iPhone 7 outlasts Galaxy S7 in 35-feet (~10 m) of water, survives 10 foot face-down drop (and from a helicopter)

[Kimmers]

On 9/25/2016 at 0:22 PM, Jack_of_all_Trades said:

 

Thats really funny , I remember the same argument years ago with the screen size. Iphone was selling the most , thus 4 inch screen obviously best size. Damn do these opinions change fast when the new top models are all with bigger screens.

Which explains why Apple doesn't sell a 4" phone anymore... OH WAIT!

[79wjd]

48 minutes ago, Kimmers said:

Which explains why Apple doesn't sell a 4" phone anymore... OH WAIT!

the 5c wasnt complementing the over 4" market. it ŵas a cheap and shitty alternative to the other 4" 5s.

 

also, the 5se sold pretty well.

[othertomperson]

On 25/09/2016 at 3:30 PM, JAKEBAB said:

One of the stupidest things i've read, even in the video with the iphone the s7 holds up under its rating.

You're right, that was such a stupid point to make. It's not like it was a big story last year, and that there are news stories still easily searchable backing it up or anything.

 

Owait http://www.cnet.com/uk/news/samsung-galaxy-s7-not-quite-waterproof-torture-tests-reveal/

 

 

[Kimmers]

1 hour ago, Jack_of_all_Trades said:

 

O yes, the 5c was such a crushing success and the 6c sold just as well .... OH WAIT!

The 6c. lol.

[MrDynamicMan]

On 25/09/2016 at 8:37 AM, othertomperson said:

 

 

They removed it so that they could make it genuinely IP67, rather than do what Samsung did which was advertise it as IP67, show it submerged in a glass of water in their promotional material, but then it turns out if you do that with the real thing water gets in and it breaks.

That's a pretty hefty claim with no source. 

[JAKEBAB]

11 hours ago, othertomperson said:

You're right, that was such a stupid point to make. It's not like it was a big story last year, and that there are news stories still easily searchable backing it up or anything.

 

Owait http://www.cnet.com/uk/news/samsung-galaxy-s7-not-quite-waterproof-torture-tests-reveal/

 

 

Did u even read it?

"Both new Galaxy phones still functioned just fine once dried off, but with audio permanently muffled and distorted." 

 

Nothing in there talking about some bs coating your talking about also this is one test. I had the S7 edge for about a week as a loaner not long ago and didn't have muffled problem, granted it wasn't in water for 30 minutes but for a good 10-15.

[othertomperson]

22 hours ago, MrDynamicMan said:

That's a pretty hefty claim with no source. 

Good thing I provided one then.

 

13 hours ago, JAKEBAB said:

Did u even read it?

"Both new Galaxy phones still functioned just fine once dried off, but with audio permanently muffled and distorted." 

 

Nothing in there talking about some bs coating your talking about also this is one test. I had the S7 edge for about a week as a loaner not long ago and didn't have muffled problem, granted it wasn't in water for 30 minutes but for a good 10-15.

 

Here's another one talking about permanent damage caused by the S7 being submerged http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3493866/Samsung-s-new-Galaxy-S7-handsets-AREN-T-waterproof-Tests-phones-left-permanently-damaged-30-minutes-escape-unscathed-drop-toilet.html

 

Your phone's OS is literally made by a search engine company, yet you seem utterly incapable of basic research.

 

On 26/09/2016 at 7:22 PM, michaelocarroll007 said:

 

The #Bendgate and such was way overblown and seemed like idiots trying to find something wrong. though now there is a known issue of the touchscreen stopping working /becoming disconnected though i don't think ive seen much conclusive evidence as to why 100%   BUT THIS was not known to be a problem when #bendgate started so yeah. 

 

You come off very overly bias they did not remove the headphone jack to make it genuinely IP67 there are many devices that are IP67 or better with headphone jacks  it does obviously lower there cost to make it waterproof though. i barley care they removed it personally and wont be that upset when my next phone doesnt have one.  but lets get real it wasn't cause thats the only way to make it water resistant 

 

Samsung phones rated at IP68 a higher rating then the iphone Though many test seem to show the iphone might be underrated. I Submerge my s7edge in a bath tub & Glass of water a few times and wash it with soap and water over the sink has not broken once. Though doing it close to bed time is a terrible idea cause it wont charge with moisture in the charging port. 

 

Overall at the end of the day there water resistant and neither apple or Samsung will replace a water-damaged phone anyway.  

I'm overly biased for not immediately jumping on the bandwagon hate train of the day? Fuck me sideways...

 

Samsung's IP68 is demonstrably false advertising, as evidenced by two sources pointing to irreversible water damage under conditions an IP68 device should be OK with. You can say that "they're water resistant" as opposed to "waterproof", but that's because IP67 and IP68 have very specific meanings, and if it is advertised as IP68 and is not actually capable of that rating then that is false advertising.

[79wjd]

1 hour ago, othertomperson said:

 

Samsung's IP68 is demonstrably false advertising, as evidenced by two sources pointing to irreversible water damage under conditions an IP68 device should be OK with. You can say that "they're water resistant" as opposed to "waterproof", but that's because IP67 and IP68 have very specific meanings, and if it is advertised as IP68 and is not actually capable of that rating then that is false advertising.

Cnet also reported muffled sound on the iPhone 7 as well: https://www.cnet.com/news/how-water-resistant-is-the-iphone-7/ 

It's not an issue specific to the S7. 

 

Also, the definition of water resistant: 

Quote

 

able to resist the penetration of water to some degree but not entirely.
 

So, the S7 (and iPhone 7) do still satisfy the requirements for iP67/68.

[JAKEBAB]

15 hours ago, othertomperson said:

Here's another one talking about permanent damage caused by the S7 being submerged http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3493866/Samsung-s-new-Galaxy-S7-handsets-AREN-T-waterproof-Tests-phones-left-permanently-damaged-30-minutes-escape-unscathed-drop-toilet.html

 

Your phone's OS is literally made by a search engine company, yet you seem utterly incapable of basic research.

 

Omfg are you mentally retarded or something? I said LOANER! Also there is still nothing in that article which talks about some bs coating and again the phones still held up! Take your apple fanboy bs elsewhere.

 

Also if you ever cared to read the articles you post you would have seen

 

"In order to make its new variants water resistant, Samsung placed a rubber seal around the edge of the charging port and positioned a screen directly behind the speaker holes."

 

Which would probably explain why i had no issues.

 

Edit: I just noticed another thing in that article, they are playing a god damn video with sound while its submerged! Completely unrealistic no wonder the speaker is screwed!!

 

[79wjd]

1 hour ago, JAKEBAB said:

Edit: I just noticed another thing in that article, they are playing a god damn video with sound while its submerged! Completely unrealistic no wonder the speaker is screwed!!

 

I wouldn't call that completely unrealistic. What if you're listening to music and drop the phone? (not that it only affects the S7, the iPhone 7 is susceptible to the same issue)

[JAKEBAB]

1 hour ago, djdwosk97 said:

I wouldn't call that completely unrealistic. What if you're listening to music and drop the phone? (not that it only affects the S7, the iPhone 7 is susceptible to the same issue)

True but if that did happen i doubt someone is going to wait 30min to go and get the phone.

[79wjd]

1 minute ago, JAKEBAB said:

True but if that did happen i doubt someone is going to wait 30min to go and get the phone.

By that same logic, why would anyone intenetionally wait 30 minutes to get their phone out of water? Rendering anything other than short-term water resistance irrelevant.

[JAKEBAB]

Just now, djdwosk97 said:

By that same logic, why would anyone intenetionally wait 30 minutes to get their phone out of water? Rendering anything other than short-term water resistance irrelevant.

Not the same at all. Taking photos or just swimming and keeping it in your pocket are a few reasons but trying to watch a movie under water is plain stupid.

[79wjd]

1 minute ago, JAKEBAB said:

Not the same at all. Taking photos or just swimming and keeping it in your pocket are a few reasons but trying to watch a movie under water is plain stupid.

Trying to take a photo is equally stupid. Going swimming and forgetting your phone is in your pocket is basically the only thing that would be a reasonable reason to have your phone submerged for extendeded periods (and I'd bet is not even close to the most common cause for water damage).

[JAKEBAB]

2 minutes ago, djdwosk97 said:

Trying to take a photo is equally stupid. Going swimming and forgetting your phone is in your pocket is basically the only thing that would be a reasonable reason to have your phone submerged for extendeded periods (and I'd bet is not even close to the most common cause for water damage).

How is wanting take a photo of something under water stupid? What was your childhood? Taking photos under water or at a waterpark was heaps of fun as a kid. Much more convenient for people to have a water resistant phone than carry a dedicated camera especially on outings.

[79wjd]

9 minutes ago, JAKEBAB said:

How is wanting take a photo of something under water stupid? What was your childhood? Taking photos under water or at a waterpark was heaps of fun as a kid. Much more convenient for people to have a water resistant phone than carry a dedicated camera especially on outings.

Water resistant =/= water proof. Putting your phone under water, even for an instant, will still void your warranty and is still downright moronic. 

[JAKEBAB]

1 minute ago, djdwosk97 said:

Water resistant =/= water proof. Putting your phone under water, even for an instant, will still void your warranty and is still downright moronic. 

Yes im very aware of the difference. It's still rated at 1.5m which your phone more than likely will be fine if you stay under that and not submerge it for long. 

 

P.S you probably aren't going to like what everyday people are doing with the iphone 7 on youtube lol. They are taking pictures under water.

[79wjd]

1 minute ago, JAKEBAB said:

Yes im very aware of the difference. It's still rated at 1.5m which your phone more than likely will be fine if you stay under that and not submerge it for long. 

 

P.S you probably aren't going to like what everyday people are doing with the iphone 7 on youtube lol. They are taking pictures under water.

People can take photos all they want, it doesn't mean they're not stupid. Water resistant doesn't guarantee that the phone won't just stop functioning if it gets wet. Plus you void your warranty, which is another moronic thing to do intentionally. 

 

And remember, what started all of this....you calling playing music under water (which is still just as stupid as intentionally using your phone under water). 

[JAKEBAB]

39 minutes ago, djdwosk97 said:

People can take photos all they want, it doesn't mean they're not stupid. Water resistant doesn't guarantee that the phone won't just stop functioning if it gets wet. Plus you void your warranty, which is another moronic thing to do intentionally. 

 

And remember, what started all of this....you calling playing music under water (which is still just as stupid as intentionally using your phone under water). 

Well there is those 2 sources that show the phone working after 30 min which further proves it's rating. Why rate it at a certain level yet not expect anyone to use it? They knew people would hence why they ever announced the phone was rated at ip68 in the first place.

 

Also I don't understand why you said someone forgetting they have a phone in there pocket and go swimming was a reasonable reason, but someone intentionally using it under water for like 20 seconds to take a photo isn't? The person swimming is more than likely going to have it submerged for much longer than someone taking a photo.

[79wjd]

32 minutes ago, JAKEBAB said:

Well there is those 2 sources that show the phone working after 30 min which further proves it's rating. Why rate it at a certain level yet not expect anyone to use it? They knew people would hence why they ever announced the phone was rated at ip68 in the first place.

 

Also I don't understand why you said someone forgetting they have a phone in there pocket and go swimming was a reasonable reason, but someone intentionally using it under water for like 20 seconds to take a photo isn't? The person swimming is more than likely going to have it submerged for much longer than someone taking a photo.

Because water resistance should be a preventative feature, not one that is actively used/abused. No one should expect to put their phone under <1m of water for 30 minutes and expect it to work, what they should expect is that there's a pretty good chance that it will be mostly fine. 

 

Someone taking a picture underwater is just as reasonable as someone playing music and dropping their phone in water. And again, no one should be actively abusing their phone just because it's water resistant -- it voids the warranty and there is no guarantee that all devices will continue to work as they were intended to work. It is a preventative spec that should only be used in cases of emergency (i.e. you accidently dropped your phone in water). 

[Paragon_X]

On 9/25/2016 at 3:37 PM, othertomperson said:

"It was showed" by the Unboxthereapy guy going out of his way to destroy the thing. It was also shown by Consumer Reports that all phones this generation are much flimsier than last generation, but the iPhone 6 and the HTC One M8 took the exact same force, when force was actually measured objectively, to bend.

 

I've had my iPhone 6 since February 2015 and I haven't been particularly gentle with it, and it's just as flat as it's ever been.

 

Compared to the iPhone 5 the iPhone 6 is flimsy, but so is literally every current and last generation phone.

 

They removed it so that they could make it genuinely IP67, rather than do what Samsung did which was advertise it as IP67, show it submerged in a glass of water in their promotional material, but then it turns out if you do that with the real thing water gets in and it breaks. I don't see what the big deal is tbh, just leave the included dongle attached to your favourite pair of headphones.

http://ifixit.org/blog/8309/iphone-6-plus-gray-flicker-touch-death/
http://www.extremetech.com/mobile/234552-apples-iphone-6-6-plus-are-failing-early-thanks-to-touch-disease-bending-problems