Apple Did Not Mislead Customers About iPhone Water Resistance, Federal Judge Rules

[69Mustang]

Need a new standard

No new standard is need, but you may need a better understanding of the topic being discussed. Both your posts in this thread seem to indicate you don't know the subject matter.

 

[svish]

Water/liquid damage is not covered by warranty. This is not good when Apple advertises water resistance.

 

[happydude]

People are stupid, which is why on knives, there is a warning they are sharp and they can hurt you if used in the wrong way. So companies who advertise products and their features have to protect themselves. There is nothing subversive about this.

there is very much something subversive about this. why show the phone being splashed all over the place, claiming IP68 half hour 1.5 meter resistance and then not standing by it when it doesn't work out.

as to your analogy, knife companies don't run around showing the worst thing that could happen with their knives as part of their advertisements. no knife companies are encouraging people to take up knife juggling or knife throwing and then backing away when someone inevitably gets hurt. apples to oranges in comparison there.

 

[I7guy]

there is very much something subversive about this. why show the phone being splashed all over the place, claiming IP68 half hour 1.5 meter resistance and then not standing by it when it doesn't work out.

How is the company supposed to know the water ingress into the wasn't caused by a deep sea dive at 100 ft for 1 hour. So you can understand why, with some exceptions, water resistance is not warrantied.

as to your analogy, knife companies don't run around showing the worst thing that could happen with their knives as part of their advertisements. no knife companies are encouraging people to take up knife juggling or knife throwing and then backing away when someone inevitably gets hurt. apples to oranges in comparison there.

Per your post above, splashing a phone isn't the worse thing that can happen either. If these Apple commercials encourage people to go deep sea diving with their iphones, the same people will be knife juggling and blame the knife manufacturer.

 

[happydude]

meant to have this be a reply to someone else but posted as original reply by accident. can't figure out how to delete a comment.

 

[happydude]

How is the company supposed to know the water ingress into the wasn't caused by a deep sea dive at 100 ft for 1 hour. So you can understand why, with some exceptions, water resistance is not warrantied.

Per your post above, splashing a phone isn't the worse thing that can happen either. If these Apple commercials encourage people to go deep sea diving with their iphones, the same people will be knife juggling and blame the knife manufacturer.

so...maybe apple shouldn't be hyping up their phone as water resistant at all if they're not going to stand by their product when people come in and say - hey, I was splashed at the pool just like in your commercial. I myself was caught in a rainstorm and drenched. I got inside and dried my phone off after it only being wet for 10 minutes and it wouldn't start up. guess what - apple didn't cover it. I didn't drop it to the bottom of a lake or go scuba diving with it. my phone wasn't fixed even though their own advertising clearly suggests would be just fine. I also didn't buy the phone because of their water resistance claims, nor could I prove it if I wanted to try. so I'm not put out about it other than super annoyed I had to pay to get a replacement phone when apple said this wouldn't be an issue.

that's the definition of misleading advertising.

another time I accidentally dropped my phone (a different one) in a river and pulled it out within 10 seconds of being fully submerged. no damage or anything whatsoever.

surely they should see people will/would abuse the concept. apple doesn't show people dropping the phone from 2 feet off the ground. most of the time there would be minimal damage. enough of the time the screen will break to make that an issue. in the case of water - why highlight water resistance if you're not going to fix it when enough of the time, water will still damage the phone under normal use.

 

[I7guy]

so...maybe apple shouldn't be hyping up their phone as water resistant at all if they're not going to stand by their product when people come in and say - hey, I was splashed at the pool just like in your commercial.

How is Apple supposed to know someone is telling the truth? At any rate, their website clearly lays out the information behind the rating.

I myself was caught in a rainstorm and drenched. I got inside and dried my phone off after it only being wet for 10 minutes and it wouldn't start up. guess what - apple didn't cover it. I didn't drop it to the bottom of a lake or go scuba diving with it. my phone wasn't fixed even though their own advertising clearly suggests would be just fine. I also didn't buy the phone because of their water resistance claims, nor could I prove it if I wanted to try. so I'm not put out about it other than super annoyed I had to pay to get a replacement phone when apple said this wouldn't be an issue.

Apple again lays out information about water resistance and ip68 on their website.

that's the definition of misleading advertising.

There is no misleading advertising and a judge agrees.

another time I accidentally dropped my phone (a different one) in a river and pulled it out within 10 seconds of being fully submerged. no damage or anything whatsoever.

Bacause there are a lot of factors that go into how water resistant a phone is after it leaves the factor.

surely they should see people will/would abuse the concept. apple doesn't show people dropping the phone from 2 feet off the ground. most of the time there would be minimal damage. enough of the time the screen will break to make that an issue. in the case of water - why highlight water resistance if you're not going to fix it when enough of the time, water will still damage the phone under normal use.

Apple also highlights their cameras take good pictures, and yet people manage to produce less than desirable pictures from their iphones.

 

[FriendlyMackle]

My daughter accidentally ran her iPhone 8 in the washing machine for 15 minutes and it survived undamaged. Our experience has been good.
It does seem somewhat deceptive that they advertise resistance to water, but don’t warranty it.
The older iPhone water exposure indicator was famously sensitive. I had a legitimate claim denied because humidity tripped the liquid sensor. Things are better now.

Since late 2020, I’ve starting washing my iphone 12pmax under hot running water with dishwashing soap. Removes all germs and oils. No problems at all.

 

[mi7chy]

Misleading when they market it then flash "liquid damage not covered under warranty" for one sec in tiny darkened font against dark background. Obviously don't want you to see it.

 

[happydude]

How is Apple supposed to know someone is telling the truth? At any rate, their website clearly lays out the information behind the rating.

Apple again lays out information about water resistance and ip68 on their website.

There is no misleading advertising and a judge agrees.

Bacause there are a lot of factors that go into how water resistant a phone is after it leaves the factor.

Apple also highlights their cameras take good pictures, and yet people manage to produce less than desirable pictures from their iphones.

you can be a corporate hack if you want. this is classic predatory marketing. I'm an apple fan and user an have been since our first apple IIe, but I can still point out when they're wrong. here - they are clearly using deceptive marketing when they won't back up their claims in real life. and your point of people taking pictures - that's clearly user error, you know it, everyone knows it. and a bad picture taken doesn't affect the health of the phone. now, if the phone's camera wasn't working properly or was a manufacturing error and deficient, they'd have to fix it - why not also for their water claims? it's ridiculous.

there was misleading advertising - and a judge [in Italy] agreed. the u.s. case was dismissed because the plaintiffs didn't have standing - couldn't prove they bought the phone because of the water resistance claims. not because the advertising was misleading. and the article summary even said "...the plaintiffs plausibly alleged that Apple's advertising could mislead some customers..."

and, the u.s. federal court system protects corporations/industry almost always. we have such a corrupt system, it isn't a credible source for any argument. the u.s. system makes plaintiffs prove intentional corruption by the defendant. I doubt Tim Cook was in an evil lair or dungeon somewhere plotting out ways to scheme apple's loyal fan base into buying phones with spendy poolside ads. but their advertised claims clearly don't work 100%. regardless of nefarious plot, apple mislead customers. the u.s. judge said that was a plausible, an Italy judge ruled on it. so...what's your point again?

 

[I7guy]

you can be a corporate hack if you want.

Not a corporate hack but someone who understands that water resistance is not warranties on most phones. The same way I’m sure you are not trying to be a disingenuous poster.

this is classic predatory marketing.

No it’s not.

I'm an apple fan and user an have been since our first apple IIe, but I can still point out when they're wrong.

Yes, you’re clearly entitled to your opinion.

here - they are clearly using deceptive marketing when they won't back up their claims in real life. and your point of people taking pictures - that's clearly user error, you know it, everyone knows it. and a bad picture taken doesn't affect the health of the phone. now, if the phone's camera wasn't working properly or was a manufacturing error and deficient, they'd have to fix it - why not also for their water claims? it's ridiculous.

there was misleading advertising - and a judge [in Italy] agreed. the u.s. case was dismissed because the plaintiffs didn't have standing - couldn't prove they bought the phone because of the water resistance claims. not because the advertising was misleading. and the article summary even said "...the plaintiffs plausibly alleged that Apple's advertising could mislead some customers..."

and, the u.s. federal court system protects corporations/industry almost always. we have such a corrupt system, it isn't a credible source for any argument. the u.s. system makes plaintiffs prove intentional corruption by the defendant. I doubt Tim Cook was in an evil lair or dungeon somewhere plotting out ways to scheme apple's loyal fan base into buying phones with spendy poolside ads. but their advertised claims clearly don't work 100%. regardless of nefarious plot, apple mislead customers. the u.s. judge said that was a plausible, an Italy judge ruled on it. so...what's your point again?

Nobody is being protected. Water resistance benefits the manufacturer, imo, more than the consumer. It’s a good thing to have, much better than not having water resistance and yet people are still not happy.

 

[Misspinkadee]

I’m sorry, but my ex dropped the iPhone 11 into bath for 1/4 second, it didn’t work after. I dropped my iPhone 12 Pro into half filled cup of water, it stopped working too. I took it in after a few days and it was completely replaced free of charge. They didn’t find any water in it and I said nothing about dropping in water so it was replaced free of charge. But no they are not water resistant what-so-ever.