Is Samsung Galaxy S7 Active really water-resistant?

One of the key features of the phone is water-resistance, however, it appears to have failed the test


News Desk July 12, 2016
Samsung Galaxy S7 Active

Anyone familiar with Samsung phones is aware the company is a market leader in smartphone manufacturing and mostly delivers on what it promises to its customers. However, this may not be the case with Samsung’s latest S7 Active.

The newly released S7 Active is a rugged variant of Samsung’s flagship S series, designed to be more durable for those use the phone in rough conditions.

Google seeks to play down EU Android probe

One of the key features of the phone is water-resistance, same as the S7 and S7 Edge. To be clear, water-resistant is not the same as waterproof. When Samsung states a phone is water-resistant, it means the phone can survive being submerged in five feet of water for around 30 minutes. Consumer reports, a non-profit organisation known for product testing, put the S7 Active to the test and submerged it in five feet of water for 30 minutes and the results were surprising.

The screen kept flashing with green lines blurring the screen. Water bubbles formed within the lenses of the front and back camera, and the touchscreen was unresponsive. Even after a few days, the phone did not return to functionality. To confirm their results, another S7 Active was tested in the same way, and that too failed the test and never returned to functionality.

Nokia says will re-enter mobile, tablet markets

Samsung has responded to these claims by trying to defend their device, stating that some units may have defects, but overall the majority of phones in the market are water-resistant. However, after two devices failed the test will consumers are willing to pay $100 more than the S7 price for a phone that may or may not be water-resistant? We are yet to find out.

This article originally appeared on Daily Mail.

 

COMMENTS

Replying to X

Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.

For more information, please see our Comments FAQ