Samshills will defend this
>>55522312
>buying samshit
do people go swimming with their phone or what?
Water-resistant =/= water proof
Does the BBC not even know the difference between water proof and water resistant?
"Water resistant" phone is not "water proof"
If it's water proof it'll give a depth rating.
>>55522312
This happened with the Xperia Z3 and Z3 compact as well, I had a Z3 break after getting it wet but Sony replaced it under warranty.
I haven't heard any issues with the Z4 and Z5 having water resistance issues but hardly anyone owns them.
>>55522312
Are the phones rated IP68?
If not they're not supposed to be able to survive submersion in water.
>>55522342
They tested them under the same conditions that Samsung said they could survive. They didn't survive.
>>55522312
It's because it's waterproof to a certain degree. People think it's vastly more waterproof than it actually is.
Why? Because marketing. Sony already had to say sorry about this and explained that while it is waterproof, you shouldn't use it while swimming underwater for a long time and it's more for every day use such as shower, rain or cleaning the phone's screen. Samsung made the same marketing mistake.
But it's not all marketing mistakes. These so called "experiments" are getting more ridiculous every day, showcasing things that would happen in real life with a chance of literally 0%.
And it'll always be better than not being waterproof. I for one can't live without a phone anymore that I can't use in the rain or in the shower.
>>55522360
They are.
>>55522360
Yes.
>>55522334
>>55522342
>>55522344
>>55522401
Samsung did say that the phones can survive for 30 minutes in 5 ft depth. They didn't. Now Samsung claims its just 2 defective units. Which seems unlikely. The reason people aren't complaining more is because most people won't try this themselves.
>>55522403
Kek.
What are Samsung doing?
>>55522360
Read the goddamn article.
>>55522401
Read the goddamn article.
It's supposed to be IP68-certified. That means that it can withstand being immersed long-term to whatever depth the manufacturer states. Manufacturer states 5'. When tested, this is a lie.
>>55522430
I did state that it is a marketing mistake. Because Samsung means 5' in IP68 technicality, but it'd never happen when applied to the actual phone.
They want to boast with technicalities, but it'll bite them in the back. Such as this
>>55522312
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-36763932
Here's the article you didn't link.
>>55522458
It's not a marketing mistake, it's outright lying. If they say that it lives up to certain standards, it's supposed to live up to those standards.
It's like saying it's a 'marketing mistake' to sell an SD card marked as a CLASS 10 device that cannot ever in the real world reach 10MB/s writes. That's not bad marketing, that's outright lying.
>>55522430
>>55522458
They did this with the s7 too. They botched about how it didn't survive at 5' for an hour when only the resellers claimed that depth. Samsung said 1m
>>55522312
But I've seen someone take their Samsung and throw them in a sink full of water and pull it out.
>>55522557
Momentary contact with water is very different from total submersion.
>>55522312
Should at them minimum be investigated to see if the phones they sent in for standard testing are the exact same as the ones coming off the production line.
>>55522426
>Now Samsung claims its just 2 defective units. Which seems unlikely.
That's actually very likely.
>>55522566
That's what I said he did you tard.
SINK
FULL
OF
WATER
The sink was FULL. It was filled to the top of water.
Samsung makes some attractive phones but their business practices leave a lot to be desired.
I still got my first-gen Galaxy XCover. Haven't dunked it in water in a few years, but I still live in the assumption that it's at least water resistant.
I'm less happy with the internal memory. At whopping 150 megabytes, it was wimpy to begin with, and the years have raised expectations somewhat.
Also the battery is slowly dying.
>>55522642
Let me rephrase. Momentary contact with a sink-full of water is very different from a 5' submersion for 30 minutes.
>>55522639
One, okay, bad luck. Can happen. But 2? Unless they have a high percentage of defective units, it's not likely.
>>55522312
>tank with a simulated effect of being about 1.5m underwater
Meaning that instead of actually being 1.5m they used a current to 'simulate' the depth. That's inherently wrong because we still don't know accurately how turbulence works, thus it introduces an uncontrolled variable to the experiment. My bet is that they did this on purpose to bias the experiment, because Samsung didn't give in into some extortion in exchange of a good review; fucking kikes.
>>55522391
>They tested them under the same conditions that Samsung said they could survive.
No. Not even close.
>>55522763
It's on their website.
>>55522797
What's its certified at though, per standard?
>>55522740
I mean it's extremely unlikely they would have fewer than 2 (two) defective units in total.
>>55522797
>>55522763
Also, it's all about water pressure. They didn't fucking using water jets, they used a pressure tank that was set to _exactly_ equivalent to 5' of water.
http://www.consumerreports.org/smartphones/samsung-galaxy-s7-active-fails-consumer-reports-water-resistance-test/
>>55522809
IP68 is, essentially, "certified for sustained submersion at the manufacturer's specified depth", but implicitly at least 1m
>>55522825
What's "sustained immersion" also do they test with still or turbulent water?
>>55522345
I had a z3 compact and used to swim with it, worked fine
>>55522843
I'm not sure what the certifier uses to test with, but, consumerreports uses a pressure tank. It should be still water, though.
>>55522639
Samsung repairman here. Can confirm.
Defective is actually more or less default– getting a proper one is like winning the lottery.
>>55522843
All the rating standards says is "continuous immersion", which implies that it should be able to be dunked in indefinitely. Samsung suggests no more than 30 minutes, though.
http://www.dsmt.com/resources/ip-rating-chart/
>>55522426
>they will, however, charge their Iphones in the microwawe
>>55522312
>Samsung's "water-proof" phones aren't water-proof
whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat
>>55522345
Z1 here, never had a problem with water after years of tortures
>>55522763
holy shit how stupid are you
>>55522327
>he doesn't shitpost in a comfy hot bath
Poor you.
>>55523008
>tfw I shitpost with a Note 3 which is cracked open in the bathtub
It's still going strong
>friend got an xperia z
>pretty jelly at that time
>she shows how awesome it is that it is waterproof by dropping it in a cup of water
>bzzt bzzt poof
>it's dead
I was trying my best to hold back my laughter but I just couldn't. I need to see this again but with the S7 Active.
Also, babby's first red switch and I can't stop myself from typing. Mechanical keyboards are the next best thing after sliced bread. Fuck me for taking so long in adopting this tech and torturing myself with rubber dome keyboards.
Someone stop me from typing please /g/ I don't normally post but with this I just want to reply to each and every single one of you so I can keep on typing.
>>55523210
man i love my xperia z but i would never get that shit close to the water, the only thing that keeps it from shorting everything are some shit caps that wear off over time.
>>55523321
The look on her face was priceless, but the shit eating grin I had was even more so.
Hell, I don't even trust those bulky waterproof cases.
>>55522763
Or maybe they sealed the tank, and presurized it so that the pressure at the bottom was equivalent to 1.5m
>>55523210
>Someone stop me from typing please /g/
Please, tell me about your day.
>>55522763
>we don't know how turbulence works
We do though. Just because your average person doesn't know doesn't mean science as a whole can't accurately simulate turbulent flow
Protip: the iPhone6S and SE are effectively water resistant, with internal gaskets/sealant. Apple just doesn't market them as such because it would encourage stupid behaviour and warranty confusion.
>>55523446
It was awesome. I forgot to do one thing at work during the weekend which wasn't part of our normal maintenance routine, but since our users are on a different timezone I was able to slip it in just before everyone started going to work. Everyone in my team who is in support/not a developer wants to suck my dick because I automated most of their jobs (aside from actually answering help tickets).
Also, this qt who I figured I shouldn't get myself involved with and didn't particularly show me any interest just weeks before is now all over me. She's 38, single, lives alone, sure she's rich but what everything tells me is that she's either a huge ticking time bomb or that she's an autist just like everyone who is a developer.
Today is also push day, new PR with my weighted dips now at 30kg.
As much as I want to tell you more I must go now. I hope you enjoyed my blog because it was a joy typing it.
I wonder if I should get one for office use also, the chiclet keyboard my office laptop has just feels like I'm pressing on shit while I was on it earlier. The reds aren't that loud and while I haven't tried other switches yet I'm already completely sold on this guy.
>>55522401
Take your fucking shower and then resume your addiction later on, millennial cancer.
>>55523610
>She's 38
Passed the expiration date. She's a few years from being barren, dude.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jMqla13ubaA
?
>>55522312
They OBVIOUSLY meant water-resistant, not water-proof.
>Ironically, the Active version of the S7 was the only one of the three to fail this test, with the standard S7 and S7 Edge versions actually living up to the Lil’-Wayne-pouring-champagne hype.
>The S7 Active, offered exclusively by AT&T, includes an underwater camera mode and a special “Active” key that provides quick access to both activity trackers and an emergency app for sending “SOS” messages.
so basically at&t demanded some special USP modifications that broke the waterproofability and then called it the "active".
I have this friend that take nude photos in the shower and bathtub with it. Bullshit detected
>>55524707
>>55524892
>>55525077
>>55525994
See >>55522797
Samsung claims it can survive these conditions and it can't. And you are still defending them.
>>55522312
>british in charge of understanding the definitions of words in a language that they themselves created and have refined for hundreds of years
o im laffin
>>55522913
>they will, however, charge their Iphones in the microwawe
iShit owners are a special kind of stupid, though
>>55526165
Why did you link my post
Linus video clearly shows it goes above and beyond the rated standard
I've dropped my s6 in the bath before without a charging cover
Albeit for a few seconds, no issues thankfully
Why the fuck would you be in a scenario where your phone would need to be fully submerged in water for more than 10 seconds anyway?
>>55526694
Because millenials need to sit on their phone in the shower.
I shit you not, they can't get off it for 10 minutes. This is one of the major driving forces for long duration water resistance in phone.
>>55522642
calm the fuck down samshill
>>55526610
He's retarded but see this
>>55525077
>>55522334
tell that to samsung
>>55522312
I don't get it. I put my phone in a ziplock bag and its done.
Why can't a big company make a better ziplock bag that fits the phone better?..
>>55522334
The thing that Samsung claims since the S6 I believe to have the same IP standards as Sony.
>>55528113
I think you're on to something anon. You should patent your idea and sell it to Apple.
>>55522312
Who the fuck buys a phone based on water proofing ?
Literally who the fuck just wakes up one day and says "hey i'll just go throw my phone in a pool because it's water proof and I need to justify why I spent my money on this thing"
>using my Samshit Gaylaxy S5 water proof phone in the rain
>water droplets acts as finger touches and messes with everything on the screen
>took 8 months to get the marshmallow update
>samsung official apps stop working if you deny just one permission
>Cheetah Mobile's cleaner and intel/mcafee antivirus built in and can't disable/remove (i wonder if cheetah mobile paid samsung or the other way around)
>plastic chrome bezel scratches and deforms really easily. also looks really bad
I only keep it because of the removable battery
>>55522345
z5 works great in the shower
>>55528260
normies
>>55528260
That's no excuse.
>Hey, let's say our phone can do X because it sounds good!
>Lol, it actually can't do X, but it's not like we expect anyone to do it
>>55528402
WHO THE FUCK BUYS A PHONE FOR WATER PROOFING?
ANSWER ME THIS QUESTION.
LAST TIME I WENT OUT TO BUY A PHONE WATER PROOFING IS THE LAST THING I EVEN THOUGHT ABOUT BECAUSE I DONT PLAN ON TALKING UNDERWATER OR SOME DUMB SHIT
>>55528655
Samshills at full force.
That's not the point. If you say your phone has a certain feature, it should have that certain feature. No matter how useful it is.
And yes, being water-resistant is a selling point. Don't have to worry anymore about dropping the phone in a sink or using it in the rain.
>>55528733
A SELLING POINT FOR WHO?
WHO THE FUCK DROPS THEIR PHONE IN A SINK OR USES IT IN A COMPLETE DOWN POUR WITHOUT HAVING AN UMBRELLA OR GOING INSIDE?
LITERALLY IS YOUR TARGET AUDIENCE A BUNCH OF INCOMPETENT MORONS WHO TALK WHILE ON THE SHITTER AND THEN DROPS IT IN THE TOILET? OR STANDS IN DOWN POUR INSTEAD OF GOING TO THE NEAREST OVERHANG?
JESUS CHRIST YOU PEOPLE ARE GETTING DUMBER AND DUMBER EACH YEAR
>>55522487
>It's not a marketing mistake, it's outright lying.
they're too rich to care and many people will buy it anyway because, well, fuck you. no one really cares if they're lying, it's not illegal.
>>55527704
>>55528402
>resistant up to
Well there's your CYA wording. All they said is that it may or may not survive at that depth for that time. Any deeper, any longer, we don't think it'll ever survive.
Until they start doing this kind of thing for all electronics:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_Resistant_mark
water resistant doesn't mean much. It really just a marketing term, indicating that there's added protection against moisture.
>>55528780
>implying cellphones aren't for normies
>implying people aren't losing brain cells every breath they take.
>>55528780
I think your caps lock broke. Either that, or you're extremely mad.
>>55528780
desu lad I've had my phone fall into a toilet before. I had it in my phone and when I pulled my pants out it slipped out, hit the seat and fell in.
Screen was cracked and phone was dead. I only buy water proof and gorilla glass phones now.
Why would you need to simulate a 5-foot tank of water? You would spend more time figuring out how to simulate it than you would need to find a swimming pool.
>>55528851
If it can be shown to be a consistent failure, it could be argued that it's willful false advertising, and might be grounds for, at the very least, claims against Samsung for poor quality phones that fail to perform their duty in the manner prescribed by the manufacturer.
>>55528965
Standardized testing? They use the same thing to simulate many different depths, eg. for watches, etc.
>>55528780
PEOPLE WHO ENJOY LIFE AND MIGHT SPEND TIME AT A POOL OR THE BEACH AND WANT TO TAKE PICTURES OF THEIR FRIENDS TO PRESERVE THOSE MEMORIES.
>>55529010
Yeah, but with the pool you could test for piss resistance at the same time.
>>55522312
even if it says its waterproof im still not bringing it near water
My old non water proof nokia resisted for 2 minutes on a bucket of water. After drying, it still work. It's true not a nokia meme.
>>55522312
>It noted the standard Galaxy S7 and Galaxy S7 Edge models, which are also IP68-certified, had not sustained water damage during the same test conditions.
Wow. How did they end up taking a step backwards with the Active?
>>55522812
On the other hand, it's also extremely unlikely that you can buy 2 phones and both are defective.
Unless both were from the same batch, in which case there would be more reports.
>>55529205
>in which case there would be more reports
Honestly, how many people are going to try this? Every phone could have this issue and barely anyone would complain.
>>55529050
I would not be surprised if TechRax already did "5 feet of piss test."
>>55529244
The IP68 certification will appeal to some in a nichemarket.
Also, there will be people that will dunk it, just because they can. Or atleast think they can.
