Welcome to our Consumer Lab page. While you will find many mobile research surveys kicked off by our teams, you will also find polls and discussions created by fellow members.

You're invited to complete any surveys that are still open and by all means create a poll if it relates to general mobile preferences. If your topic only pertains to one product, please create your poll within the respective product forum.

After a period of time Consumer Lab Polls, Surveys & Discussions will be locked. They will still be viewable for historical data.

Newest Consumer Research Invitation:
No Current Research. Check back soon.

What’s the minimum price point that you would expect water resistance for your next smartphone?



  • busymanbusyman CanadaPosts: 401 ✭✭✭✭✭✭
    edited February 9, 2018 6:43PM

    @DoppelgangerD said:
    I honestly don't see how some people can expect to see a full featured phone with water resistance for under $500.
    Is it possible, sure it is, but guess what, you're going to have some real compromises.
    It's going to have a mediocre camera, smaller battery, subpar sound quality or some other shortcoming.

    For me personally I'd love to have a ZTE device with IP67 or IP68 water resistance, but I don't want it in lieu sacrificing other features that make a flagship a best in class device. Most importantly of all, the software needs to run exceptionally efficient. If it doesn't, the hardware isn't going to make up for the software anyway.

    100% agree with you. I'm probably an anomaly, but I wouldn't mind paying 6-700$ for a ZTE flagship if it checked all the boxes; monthly security patches included.

  • sshasansshasan Staff Member United StatesPosts: 4,077 ✭✭✭✭✭✭✭✭

    More votes are needed!

    Share the poll with your fellow community members, friends and family.


  • cavanaughtimcavanaughtim Wisconsin, USAPosts: 645 ✭✭✭✭✭✭✭

    Water resistance is a great feature at any price, but when you get to the $500+ dollar range, it's too much of a financial risk not to have it.

  • saeedtedsaeedted United StatesPosts: 1,219 ✭✭✭✭✭✭✭✭

    @texasmade1 said:
    I voted $400-$500 just based on what the Axon7 sold for, plus what it would cost to add waterproofing. I don't really know how much more it would cost to add the waterproofing so I just added about an extra $100 to the original price of $399 for the Axon7

    My thoughts exactly. I would love and expect some sort of IP rating for a handset in the $500 price range that I'm paying out of pocket for.

  • IdkidksIdkidks San Antonio, TexasPosts: 2 ✭✭
    edited February 15, 2018 3:55PM

    I chose $400-$500, because if I'm spending over $350, I consider it a high end phone, and even higher ($650+) being enthusiast.

    If you're asking about what I'd want in an Axon 9, it'd be everything that the Axon 7 had, with upgraded specs e,g newer DAC, snapdragon 835/845, 18:9 screen. If it was $400, most likely I'd buy it used a few months after it was released. If it was more, I'd be asking for some things like IP 57 (Limited protection against dust ingress/Protected against short periods of immersion in water.) or higher, a bigger battery, and a faster fingerprint sensor. If you had all of those things at $400, I would buy it immediately.

    I personally don't care about the camera other than that it's decent, and has OIS for basic photos/video, because I own a DSLR anyways. I don't really have any issue with the amount of RAM or storage, basically the Axon 7 is great, I just want an upgraded one, lol.

    Oh, and keep the 3.5mm jack.

  • MSTKMSTK USAPosts: 60 ✭✭✭✭✭

    It said water resistant vs water proof so I said $200-300. That can easily be done with an included case with port covers.

  • acatrusacatrus Posts: 352 ✭✭✭✭✭✭

    Having a phone resist water splash from a glass or an accidental drop in the bath, meaning if you are quick you can dry it, is a great feature.

    But it don't need to be fully water resistant.

    Also, does having this feature means removing another option, like a headphone jack, not sure

  • keithisreal2013keithisreal2013 Austin, TexasPosts: 182 ✭✭✭✭✭✭

    I would not go past $500.00. For me, water resistance is not a deal breaker for me but more of an added bonus.

  • frodriguez2010frodriguez2010 Enterprise Tech Support Engineer TexasPosts: 1,904 ✭✭✭✭✭✭✭

    Have to be competitive and unfortunately undercut the competition. Samsungs waterproof devices come at a high price point. under 500, no I can't see it but with a few compromises a little over. and then the better offering with all the bells and whistles.

  • coldheat06coldheat06 United StatesPosts: 1,795 ✭✭✭✭✭✭✭✭

    @keithisreal2013 said:
    I would not go past $500.00. For me, water resistance is not a deal breaker for me but more of an added bonus.

    I agree with you 100%

  • aprilfoolaprilfool CanadaPosts: 51 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @hollap said:

    @razor512 said:
    While many users prefer water resistance, I personally do not want it enough to give up the other features it conflicts with.
    There are many reasons for this covering both utilitarian uses for the device, as well as pure value.

    For pretty much all water resistant phones, the resistance does not last the life of the device unless you never handle the phone, as over time, vibration and tiny flexes of the device which happen from normal use, eventually tiny gaps will form. This makes water resistance a feature which can easily be lost over time through normal use, or lost due to a simple drop of the device. Furthermore, when you lose it, you often will not know until the phone comes in contact with water and fails.

    When implementing water resistance, there are some compromises made in other areas, for example, the restrictive meshing will negatively impact the bass response of the speakers.
    To meet initial IP68 requirements, smartphones will often use a construction that is not easy to service, which significantly drives up the cost of any out of warranty repair, or repair of accidental damage.

    I would much rather see a design which does not go out of its way to make everything 100% water tight, and instead work to mitigate water damage by using conformal coating on the motherboard and dielectric grease on the connectors, so if water does make it into the device, then chances are good that simply placing it in a bag of rice or silica gel will dry it out before any damage is done.

    For areas which cannot be used with conformal coating, such as the camera module where you have an unavoidable gap due to OIS and auto focus, it is far easier to do a watertight seal between the camera module and the rear view port of the case, and with such a small area, it is unlikely to be under any stress that would normally break the seals over time.

    Overall, for me personally, I would much rather have better audio and a reasonably serviceable device as compared to water resistance that may not last the life of the device.

    I forgot to mention like @razor512 did the compromise you may get with Audio. A mesh type of covering over speakers to water resist them may compromise one of the great features of a device that showcases audio as a major feature. Unless this is for a different device, or Audio is now becoming secondary.

    I hope that speakers don't get a backseat in future Axon phones, namely the Axon 9, whose speakers I expect to sound at least as good as on the 7. That was the main thing that caught me up.

  • jasonscarterjasonscarter United StatesPosts: 1,963 ✭✭✭✭✭✭✭✭

    That's just their way of differentiating themselves by offering water resistance. But now it's getting to become the norm for major flagship phones. It's not even a heavily marketed feature much anymore. Samsung and Apple had those big commercials showcasing the feature when their phones first got water resistance.

    What could get this feature back on the marketing list is to get lower cost devices to be able to have this feature, then it will be a major talking point again. Curious to see what ZTE does with this poll information and if we start seeing more phones with it at a lower price point.

This discussion has been closed.