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.
Apple Highlights iPhone 13 Splash Resistance and Durability in New Ads
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Don't believe it or risk it. I kayak weekly and had a dry pouch in the back of my kayak that I would keep my iPhone XR in. I found I had a hole in the rear of my kayak that was letting water in. When I got out and lifted the kayak straight up the dry pouch fell into the kayak and into the water at the now bottom of the kayak. Phone was submerged maybe 5 minutes as I drained the water from the kayak. The phone has never started again, even after leaving to dry for a month, did the rice thing (which according to google searches is bogus anyways). This was less then 30 mins in the water and far less than a meter deep. Water resistance is almost a joke, I would expect any device to handle some splashes and not immediately crap out when sprinkled with some water. Apple knows we don't need water proof phones though so I am happy with Apple's decision to not really bring any usable additions to the iPhone save a better camera and even better emojis. Gotta love that stagnation!
These adds make me so angry!!!! What a bunch of BS!!!!! In my experience, the splash resistance couldn’t be further from the truth!!!
Apple claims the phones are water resistant but at the same time they say that the warranty does not cover water damange. If the phone has any type of water damage it’s your problem not theirs.
I just had a 1 month old iphone 11 (which theoretically has a rating of IP68 under IEC standard 60529 - maximum depth of 2 meters up to 30 minutes) in perfect condition die on me because splashing water hit it at a pool. The repairs cost 489,99 EUR.
Apple claims this and that but when the sh?t hits the fan, they won’t stick by them. It’s your problem not theirs!!!
The way things are going, they can claim that the phone is whatever they want it to be and then just add non-liability clauses in the warranty to shy away for responsibility when problems occur.
Be careful!!!! Read the warranty!!!
If you have problems like I did, I suggest you do what I did, join a class action suit!!!!
Apple is still advertising it as "water resistant" right on their website. More specifically they say "Splash, Water, and Dust resistant" in the specifications for the 13 pro/max. They also prominently display the IP68 rating and in their disclaimer specifically say "maximum depth of 6 meters up to 30 minutes."
I get that the IP ratings are rigorous and have a lot of conditions, but at the same time I'm curious if a court would find that your typical mom and pop consumer would go based off of Apple's "6 meters up to 30 minutes" advertised specs. I would think that the vast majority of water based claims would still easily fall under even the most rigorous IP testing, which means Apple should give consumers the benefit of the doubt with water based claims.
Really the benefit of the doubt decision could be applied to any warranty scenario. Does that chip on the corner mean your warranty for the phone overheating is void? Does that scratch on the screen void your warranty for the camera not working? Etc. To a certain extent Apple already has to accept a certain amount of fraudulent claims, that's just the nature of the business, unless they want to ostracize the legitimate complaints.
Any links or info on the class action suit? I had read about a woman in California attemtping to start a class action suit for exactly this issue, but I don't think it ever went forward. I'd be curious to read on any other ones.
Edit: here's the one I was talking about, it's in NY not CA. https://topclassactions.com/lawsuit...ed-iphone-water-resistance-says-class-action/ Looks like it was thrown out, but the reasons it was thrown out sort of don't make sense.
Edit 2: U.S. District Judge Denise Cote in Manhattan said the plaintiffs plausibly alleged that Apple's ads could mislead consumers, but did not show their iPhones were damaged by "liquid contact" Apple promised they could withstand. https://www.reuters.com/technology/...le-iphone-water-resistance-claims-2022-02-03/
So the case was thrown out because the plaintiffs couldn't prove the conditions the damage occurred at. Interesting, I wonder why no one has done a more research type study to examine the issue. Lol, buy 1000 iPhones and put them to the IP68 ratings, anyone have $1 million to spare?
Interestingly enough the opposite happened in Italy where Apple was fined $12 million for the same issue: https://www.reuters.com/technology/...le-iphone-water-resistance-claims-2022-02-03/
Last edited:
A minor note: the iPhone XR you mention was discontinued about a year ago and is only rated as IP67, not IP68; the ad is specifically targeting current iPhone models with an IP68 rating.
Of course, that still technically means that the XR was supposed to have been tested in the lab to withstand scenarios substantially similar to what you described -- but those tests were doubtless performed with a pristine device which has no wear and tear. As we all well know, the impacts of "wear and tear" are distinctly unpredictable... but basically, the older your device, the less likely it is to survive a drop in the water, regardless of the rating. Unless your iPhone was actually brand new, it is probably reasonable to assume that it had been compromised by various life events; this is why Apple refuses to cover such devices under warranty.
Basically, Apple is preemptively blaming the consumers for the results of water damage -- but not specifically because of the water damage in-and-of-itself; rather, because of all the myriad other things that people commonly do with their iPhones, which can easily result in a device which has been compromised before it even touches the water.
Getting splashed by a dog isn't much of a demonstration of water resistance.
Yes, this was a few years back with the XR was still relatively new, happened around August 2019. The amount of water and time was well under what it was rated for. I did know it was not considered "water proof", I thought I was ok with it being in a dry compartment, and I would be ok had I not gotten a hole/crack in the rear of my kayak where the dry compartment was. They really should not make these claims if after a year out of release the wear on the sealant is degraded so much that it does not do what they claim it to do. No Apple care or warranty left at this point I was left with only one option and that was to buy a new phone immediately. I only have a cell phone, no land line, it is my one point of contact if you are trying to reach me.
I have an Apple Watch series 3 LTE model, I don't trust that it could handle being submerged in water for even a fraction of a second. I wear it when kayaking but only because at this stage I don't care if it breaks, looking forward to replacing with a proper watch and not one that will eventually be obsolete and made sluggish with future updates.
Speaking from experience, yes! Even if it’s a new phone and even if they have a technical report from an official Apple repair center stating otherwise.
It’s absurd but true!!
As I live in the EU, I joined a European suit. I’m unaware if there is currently any suit going on in the US.
One thing is for sure though, if there isn’t there should be! I’m sure that there are hundred, maybe thousands of people that had the same problem I did.
And the ridiculous thing is, if Apple didn’t publicize the phones as being water resistant people would obviously be much more cautious with their phones (I would never have gotten close to a pool with children splashing in it if I knew the phone was not water resistant) and the iphone would sell anyway.
One thing is for sure though, if there isn’t there should be! I’m sure that there are hundred, maybe thousands of people that had the same problem I did.
And the ridiculous thing is, if Apple didn’t publicize the phones as being water resistant people would obviously be much more cautious with their phones (I would never have gotten close to a pool with children splashing in it if I knew the phone was not water resistant) and the iphone would sell anyway.
Alright; I will acknowledge that I've apparently painted a pretty unarguable picture of Apple as the bad guy, herein. Now let's look at the issue with a little bit of perspective. I did some googling just for that purpose, and here is what I've come up with after a few minutes of work:
- If you search for "phones advertised as water resistant", Google will helpfully provide a quick list from Tom's Guide right there embedded in the search results, sourced from an article titled "The best waterproof phones in 2022" in which the first three phones on the list are all recent model iPhones. Vaguely interesting, but that doesn't help much. Let's go down to that fourth phone: that's the Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra, which is listed as "The best waterproof phone for Android fans", and further down a couple of other Android vendors are also represented. Well, the topic at hand is how poorly Apple handles water resistance, so how does the competition handle things?
- If you search for "Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra water damage covered by warranty", Google again helpfully provides some info, this time in the form of a series of questions and answers, the first of which is "Does Samsung warranty cover water damage?" The answer is, "Water damage and physical damage are not covered under the warranty offered by Samsung." That's a bit more interesting; it doesn't make what Apple's doing right necessarily... but it does mean that Apple isn't the only bad guy. Still, that's just two data points. Going back to Tom's listing, the next vendor is OnePlus.
- Searching for "OnePlus 10 Pro water damage covered by warranty", the top result is sourced directly from the OnePlus official site (how convenient!) and states in part, "The limited warranty does not cover ... exposure to liquid, moisture, dampness ..." Uh oh. I'm sensing a trend, here. The last vendor represented in Tom's list is... Google! Surely they can do better, right?
- Searching for "Google Pixel 6 Pro water damage covered by warranty", we are met with the response of "Damage from accidents or external causes, such as water damage, is not covered by warranty." (Their emphasis, not mine.) Well, crap. Does nobody cover water damage? What the heck is going on here?
- Clicking through to the source page for Google's answer gives us a page in the Pixel Phone Help site. At the very top of that page is the following: "Pixel 6 Pro, 6, 5a (5G), 5, 4, 3, and 2 phones are designed to be water-resistant. But normal wear and tear can reduce water-resistance. To help your Pixel phone last longer, avoid actions that could lead to water damage."
So yeah... iPhone or Android, just try to avoid exposing it to water. It might survive... but it also might not. Your mileage may vary, and all that.
(Which I suppose also means that I'm just a lucky idiot, myself... for years I've been showering with my iPhone either in my hands or sitting on the shelf right next to me literally every day, so that I can text and read Reddit and such, and I've also accidentally dropped it in the hot tub more than once... and I've never once experienced any damage. Huh.)
The lesson to be learned from your research is, unsurprisingly, that just like insurance companies, they'll all look though every asterisk'd clause in the book to not pay out.
Zarmanto it looks like you're trying to say that it's ok to steal as long as you're not the only crook.
If these companies don't feel secure enough to cover water damage in the warranty, they shouldn't claim that the phones are water resistant. It's as simple as that!!!
Claiming phones have a IP68 rating (maximum depth of 2, 4 or 6 meters up to 30 minutes) will allow people to feel comfortable in exposing their phones to situations that would damage "normal" phones. Based then IP rating and the "maximum depth of 2, 4 or 6 meters up to 30 minutes" I felt comfortable in approching a pool in which my kids were splashing around to take a few photos. Splashes reached the phone and the phone died! If Apple did not claim that the phone was water risistant I would never have done this.
damage is
If companies aren't liable for their claims, they can pretty much claim anything they want in hope that it will boost sales.
resistance claim is fairly different from most others. If you feel your phone has a IP68 rating and
Inflammatory, much?
Gog, it looks like you're trying to say that your anecdotal bad experience with your iPhone represents the experience of all iPhone users.
It doesn't.
As to whether or not a company should be held legally liable for their claims: that is indeed the topic of discussion, isn't it? Thing is, what I am actually trying to say is that a company isn't necessarily "crooked" just because they happen to have some fine print in their warranty that you chose not to read until after your iPhone died. Doubly so, when they didn't even originate the ideas in that fine print, but just copied a standard practice from their competitors. (Apple was by no means the first to advertise a "water resistant" phone.)
It really is too bad that your iPhone didn't survive, Gog, but they're still not crooks. And Apple didn't steal anything at all from you -- they just didn't give you the freebie that you felt like you deserved. They're just a business, doing what businesses do. Some people may find those practices to be scummy, certainly. But that doesn't make what they're doing illegal... nor, really, even particularly noteworthy.
My guess is, if Apple showed a diver going deep sea diving and coming to land with the phone not damaged, there could be misinterpretation of the iphones water resistance and they would get a class action as well as governmental interference. Saying the iphone (or any modern phone) can resist a few drops of water is not a stretch.
Water resistance is always better for the manufacturer. Less warranty replacements.
This type of discussion has been beat to death over the years, unfortunately. Apple claiming their "gorilla glass" is twice as resistant as the previous iphone, doesn't give you liberty to do a drop test and then unfairly criticizing Apple when the refuse to replace your screen.
Are you really making this type of comparison?? Do you honetly think it's the same thing?
If Apple was more specific and said that the screen was shatter resistant because it had a rating of whatever after passing a drop test of 4 feet and if my phone fell from 1 foot and the screen shattered, yes, I would expect Apple to cover the damage and be liabel.
No, I'm not going to perform drop tests, just like I'm not going to scuba dive with the phone but there has to be a bare minimum in terms of coverage. Otherwise Apple and everyone else can claim whatever they want and as a consumer I truly hate that prospect.
Yes
It's similar.
I think there is a rating for screen hardness.
They wouldn't cover the damage nor be on the hook for a free (to you) replacement, except if you purchased Applecare+
With maybe one exception, it is an industry standard to not warranty water damage. Its not hard to see why... there is no way to prove if the customer was honoring in good faith the water resistant limits of the device. Water resistance benefits the manufacturer and not the consumer.
You're absolutely right -- and in fact there are excruciatingly well defined bare minimums in terms of coverage. All of Apple's various limited warranties are published on their website, and they clearly define exactly what those minimums are. Incidentally, their AppleCare+ warranty -- which covers up to two accidental damage claims alongside a service fee, and which can include damage caused by liquid -- is also published on their website.
If you happen to disagree with the bare minimum that they've set for their limited warranties, than fine... but nobody here is trying to suggest that they actually have carte blanche to do as they please.
Matter of opinion.
Show me the rating
Exactly, they can claim whatever they want because they wont accept any type of liability and because tons of people will accept that. Not only that, some people will actually defend that its ok to make claims and not have companie stand by them.
Not standing by the claims is what sometime gives way to class action suits. Apple has already lost one in italy because the water damage claims.
As for the replacement, keep in mind that Applecare+ isn't available everywhere. It isn't availabel where I live for example. When i bought the phone i had to get a separate insurance policy at the store to cover damage. The insurance company has already replaced my phone but in my opinion, it shouldn't have been them. It should have been the manufaturer once their product did not have the specs they said it had.
Yes but manufacturers publicize it as being a benefit for the consumer and this is exactly were the problem lays. They publicize certain features, showing images and videos that mislead people into believing that it's safe to use the phone under certain conditions when in truth it's not. Perhaps you don't remember the iphone 7 water resistance adds.
Yes, the bare minimums for water damage is zero converage!!! zero coverage = zero liability = they can claim whatever they want. Companies shouldn't be able to do this!
Regarding Applecare see my previous reply.
What exactly do you think AppleCare is, if it's not a separate insurance policy? Just because it's offered by Apple (in some regions) doesn't make it appreciably different from the insurance you have -- and have already used. You're not even out any of your own money, and yet you're still moaning about how unfair Apple is!
Basically, what I get from this conversation is that you're just complaining for the fun of it.