I took video in a pool under water with my Note 9. Absolutely fantastic. Never an issue with the phone. Didn't do the same with my Note 10 yet but it should be just fine.Just curious if anyone has done this and if there were any ill effects to the phone?
No , its water resistant to certain spec and manufacturer doesn't cover water damage if it happens.
Hell no. Never on purpose.Just curious if anyone has done this and if there were any ill effects to the phone?
Just curious if anyone has done this and if there were any ill effects to the phone?
Yeah it says 1.5 meters (4.92 ft) for 30 minutes. In fresh water.
I do it. It's fine. The phone is rated at IP68, which means no water ingress if submerged in still water up to 1.5 meters for up to 30 minutes. It's true that Samsung's warranty says it excludes water damage, but I don't think they can legally get away with that exclusion given their IP68 advertising. A manufacturer is required to stand by a product's advertised capabilities.
One of the first things I do when I get an IP68-rated device is to turn it on and submerge it in a container of water for several minutes while videoing the whole process. If the phone stops working, I'll have proof that its seal was defective before the 2-week exchange period runs out. But none of my IP68 devices have ever failed that test.
https://forums.androidcentral.com/e...l%2Fgalaxy%2Fwhat-is%2Fip68%2F&token=_EE80s3x
I know their warranty says it excludes water damage, but do you have any evidence that they can legally get away with excluding an advertised capability from the warranty if they're challenged on it?It's not covered period regardless of when you test it.
This argument has been between to death in various threads and forums and we won't get any further today than anyone has gotten in the past. It's not covered period. I've been involved in numerous law suits over the course of my career and whether you get away with it in a court of law is a question of how well you present your argument, who the judge is and as I've previously stated, they often rule in the favor if the little guy. In my opinion, it's not worth the effort but that's up to the end user to decide if they have a problem.I know their warranty says it excludes water damage, but do you have any evidence that they can legally get away with excluding an advertised capability from the warranty if they're challenged on it?
There is no legal requirement to have a warranty, and what is warrantied is up to the manufacturer. When it comes to water damage on an "ip rated" device like this, there's additional user induced variables that can make that seal fail, which Samsung can not account for. Water contaminants, drops/impact damage, disassembly, etc.I know their warranty says it excludes water damage, but do you have any evidence that they can legally get away with excluding an advertised capability from the warranty if they're challenged on it?