Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Swimming?
- Thread starter m17anm1
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Just making sure you're aware that you aren't supposed to do either, right?
Page 84 of the users guide:
https://manuals.info.apple.com/MANUALS/1000/MA1708/en_US/apple_watch_user_guide.pdf
Paraphrasing - don't swim with it, don't bathe with it.
But, if you want to be the one to finally confirm for us that Apple won't be covering water damages under their standard warranty, by all means, please do and report back.
It's 'water resistance' rating is IPX7 which means it's ok in up to 1m of water for 30 mins. This rating is considered to be water resistant rather than 'waterproof', and not suitable for swimming. My guess however is that it would be ok, and this seems to confirm that https://www.macrumors.com/2015/05/11/apple-watch-swim-workout-test/.
Would I try it myself? No yet.
Would I try it myself? No yet.
Over 35 showers, 3 runs in the rain and washed my car 3 times.
To see some extreme
Watch swimming (and water proof testing) go here.
http://www.dcrainmaker.com/2015/05/apple-watch-waterproofing.html
To see some extreme
Watch swimming (and water proof testing) go here.http://www.dcrainmaker.com/2015/05/apple-watch-waterproofing.html
I won't be getting my watch until July. It's at my parents house, and I won't get home til then. I don't plan on showering with it or swimming with it. I suppose I can see some advantage to the fitness apps if you are swimming laps, but I don't see why anyone would want to shower with it on. Assuming you have to charge it every night anyway, why not just take it off the charger after your shower? I don't fault anyone who does shower with it, but why? I can usually go 5-10 minutes in the morning without knowing what my heart rate is or getting email and message notifications.
I feel like the water resistance status is more for not having to feel like you have to shove the watch in your pocket every time it rains regardless of what tests show.
I feel like the water resistance status is more for not having to feel like you have to shove the watch in your pocket every time it rains regardless of what tests show.
I've showered with Apple Watch on every morning and every evening since receiving it. I do not plan to swim with it on. I should probably take the watch off prior to the shower or put it on after but I've just never thought about it. I always wore my Pebble.
The first sport that Consumer Reports did an IPX7 test on failed (and didn't turn on afterwards). The next two passed, so they wrote it off as a fluke.
People simply need to know they're taking a risk using it in ways Apple has cautioned against.
People simply need to know they're taking a risk using it in ways Apple has cautioned against.
According to that the Apple Watch has a 33% failure rate. I certainly would risk being in that 33%. I agree with you, why risk it? I was wearing a G-Shock prior to the Apple watch arriving. The G shock is definitely waterproof but I still take it off in the shower. You need to remove the watch anyway to dry off fully anyway.
one reason I suspect that Apple doesn't rate the watch IPX8 is that each and every watch will have to be tested to meet specs as it comes off the assembly line. Can you imagine what that would do to the already ridiculous backlog?
Also, even Apple states there is no procedure for annual checking of seals and water-resistance, indeed they state after a battery replacement the case cannot be tested for water-resistance. Over time those seals fail, and have to be serviced even on the best watches. So while you may get lucky and have a watch that exceeds IPX7, there's no guarantee, depending on the stresses you expose it to, that it will still pass in a year.
The Watch is almost certainly an ATM5 'waterproof' watch that Apple has chosen a very conserve rating of IPx7. I bet Gen 2 will be rated ATM5 even if the same tolerances as the Gen 1. Apple just wants a large body of data before stating it (remember Apple is selling 10,000,000 of watches, far more than anyone else).
Want proof theWatch is very water tight. Just look on this forum that has many 1000' of Watch users. Where are the threads about the Watch failing under water immersion? I have only seen 1 verified thread on this forum and the OP had a crack in the crystal that allowed ingress.
Find a single incident on the internet of a verifiedWatch failing because of water ingress. CR didn't say the Watch it tested had problems because of water ingress (they also tested 4) and it may have just been a coincidence. Also if it did fail then it was 100% with in specification failure since CR was doing a true IPx7 test (not exceeding it). Here is what they said.
Watch is almost certainly an ATM5 'waterproof' watch that Apple has chosen a very conserve rating of IPx7. I bet Gen 2 will be rated ATM5 even if the same tolerances as the Gen 1. Apple just wants a large body of data before stating it (remember Apple is selling 10,000,000 of watches, far more than anyone else).Want proof the
Watch is very water tight. Just look on this forum that has many 1000' of Watch users. Where are the threads about the Watch failing under water immersion? I have only seen 1 verified thread on this forum and the OP had a crack in the crystal that allowed ingress.Find a single incident on the internet of a verified
Watch failing because of water ingress. CR didn't say the Watch it tested had problems because of water ingress (they also tested 4) and it may have just been a coincidence. Also if it did fail then it was 100% with in specification failure since CR was doing a true IPx7 test (not exceeding it). Here is what they said.Consumer Reports said:
The
Want proof the
Find a single incident on the internet of a verified
Unless someone does scientific testing to give it an ATM5 or other rating which would give people more confidence with subjecting the watch to water, you're only doing others a disservice by posting stats pulled out of your ass.
The video on consumer reports states that the watch didn't work at their 24 hour mark, so they repeated the test with two others, which did function at the 24 hour mark following the IPX7 test.
Last edited:
The "rub" with the ATM ratings is that they don't appear to be specific about duration. Why did he only test to 4ATM? The IPX ratings at least give a duration, so you have some idea.Done (at least to ATM4). How is that for pulling one out of my ass?
Garmin has a good chart here: http://www.garmin.com/en-US/legal/waterrating
This watch site has a good description of water resistance vs water proofing and a chart to set expectations for the various ATM ratings:
http://bigwatchworld.com/water-resistance/5atm-50m-165ft
Edit: And I really don't consider a guy playing in his basement as a reliable, credible source. He's a blogger. His tests are entertaining.
I'm not responsible for ATM not specifying a time at depth. However this is the spec and all watches that have a water rating (like Rolex) use it. FACT: It is the industry standard.
DC Rainmaker is hardly just "a guy playing in his basement" (do you have a water pressure depth chamber in your basement?). You obviously are not into fitness or you would KNOW better. He is an accomplished triathlete and fitness device reviewer. His reviews are some of the most comprehensive, in depth and well respected there are. He is the athlete's Bible on fitness device reviews. Just click on reviews. Since you mentioned Garmin he already reviewed the Garmin 225 (and almost every Garmin fitness device) almost a month ago and it will not be released for another month or 2.
Just visit his site and look around and you will see how for off just "a guy playing in his basement" is.
http://www.dcrainmaker.com
Last edited:
been swimming with mine since launch. no issues what so ever.
I bought a sports watch, i plan on using it as a sport watch.
I bought a sports watch, i plan on using it as a sport watch.
The main point here is that Apple has to test each watch off the assembly line for this level of water resistance. Maybe they will, maybe they won't. I seriously doubt each watch is being subjected to this level of testing presently. I also doubt Apple is expecting its customers to be the Guinea pig's for unscientific anecdotal watch testing. They aren't operating in a vacuum. They hired watch experts, and certainly have the engineering prowess to design a suitably water resistant encasement for 10ATM if they wanted to, without concern that their design might not hold up to practical use if manufactured correctly.
Frankly, ATM5 is fine for most users, but it doesn't really help me as I would want 10ATM for surfing and other water sports. Apple would be best served by building a true sports watch, priced accordingly, which actually can be used for sports.
If you have Applecare+ it could be worth the risk.
The weakest point on the watch would be the rubber gaskets. They expand and contract regularly as the watch is exposed to different temperatures. Something to keep in mind; a brand new Apple Watch's gaskets should hold up very well, however, in time the rubber begins to wear and crack reducing its integrity. So 3, 6, 12 months from now the watch may not be as waterproof as it was from day 1. Even Swiss 10ATM watches need to have their gaskets replaced regularly.
To prolong the waterproofing, don't go from one temperature extreme to another (I.e. Pool to sauna) rapidly.
The weakest point on the watch would be the rubber gaskets. They expand and contract regularly as the watch is exposed to different temperatures. Something to keep in mind; a brand new Apple Watch's gaskets should hold up very well, however, in time the rubber begins to wear and crack reducing its integrity. So 3, 6, 12 months from now the watch may not be as waterproof as it was from day 1. Even Swiss 10ATM watches need to have their gaskets replaced regularly.
To prolong the waterproofing, don't go from one temperature extreme to another (I.e. Pool to sauna) rapidly.
Why would Apple do this? I know some high end/low volume manufactures do test (usually atmospheric pressure instead of water) each case individually. Also this is usually reserved for ATM10 and higher (or is it deeper
) models. It would be a huge waste of time and resources for Apple to test each Watch, especially in a water pressure tank. Apple will just do (and does now with IPx7) what all other volume manufacture do and pull 1 of every 1000 to 10,000 to test.
Last edited:
Probably not on the
Watch. The weakest points are almost certainly the 2 exposed armatures (speaker/mic). They will likely sustain water damage (though they did fine at 140') before the O-rings fail. In general the weakest O-ring is the Crown.
Heh. I know who he is. It was fun goading you though.
We've had many debates over use of the Apple Watch with water over the last few months.I have a Philip-Stein that has a 5ATM rating. They do specifically state that it's water resistant, not water proof. The Swiss share a lot of traits with the Germans when it comes to rules - at least when it comes to their watches.
I'm sure that people will be fine subjecting their watches to water in a casual sense...the problem that I have is people encouraging them to do it. Over repeated uses, the sealants on the o-rings/gaskets will eventually allow water ingress, then these people (many without AC+) will go to Apple expecting it to be covered by their warranty. I'd really hate to see people having to buy new watches when it could have been avoided.
Ultimately, we need a few people to drown their watches and come back to us with what Apple does - then we have a nice precedent we can use.
Most people (including the press) have no idea about what the word waterproof means and throw it around like candy. Waterproof is not (nor can be) used unqualified (Waterproofed to xxxx) in watch marketing anyway.....I have a Philip-Stein that has a 5ATM rating. They do specifically state that it's water resistant, not water proof. The Swiss share a lot of traits with the Germans when it comes to rules - at least when it comes to their watches.
I'm sure that people will be fine subjecting their watches to water in a casual sense...the problem that I have is people encouraging them to do it. Over repeated uses, the sealants on the o-rings/gaskets will eventually allow water ingress, then these people (many without AC+) will go to Apple expecting it to be covered by their warranty. I'd really hate to see people having to buy new watches when it could have been avoided....
I understand a little bit about O-ring gasket degradation (I spent over 13 years in the watch/jewelry repair industry) and changed a many. However with current synthetic materials (unlike natural rubber gaskets used in the past) it will likely take several years of even often exposure to water and chemicals to happen. Unlike your Philip-Stein 95% of all current
Watches will be in landfills in under 4 years (and >99% will not be in use). So the chances of mass O-ring failure from deterioration is very small since the Watches won't last anyway.