Apple Now Offering Depth and Water Seal Tests for Apple Watch Ultra

[Allen_Wentz]

Dive equipment is checked all the time. Tanks are re-certified periodically. Everything is inspected before a dive. Regulators are serviced periodically. There are backups.

Apple worked with divers when designing the Ultra. Divers surely said equipment is always checked and tested and a leak and pressure test for the Ultra was likely planned before the Watch launched.

Apple stated Ultra's dive app is for dives down to 50'. There are no time limits or decompression stops for dives within 50 feet from sea level; especially if it's just the one dive.

Correction, stated depth is to 40 meters or ~130 feet, the most commonly recognized depth limit for sport diving after proper training.

 

[Allen_Wentz]

OMG!! Why? 😂 It’s brand new, doesn’t need it!

It is simply a nice service, like tire rotation when you buy a set of tires at Costco.

 

[Allen_Wentz]

And yet most just bought an Ultra for the better battery life and won’t even submerge it in a kitchen sink.

Apple really made you get a diving computer just because of how bad battery life is for regular AW.

Well, then -Happy diving to all the new divers in here! 😆

You may be a couch potato, but believe it or not there are many folks who do SCUBA dive (>5 million), climb mountains, run, walk or otherwise exercise and never thought about "battery" as some primary reason to buy an AW Ultra. I immediately upgraded from AW 7, for instance, and I had no perceived bad battery life that I was trying to improve with the AW Ultra.

The AW Ultra is simply a superb watch for all those folks who want a larger more rugged smart watch. And those of us who dive get the bonus of a good dive computer.

 

[Allen_Wentz]

The big question is just how deep is that watch guaranteed to go before leaking?

40m/132ft is not deep, that's just the point at which it stops recording depth.

If someone were to wear that watch and dived, say, to 80m/265ft, would it survive? There's good reason to do this as the watch might be useful at decompression depths, above 40m/132ft.

40 meters is the most commonly recognized depth limit of sport diving. Apple is clearly identifying the Ultra as being for sport diving only. Deeper dives require more attention to training and to hardware details, and Apple is clearly saying do not use this watch for that.

 

[Allen_Wentz]

Nah, Apple's legal team is way ahead of you. The User Guide literally says the "Depth app is not a dive computer."

In fact, Apple says in multiple bold warnings to always use a "secondary depth gauge and timer/watch."

By providing a test, Apple actually increases their exposure to risk because they're now verifying functionality. However, that's balanced against getting potential customers inside the store and buying another Watch.

Sure, the "Depth app is not a dive computer." But that is just the built-in "Depth app." The AW Ultra does function as a standalone dive computer by adding the Oceanic+ App. Oceanic has made quality dive computers for a long time.

 

[Jakexb]

I get the need of a more rugged Apple Watch, but is diving so popular that it’s a market Apple is capitalizing on? I’d love to learn that it’s a pet project of an Apple employee who loves diving, and somehow, here we are.

Could be a halo effect type thing. If Apple keeps the extreme sport people happy, it makes the watch cooler to people who don’t actually do any of those things but like the idea of having the kind of watch that sporty people do.

 

[J InTech82]

I get the need of a more rugged Apple Watch, but is diving so popular that it’s a market Apple is capitalizing on? I’d love to learn that it’s a pet project of an Apple employee who loves diving, and somehow, here we are.

I think it’s just meant to be an all around rugged/extreme sports watch, at least this was what I gathered from the multiple extreme sports they should off in the release video.

 

[Angelus]

Not sure I really understand why you'd want this in place at pre-order time - this service is intended for an AWU that has undergone some type of incident that may have compromised its waterproof integrity, such as physical damage, over-pressure or significant ageing, it's not meant to be a QC check on brand new watches.

In terms of diving watches, periodic pressure-testing is pretty much par for the course. Until recently, most dive watches used replaceable non-rechargeable batteries, and you'd always get the unit pressure tested when getting the batteries changed.

What I'm not clear on though is whether the pressure-test is non-destructive. Is it a matter that the results of the test would either be 'yes, your watch is still working, so it's still waterproof', or 'your watch now is dead and full of water, so the seals were compromised' - or do they have a way of telling before damage to the watch occurs? If not, unless you're actually planning to expose the watch to high pressures (e.g. scuba diving) or have good reason to believe the seals will be damaged, then you might not want to take the risk of testing it. Plus, depending on how they offer this service in terms of price and warrantees, if might be quicker/cheaper to get it done at a specialist dive shop that offers pressure testing.

If you apply a mechanical watch pressure testing methods, there are usually two ways you can check.

First is a dry test which places the watch in a pressure chamber and uses an instrument to measure deflection of the crystal as a means of inferring if the case is compromised.

Then there’s the wet test which uses a pressure chamber half full of water. Bit long winded but concept is the watch is kept in the chamber above water whilst pressure is increased to 10bar for example. Wait a few minutes for air to make its way into the watch through a”leak”.

Then you release the chamber pressure and submerge the watch in the water. If the case is compromised then air bubbles will be seen leaking from the case.

Former is a safer test. Latter has the potential to pop off a crystal when the pressure is released and then also potential for water to enter the case.

 

[Allen_Wentz]

Sure, the "Depth app is not a dive computer." But that is just the built-in "Depth app." The AW Ultra does function as a standalone dive computer by adding the Oceanic+ App. Oceanic has made quality dive computers for a long time.

Nah, Apple's legal team is way ahead of you. The User Guide literally says the "Depth app is not a dive computer."

In fact, Apple says in multiple bold warnings to always use a "secondary depth gauge and timer/watch."

By providing a test, Apple actually increases their exposure to risk because they're now verifying functionality. However, that's balanced against getting potential customers inside the store and buying another Watch.

Diving is a very high-risk activity, especially for those of who dive in cold water. I am a dive instructor, and among all the risks involved I consider the risk to sport divers of dive computer failure to be so far down the risk list as to be essentially trivial. And if a dive computer failed it would almost assuredly be obvious and not life threatening in any immediate sense; one would simply abort the dive and/or resort to use of the manual tables every diver is trained to use.

Redundancy of equipment like dive computers is standard in more rigorous diving beyond sport diving (e.g. cave or overhead diving). Note also that sport diving is always in buddy teams, so one's buddy with working gear would be diving a very similar dive profile, making the risk from one dive computer failure at sport diving depths very very low.

IMO Apple's big risk is just in being Apple, with its huge PR vulnerability and deep pockets. The ambulance-chaser attorneys will go after Apple just because they are Apple, even if an injured diver's AW Ultra is totally uninvolved in a diving accident.

 

[ZipZap]

If apple is testing to see that the watch works as advertised and get damaged in the process because it was not then why the hell does the customer pay a fee. The watch should be replaced with a new one on the spot.

 

[Allen_Wentz]

If apple is testing to see that the watch works as advertised and get damaged in the process because it was not then why the hell does the customer pay a fee. The watch should be replaced with a new one on the spot.

Do you have that same absurd attitude with your car and other things that you buy? As you use them you expect the vendor to test and replace-for-free when damage or wear and tear present?

 

[anthogag]

Correction, stated depth is to 40 meters or ~130 feet, the most commonly recognized depth limit for sport diving after proper training.

True, Apple's website shows the Oceanic+ app is good for 40 m (130'). The Ultra is waterproof to 100 m (328'). The Ultra is a great Watch.

Is it as easy as walking into an Apple Store and requesting the leak & pressure test?

 

[_Spinn_]

This seems like an unusual move by Apple.

 

[mooryan]

I wonder if a waterproof coating would be good secondary protection?

 

[East India Company]

This seems like somebody in Apple legal realized that the risk of an Apple Watch Ultra failing as a dive computer and resulting in the death of a diver would be a huge liability and as preemptive CYA, Apple could get out ahead of it by offering free quality/safety inspections like this. Very few people will take them up on it because of the hassle, but Apple will have a stronger defense in the event a diver drowns because their Watch seal failed

Exactly my thought. This just shows again that the Apple Watch is nothing but a lovely gadget to parade around your friends. Those who need reliable tools will have a Garmin or a Polar.

 

[NightFox]

I registered an account just to respond to your last point.

I work in a service centre for both Apple and Samsung processing warranty repairs and I thought I might have some helpful insight on this.

Both manufacturers use specialised jigs that inject air/pressure and measure the output from the device that registers either a pass or fail result based on the readings over a period of time. Changes that are too quick result in a fail (leakage) and changes below a certain threshold register as a pass.

No actual water is involved for these tests as air leakage information is sufficient. A test fail would not ruin the device and it’s just a matter of reworking the seal and retesting until a pass is achieved. This test is more accurate on devices with a built in barometer, however devices such as Samsung A-series without a barometer go through a slightly different test where the barometer is in the jig and connected via Bluetooth, however the concept remains the same.

Our service centre has offered the seal check service for Samsung devices for about 2 years now and yet I had to find out about Apple doing it via this article lol

That's really interesting - thanks for taking the time and effort to register and respond!

 

[NightFox]

it’s not really that big of a question, since Apple outlines this in writing:

”Apple Watch Ultra has a water-resistance rating of 100 meters under ISO standard 22810:2010 and is EN13319-compliant.”

It's not quite that clear-cut though: that means it's water-resistant to the equivalent of 100 meters of static pressure which doesn't account for any movement of the water or the wearer. Confusingly, a 100m rating doesn't guarantee you could use it 100m under the sea (ignoring the actual practicality of that).

If you look at the recommended 'safe' usage for different water-resistance ratings, you'll see that the actual use is far less than the depth rating. For example, 1 ATM represents a water-resistance rating of 10m, but it's sometimes not even recommended to shower in a 1 ATM watch.

 

[zapmymac]

Why? It is a useful but not mandatory secondary service. Not SOP for instance with all other dive computers.

Because many watch shops can work on a dive watch properly; only Apple can work on their watches…I personally don’t know of any 3rd party repair watch shops for the Ultra….hopefully there are though.

 

[TheFluffyDuck]

As a diver and an Apple user, it pains me to see that Apple has horribly botched every conceivable angle of this dive feature:
1) MAKING IT A %@$%ING SUBSCRIPTION MODEL!
2) Omitting during the keynote (and advertising) the diving feature is a subscription model on your already four-figure priced watch.
3) Not having the foresight that this device will need to be serviced yearly for safety.
4) Not having air integration, when even low to moderate priced models of most dive computers have this option.
5) Then have general watch oddities override the dive computer component which is dangerous at depth. Very disappointing, but sadly increasingly on-brand these days.

 

[TheFluffyDuck]

OMG!! Why? 😂 It’s brand new, doesn’t need it!

When diving, it is a life support device. Dive computers should be serviced yearly (depending on how much you dive) to make sure they are safe.

 

[scubachap]

I would agree that this isn't a replacement for a full featured dive computer and that the subscription models is complete pants! (You could buy a secondhand computer easily for less than a years subscription.) But that's just big tech being big tech these days...

I'd also just add that I've never given a dive computer a yearly service - just keep an eye on the battery and all is fine, if you're going away and worried just take a spare battery 'kit' (ie o ring, battery and little screwdriver).

Air integration - nobody I know dives with it, as if you have more than one cylinder it's a PITA, so I don't think that's a deal breaker but YMMV.

I guess we were all hoping for something really special for keen divers but this is a gadget for escorted holiday dives or a watch that can in a pinch be used as a second computer.

 

[Razorpit]

As a diver and an Apple user, it pains me to see that Apple has horribly botched every conceivable angle of this dive feature:
1) MAKING IT A %@$%ING SUBSCRIPTION MODEL!
2) Omitting during the keynote (and advertising) the diving feature is a subscription model on your already four-figure priced watch.
3) Not having the foresight that this device will need to be serviced yearly for safety.
4) Not having air integration, when even low to moderate priced models of most dive computers have this option.
5) Then have general watch oddities override the dive computer component which is dangerous at depth. Very disappointing, but sadly increasingly on-brand these days.

1 & 2, I agree making the software a subscription model is a terrible model. And on top of it all it isn't cheap. Give it a proper 1 time purchase fee and be done with it.
3, That's an assumption. I'm sure Apple knew that would be needed, but didn't yet have the method in place. If you're a diver you shouldn't be surprised by this.
4, Air integration with what system? They don't have their own sensor (yet) and if they did it would be expensive. The reason other computers have that feature is because they have a matched pair. Maybe Oceanic will develop that, but I own Scuba Pro and Shearwater computers. It's not going to help me unless those two companies release their own software and test with Apple. I don't see that happening. Shearwater's business model would disappear overnight.
5, What happens at depth?