because it doesn't meet Samsung's own claims for water resistance.

According to an AP report, Consumer Reports director of electronics testing Maria Rerecich noted that she was surprised the model failed, but purchased two models and repeated the test.

"We bought two and they both failed," Rerecich stated. "We bought two and they both failed" - Consumer Reports

After submerging the device, the report cited Consumer Reports as observing the Galaxy's "screen flashed green and other colors and didn't respond to touch."

The leakage appeared to be due to fit and finish issues, as "tiny bubbles appeared on the camera lenses."

Samsung also claims Galaxy S7 Active can survive "drops of up to 5 feet on a flat surface," but notes that Consumer Reports "did not test those claims."

Other Galaxy S7 models also failed Samsung's IP 68 waterproof claims



Parallel tests by Square Trade back in March also noted that Samsung's advertised claims for water resistance were inconsistent. On its own marketing page, Samsung claimed all of its Galaxy S7 models were resistant to 1 meter (3.28 feet) of water for 30 minutes, which is defined by the industry at IP 67.




However, in co-marketing claims visible on carrier partners' sites (including Verizon, captured below), Samsung claims an IP68 rating, which is a much higher rating that signifies water resistance "protection against long periods of immersion," not just "protection against temporary immersion."

CNET observed at the time that, "technically if it's only resistant to immersion up to 1 meter, however, it should be rated IP 67 and Samsung is definitely still claiming that the phones are 'water-resistant; IP 68 certified up to 30 min. in 1m of water.'"







The site also noted that tests by Square Trade involving two non-Active Galaxy S7 models (the regular S7 and S7 Edge) found that while they "survived" immersion, they were left with "audio permanently muffled and distorted."

In other tests of "breakability," Samsung's Galaxy S7 and S7 Edge models alternatively failed face down drop tests and case bending tests, resulting in overall scores that were effectively tied with Apple's iPhone 6s and 6s Plus models, despite the later not being certified for water immersion and therefore failing water tests.




Apple and water resistance



Samsung and other Android vendors have made waterproofing of their electronics a point of differentiation against iPhones. Water damage is a common problem for smartphone users, who typically carry their phones with them everywhere.

Apple has made changes to its own iPhones to improve their resistance to water, including a new silicon seals first observed in last year's iPhone 6s models. It has not yet released an iPhone making any water resistance claims however.




The company did, however, introduce Apple Watch in parallel with a more limited IPX7 water intrusion certification. The company states that "Apple Watch is splash and water resistant but not waterproof. You can, for example, wear and use Apple Watch during exercise, in the rain, and while washing your hands, but submerging Apple Watch is not recommended."

Apple is likely working toward a higher certification of water resistance for Apple Watch, as well as a similar water immersion certification for iPhone 7, although it has made no claims so far.

Currently, the company not only discourages users from submersion but also thwarts Apple Watch developers from marketing workout-related apps related to swimming, sold under the assumption that Apple Watch is intended for extended use underwater.
lolliver
«13

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 44
    jungmarkjungmark Posts: 6,626member
    While many of CR's ratings are subjective, you can't out science a lie on the water rating. Shame on you, Sammy. 
    radarthekatDeelronlostkiwichialatifbpbadmonkapplepieguydick leswunder
  • Reply 2 of 44
    sflocalsflocal Posts: 4,385member
    I'm shocked.  "Shocked" I tell ya, that Samsung would say one thing, and do something else entirely.

    Oh wait... I'm not surprised.  Never mind. 
    baconstangcaliDeelronanantksundaramcaccamuccalostkiwijahbladebrucemcchialatifbp
  • Reply 3 of 44
    wood1208wood1208 Posts: 1,759member
    May be Champagne proof, not water proof.
    xmhillxlostkiwijahbladelatifbpjackansidick leswunder
  • Reply 4 of 44
    staticx57staticx57 Posts: 398member
    Before anyone asks, yes this is being reported on android blogs as well
    ocelotwreaklostkiwilatifbp
  • Reply 5 of 44
    There is speculation (http://www.macrumors.com/2015/07/14/how-apple-watch-functions-in-water/) that Apple Watch is actually much more waterproof than its IPX7 rating and that it was because the touchscreen would not be responsive that Apple understates its resilience, not because of the risk of damage from swimming. See also: http://www.slashgear.com/real-world-apple-watch-testing-shows-water-resistance-beyond-its-rating-11382960/ http://mashable.com/2015/05/07/apple-watch-water-resistance-test/#OieZBIjjOgqh
    baconstangcaliDeelronlatifbp1983lolliver
  • Reply 6 of 44
    baconstangbaconstang Posts: 531member
    There is speculation (http://www.macrumors.com/2015/07/14/how-apple-watch-functions-in-water/) that Apple Watch is actually much more waterproof than its IPX7 rating and that it was because the touchscreen would not be responsive that Apple understates its resilience, not because of the risk of damage from swimming. See also: http://www.slashgear.com/real-world-apple-watch-testing-shows-water-resistance-beyond-its-rating-11382960/ http://mashable.com/2015/05/07/apple-watch-water-resistance-test/#OieZBIjjOgqh
    That would make sense.  I know my Touch ID won't work if my finger is wet.
  • Reply 7 of 44
    calicali Posts: 3,495member
    There is speculation (http://www.macrumors.com/2015/07/14/how-apple-watch-functions-in-water/) that Apple Watch is actually much more waterproof than its IPX7 rating and that it was because the touchscreen would not be responsive that Apple understates its resilience, not because of the risk of damage from swimming. See also: http://www.slashgear.com/real-world-apple-watch-testing-shows-water-resistance-beyond-its-rating-11382960/ http://mashable.com/2015/05/07/apple-watch-water-resistance-test/#OieZBIjjOgqh
    Apple is always modest. There's a video
    online of the iPhone being boiled in water for about 45 minutes and surviving.

    wood1208 said:
    May be Champagne proof, not water proof.

    Is that a reference to the Lil Wayne Sammy ad?
    The irony is that Lil Wayne released a song with a shot at android shortly after.
    also one of sammy's ads features a female rapper who also raps about her iPhone.

    Poor Sammy can never get a break.
    -tweeted from iPhone
    patchythepiratebaconstangjahbladelatifbp1983lolliverdick leswunder
  • Reply 8 of 44
    jony0jony0 Posts: 269member
    There is speculation (http://www.macrumors.com/2015/07/14/how-apple-watch-functions-in-water/) that Apple Watch is actually much more waterproof than its IPX7 rating and that it was because the touchscreen would not be responsive that Apple understates its resilience, not because of the risk of damage from swimming. See also: http://www.slashgear.com/real-world-apple-watch-testing-shows-water-resistance-beyond-its-rating-11382960/ http://mashable.com/2015/05/07/apple-watch-water-resistance-test/#OieZBIjjOgqh
    That would make sense.  I know my Touch ID won't work if my finger is wet.
    That's not quite the same thing though. I think the touchscreen doesn't respond because it failed, a hardware issue, whether temporarily of permanently. IIRC Touch ID maps the conductivity differences caused by the hills and valleys of your fingerprint, yet this conductivity changes dramatically with wet skin, so the sensor hardware did not fail, the conditions of the sensed target changed, and temporarily only as long as the finger is not dry enough to return to its normal electrical parameters.
    I've read somewhere that someone who wanted to check his notifications the first thing out of the shower (definitely not me) actually saved one of his wet fingers as one of the five stored fingerprints allowed for Touch ID. Clever, albeit somewhat … ummm … well I won't judge, we all have our priorities.
    baconstang1983
  • Reply 9 of 44
    yojimbo007yojimbo007 Posts: 946member
    There is speculation (http://www.macrumors.com/2015/07/14/how-apple-watch-functions-in-water/) that Apple Watch is actually much more waterproof than its IPX7 rating and that it was because the touchscreen would not be responsive that Apple understates its resilience, not because of the risk of damage from swimming. See also: http://www.slashgear.com/real-world-apple-watch-testing-shows-water-resistance-beyond-its-rating-11382960/ http://mashable.com/2015/05/07/apple-watch-water-resistance-test/#OieZBIjjOgqh
    I can attest to this.. I have my Applewatch on all the time.. This includes swiming, shower, windsurfing, bikram yoga , jacuzzi...etc. The only thing i avoid is diving deeper than 4-5 feet .
    edited July 2016 Deelronanantksundaramfastasleeplostkiwi1983lolliver
  • Reply 10 of 44
    jdgazjdgaz Posts: 334member
    There is speculation (http://www.macrumors.com/2015/07/14/how-apple-watch-functions-in-water/) that Apple Watch is actually much more waterproof than its IPX7 rating and that it was because the touchscreen would not be responsive that Apple understates its resilience, not because of the risk of damage from swimming. See also: http://www.slashgear.com/real-world-apple-watch-testing-shows-water-resistance-beyond-its-rating-11382960/ http://mashable.com/2015/05/07/apple-watch-water-resistance-test/#OieZBIjjOgqh
    I can attest to this.. I have my Applewatch on all the time.. This includes swiming, shower, windsurfing, bikram yoga , jacuzzi...etc. The only thing i avoid is diving deeper than 4-5 feet .
    Sport model? Stainless?
  • Reply 11 of 44



    "We bought two and they both failed," Rerecich stated. "We bought two and they both failed" - Consumer Reports

    The failure so nice, we had to say it twice...
    baconstanglostkiwicali1983dick leswunder
  • Reply 12 of 44
    sflocalsflocal Posts: 4,385member
    staticx57 said:
    Before anyone asks, yes this is being reported on android blogs as well
    Not asking, and don't care.  If this happened to Apple, those iHaters and miscreants over there would be screaming to the top of their lungs for Apple's head on a platter.  Remember "Bendgate"?  It happened to a few phones, but it didn't matter.

    The only difference is that everyone knows that Android phones are shit to begin with, that fandroids have zero expectations of Apple-level quality in those mobile devices, so hence no one really cares.  Heck, many in those forums are just saying "But..but.. that was only TWO phones!! It could be a manufacturing quality issue!!" 

    Hypocrites.
    Deelronlkruppbaconstanglostkiwibrucemcericthehalfbeecali1983lolliverdick leswunder
  • Reply 13 of 44
    'The site also noted that tests by Square Trade involving two non-Active Galaxy S7 models (the regular S7 and S7 Edge) found that while they "survived" immersion, they were left with "audio permanently muffled and distorted."'

    Perhaps if it did not have an audio jack - it would have been fine.
    Deelronroundaboutnowlostkiwicalilolliver
  • Reply 14 of 44
    It's amazing to me how little ill will there is towards samsung in the general public. I guess their ridiculous spending on advertising helps gloss over the sleaziness. But that can only last for so long. Eventually people are going to realize samsung is run by assholes, the evidence is overwhelming: repeatedly and methodically cheating on performance tests, paying people to write positive things online in Taiwan and of course elsewhere (the trolls here on AI are painfully obvious), blatantly copying their competitors with every product they make, being run by convicted criminals that corrupt their country's justice system.. and now this.
    lkruppmobiusbadmonk
  • Reply 15 of 44
    thrangthrang Posts: 755member
    Since Apple didn't release one first, they couldn't copy a proper design...

    lkruppbaconstanglostkiwicali1983lolliver
  • Reply 16 of 44
    xmhillxxmhillx Posts: 107member
    Oh what a field day. Wow. 
  • Reply 17 of 44
    lkrupplkrupp Posts: 6,608member
    I don’t understand the purpose of this article. If you haven’t just fallen off the turnip truck you know that Samsung gets a pass on this sort of stuff. In fact all the Android OEMs get passes on this stuff. It’s sort of, “Oh well, what else is new.” Apple is the only tech company that gets hogtied, dragged to the public square, and locked in a pillory where the tech media and haters get to hurl insults and epithets.

    Nothing to see here. Move along. So what.
    lostkiwicaliliquidmark
  • Reply 18 of 44
    kamiltonkamilton Posts: 259member
    No surprise at all here.  Small thing, but not really.  When companies and/or people are honest, it's incredibly easy to assimilate that and take it for granted.  In fact, it's easy to take advantage/leverage honest behavior.  Accordingly, when we consider Apple's honesty as a company, it's easy to forget just how honest it is and how rare that is in this world.  

    Shipping stuff that works, even if it lags behind a competitor's flashy half-baked features, is honesty.  
    Admitting when you make a mistake is honesty.  Not announcing products until they are truly ready is honesty.  Publicly taking clear, rationaled moral/ethical positions on controversial issues, such as privacy, even when it can hit your bottom line, is honesty.  

    In the end, people will come to the most honest company.  It's good Karma.  It's the higher ground.  I appreciate doing business with an honest company.  I'd rather.  Call me crazy, but I believe that as the issues/exposures of personal privacy, browsing privacy, purchase privacy, location and social affiliations evolve through the next 20 years, Apple's honesty - the long game - will prove invaluable.  No matter how much money and power you may accumulate, your value as a company or human being really comes down to whether or not you can be trusted.  I hope Apple maintains this quality.
    xmhillxlostkiwibrucemcbadmonk1983
  • Reply 19 of 44
    lkrupplkrupp Posts: 6,608member
    Meanwhile the c|net article referenced in this post was in March of this year. Not a mention of the Consumer Reports test anywhere on the c|net website so far. Or buried so deep no one will ver find it. Coincidence? 
    badmonkcali1983
  • Reply 20 of 44
    sflocal said:
    staticx57 said:
    Before anyone asks, yes this is being reported on android blogs as well
    Not asking, and don't care.  If this happened to Apple, those iHaters and miscreants over there would be screaming to the top of their lungs for Apple's head on a platter.  Remember "Bendgate"?  It happened to a few phones, but it didn't matter.

    The only difference is that everyone knows that Android phones are shit to begin with, that fandroids have zero expectations of Apple-level quality in those mobile devices, so hence no one really cares.  Heck, many in those forums are just saying "But..but.. that was only TWO phones!! It could be a manufacturing quality issue!!" 

    Hypocrites.
    I wouldn't mind if Apple could make a troll-resistant iPhone. :smile: 
    lostkiwibadmonkcali1983docno42
Sign In or Register to comment.