galaxyactive

Water-resistance and Dust Proofing to Become “Basic Features” of Samsung Smartphones in 2014?

February 12, 2014 - Written By Tom Dawson

Last year, Samsung introduced the Galaxy S4 Active, a version of their already successful Galaxy S4 that was dust proof and water resistant, making for a device that was altogether more durable. If the Galaxy S4 was a “Life Companion” then the Galaxy S4 Active was “life proof”. We’ve been hearing more and more about an “Active” version of the Galaxy S5 for this year, and how Samsung was looking for it to account for more of the overall sales of the Galaxy S5 and now, we’re hearing that Samsung might be changing their stance on water resistance and dust proofing altogether.

According to yet more reports out of Korea, Samsung has recently canceled an order for 5 million LDS type antennae, which allow for thinner smartphones, but aren’t suitable for waterproofing a device. Instead, it looks like Samsung is going to use IMA antennae, which are in-mold antennae, much better for waterproofing a device. While IMA antennae have traditionally meant thicker smartphones, there’s word that some of Samsung suppliers have developed a method in which to create parts that are almost as thin as traditional LDS type antennae. If Samsung were to use the IMA design in their smartphones this year, it would allow them to better create water-resistant and dust proof devices.

So, these reports could easily show us that Samsung is going to produce and release a Galaxy S5 Active, however there are whispers that Samsung will be taking things a little further this year. That the company is looking to make water-resistance and such a “basic feature” of its high-end smartphones throughout 2014. Such a move would certainly alleviate some complaints surrounding their build-quality and have their devices appeal to a lot more users. One of the most common ways people ruin a device is simply by dropping in it in water, if Samsung could crack that problem they would give Apple something to worry about, indeed.