Water resistance warning? Samsung lawsuit.

[mustang7757]

I don't think most of you understand what my argument is here. At all.

I have already stated the IP68 standard is extremely generic.

I have not disagreed that Samsung's interpretation of it is so full of exclusions that its essentially meaningless.

Having said that - companies should NOT be doing this sort of thing. It's bad business practice and bad ethics. You don't think standards and certifications should be taken seriously? Go fly in a 737 MAX. I'm sure Boeing had lots of fine print in its customer agreement. Feel any safer? Or are you stupid for flying in one after it was certified by the US government?

Secondly, in this case Samsung appears to have been caught depicting its phones being used submerged in the exact conditions (ocean water and swimming pools) that it excluded. Ever hear of false advertising?

Anyway, I'm not going to waste any more time with fanboy mentalities - I use an S10+ so I'm also a customer - but defending dishonest business practices such as this is never clever, and quite frankly it is disappointing Samsung deceived people in this manner.

I dont Remember the Ads , was it Samsung showing that or the carriers?

 

[anon(10562251)]

I dont Remember the Ads , was it Samsung showing that or the carriers?

According to the lawsuit the offending ads occurred in Australia and that is where the legal challenge is occurring. Not sure if similar ads were aired in North America or not:

https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/04/tech/samsung-australia-lawsuit/index.html

 

[mustang7757]

According to the lawsuit the offending ads occurred in Australia and that is where the legal challenge is occurring. Not sure if similar ads were aired in North America or not:

https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/04/tech/samsung-australia-lawsuit/index.html

I'm curious if it was a carrier in Australia or Samsung that did the Ad , which would open bigger issue.

 

[Mike Dee]

I'm curious if it was a carrier in Australia or Samsung that did the Ad , which would open bigger issue.

Road trip?

 

[mustang7757]

Road trip?

As long as your coming?

 

[Rukbat]

Showing someone easily at the limit of the rating can be misleading, as is implying that you can take a phone swimming. But anyone who reads the standards (and there's no "fanboyism going on - iPhones are rated at IP67) and understands a little bit about water pressure understands that the phones are rated at around 2psi. (If you don't understand the words, and don't ask, then do a factory reset and complain that all your data is missing, but the OS didn't "revert" to the older version, it's the same thing - the user's fault for not asking first. Samsung, Coolpad, something not yet translated to English, iPhone, it makes no difference. Even diving watches, which are meant to be taken swimming, have maximum pressure limits. Mine clearly states 100 meters. If I was going to go down to 150 meters [which would probably be suicide at my age], I wouldn't wear that watch. If I were going to be at a pool or seashore I wouldn't bring my phone. [Little trick - if you're going to be in that kind of environment and must have a phone, buy something that will work on your carrier, cheap, on Craig's list, put it into 2 sandwich baggies (Oh, no! My Phone got Wet! 4th paragraph from the bottom) and get it as wet as you want.])

 

[chanchan05]

If you guys go into settings then scroll to the bottom> tap help manual then type water resistant, you will get the article I just posted
I do agree the ads are misleading but it's in fine print , tested in controlled environment .View attachment 305236

IMO it all boils down to people not reading the manuals. Seriously. I know enough about these stuff that I can skip reading the manuals, but not everybody does. Even then I skim the table of contents to see if there's any new addition compared to the one I read years ago. On the S7 manual I just read the ingress protection part to see how far they're rating this.
Samsung will most likely win any lawsuit against them because they can just counter with the fact that they bundle manuals with the device that explicitly says how to use them. Anybody countering that with any argument as to why the user did not read the manual is basically opening themselves up for the "therefore the complainant is not a responsible user for not reading the manuals provided, and therefore all fault lies in this lack of his/her being an irresponsible owner of an electronic device."

 

[mustang7757]

IMO it all boils down to people not reading the manuals. Seriously. I know enough about these stuff that I can skip reading the manuals, but not everybody does. Even then I skim the table of contents to see if there's any new addition compared to the one I read years ago. On the S7 manual I just read the ingress protection part to see how far they're rating this.
Samsung will most likely win any lawsuit against them because they can just counter with the fact that they bundle manuals with the device that explicitly says how to use them. Anybody countering that with any argument as to why the user did not read the manual is basically opening themselves up for the "therefore the complainant is not a responsible user for not reading the manuals provided, and therefore all fault lies in this lack of his/her being an irresponsible owner of an electronic device."

I remember the Samsung s5 with little less water resistant then the s10 people using in the pool . I be surprised if they lose but I've seen crazier things happen lol.

 

[Mike Dee]

IMO it all boils down to people not reading the manuals. Seriously. I know enough about these stuff that I can skip reading the manuals, but not everybody does. Even then I skim the table of contents to see if there's any new addition compared to the one I read years ago. On the S7 manual I just read the ingress protection part to see how far they're rating this.
Samsung will most likely win any lawsuit against them because they can just counter with the fact that they bundle manuals with the device that explicitly says how to use them. Anybody countering that with any argument as to why the user did not read the manual is basically opening themselves up for the "therefore the complainant is not a responsible user for not reading the manuals provided, and therefore all fault lies in this lack of his/her being an irresponsible owner of an electronic device."

Having been to court many times as an agent representing the company being sued I can assure you that logic doesn't always prevail....at least not in the U.S.

 

[Golurk]

Having been to court many times as an agent representing the company being sued I can assure you that logic doesn't always prevail....at least not in the U.S.

Having seen the ‘offending advert’ itself, I support Samsung although it’s unlikely they will win against the regulator in my opinion. The phone shown was videoed being drenched in water in a mini-shower...no chlorine/salt water.

At the end of the day if you have any doubt whatsoever about a phone you’re interested in buying do some freaking research online...it’s as simple as reading some reviews and looking up a couple of spec sheets. The information about what IP68 means is there in the box...Samsung included a manual, don’t blame them for you not reading it and subsequently damaging your phone. My S7 Edge has been drenched in the rain before and works fine.

 

[methodman89]

My aqua velva didn't work. I'm suing.