Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Samsung Galaxy S7 Active Fails Consumer Reports Water-Resistance Test (consumerreports.org)

Posted by BeauHD on from the false-advertising dept.

An anonymous reader writes: The Samsung Galaxy S7 Active is apparently not-so-active. It should be the more durable version of the Galaxy S7 family but apparently it's not. Because of this, Consumer reports is not going to mark it as "Recommended" even though it performed very well in all the other tests it ran. [Jerry Beilinson writes from Consumer Reports:] "Consumer Reports technicians placed a Galaxy S7 Active in a water tank pressurized to 2.12 pounds-per-square-inch, the equivalent of just under five feet of water, and set a timer for 30 minutes. When we removed the phone, the screen was obscured by green lines, and tiny bubbles were visible in the lenses of the front- and rear-facing cameras. The touchscreen wasn't responsive. Following our standard procedure when a sample fails an immersion test, we submitted a second Galaxy S7 Active to the same test. That phone failed as well. After we removed it from the tank, the screen cycled on and off every few seconds, and moisture could be seen in the front and back camera lenses. We also noticed water in the slot holding the SIM card. For a couple of days following the test, the screens of both phones would light up when the phones were plugged in, though the displays could not be read. The phones never returned to functionality." Samsung has said "The Samsung Galaxy S7 active device is one of the most rugged phones to date and is highly resistant to scratches and IP68 certified. There may be an off-chance that a defective device is not as watertight as it should be." Although, given the fact that Consumer Reports tested multiple devices, Samsung could have a widespread issue on their hands. They company said it is investigating the issue.

45 of 83 comments (clear)

  1. Seen this before... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Is this the phone that they featured in a TV commercial that have people pouring champagne on it and dipping into an aquarium? I don't like the idea of a water resistant phone. I have some friends who won't turn off their phones and insist on taking every call they get while I'm talking with them. Very annoying. Tossing their phones into my 25-gallon fish tank was very effective deterrent to this behavior.

    1. Re: Seen this before... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 3, Informative

      I haven't seen the spec's but did Samsung claim it can take a soak in 5' of water?

      That's what the small text says at the beginning of the commercial. Must be true. Advertising does not lie.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l5aF23XpBwU

    2. Re: Seen this before... by sexconker · · Score: 1

      In this case, Samsung says its phone follows an engineering standard called IP68 that covers both dust- and water-resistance, and that the phone is designed to survive immersion in five feet of water for 30 minutes. That’s the spec we used in testing the Galaxy S7 Active.

      In this case, Samsung says its phone follows an engineering standard called IP68 that covers both dust- and water-resistance, and that the phone is designed to survive immersion in five feet of water for 30 minutes. That’s the spec we used in testing the Galaxy S7 Active.

      fartnoise

    3. Re:Seen this before... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      Are they still your friends?

      Nah... They moved down to Southern California, where talking to someone and taking phone calls at the same time is acceptable behavior.

    4. Re:Seen this before... by Paul+Carver · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Sounds like you're a perfect reason to buy a waterproof phone, although if you were my friend you wouldn't be any more after destroying my property. When you say it was a "very effective deterrent" I assume it changed the behaviour of these former friends by stopping them from ever coming to your house or allowing you to talk to them again. If not, then you must hang out with pretty pathetic people who would put up with that shit.

    5. Re:Seen this before... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 2

      When you say it was a "very effective deterrent" I assume it changed the behaviour of these former friends by stopping them from ever coming to your house or allowing you to talk to them again.

      No. They apologized for their rude behavior and put their phones in silent mode.

    6. Re: Seen this before... by cstdenis · · Score: 2

      You must be new here...

      --
      1984 was not supposed to be an instruction manual.
    7. Re:Seen this before... by burtosis · · Score: 1

      Whhhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat??????1?

    8. Re: Seen this before... by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 2

      I haven't seen the spec's but did Samsung claim it can take a soak in 5' of water?

      Samsung states the phone meets IP68 standards, meaning it can withstand being under 5 feet of water for up to 30 minutes - so yes, they claim exactly that.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    9. Re: Seen this before... by WarJolt · · Score: 1

      Is the Active less resistant than the regular s7?

    10. Re: Seen this before... by stephanruby · · Score: 2

      I haven't seen the spec's but did Samsung claim it can take a soak in 5' of water?

      That's what the small text says at the beginning of the commercial. Must be true. Advertising does not lie.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l5aF23XpBwU

      No, that's for the Samsung S7 Edge. That one passed that test according to consumer reports.

      It's the supposedly more rugged one, the S7 Active, that didn't pass the test.

    11. Re: Seen this before... by bruce_the_loon · · Score: 2

      The IP68 specification describes an 8 for water penetration resistance as being able to take submersion in between 1m and 10m water depth (depth to be specified by the manufacturer) for 30 minutes. Samsung specifies 5 feet in their documentation.

      There is one possible problem with the Consumer Reports test, they talk about pressurizing a water tank to 2.12 PSI to simulate 5 foot of water. The issue arises if they are measuring the pressure of the air being used to pressurize the tank and not the resultant pressure at bottom of the tank.

      If the tank is 1 foot deep and you pressurize the surface to 2.12 PSI, then the resultant pressure will be equivalent to the 1 foot actual depth plus the 5 foot simulated depth because the static head pressure is still present unless you're in zero g.

      If they aren't measuring the pressure from the bottom of the tank, then they've tested the phone beyond the rated depth.

      --
      Trying to become famous by taking photos. Visit my homepage please.
    12. Re:Seen this before... by Sax+Russell+5449D29A · · Score: 1

      I feel your pain! It's extremely annoying and disrespectful how people nowadays think a phone call is more important than an on-going conversation in-person. It's essentially the same thing! I mean, you wouldn't usually hang up a phone call just to answer another.

      The other major annoyance is this.

      --
      -SR
    13. Re:Seen this before... by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Don't like the idea of a water resistant phone? You're out of your tiny little mind! Most of the phones I've owned died from being dropped in a sink or my getting caught in a downpour.

      My phone is water resistant, supposedly it will survive three hours under three feet of water. Just a couple of weeks ago a friend accidentally knocked my beer over, which spilled all over the phone (listing to music on it). I just took it insode, rinsed it off in the sink and it was fine.

      Kyocera Edge, paid $120 for it several years ago. Before that I always carried a baggie in my wallet for downpours.

      --
      Free Martian Whores!
    14. Re:Seen this before... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      Most of the phones I've owned died from being dropped in a sink or my getting caught in a downpour.

      You're very careless with your phones. No wonder manufacturers have to idiot-proof their products.

    15. Re: Seen this before... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Samsung states the phone meets IP68 standards, meaning it can withstand being under 5 feet of water for up to 30 minutes

      *sigh* People keep repeating this shit as if it's true.

      The standard for IPx8 means the following:

      Immersion in > 1 m of depth, and the equipment is suitable for continuous immersion in water under conditions which shall be specified by the manufacturer. With certain types of equipment, it can mean that water can enter but only in such a manner that it produces no harmful effects. The test depth and/or duration is expected to be greater than the requirements for IPx7.

      IPx8 doesn't mean "5 feet, 30 minutes." Samsung claims it meets "5 feet, 30 minutes," which is sufficient to grant the system an IPx8 rating. IPx8's only requirement is immersion at a depth of > 1 meter - conditions & timing are left to the manufacturer to specify.

      5 feet / 30 minutes is a "common" rating many manufacturers shoot for, but it is NOT required by the IEC-60529 standard.

    16. Re: Seen this before... by MercTech · · Score: 1

      As far as I know, the only thing actually water resistant that you can make phone calls on is a WWAN enabled Toughpad.

      http://business.panasonic.com/toughpad/us/5-inch-tablet-fz-x1.html

      --
      NRRPT/RCT
    17. Re: Seen this before... by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      If you look at the AT&T link in TFS, it says:

      IP68 water-resistant in up to 5 feet of water for up to 30 min. Rinse residue/dry when wet.

      Which, it apparently does not accomplish.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  2. Useful news by Paul+Carver · · Score: 2

    Well I'm glad I saw this article because I've recently been thinking about buying this phone. I really want a waterproof phone and was really disappointed with the experience of an iPhone in a Lifeproof case. It's weird that the S7 is actually tougher than the S7 Active. One thing that's missing from all the specs and reviews I've seen is how often it's rated for immersion. Is it 30 minutes over the life of the phone or 30 minutes per day or something else.

    1. Re:Useful news by flopsquad · · Score: 1

      I can't comment on the other variants of the S line, people seem to like them just fine. But stay the hell away from the Active.

      I had a hellacious experience returning an S6 Active that responded to water in eerily similar fashion. Screen went berserk, weird banding, touch got wonky, water in the SIM cavity, etc. This is with shorter total immersion time (lifetime, not per diem) than the tests they ran in TFA, and at shallower depths, to boot.

      The best part? They'll ask you to take out the little interior water indicator thing, and when it's red, they'll tell you they can't do shit for you because "water inside the device voids the warranty." YOU SOLD ME THIS FUCKING THING ON THE PROMISE THAT WATER WOULDN'T GET INSIDE THE DEVICE!

      I'm surprised they've apparently failed to fixed the lackluster water resistance of their "water-resistant" phone, and continue to advertise it as... wait now I'm surprised that I was surprised by that.

      --
      Nothing posted to /. has ever been legal advice, including this.
    2. Re:Useful news by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      For whatever the rating is worth (clearly not a lot in this case) IP68 is supposed to be suitable to withstand "prolonged immersion at pressure". You should have no problem dropping it into a swimming pool and coming back to fish it out a few days later with zero effects.

      But that's only what it's supposed to do.

      What actually happens on the other hand is a different story and this would be a great test case for warranty claims when the phone floods.

    3. Re:Useful news by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      What actually happens on the other hand is a different story and this would be a great test case for warranty claims when the phone floods.

      Ironically, the warranty usually doesn't cover water damage.

      All the water-proofness does is make it so yes, the warranty is void, but if it's still working, great.

      Just like you know some people will drop a phone always and they buy the largest case with protection.

    4. Re:Useful news by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      If you RTFA you will note that of the three models of Galaxy S7 they tested, all of which claim to be waterproof, this is the only one that had problems. So even though they tested two, I'm inclined to say that it's too early to judge what the issue is here. Or just get the normal non-active version, with your choice of flat or curved screen, because those two passed the test.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    5. Re:Useful news by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Ironically, the warranty usually doesn't cover water damage.

      An IP68 device suffering from water damage would be automatically covered under warranty in any country which has fitness for service laws. e.g. There's no way a manufacturer can release a device they claim is water proof in Australia and then not cover water damage for the full duration of the warranty, or for the mandated 1yr minimum required by law.

  3. No Surprise by kamapuaa · · Score: 3, Informative

    The S5 was advertised as being waterproof as well, and advertisements had people taking selfies underwater. Mine didn't survive a single splash of water that must've gotten it rather wet for several seconds.

    I took it to the repair guy (screen needed to be replaced, if I recall). He told me he was repairing the s5 for water damage all the time.

    --
    Slashdot: providing anti-social weirdos a soapbox, since 1997.
    1. Re:No Surprise by stephanruby · · Score: 1

      One problem was that people were dipping their phones into chlorinated swimming pools. That chemical made all the difference.

    2. Re:No Surprise by thegarbz · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The key is in the design. The S5 is waterproof but not rugged. Mine joined me in my pocket during an unintentional trip in the swimming pool and survived just fine. My girlfriend is one of those WTF people who managed to drop hers not once but twice into the toilet and it was also fine, as it was with the subsequent scrub down in the bathroom sink.

      These phones have very small seals. A lot of consumer stuff does. Have a look at the actual sealing surfaces and you'll see that they typically build up dirt right to the outside edge. Take the back cover off, put it on, and now that .4mm sealing surface has dirt in it and lets water through. The other water entry path is through the screen edge. Remember this is glued. Also remember how many people you see with broken screens. Drop the phone once or twice on it's edge and it's unlikely to be very water tight.

      It's deceptive marketing. You can't go swimming with these devices. But they do work well to fend off unintentional splashes and if looked after will survive a full dunk as well. I wouldn't take it SCUBA diving and critically absent from the devices are actual specifications for the pressure rating of how water proof it actually is.

    3. Re:No Surprise by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Nope. Chlorine isn't the issue. Dirt is. The sealing surfaces on these phones are tiny. The rubbers in the phones are perfectly fine with the occasional exposure to a few ppm of chlorine.

  4. Consumer Reports = borderline scam by execthis · · Score: 1

    Consumer Reports AFAIAC is a borderline scam. I bought what was their top-recommended printer which was supposed to be economical with inks and it sucks through those ripoff cartridges at a ridiculous rate. And you have to get genuine cartridges because the manufacturer rigs it so only theirs work. Total scam and I will never buy a printer from Canon (nor probably HP as well) again!

    1. Re:Consumer Reports = borderline scam by Fencepost · · Score: 2

      Is that ridiculous rate worse than what they expected? Being the best choice is not the same as being a good choice - the phrase "best of a bad lot" came from somewhere, and I think you could likely apply that to an inkjet printer without being off-base.

      --
      fencepost
      just a little off
    2. Re:Consumer Reports = borderline scam by HiThere · · Score: 1

      Who *would* you recommend, then. My last Epson printer was a disaster. The HP at least works. I won't say it's as good as the ones from 2000, but it's better than nothing, and my computers no longer have a Centronics parallel port.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    3. Re:Consumer Reports = borderline scam by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Consumer Reports AFAIAC is a borderline scam.

      Consumer Reports used to be an unimpeachable source of reliable information, but now they are, as you said, a borderline scam.

      Their car-buying info service used to be great, but car manufacturers changed the rules so that Consumer Reports couldn't provide the same level of useful "inside" info. Rather than drop the service and admit defeat, Consumer Reports contracted with a crap-ass web company that *claims* to provide the same info but in fact is just a shill for local dealers.

      It's called "TrueCar", and they're just another bunch of shitballs who want all your info so they can shop you to the car dealers in your area. (Consumer Reports gets paid for this by the dealers, of course.)

      What this means is that they have your number before you even get started, which puts you at a huge disadvantage. The moment you give a dealer your phone number they look in the TrueCar database for the bullshit prices you've been quoted and you lose most of your bargaining advantage right there. You're screwed before you start.

      You don't need their lame service and you can do just as well on your own by following a few simple rules:

      Find the MSRP and use that as a starting point. You may even be able to bargain below MSRP if you know what you're doing.

      Call dealers and get quotes, don't ever waste your time going to them in person and letting them ratfuck you for hours. You have better things to do, right? Instead, make the dealers fight each other and go with the one that gives you the best quote. Get quotes, call them all back with the lowest quote, and let them try to beat that. Lather, rinse, repeat until you've hit rock bottom.

      Always ask for the "out the door" price, i.e. the car plus taxes, license, etc etc. This is what you care about, the final *real* price.

      Never EVER bargain for a lower payment, bargain for a lower price on the car. A lot of people fall for this one.

      Be aware of holdbacks, dealer fees, dealer incentives, advertising fees, and the add-on crap dealers will always try to stick you with. For example, $545 for a "Lexus Dealer Advertising" fee? Fuck no, make them take it off. Why should YOU pay for dealer advertising, that's part of their business expense. $350 for floormats? Fuck no, take them out. Undercoating? No. Anti-chip coating? No. Pay for 2 years of oil changes up front? No no NO.

      $150 for a "Document fee"? Fuck no, that's just them filling out the paperwork, WHICH IS PART OF THEIR FUCKING JOB, HELLO? They have to fill out the paperwork to sell you a car, so why in the world would YOU pay for THEM to do this?

      And so on. I saved ~$3800 buying my wife's car recently just by pitting the dealers against each other and striking off these bogus charges. You can too.

      --
      Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
    4. Re:Consumer Reports = borderline scam by apoc.famine · · Score: 2

      Brother color laser, under $300 now. Deep sleep draws a couple of watts. Wireless. The only issue is that we end up piling shit on it and when we go to print it jams because the paper can't come out.
       
      Had it for more than a year now. Use it maybe once a month, if that. Every time, as long as we haven't piled shit on it, it wakes up, warms up, spits out awesome color or B&W sheets, and then goes back to sleep. It's a fucking appliance and works like one. I fully expect it to be kicking ass like this 5 years from now, if the ancient brother B&W USB laser I had is any indication. I put more than 10k sheets through that over almost a decade. Rock solid the entire time. Sure, toner is expensive. But when you only buy it every couple of years, it's way cheeper than ink. And it doesn't go bad.

      --
      Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
    5. Re:Consumer Reports = borderline scam by HiThere · · Score: 1

      The thing is, laser printers are reported to emit small airborne particles that lodge in the lungs. In a well ventilated office environment, this isn't anything to be very worried about, but I would be using it at home, in a relatively small room.

      Also it would need to be a color laser/scanner combination. Not impossible, but last I checked unusual.

      P.S.: The last Brother printer I bought would barely even talk to my computer, and the scanner was unusable. After a week of trying to make it work I gave up. The HP at least works, even though it have problems with printing on acetate or cardstock.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    6. Re:Consumer Reports = borderline scam by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Well, it used to be you could refill Brother cartridges as much as you liked. Not all ink-jet printers are bad.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  5. Returning a wet phone to functionality by GPS+Pilot · · Score: 1

    You may have heard that sealing your phone in a bag of rice will extract moisture. Here's a hygroscopic product that works even better: DampRid.

    Even so, sometimes it takes a long time. Don't give up on that device. It may power on after a few weeks or months in the bag of DampRid.

    --
    That that is is that that that that is not is not.
    1. Re:Returning a wet phone to functionality by hankwang · · Score: 5, Informative

      The use of hygroscopic products to speed up drying is actually based on a misconception, or at least, not as effective as you might think.

      The rate of evaporation is proportional to the product D*(p_vp-p_env), where D is the diffusion coefficient of the vapor molecules in air, p_vp the vapor pressure (partial pressure of saturated vapor), and p_env the partial pressure of vapor in the environment.

      A desiccant will lower p_env to zero, so it will help a bit; for example, the p difference is (2.4-1.2) kPa at 20 C, 50% relative humidity, increasing to (2.4-0) with a desiccant, a factor 2 increase. However, putting it in a warm place will increase both D (a bit) and p_vp (a lot). Heating it to 50 C in the same environment will increase the p difference to (12.3-1.2), a factor 9 increase. Additionally, D will increase by a factor 1.2. A phone that is switched off should be able to handle such temperatures, so putting it on top of the cable modem is cheaper and more effective.

      Even better would be to dry it in vacuum; that will increase the D parameter tremendously. But most people don't have that at home, although I suppose that some creativity with a wine preserver pump might get you somewhere.

      --
      Avantslash: low-bandwidth mobile slashdot.
    2. Re:Returning a wet phone to functionality by samwichse · · Score: 3, Informative

      I don't recommend the vacuum pump...

      I dropped my phone in a 6' deep evaporative cooler tank and it took 15 minutes to fish it out. I ran up to the lab and took the rotor out of our vacuum concentrator and switched it on. Things looked fine for a couple minutes, but then the back of the phone started swelling and it was the battery bulging... I switched it off and it "deflated." The phone also worked (still using it now, in fact), but the battery life was halved.

      It wasn't in there long enough to evaporate all the water, but the back was already partially popped so I took it off and stuck in an incubator at 42C for a day.

  6. My S5 was fine with water. by caveat · · Score: 1

    I used to wash it after every shift on the line, much to the amusement of the dishwashers. Also took it swimming in saltwater quite a bit, and running in the rain more times than I can count. Never a problem. So far, my vanilla S7 is just as durable, if not more so - the waterproof USB port is a quantum leap over the stupid little flap-door-thing on the S5. If the heat wouldn't get to it, I'd try putting it in the dishwasher..

    --

    Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. - Aldous Huxley
  7. Re:Watergate by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

    #HashTagsAreLameAndINeverUsedThemInTheFirstFuckingPlace

    --
    Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
  8. Mod parent up by GlobalEcho · · Score: 1

    Here's a genuinely useful and scientific post. Mods, please do your thing!

  9. not active at all by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

    How can a phone with a glass touchscreen glued to the LCD be called "active"? If it falls, it shatters.

    Now the good old Sony Xperia Acro S is an "active" phone. It not only survived several falls into ponds, it also mastered falls onto tarmac and rocks while hiking without shattering, thanks to a very strong plastic touchscreen and the LCD being quite below it. Unfortunately the phone is old and slow.

    --
    "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
  10. RSA needs to make a phone by TheCarp · · Score: 1

    I have an RSA token.... its been through the washing machine AND dryer, and still worked again after just a few hours...

    oh... all 3 times it happened.....

    --
    "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
  11. How do Samsung define IP68? by Tomahawk · · Score: 1

    How are Samsung defining IP68? IP68 requires that the phone be able to be placed in at least 1m (~3ft) of water. The manufacturer should then state to what depth it's covered. Do Samsung say that it's certified to greater than 1m?

    IP68 is _typically_ up to 3m, but has a minimum spec of 1m.

    The 6 of 68 is the dust spec - this is the highest dust spec and requires that the phone be subject to a vacuum for up to 8 hours.
    The 8 is the water spec and is the 2nd highest spec (9K being the next)

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

  12. Re:Watergate by Tomahawk · · Score: 1

    At least you camelCase your hash tags...
    #noncamelcasedhashtagscanbedifficulttoread