I remember these ads running here in Italy. it was funny to see the phone in water and written under in not so small letters "don't do as shown it doesn't resist running water"
>The company attributed that to a manufacturing defect, affecting a small number of phones, which it soon fixed. But customers online continued reporting problems, forum comments show.
I wish corporations would stop using the “only affects a small number” excuse. I understand the motivation behind that but feels really bad when you’re affected and you can obviously see it’s not a small number.
I mean if the argument is that the intended design of the phone is that it be usable underwater and there's a a 1/10000 or whatever manufacturing defect that makes them not actually waterproof then that seems fair as long as they're remedying it and replacing customers' phones.
Why is it obviously not a small number? I mean the corps support staff are the ones who have the best picture since they're the ones getting the warranty claims.
I was at a pool party in Las Vegas not too long ago and saw several guys in the water pull a Samsung out of the pocket of their swim shorts (trunks?), use the phone, and put it back in their pocket as if they were wearing jeans. I finally asked one of them wtf he was doing (I was always under the impression it could survive an accidental dunk in the water, not be used in the water) and he insisted it was totally waterproof “like a GoPro” as long as it was above a certain depth.
I've owned an S8 for >2 years and I think it can safely be used underwater.
I've gone swimming with it in the sea, swimming pools, washed it under tap water regularly and even dropped it in a bowl of yogurt once. YMMV of course.
My guess as to why they won't honor their warranty probably revolves around return fraud. It must be trivial to damage the waterproofing intentionally, get the phone water damaged then demand an exchange. It's such a big problem that even the Apple store where I live has much stricter return policies than they do in the US.
So here we have a large multinational corporation that has let batteries explode on planes, sold bendy phones that don't really bend so well, and just flat out lied about the capabilities of a phone in a multi-million dollar ad campaign.
I'm really trying not to be one of those crazy "wake up sheeple!" type crazy folk. But surely the public will wake up soon to the dangers of letting these giant megacorps run free without better regulatory oversight?
All we do is slap them on the wrist with a few million dollars of fines and say "now now! Don't do that again!". Then we wonder why fining them for less than they probably spent on the damn marketing campaign isn't deterring them from doing it all over again.
Are you talking about Samsung Fold? Because they didn't sold not even 1 of that.
You should be careful what you wish for. If companies were fined billions of dollars for faulty products, in a couple of years you'll have nothing to complain about. And not because everything will be amazing.
Just imagine if Microsoft/Apple/"Linux" was fined 1 billion for every major flaw in their OS. There would be no OSs any more, because they would all be bankrupt and nobody would dare selling anything remotely new.
Are you personally willing to accept $1 mil liability for any major flaw in the software you wrote in the past?
You're right, I definitely embellished things more than necessary there. I was just done reading that other article on HN frontpage today regarding what looks like gross negligence @ Boeing and I was all frothy at the mouth ;)
I don't think the end result would be clever and resourceful people being "afraid" of regulatory backlash if they screw up. Not if we demand a reform that is careful to avoid such an outcome, that is.
The way I see it, corporate systems around the world are being governed in such a way that often leads to directly rewarding bad behavior.
Humans can innovate at incredibly complicated levels. We have plenty of examples of that. I think we just need to find ways to ensure that the resulting organisations don't grow to such a size that they have an entire level of executive leadership that seeks to relentlessly drive profits at the cost of all else.
Maybe that means we as a species actually move a little bit slower sometimes? Would that be so bad? I'm probably suffering some extreme cognitive bias, but I really think that we'd be better off if that were the case.
False dichotomy. There's certainly a middle ground between allowing corps to get away with whatever they want with a mere slap on the wrist, and fining them into bankruptcy.
> Are you talking about Samsung Fold? Because they didn't sold not even 1 of that.
Eh, true - but only because the test units sent out to media outlets and tech journalists started breaking[0].
> You should be careful what you wish for. If companies were fined billions of dollars for faulty products, in a couple of years you'll have nothing to complain about. And not because everything will be amazing.
> Just imagine if Microsoft/Apple/"Linux" was fined 1 billion for every major flaw in their OS. Are you personally willing to accept $1 mil liability for any major flaw in the software you wrote in the past?
I don't think that's what the parent commenter was asking for, they specifically called out the marketing claims. Which, I think, is completely fair. re: folding and waterproof devices, Samsung intentionally marketed those features of the devices and well, they don't really work. True, they never actually sold the folding devices, but it was because of the feedback from testers, not something their internal quality control caught.
I definitely don't think every software/hardware company should be fined $1M-1B for major flaws, but if you're deliberately marketing a feature which either doesn't exist (salt-waterproofing) or doesn't work (folding) either intentionally or due to QA/QC negligence on your part... I definitely think you should be fined for misleading consumers.
I won't comment on their batteries - Samsung never marketed their phones based on how safe their batteries are.
But Samsung has been repeatedly caught using stock photos from a DSLR and representing those as images captured by the cameras on their phones[1]. I'd certainly say they should be fined for that - that's intentionally misleading consumers re: the capability of the product.
I'm hardly a fan of multinationals, but frankly from all of those only the exploding batteries seems like a real issue, and in that year, the profits of their whole mobile division went down 96% (across every phone/accessories/etc). Seems like reasonable punishment to me.
The other two seem mostly inconsequential as long as they respect the warranty (even if they have to be compelled to do so, though that should bring a fine as well).
I don't know about this one but I regularly wash my Moto phone under the tap (for hygiene reasons) and so far it has been working without problems (for 2 years or so). So I don't think its impossible for the Samsung one to act as in the ads.
I have a friend who used his samsung with a cracked screen underwater in the sea for years for photos/video. I'm not sure about the models in question, but the company does have effective waterproofing.
Earlier this year another Australian consumer won against Apple when they dropped their iPhone in a pool and it stopped working (after Phil Schiller said said you can drop it in the pool and it will be fine)
https://www.reddit.com/r/apple/comments/aiknf4/i_fought_appl...
18 comments
[ 3.9 ms ] story [ 19.8 ms ] threadhttps://youtu.be/4B-fPS3W9Og
saved them a lawsuit I guess.
I wish corporations would stop using the “only affects a small number” excuse. I understand the motivation behind that but feels really bad when you’re affected and you can obviously see it’s not a small number.
Why is it obviously not a small number? I mean the corps support staff are the ones who have the best picture since they're the ones getting the warranty claims.
I know that iPhones and similar can survive being dropped in a pool but can you actually "use" a Samsung underwater?
Some consumers damaged their phones when exposing them to water and Samsung had refused to honor warranty claims
So can it be used in water, or not? If Samsung shows a phone being used underwater, I don't understand why it wouldn't honor a water damage claim.
I've gone swimming with it in the sea, swimming pools, washed it under tap water regularly and even dropped it in a bowl of yogurt once. YMMV of course.
My guess as to why they won't honor their warranty probably revolves around return fraud. It must be trivial to damage the waterproofing intentionally, get the phone water damaged then demand an exchange. It's such a big problem that even the Apple store where I live has much stricter return policies than they do in the US.
I'm really trying not to be one of those crazy "wake up sheeple!" type crazy folk. But surely the public will wake up soon to the dangers of letting these giant megacorps run free without better regulatory oversight?
All we do is slap them on the wrist with a few million dollars of fines and say "now now! Don't do that again!". Then we wonder why fining them for less than they probably spent on the damn marketing campaign isn't deterring them from doing it all over again.
Are you talking about Samsung Fold? Because they didn't sold not even 1 of that.
You should be careful what you wish for. If companies were fined billions of dollars for faulty products, in a couple of years you'll have nothing to complain about. And not because everything will be amazing.
Just imagine if Microsoft/Apple/"Linux" was fined 1 billion for every major flaw in their OS. There would be no OSs any more, because they would all be bankrupt and nobody would dare selling anything remotely new.
Are you personally willing to accept $1 mil liability for any major flaw in the software you wrote in the past?
I don't think the end result would be clever and resourceful people being "afraid" of regulatory backlash if they screw up. Not if we demand a reform that is careful to avoid such an outcome, that is.
The way I see it, corporate systems around the world are being governed in such a way that often leads to directly rewarding bad behavior.
Humans can innovate at incredibly complicated levels. We have plenty of examples of that. I think we just need to find ways to ensure that the resulting organisations don't grow to such a size that they have an entire level of executive leadership that seeks to relentlessly drive profits at the cost of all else.
Maybe that means we as a species actually move a little bit slower sometimes? Would that be so bad? I'm probably suffering some extreme cognitive bias, but I really think that we'd be better off if that were the case.
Eh, true - but only because the test units sent out to media outlets and tech journalists started breaking[0].
> You should be careful what you wish for. If companies were fined billions of dollars for faulty products, in a couple of years you'll have nothing to complain about. And not because everything will be amazing.
> Just imagine if Microsoft/Apple/"Linux" was fined 1 billion for every major flaw in their OS. Are you personally willing to accept $1 mil liability for any major flaw in the software you wrote in the past?
I don't think that's what the parent commenter was asking for, they specifically called out the marketing claims. Which, I think, is completely fair. re: folding and waterproof devices, Samsung intentionally marketed those features of the devices and well, they don't really work. True, they never actually sold the folding devices, but it was because of the feedback from testers, not something their internal quality control caught.
I definitely don't think every software/hardware company should be fined $1M-1B for major flaws, but if you're deliberately marketing a feature which either doesn't exist (salt-waterproofing) or doesn't work (folding) either intentionally or due to QA/QC negligence on your part... I definitely think you should be fined for misleading consumers.
I won't comment on their batteries - Samsung never marketed their phones based on how safe their batteries are.
But Samsung has been repeatedly caught using stock photos from a DSLR and representing those as images captured by the cameras on their phones[1]. I'd certainly say they should be fined for that - that's intentionally misleading consumers re: the capability of the product.
[0] https://www.theverge.com/2019/4/22/18510871/samsung-galaxy-f...
[1] https://petapixel.com/2018/12/05/samsung-caught-using-dslr-p...
The other two seem mostly inconsequential as long as they respect the warranty (even if they have to be compelled to do so, though that should bring a fine as well).
Earlier this year another Australian consumer won against Apple when they dropped their iPhone in a pool and it stopped working (after Phil Schiller said said you can drop it in the pool and it will be fine) https://www.reddit.com/r/apple/comments/aiknf4/i_fought_appl...