The CCS Insight service dismantled three rugged smartphones - from different price shelves. Is it worth investing in cheaper models of rugged smartphones, for example, from Blackview or Doogee? Considering what they hide inside - probably not.
Who needs armored phones? Most users can easily do without them, requiring some minimum level of endurance. But for other people, such a phone is a must. There are companies that take the creation of rugged smartphones seriously - and most often we have to accept the higher price of such a device. But there are also durable phones of Chinese brands that don’t cost much. It turns out, however, that there is a reason why some of them can be so low-priced.
CCS Insight has taken three popular, rugged phones apart to see what's inside. The CAT S42 (manufactured by Bullitt), Blackview BV4900 and Doogee S58 Pro models were taken under the microscope. Although all three devices have passed the initial waterproof and drop-proof test - as confirmed by their IP68 and MIL-STD-810 standards, the differences in design and price only become apparent when you compare each component. And they show what the expected quality of the reinforced devices can be.
Differences in construction and components
The differences between the more expensive CAT and cheaper models have already been marked in the solutions related to water resistance. Only the CAT S42 covers the USB port and headphone jack with flaps - and the Blackview and Doogee phones rely solely on a waterproof outer casing. CAT uses minimal button holes to reduce the risk of water and dust ingress, while other manufacturers use large button holes, again relying on the housing and gaskets for water protection.
CCS Insight also found differences in the quality and quantity of adhesives. Cat S42 uses a strong foam adhesive that is evenly applied to the glass surface of the case where it attaches to the phone case. Blackview BV4900, on the other hand, does not even have an internal gasket protecting the body of the device to protect the interior from the ingress of foreign objects.
It also turns out that the producers are also cheating when it comes to cameras. The construction of the photo module in the Blackview smartphone suggests that it has a triple camera - while the truth is that it uses dummy devices. Both Blackview and Doogee have cameras that lack image sensors. The most likely reason is that companies have relied on standard smartphones and rebuilt them for a rugged case, with additional image sensors removed to save component costs.
In Doogee S58 Pro, epoxy adhesive residues were found on the components, possibly indicating that this item was recovered from another device. Recycled parts allow the manufacturer to sell smartphones at significantly lower prices than CAT, despite installing twice as much memory (the cost of which accounts for a significant part of the total final price of the device).
In conclusion - watch out for rugged smartphones at low prices
CAT phones are not trying to compete with high-end Samsung or Google phones. Instead, they are designed to be resistant and meet the specific requirements of the MIL-SPEC standard, and at the same time offer everything you need to work comfortably with the phone.
CAT S42 is neither the most expensive nor the newest model, but it is one of the best-selling for up to $ 299. And practically the same is promised by the manufacturers of Doogee and Blackview models, and their smartphones are sold for less than $ 200. Sometimes they also have a stronger specification - but what they hide inside is unlikely to appeal to future buyers.
CSS Insight found that some components (possibly from other models) were reworked during assembly to fit the waterproof case. Another thing are the dummy cameras - the holes for additional cameras were filled with black disks or were devoid of actual sensors. The biggest reservations, however, are the fact that manufacturers have mounted used parts in completely new smartphones. There would be no problem if the manufacturer reused parts in new smartphones, clearly communicating this to future buyers. It would also justify the lower price. In this case, however, we have a situation where users buy a cheap phone that is supposed to be new, and in practice it is filled with components from other phones and used parts.
Source: CCS Insight
