Water resistance warning? Samsung lawsuit.

[mustang7757]

IPX8 eh...hopefully we won't be accused of being fools for trusting plastic bags, LOL

That's the Description , ip68 30 meters

 

[Almeuit]

I am shocked as to how many people are concerned about this. For years phones have been advertised being used in ways that the fine print literally says "Don't do this **** or you will break it" .. this is nothing new with phones or advertising.

Read the fine print. Ignore the big flashy ads that want your attention. The fine print always tells you the real story.

 

[VidJunky]

Read the fine print. Ignore the big flashy ads that want your attention. The fine print always tells you the real story.

That sounds like work... isn't there just an Accept button I can press and be done with this? Hahaha.

Meanwhile somewhere out in America some guy has just now finished reading the TOS for America Online's sign-in. Between his 512mb or RAM, DSL load speeds and the more than 1 million words just in the disclaimer alone, he finished record time. Meanwhile his neighbor is only about half way through it working with Dial-up services. Pshhhkkkkkkrrrrkakaingkakingkakkingtshchchchchchchch *ding*ding

 

[Almeuit]

That sounds like work... isn't there just an Accept button I can press and be done with this? Hahaha.

Meanwhile somewhere out in America some guy has just now finished reading the TOS for America Online's sign-in. Between his 512mb or RAM, DSL load speeds and the more than 1 million words just in the disclaimer alone, he finished record time. Meanwhile his neighbor is only about half way through it working with Dial-up services. Pshhhkkkkkkrrrrkakaingkakingkakkingtshchchchchchchch *ding*ding

https://www.dialupsound.com/

 

[methodman89]

I don't actually know what a UL rating is... But it's not a conspiracy, it's a fact.

It's not covered by the warranty, doesn't test under any actual practical conditions and doesn't guaranty a specific device will actually meet those standards, just that the cherry picked test devices will.

I'm sorry, but you are incorrect. The employees at National Technical Systems and other IP Testing facilities would also disagree. Underwriters laboratories (UL Listing) at times go hand in hand with a IP rated product. It's stamped on almost anything you can plug in. Surprised that you are not aware.
While companies will use the IP rating for marketing, it does not negate the testing and result of the test. As for cherry picking, if it is done instead of statistical samples, would be cheating and the test discarded once discovered.
Have a great day.

 

[fuzzylumpkin]

I'm sorry, but you are incorrect. The employees at National Technical Systems and other IP Testing facilities would also disagree. Underwriters laboratories (UL Listing) at times go hand in hand with a IP rated product. It's stamped on almost anything you can plug in. Surprised that you are not aware.
While companies will use the IP rating for marketing, it does not negate the testing and result of the test. As for cherry picking, if it is done instead of statistical samples, would be cheating and the test discarded once discovered.
Have a great day.

Apology accepted.

I'm aware of the UL mark, just not the standards associated with it. I don't tend to familiarise myself with standards that aren't really all that applicable to me.

I'm sure IP testers would indeed disagree with me that there certification doesn't really mean much on a phone. I'm also fairly certain that Avast, Symantec and McAfee would disagree with me that third party antivirus software is pointless on Windows 10, too lol.

I'm not criticising the work that testing labs do, I'm criticising it's incorrect application and interpretation. I'm sure any engineer or technician who does this testing would agree with me that an IPx8 rating means that the tested device *should* survive immersion in 1 metre of pure water for 30 minutes and has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on chlorinated water, soapy water, running water, saltwater, stream or immersion to a depth greater than one metre.

Or in short, real world conditions.

 

[Mike Dee]

There's only been one waterproof consumer phone - a Nextel. (And getting the O-ring into the slot took a lot of work - it had to be perfect on Both the phone and the cover.) It still probably would have succumbed to enough chlorine or salt water, though - it was only rubber.

I stopped worrying if I'm out in a light drizzle - anything more than that and the phone goes under the jacket or whatever I'm using to keep me dry. "Wash" my phone? Not even if it was a 20 year old phone that I was throwing out because it can't be used any more. (I still have my StarTAC and at least one of my MicroTACs. They can't work, but they look nice.)

Caterpillar advertises their phones as waterproof but reality is that when you read further they are waterproof up to IP69 or IP68 ratings. Talk about deceiving.

 

[mustang7757]

https://www.dialupsound.com/

 

[mustang7757]

Caterpillar advertises their phones as waterproof but reality is that when you read further they are waterproof up to IP69 or IP68 ratings. Talk about deceiving.

Didn't Know that , very deceiving

 

[Golfdriver97]

How much or little did the water resistance of the S10 or your current/former device play in your decision to buy it?

I don't have an S10, but water resistance plays no role in my buying decision.

Has the water resistance rating emboldened you to do anything risky? If so like what?

No. I personally view IP ratings as an extra line of defense against accidents; not an excuse to go swimming with my phone.

Do you think Samsung conspired with advertisers to mislead customers? If so what should be the punishment?

I don't think there was a conspiracy....however, the advertising should be better to reflect the conditions of the IP rating can handle.

 

[anon(10562251)]

I'm not criticising the work that testing labs do, I'm criticising it's incorrect application and interpretation. I'm sure any engineer or technician who does this testing would agree with me that an IPx8 rating means that the tested device *should* survive immersion in 1 metre of pure water for 30 minutes and has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on chlorinated water, soapy water, running water, saltwater, stream or immersion to a depth greater than one metre.

And it's really the misuse and abuse of such standards, even outright lying about them, that's at fault here. Standards such as these are ubiquitous in our society. This issue goes far beyond simple electronic devices like phones. Cars, airplanes, buildings, bridges, infrastructure - you name it - none of these things would be possible without the thousands of standards that have been developed for safety, quality, etc, and actually being adhered to. Would you call someone a fool for flying in an airplane, crossing a bridge, or seeking protection in a designated shelter during a hurricane or earthquake? I don't think so.

I suppose that's why it irks me when I see the ignorance of people dismissing even something as seemingly benign as abusing the IP68 standard. Consumers are not "stupid" for trusting these things. In fact, we are all completely dependent on them, in almost every aspect of our daily lives. To abuse such standards for profit, over time, as well as a general lax attitude of consumers and enforcement agencies, will absolutely undermine public safety and consumer confidence, and should be taken seriously and punished to the full extent of the law.

 

[Almeuit]

I suppose that's why it irks me when I see the ignorance of people dismissing even something as seemingly benign as abusing the IP68 standard. Consumers are not "stupid" for trusting these things. In fact, we are all completely dependent on them, in almost every aspect of our daily lives. To abuse such standards for profit, over time, as well as a general lax attitude of consumers and enforcement agencies, will absolutely undermine public safety and consumer confidence, and should be taken seriously and punished to the full extent of the law.

Fully get what you are saying but.. I tend to try and put some reality to how things are.. and good luck with having them punished by the fullest extent when they put the information at the bottom of the screen. Until some huge changes come where that isn't allowed you aren't going to be able to do anything.. no matter how BS we think it is.

 

[Rukbat]

I suppose that's why it irks me when I see the ignorance of people dismissing even something as seemingly benign as abusing the IP68 standard. Consumers are not "stupid" for trusting these things.

But read the standard. The phone doesn't measure the distance to the surface, water pressure is what the standard is about. 1.5 meters of water is just over 2psi of pressure - which is what the phone is really rated at - pressure, not distance. And water falling 5 inches from a faucet is a lot more pressure than that - maybe 15-30 psi.

Showering, swimming, washing the phone - they all produce more than 2psi. Steam ... doesn't need pressure - IP68 isn't a measure of air[roof, and steam is a gas, the same as air is.

So nothing wrong with trusting a standard - as long as you understand the standard.

 

[naturalscience42]

My Samsung S7 was advertised as water RESISTANT
NOT WATER PROOF. I left mine in the rain accidentally and had no issues. If you think you can drop it in a pool ur either dumb or can't read. No offense. I don't know of any phones that are water proof.

 

[Mike Dee]

Didn't Know that , very deceiving

I didn't realize until Rukbat stated that the only waterproof phone was a Nextel.
I had thought he was wrong and went to the Cat site only to see how they state theirs are waterproof. When I dug deeper I realized they were claiming waterproof to a specific standard. We can say that about all phones then. I mean if CAT backs this up with a warranty against water damage that would be great but I doubt it. In most cases it's impossible to prove that the customer didn't accidentally or deliberately exceed the ratings so I can't see any manufacturer standing behind their product in that case.

 

[mustang7757]

I didn't realize until Rukbat stated that the only waterproof phone was a Nextel.
I had thought he was wrong and went to the Cat site only to see how they state theirs are waterproof. When I dug deeper I realized they were claiming waterproof to a specific standard. We can say that about all phones then. I mean if CAT backs this up with a warranty against water damage that would be great but I doubt it. In most cases it's impossible to prove that the customer didn't accidentally or deliberately exceed the ratings so I can't see any manufacturer standing behind their product in that case.

I agree , that goes for iPhones, Google, Samsung , Sony or any other I missed they just won't warranty a water resistant phone .

 

[Mike Dee]

I agree , that goes for iPhones, Google, Samsung , Sony or any other I missed they just won't warranty a water resistant phone .

Right....but I understand why.

Two basic reasons.

1: this absolves them in the event X number of defective units rolls off the production line.

2: this eliminates any false claims put forth by consumers that exceed the ratings knowingly or unknowingly.

 

[mustang7757]

Right....but I understand why.

Two basic reasons.

1: this absolves them in the event X number of defective units rolls off the production line.

2: this eliminates any false claims put forth by consumers that exceed the ratings knowingly or unknowingly.

I think more #2

 

[Golurk]

Have to back Samsung for this lawsuit. Their phones are advertised as water resistant to IP68, not water proof. Sure, maybe their adverts depicted pools/sea, but maybe they were also water resistant in salt water/chlorinated water? The Samsung website is clear about what IP68 rated means in terms of freshwater testing. If anyone claims they were mislead then I'm sorry but you have to read more carefully.

Samsung's advertised water resistance to IP68 doesn't mean you should take it deep sea diving or into a swamp ._.

 

[anon(10562251)]

But read the standard. The phone doesn't measure the distance to the surface, water pressure is what the standard is about. 1.5 meters of water is just over 2psi of pressure - which is what the phone is really rated at - pressure, not distance. And water falling 5 inches from a faucet is a lot more pressure than that - maybe 15-30 psi.

Showering, swimming, washing the phone - they all produce more than 2psi. Steam ... doesn't need pressure - IP68 isn't a measure of air[roof, and steam is a gas, the same as air is.

So nothing wrong with trusting a standard - as long as you understand the standard.

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.