Consumer Reports: Samsung phone not actually water-resistant

“Commercials for the Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge showed hip-hop’s Lil Wayne pouring Champagne over the phone and dunking it in a fish tank. The Active version of the S7, which is available to AT&T customers for $800 and up, is being marketed as equally water-resistant,” Jerry Beilinson reports for Consumer Reports. “While Consumer Reports generally doesn’t evaluate phones for this feature, we do perform an immersion test when a manufacturer claims that its product is water-resistant. When we recently evaluated the Galaxy S7 Active, it failed this test.”

“Companies that label their devices ‘water-resistant’ can cite a variety of benchmarks,” Beilinson reports. “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.”

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,” Beilinson reports. “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.”

Read more in the full article here.

MacDailyNews Take: Wait, the serial thieves are congenital liars, too? Say it ain’t so.

At their next iPhone event, Tim Cook should walk onstage, drop the new iPhone into a tank of water, and proceed with the presentation. At the end, after two hours or so, he should fish it out, turn it on, show it works, and thank everyone for coming.

SEE ALSO:
Slavish Apple copier Samsung debuts ‘Captured on Galaxy S7’ ad – June 17, 2016
Beleaguered Samsung to debut knockoff of Apple’s phone upgrade program in South Korea – March 9, 2016
Beleaguered Samsung to attempt to knock off Apple iPhone’s Live Photos – January 14, 2016
Beleaguered Samsung to attempt to knock off Apple iPhone’s 3D Touch – December 14, 2015
Slavish Apple copier Samsung announces rose gold Galaxy Note 5 – October 15, 2015
Samsung can’t seem to stop mimicking Apple – May 4, 2015
Slavish copier Samsung in talks to launch Apple Pay knockoff – December 16, 2014
Samsung returns to mimicking Apple’s iPhone with chamfered metal-edged Galaxy Alpha – August 13, 2014
Samsung’s plastic, 32-bit Galaxy S5 has serious fingerprint sensor problems – May 6, 2014
Samsung’s new ad for Galaxy Gear stupidwatch slavishly copies Apple’s original 2007 iPhone ad (with video) – October 7, 2013
Samsung announces plastic Galaxy S4 ‘Gold Edition’ phone – September 25, 2013
Samsung slavishly copies Apple’s iPad mini with Galaxy Tab 3 (with photo) – July 23, 2013
9 ways Samsung has slavishly copied Apple over the years – July 14, 2013
Now Samsung copies Apple product rumors, said to be working on wristwatch device – March 19, 2013
Samsung’s new ‘Wallet’ bears striking resemblance to Apple’s Passbook – February 27, 2013
Korea JoongAng Daily: Samsung must stop slavishly copying Apple – September 3, 2012
South Korea reassesses its great imitator, Samsung – September 2, 2012
Is Samsung copying Apple’s patented earphones? It sure looks like it – September 8, 2012
Samsung mimics Apple product videos in Galaxy S III promo (with video) – August 24, 2012
Now slavish copycat Samsung attempts to knockoff Apple’s retail stores (with video) – August 23, 2012
Samsung: Shameless slavish copiers – August 13, 2012
Now Samsung slavishly copies Apple’s Mac mini – June 1, 2012
Samsung Mobile chief ‘designer’ denies that Samsung’s instinct is to slavishly copy Apple – March 23, 2012
Slavish copier Samsung shamelessly steals Apple’s iPhone 3G design – again – January 3, 2012
Slavish copier Samsung uses girl actress from iPhone 4S ad for Galaxy Tab 8.9 spot (with video) – January 2, 2012
Now Samsung’s slavishly copying Apple’s iPad television ads (with videos) – December 30, 2011
Judge: Can you tell me which is iPad and which is yours? Samsung lawyer: ‘Not at this distance your honor’ – October 14, 2011
Why are Apple’s icons on the wall of Samsung’s store? – September 24, 2011
Apple to Samsung: ‘Blatant copying is wrong’ – April 18, 2011
Apple sues Samsung for attempting to copy look and feel of iPhone, iPad – April 18, 2011
Samsung’s ‘Instinct’ is obviously to make Apple iPhone knockoffs – April 1, 2008

18 Comments

  1. This is ridiculous, why a samsung user will need a phone 5 feet under water resistant? android users are poor, they don’t go to the sea, they don’t go to swimming pools, they fill a bucket of water and that’s a pool for them. why do you think they settle with a samsung galaxy in the first place and not an iPhone?
    By the way, that $800 dollars price tag, is if some one buys the phone off contract, but you now that android users always buy their phones with contract or some other credit, even if the phone cost $50 bucks so no one ever pays a retail price for that crap. that $800 price is only to make people believe that they are buying something that can be compared with an iPhone. If is not an iPhone, is not an iPhone.

    1. As a poor Android user (perfectly willing to be disloyal) I can assure you that my two paid in full S7 edges do pass the water proof test. I dunked them on purpose.

      If the S7 fails as claimed, Samsung should be skewered. See how that works?

  2. > Commercials for the Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge showed hip-hop’s Lil Wayne pouring Champagne over the phone and dunking it in a fish tank

    Americans.

  3. The article states that the S7 Active failed the water test but both the S7 and S7 Edge passed the test. The Edge is the one in the commercial and it appears to be as water resistant as advertised. Still can’t believe that CR has the S7 and S7 Edge as their top two smartphones, though…

  4. So, Consumer Reports could just use a pool of water 5ft deep? They had to use a pressurized water tank? THIS is why their testing is questionable… They create odd tests that aren’t necessarily real life.

    1. The point of the test was to reproduce the pressure of being under 5ft of water in a large body, which is different than the pressure under 5ft of water in a small tank at or above sea level, where the pressure is less as the atmospheric pressure lessens with higher elevations and higher overall air content, and volume of water present. You know, that whole physics thing.

      The test may be weird, but if people were to take this phone snorkeling or diving, or even swimming in a large pool, it accurately reproduced the conditions of those environments.

      1. I would think that unless the device HxW doesn’t change and the depth of water in the pressurized tank is taken into account in setting the pressure it should be a relatively fair test. Wonder if there is any difference in ocean vs fresh/brackish water.

  5. And if this was an Apple iPhone the class action lawsuit would have been filed within seconds. And the media howling would be deafening. Instead we hear….crickets.

    Somebody with time on their hands please forward the CR article to the FTC….

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.