Samsung Stepped up and owned the problem...my Faith is restored

[FLTimmyB]

Here is a link to the official response from Samsung...good news for us all I am glad they stepped up and owned it

[Official Statement] Response to Consumer Reports GS7 Active Water Resistance Test - Samsung Newsroom

[Official Statement] Response to Consumer Reports GS7 Active Water Resistance Test

Samsung Newsroom 07.15.16

AT&T, CONSUMER REPORTS, GALAXY S7 ACTIVE

The Galaxy S7 active passed rigorous tests to ensure IP68 certification for water resistance.

Samsung stands behind this water resistance certification, and will replace any Galaxy S7 active under its standard limited warranty, should water damage occur.

Media Contact:

Andrew Bowins

(Corporate Communications Team)

 

[Rds030903]

Now i wonder if my phone is being replaced or repaired.

 

[TJA3500]

If it gets water damaged they have the option to repair or replace.
Which ever is in their best interest, not the customers.

 

[FLTimmyB]

Not saying its the best but they are honoring the IP68 Claim they made and at no cost to the customer. Its a much better situation than we were in a few days ago.

 

[bryanmsi]

Well done Samsung! This is exactly what they should have done and will restore confidence in the Galaxy S7 Active.

 

[tkuhe]

So that is definitely reassuring. The problem is, and we will probably never get an answer to this, what exactly is wrong with some of these phones. Was it a bad batch, design flaw, manufacturing error, etc... Is there anyways to find out if the phone you get is a dud without dunking it?
I guess the thing to do now is buy the phone and throw it in water immediately to find out if you have a dud.
Samsung warranty is good for one year.

 

[Slade8525]

So that is definitely reassuring. The problem is, and we will probably never get an answer to this, what exactly is wrong with some of these phones. Was it a bad batch, design flaw, manufacturing error, etc... Is there anyways to find out if the phone you get is a dud without dunking it?
I guess the thing to do now is buy the phone and throw it in water immediately to find out if you have a dud.
Samsung warranty is good for one year.

If you do choose to insta-dunk-test it, FILM IT so you have proof it failed within advertised specifications...

Based on projected sales volume versus complaints, its probably QC issues on a per-unit basis, and as has been said before, its far more likely to see people post complaints about issues rather than a lack of complaints or issues.

'We', S7 Active owners/users, are in no different a position than we were at launch day; all AT&T/Samsung did is reiterate their claims about IP68 rating and their limited warranty; they conceded nothing, they did not note that there are 'problems, defects, or issues' whatsoever with the S7 Active.

Personally, across our units within my friends/family, we have no problems, but everyone should be VERY aware that this statement by AT&T/Samsung is no concession or admission of fault WHATSOEVER. This is standard practice in any industry, and one should expect there to be faulty units with any piece of high tech electronic and sensitive equipment, especially when you are rating it for water/dust ingress.

That said, if you have an issue, post it, call it in, whatever, and document everything you can, and if possible test it while filming it if you are paranoid.

 

[planoman]

This is reassuring for those on the fence about getting the S7 Active. Glad to see Samsung release a statement about it and thanks to consumer reports for raising this issue. Not agreeing or disagreeing with their testing methods, but Samsung responded because of CR.

Posted via my S7 Active with Samsung Pay!

 

[Slade8525]

This is reassuring for those on the fence about getting the S7 Active. Glad to see Samsung release a statement about it and thanks to consumer reports for raising this issue. Not agreeing or disagreeing with their testing methods, but Samsung responded because of CR.

Posted via my S7 Active with Samsung Pay!

personally, i feel CR's testing method was garbage.

So, some issues i have with the CR test. Not that i doubt their good intentions, and i am not defending Samsung, BUT if you intend to conduct a test of a product, and intend to be perceived as a credible source, then scientifically reproduceable standards and procedures should be followed.

Please be aware that to properly test ANY device, ALL of the following criterion SHOULD be met to ensure correct scientific testing methods. Frankly i was disappointed in what they showed vs what they had to say.

Firstly, they did toss the device about, then proceed to test it. CR then used a pressurized air/water chamber test vs depth test; air compresses much more evenly; water does not compress as such, but pressure increases with weight as a function of depth (assuming gravity is present). A 1.5m (or more) clear tube filled with clean fresh water would have been the proper way to test design specifications.
Secondly, no time lapse, single shot was performed (or at least shown); this would further prove their point; instead its a cutaway.
Thirdly, lack of standardization in testing; typically some adherence to STP laws (standard temperature and pressure, or deviations thereof) are used in a truly scientific study.
Fourthly, no concurrent test with 'passing' S7 and S7 Edge in the same chamber at the same time (and their videos on the S7 and S7 Edge show the same glaring faults in their method vs scientific, standardized testing methods for ANY ratings).
And lastly, no static timer (a glorified clock) present that is clearly visible, which combined with the above methods, would clearly indicate either a passing or failing grade in the hardware.

I'm not saying i dont trust their results, but i am saying my 6th grade science teacher would have flunked them immediately, and for such a large organization that purports to represent consumers, i was appalled at the lack of professionalism, and the suggested 'scientific' manner in which the test was conducted, which was deplorably not scientific nor standardized in any means whatsoever.

I have conducted more scientific tests on used spark plugs to analyze lubrication effects vs carbon deposit efficiency on various spark plugs for my RX-7's and RX-8's, accounted for and adjusted for variables far more accurately than CR; let alone DAYS of testing sensors and lenses for various camera systems and issues such as 'jello'/CMOS line read speeds, dynamic range, ISO noise vs sensitivity, etc etc, and i am not a scientist by any means.

 

[planoman]

personally, i feel CR's testing method was garbage.

So, some issues i have with the CR test. Not that i doubt their good intentions, and i am not defending Samsung, BUT if you intend to conduct a test of a product, and intend to be perceived as a credible source, then scientifically reproduceable standards and procedures should be followed.

Please be aware that to properly test ANY device, ALL of the following criterion SHOULD be met to ensure correct scientific testing methods. Frankly i was disappointed in what they showed vs what they had to say.

Firstly, they did toss the device about, then proceed to test it. CR then used a pressurized air/water chamber test vs depth test; air compresses much more evenly; water does not compress as such, but pressure increases with weight as a function of depth (assuming gravity is present). A 1.5m (or more) clear tube filled with clean fresh water would have been the proper way to test design specifications.
Secondly, no time lapse, single shot was performed (or at least shown); this would further prove their point; instead its a cutaway.
Thirdly, lack of standardization in testing; typically some adherence to STP laws (standard temperature and pressure, or deviations thereof) are used in a truly scientific study.
Fourthly, no concurrent test with 'passing' S7 and S7 Edge in the same chamber at the same time (and their videos on the S7 and S7 Edge show the same glaring faults in their method vs scientific, standardized testing methods for ANY ratings).
And lastly, no static timer (a glorified clock) present that is clearly visible, which combined with the above methods, would clearly indicate either a passing or failing grade in the hardware.

I'm not saying i dont trust their results, but i am saying my 6th grade science teacher would have flunked them immediately, and for such a large organization that purports to represent consumers, i was appalled at the lack of professionalism, and the suggested 'scientific' manner in which the test was conducted, which was deplorably not scientific nor standardized in any means whatsoever.

I have conducted more scientific tests on used spark plugs to analyze lubrication effects vs carbon deposit efficiency on various spark plugs for my RX-7's and RX-8's, accounted for and adjusted for variables far more accurately than CR; let alone DAYS of testing sensors and lenses for various camera systems and issues such as 'jello'/CMOS line read speeds, dynamic range, ISO noise vs sensitivity, etc etc, and i am not a scientist by any means.

I get that you feel that CR's test were unscientific and non standard. All I know is I watched at least 6 to 8 reviews of this phone when it came out and not one had the failures we are hearing about now. Even AC's own reviewer was skipping the phone across the water. And my n of one is that my phone has not failed the IP 68 rating.

I do however feel that it was CR's publicity that resulted in Samsung's statement regarding the S7 Active's IP68 rating and standing by it.

 

[Phoneguy108]

So that is definitely reassuring. The problem is, and we will probably never get an answer to this, what exactly is wrong with some of these phones. Was it a bad batch, design flaw, manufacturing error, etc... Is there anyways to find out if the phone you get is a dud without dunking it?
I guess the thing to do now is buy the phone and throw it in water immediately to find out if you have a dud.
Samsung warranty is good for one year.

I know I wish Samsung would look into it a bit more instead of just telling everyone everything is fine.

 

[bryanmsi]

Well, not quite as you said. They admitted no fault, true. We have no idea if the Active had a design flaw or a manufacturer defect, or something else.

But samsung DID say they will replace water- damaged S7 Actives. That is definitely above and beyond the standard warranty which specifically disclaims any coverage for water intrusion.

 

[D13H4RD2L1V3]

I'm still wondering why 2 S7 Actives failed CR's test, but the standard and edge variants didn't.

 

[Law2138]

My S6 active is on its way back to Samsung for this same issue. Of course they specifically mentioned the S7, but I feel that this should apply to the S6 as well, which is also IP 68 certified. No, I don't want a free S7 Active, I just want to be able to use my S6 as it was advertised. If I can not, then why did I pay $700 for it?

Posted via the Android Central App

 

[Phoneguy108]

My S6 active is on its way back to Samsung for this same issue. Of course they specifically mentioned the S7, but I feel that this should apply to the S6 as well, which is also IP 68 certified. No, I don't want a free S7 Active, I just want to be able to use my S6 as it was advertised. If I can not, then why did I pay $700 for it?

Posted via the Android Central App

Amen!

 

[Slade8525]

i think part of it is they do multiple drop tests too, unlike s7/s7 edge; dropping it can compromise the waterproof factor. i think that may have something to do with the failed results, as all the non-dropped/thrown/abused units we have held up fine to water.

 

[FLTimmyB]

I posted this in another Thread but Thought I should post it here too.... http://finance.yahoo.com/news/samsung-announces-fix-galaxy-s7-204131136.html