Apple Highlights iPhone 13 Splash Resistance and Durability in New Ads

[Lounge vibes 05]

How are we still this far along and the iphone is still not waterproof? I have friends that have other phones that have been waterproof for YEARS

You do?
What phone models are these?
S22: IP68 water and dust resistant
iPhone 13: IP68 water and dust resistant
Pretty much all flagships have the exact same advertised water and dust resistance from what I can tell, except for the flips and folds which… is a very different story

 

[spinedoc77]

Yep, up until you try to file a warranty claim for a wet IP68 phone and get denied.

 

[spinedoc77]

As has been said "Resistant" means almost nothing.
"Proof" actually has the value.

And when you go to an Apple store and them finding out it's got water damage, I'm sure they will be only too happy to point out you are out of luck as they do not advertise it as being guaranteed waterproof.

Water and other liquid damage to your iPhone or iPod isn't covered by warranty – Apple Support (UK)

Servicing for liquid damage to an iPhone or iPod isn't covered by the Apple One-Year Limited Warranty.

support.apple.com

But they DO advertise it as IP68.

"Protected against the effects of long periods of immersion in water under pressure. Usually 1.5 meters (4.9 feet) of immersion for up to 30 minutes."

So if a water sticker gets activated, is that not a manufacturer defect? I guess I can say my dog splashed me with water and show them their advertising video.

 

[Lounge vibes 05]

so an Apple Watch is waterproof with IP68 but an iPhone isn't?

Apple Watch is not IP68.
The Watch is rated as “swim proof” up to 50 m.
The iPhone is rated “splash resistant” up to 6M.
Very different specifications.
The Apple Watch can be swim proof because there’s no ports on it, there’s not several different holes for water to get in, there’s not a moving switch on the side, there’s not a Sim card slot… there’s a lot less places for water to get in.

 

[CausticSoda]

I love the play on the wet shaking dog nightmare whilst you're sunbathing (been there and suffered that), but I think even an ancient Victorian pocket watch would have stood up perfectly well to that "soaking" 😂

 

[ackmondual]

The thumbnail where the person puts up her phone... people who know the value of their iPhones would be throwing themselves in front of those drops of water!

 

[CarAnalogy]

OK Edge may be the stupidest commercial I’ve ever seen.

First off, all it really shows is that the iPhone without a case is too damn slippery.

Second, it doesn’t at all show what even happened, or the aftermath.

I’m sure it wouldn’t break, but god help you if that was a concrete floor. Of course, it was a nicely furnished apartment and not a sidewalk or driveway where most people drop their phones to disastrous consequence.

Ceramic shield still takes pits. And that perfectly shiny and smooth sharp edge will chip.

Though I guess as many people as I see every day still using their phone with an absolutely destroyed screen, I guess it works. I don’t know what these people are doing to their phones.

Always putting them on the edge of slippery glass tables with no case, I guess.

 

[CarAnalogy]

Right? Show me the ad of the look on the owners face when they realize their phone is still in their pocket after jumping into a pool, followed by the look on their face when they find that it still works

That would have been much better because I’ve actually done that since they’ve been IP68 since the 11 or something I think.

 

[compwiz1202]

The splash proof one I have no complains but the second one is total BS lmao

Like, an iPhone absolutely CAN survive that kinda fall? But it’s not a guarantee
My 13 Pro Max fell from table height ONCE and the back got absolutely decimated lmao (bless AppleCare+)

All it takes is a hard tile floor and the phone landing at the wrong angle and you’re gonna at the very least chip it, Ceramic Shield or not.

And the first time or few times, it may appear ok, but it's doing some damage everytime until eventually it's damage visible to the human eye.

 

[spinedoc77]

Apple Watch is not IP68.
The Watch is rated as “swim proof” up to 50 m.
The iPhone is rated “splash resistant” up to 6M.
Very different specifications.
The Apple Watch can be swim proof because there’s no ports on it, there’s not several different holes for water to get in, there’s not a moving switch on the side, there’s not a Sim card slot… there’s a lot less places for water to get in.

Right on Apple's website the 13pro/max are rated as "Splash, WATER, and Dust resistant" with the IP68 rating prominently advertised with the following disclaimer:

"iPhone 13 Pro and iPhone 13 Pro Max are splash, water, and dust resistant and were tested under controlled laboratory conditions with a rating of IP68 under IEC standard 60529 (maximum depth of 6 meters up to 30 minutes). Splash, water, and dust resistance are not permanent conditions. Resistance might decrease as a result of normal wear. Do not attempt to charge a wet iPhone; refer to the user guide for cleaning and drying instructions. Liquid damage not covered under warranty."

You guys need to get off this "splash resistant only" stance, that's not how it's advertised. I get that the phone isn't "swim-proof," but it's much more than just splash resistant. It's advertised as being IP68, so if the inside of the phone gets wet with use consistent with IP68 it is a manufacturer defect. I'm really surprised Apple gets away with this.

 

[Mousse]

I thought the phone could be underwater for 30 minutes or something

People have filmed/photographed underwater with their iPhones.

Most likely too many people were filming/photographing for longer than 30 minutes. Since Apple can't prove that and folks can't prove it was less than 30 minutes, all water damage becomes non-warranty. People get pissed and claim false advertizing. Apple just covering their (_!_) against those folks. Once again, a few idiots...😩

My wife's iPhone takes the occasional dunk in the pool without issues.

 

[3rdpath]

Out of all of the iPhones I've owned over the years, my new iPhone 13 pro is the most fragile I've had. I case them on day 1 and they've all made it through their lifetimes in absolutely mint condition...except the 13 pro which had its caseback shatter within 60 days of basically home use. Not impressed at all.

 

[siddavis]

My 12 mini took a swim for about 5-10 seconds and the screen went out. Of course not covered.
The resistance was futile.

 

[zarmanto]

Controversial, and quite understandably so. Hopefully Apple is able to fend off the obvious raft of lawsuits which will inevitably result from these two ads.

But regarding the water resistance issue, in particular: Personally, I think that rumor earlier this year about Apple prepping an e-sim only model was an obvious foreshadowing of things to come. As such, I'm looking forward to the introduction of the first portless/buttonless/SIMless iPhone, where Apple might finally have the opportunity to create a truly waterproof cell phone. Then they can produce the obvious next step in this ad campaign, where someone drops their iPhone into the deep end of a pool with no ill effects.

And hopefully... not get sued for that one.

 

[CarlJ]

The bit that surprised me is the wording in the Shake video that the phone is “splash resistant” rather than “water resistant”.

 

[CarlJ]

As has been said "Resistant" means almost nothing.
"Proof" actually has the value.

Not sure I’d put any faith in that website if they put out graphics meant to be widely seen that have spelling mistakes in them (it’s “permanent”, not “permeant”). [EDIT: permeant is, indeed, a word, but I believe it’s not the one they were trying for.] Also their “low protection” vs “high protection” is laughably imprecise. Seems to be some random website looking for clicks rather than any sort of regulatory or standards organization.

Basically nothing is labeled or marketed these days as “waterproof”, because nothing is absolutely waterproof. Any sort of closed container (phone, watch, submarine, etc.) can be water resistant down to a certain pressure level and/or for a certain amount of time, and there are established standards for this, and Apple meets specific instances of those standards.

 

[Breaking Good]

What a fearless ad from Apple, demonstrating the iPhone's water resistance against a dog spraying water drops in a thousand different directions, a few of which land on the phone.

You obviously do not own a Golden Retriever.

Our Golden Retriever loves water, provided it is mixed with dirt.

 

[Breaking Good]

I mean my cat skidded my iPhone 12 mini off a 450mm coffee table onto a wooden floor and the thing has chips on the top edge of the front glass, so ... not cat-proof?

Yeah well it's a cat. What do you expect?

For the record, over a 17 year period we had four cats decide to co-habitate with us and allow us to serve them.

 

[CarlJ]

The Apple Watch can be swim proof because there’s no ports on it, there’s not several different holes for water to get in, there’s not a moving switch on the side, there’s not a Sim card slot… there’s a lot less places for water to get in.

Moving switch? Holes? The Apple Watch has a hole for the microphone and two for the speaker, and two switches on the side that move (a button and the crown, which turns and pushes).

The Watch has been designed to be water resistant to a certain depth, but let’s be accurate please.

 

[spinedoc77]

Not sure I’d put any faith in that website if they put out graphics meant to be widely seen that have spelling mistakes in them (it’s “permanent”, not “permeant”). [EDIT: permeant is, indeed, a word, but I believe it’s not the one they were trying for.] Also their “low protection” vs “high protection” is laughably imprecise. Seems to be some random website looking for clicks rather than any sort of regulatory or standards organization.

Basically nothing is labeled or marketed these days as “waterproof”, because nothing is absolutely waterproof. Any sort of closed container (phone, watch, submarine, etc.) can be water resistant down to a certain pressure level and/or for a certain amount of time, and there are established standards for this, and Apple meets specific instances of those standards.

The key is the IP rating of IP68 which defines exactly those parameters. Apple even specifically disclaimers those parameters as being "maximum depth of 6 meters up to 30 minutes," which sure as heck doesn't sound like splashing to me. That's why I don't understand how they get away with not covering liquid damage if the use is consistent with IP68.

I get that many cases go above and beyond IP68 and should not be warrantied, but many (like the poster just a few posts ago saying he dropped his in water for 5-10 seconds) should be covered. If anything I'd say most water claims should be covered because situations where a phone would be outside of those parameters are going to be fairly uncommon.

 

[ApplesAreSweet&Sour]

How are we still this far along and the iphone is still not waterproof? I have friends that have other phones that have been waterproof for YEARS

Well, if Apple uses the word "waterproof" then they also have to cover more types of damage under AppleCare.

There's always risks of coatings and seals wearing out even if the device is waterproof out of the box.

 

[ignatius345]

I walked into a swimming pool with my 12 Mini in my shorts pockets last summer. It gave me a little grief about the lightning port for a day or so, and then nothing more. I wouldn't do it again on purpose but it was nice to not have to replace the phone.

 

[Vinyl3131]

You do?
What phone models are these?
S22: IP68 water and dust resistant
iPhone 13: IP68 water and dust resistant
Pretty much all flagships have the exact same advertised water and dust resistance from what I can tell, except for the flips and folds which… is a very different story

I have a non apple phone that was underwater overnight and was fine. Another time for a few hours.

I haven't had an iPhone in a while but since my phone and iPhone 13 the same IP rating, I would think being submerged wouldn't hurt it?

 

[iQuit]

BRILLIANT!

 

[CarlJ]

The key is the IP rating of IP68 which defines exactly those parameters. Apple even specifically disclaimers those parameters as being "maximum depth of 6 meters up to 30 minutes," which sure as heck doesn't sound like splashing to me. That's why I don't understand how they get away with not covering liquid damage if the use is consistent with IP68.

The IP ratings also are spec'd / tested with brand new seals and no wear, and if I recall correctly, also cover temperature and chemical composition of the water, and the testing is generally a device that's sitting still at that pressure (vs. moving around). It's a complex set of parameters and most people hear "X meters" and just go on that, without taking into account everything else the spec requires. I don't know if this does or does not have any bearing on any specific scenarios people have laid out in this thread.

They're now advertising it as "splash resistant", which surprised me a little, rather than calling it "water resistant". That may be to give themselves even less liability.

Personally, I think Apple should cover more of the phones that come in with water damage, but I can see this being a problem for them, since they can't tell what a phone that comes in for service has been up to, beyond whatever story the customer gives them, which may be absolutely true, or... rather less so. That phone could have been dropped in the tub, or it could have been taken down to 50 meters scuba diving. How can Apple tell? I wonder if they've ever considered logging data from the built-in barometric pressure sensor to see if the phone has been subjected to any high pressure incidents in the past few weeks (I don't know that the part they're using can measure anything meaningful underwater).