Except they put a feature in the camera app, aqua mode, that is specifically for underwater camera shots. The info on the mode even states, "appropriate for taking underwater pictures".
Consumer Reports: Samsung won't support defective S7 Actives
- Thread starter bkrell
- Start date
Except they put a feature in the camera app, aqua mode, that is specifically for underwater camera shots. The info on the mode even states, "appropriate for taking underwater pictures".
I'm just telling y'all the past and my own personal discussions with Samsung about the S7 Active.
They are more than aware of the complaints and what is going on.
They are more than aware of the complaints and what is going on.
Im sure they are aware of the issue, the problem is how they are handling it. They could avoid all scrutiny if they offered to replace any phones manufactured during or before the fault in production. Im going to find out this weekend if my device is faulty or not. If it is Im most likely going to request At&t send me a s7 instead of another active. If they refuse then Ill take Verizons offer to switch and be on my way.
Well their comment was the "fine print" is clear.. Don't kill the messenger. I hope you guys are satisfied with a solution. Just passing on info.
No worries, I dont think you have anything to do with this debacle. Curious though, which part of the fine print are they referring to? It's not the "Water-resistant in up to 5 feet of water for up to 30 minutes." part is it?
Well there is the key.. Resistant.
Proof means it won't happen, resistant kinda like bullet resistant glass. Most times it will stop bullets, but not all bullets.
It is worded very safely since the rating is water resistant and not water proof. While most times it will be fine, doesn't mean it always will.
Like the Note 7, same rating. TMO unpacked it under water and wrote on the phone with the spen underwater.
I won't be trying that with mine.
Like the Note 7, same rating. TMO unpacked it under water and wrote on the phone with the spen underwater.
I won't be trying that with mine.
No this is a total copout and why companies feel they can pull these tactics. I bought a phone that is IP68 compliant. That means it can be in 5 foot of water for 30 minutes with NO failure, damage, functional issues, etc. I am not asking for more than that. I am sick of people saying "but its a phone and obviously it cant be water proof its water resistant!". Well your just mincing words. If I choose to put my IP68 compliant phone in 5 foot of water for 30 minutes 4 times a day every day that I own it, it should do it. The "Duh" part is on Samsung, not us! If its a "Duh" you can't make a phone that does that, then fine, don't sell one that you claim does, and get all defensive when it doesn't.
We are not insisting the phone does something it was not advertised as doing! Stop making excuses for these companies. Yes, I absolutely expect my phone to be waterproof to the specifications of IP68. Everyday, for the life of the phone. I certainly was charged for the privilege. Samsung had no problem advertising it and taking my money for it. Now you have a problem with me expecting it?
We are not insisting the phone does something it was not advertised as doing! Stop making excuses for these companies. Yes, I absolutely expect my phone to be waterproof to the specifications of IP68. Everyday, for the life of the phone. I certainly was charged for the privilege. Samsung had no problem advertising it and taking my money for it. Now you have a problem with me expecting it?
So you are going with killing the messenger.
I'm not making excuses for Samsung. Samsung and I are on very bad terms right now.
I'm telling you guys what I was told and what I was told about the rating. The rating is not a water proof rating.
I'm not making excuses for Samsung. Samsung and I are on very bad terms right now.
I'm telling you guys what I was told and what I was told about the rating. The rating is not a water proof rating.
I think Samsungs headed for a class action suit on this phone and based on them admitting fault in production as well as the advertising and wording directly in the phone apps, they stand to lose alot more than money.
For the record, Im not trying to shoot the messenger. I appreciate the information you have from them.
Again, this isn't new.. The same thing happened with the S5, the S6A and now this.
I believe they raised the rating up some this time, but that is just what they told me. As I said in the beginning, I'm just passing along info that someone high up at Samsung told me.
I believe they raised the rating up some this time, but that is just what they told me. As I said in the beginning, I'm just passing along info that someone high up at Samsung told me.
Last edited:
Hopefully for you guys there is a fault in production and it there isn't fine print they can fall back on.
Video chat with Samsung Plus. Ask them to have a supervisor call you to escalate. You can then try to escalate to ECR, Executive Customer Relations. If they don't help, you can ask to be transferred to the office of the president. You will have to leave a message, they will get back with you.
Write down and keep your Samsung ticket numbers.
But use the Samsung Plus app, don't call, use the video chat, you don't have to turn your camera on. That is a smaller, different department than 800 Samsung.
I know you aren't trying to shoot the messenger. I've had this info for a few days and haven't posted it yet but have been watching it.
I know some will shoot the messenger. I was angry and Samsung ECR and agents at Samsung Plus and 800 Samsung got my wrath and they weren't the ones at fault.
I've been testing the Samsung Plus. They have a phone number but it is a different department. The video calling is one small department, in TX. They can't get away with telling you something that is crap and not making a note in your account. The agent can be tracked down if they do that.
I had a supervisor do that on Monday. They have the video call and the phone calls recorded. She pulled them.
Smaller dept, less chance of BS and being ignored.
Law2138
Trusted Member
- Nov 14, 2012
- 813
- 0
- 0
Customer service is everything IMO. It's not like Samsung is a small company on the come-up either. They have a ton of resources and dedicated repair centers to assist customers and service devices. Their success with the Galaxy line of smartphones is big time as well as their reputation. It seems like if people go with carrier branded phones, there is a good chance its going to be a Samsung.
By using the terms water resistance in marketing, showing commercials of devices falling into fish tanks and getting doused with champagne, Samsung placed themselves in a situation where the limits were going to be tested by 3rd parties and consumers. It has become a selling point for the Active line, S7s and Note 7. That's fine they want to go that route, but they should be more than accommodating when a manufacturing flaw has been identified the initial batch of devices.
Why isn't this being handled like a recall in the automotive industry? Manufacturer's identify and acknowledge an issue, notify ALL consumers of affected product in writing, and foot the repair. Obviously people don't get a new car because an air bag is faulty, but the point is the manufacturer is being PRO active. In the case of a water-resistant device that is flawed, water gets inside and damages/corrodes a component. Isn't there a possibility that water can corrode other components and cause them to fail prematurely? Once water enters the device and causes 1 thing to fail.....everything else should be replaced as well. Why doesn't Samsung and AT&T contact those people and say, "Hey, there's a flaw in your device. Before something goes wrong, (accidental dunk or whatever) we want it back and we'll give you a new one."?
That's my thought as to why people having the device before July should be offered a replacement.
Underwater mode on the camera is a mistake and should be removed from the software immediately. Why even tempt the consumer or entertain the notion of taking an underwater shot if the device is water resistant and not waterproof? If one is taking under water pictures, they're most likely snorkeling or swimming in a pool. Maybe someone would take pictures of their fish, but whatever. I'll stop ranting. Everyone has a point in this discussion, but the bottom line is that if one pays money for a product and it doesn't do what it states from the start, then every effort should be made to satisfy the customer.
By using the terms water resistance in marketing, showing commercials of devices falling into fish tanks and getting doused with champagne, Samsung placed themselves in a situation where the limits were going to be tested by 3rd parties and consumers. It has become a selling point for the Active line, S7s and Note 7. That's fine they want to go that route, but they should be more than accommodating when a manufacturing flaw has been identified the initial batch of devices.
Why isn't this being handled like a recall in the automotive industry? Manufacturer's identify and acknowledge an issue, notify ALL consumers of affected product in writing, and foot the repair. Obviously people don't get a new car because an air bag is faulty, but the point is the manufacturer is being PRO active. In the case of a water-resistant device that is flawed, water gets inside and damages/corrodes a component. Isn't there a possibility that water can corrode other components and cause them to fail prematurely? Once water enters the device and causes 1 thing to fail.....everything else should be replaced as well. Why doesn't Samsung and AT&T contact those people and say, "Hey, there's a flaw in your device. Before something goes wrong, (accidental dunk or whatever) we want it back and we'll give you a new one."?
That's my thought as to why people having the device before July should be offered a replacement.
Underwater mode on the camera is a mistake and should be removed from the software immediately. Why even tempt the consumer or entertain the notion of taking an underwater shot if the device is water resistant and not waterproof? If one is taking under water pictures, they're most likely snorkeling or swimming in a pool. Maybe someone would take pictures of their fish, but whatever. I'll stop ranting. Everyone has a point in this discussion, but the bottom line is that if one pays money for a product and it doesn't do what it states from the start, then every effort should be made to satisfy the customer.
- Aug 3, 2014
- 262
- 0
- 0
I think a lot of us know the difference between water resistant and waterproof. They can't just fall back on parsing out what IP68 means. They send this phone out to all the reviewers and encourage them to mistreat it. They put an UNDERWATER MODE on the camera. But it's beyond this. Consumer Reports and CNET BOTH tested samples of this phone under controlled conditions and they both failed tests the other current Galaxy models passed. And Samsung DID admit a fault in production. The bone they think they are throwing us is honoring the warranty for water damage when they usually don't. I think it's ridiculous that they didn't honor the warranty for water damage in the first place. It shouldn't pacify us.
And no offense and not shooting the messenger but I don't understand what the high level secret info is you're sharing? The part about Samsung Plus or water resistant vs waterproof?
And no offense and not shooting the messenger but I don't understand what the high level secret info is you're sharing? The part about Samsung Plus or water resistant vs waterproof?
Law2138
Trusted Member
- Nov 14, 2012
- 813
- 0
- 0
The irony of all of this is that the Active line of devices are intended to be virtually worry-free. "Capable of withstanding small drops and dunks in water - Shatter, water and dust resistant."
After all of this, I'd find myself worrying even more about it taking a dunk. As much as I love the aesthetics and battery size of the Active line, paying $800 for a device that has a feature that may or may not protect the device from failure is not in my best interest. Lest we forget that these devices are pocket computers that most of us rely on daily to accomplish more in less amount of time. Sending it off to a repair center and playing fine print warranty judo with customer service is something I'd rather not do.
After all of this, I'd find myself worrying even more about it taking a dunk. As much as I love the aesthetics and battery size of the Active line, paying $800 for a device that has a feature that may or may not protect the device from failure is not in my best interest. Lest we forget that these devices are pocket computers that most of us rely on daily to accomplish more in less amount of time. Sending it off to a repair center and playing fine print warranty judo with customer service is something I'd rather not do.
There was no high level secret info I was sharing.
Samsung Plus isn't a secret, it is just new. The app is likely pre-installed on your phone. It was on my Note 5. I disabled it, didn't need the stuff but I didn't realize the video chat for that customer care was in Samsung Plus.
Water resistant vs water proof isn't secret info either.
Oh one more thing from your post. They said, water damage always voids the warranty, because the phone is not rated water proof, but water resistant.
Similar threads
Trending Posts
-
One UI 7, and just updates in general - why consistently remove useful features??
- Started by Rev1010
- Replies: 28
-
Question Need help with Samsung phone with dead screen
- Started by raven403
- Replies: 1
-
-
-
News Android 16 is Google getting serious about foldables- Started by AC News
- Replies: 0
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram