Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Apple Watch Proves 'More Waterproof Than Anticipated' in New Test

This is kinda silly, IPX7 is always been fine for showering and Apple didn't invent/improve anything - it's always been more than just "splash-resistant", the standard calls for resisting full immersion in up to a 1 meter of water for at least 30 minutes.
 
As long as I won't have issues (and don't expect to) having some light water hit it from time to time washing hands after using the restroom or rinsing a glass, I'm personally fine. I never swim, shower, or submerge any of my watches. This video seems to show I'm covered just fine.
 
crsh1976 said:
This is kinda silly, IPX7 is always been fine for showering and Apple didn't invent/improve anything - it's always been more than just "splash-resistant", the standard calls for resisting full immersion in up to a 1 meter of water for at least 30 minutes.
Click to expand...

Who in the world said that Apple invented or improved anything at all? People are merely surprised that the watch is more resistant than Apple is leading on.
 
I don't consider a watch to be quality unless it's rated for at least 50 meters. This whole expectation of being able to "shower" with it makes me laugh. I expect the lowest of quality watches to be able to "survive" a shower.
 
Well this is hardly surprising is it? The standard apparently says it should be able to handle being submerged for 30 minutes at up to 1 meter.

----------
mingoglia said:
I don't consider a watch to be quality unless it's rated for at least 50 meters. This whole expectation of being able to "shower" with it makes me laugh. I expect the lowest of quality watches to be able to "survive" a shower.
Click to expand...

You need a watch to survive at depths at which the wearer wouldn't?
 
Iconoclysm said:
You should never do either of those things. Promise. Deliver. Anything else can cause you to lose control of a customer's expectations. They'll always expect you to over deliver. They'll always expect you are under promising. In the end, you can also lose business by under promising to other companies who promise real world results with accuracy.

Incidentally, the man who coined the phrase has been doing speaking tours for the past 10 years to do damage control. He learned exactly what I said above and is trying to pass that on to anyone who will listen.
Click to expand...

djzapp said:
Really... I am sure you got the same email as I did on the 10th... It say 4/24-5/8.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately when you are the world's biggest company, everyone, the industry, shareholders, competitors and customers alike, will look to you to exceed expectations, even if not set in stone or put down in writing by the company itself.

Apple's has been creating the expectation of "If you pre-order at the first opportunity, we'll reward you by giving you a product on launch day" since the first iPhone launch. Are they required to maintain that expectation? No. In fact, they made it clear you were subject to a shipping window (which still hasn't been missed, for first wave folks at least). It's an unsaid promise Apple has made to it's hardcore fans for almost a decade now, and what we are seeing now is a deviation from that, hence the unhappiness.
 
ditzy said:
Did you just ignore the swimming pool?
Click to expand...

I thought the impressed surprise over the bucket test was weird enough, but okay. They also submerged it in a bigger bucket for 15 minutes. Still not stressing IPX7. If the watch had failed any of these tests it would have been closer to false advertising than 'underpromising'.
 
That's great and encouraging news.
I am a swimmer and really looking to use the watch for tracking this activity. But I am waiting for a future version that is guaranteed being waterproof at small depths.
 
Impressed and pleased to see it perform this way.

Let's hope there is not enough variance to make some better than others, and they are all as good as this one on test.

Let's be honest, there are going to be people who, somehow, drop it in the sink, drop it in the pool etc etc.

It's good to see it is able to withstand this.

The TEST of course will be how deep will it go.

5m, 10m. It will of course fail at a certain pressure, but for a everyday watch for a normal person, this is looking very good so far 🙂
 
elmateo487 said:
How do you know this... Generally curious.
Click to expand...

Check the Apple Watch Users Guide - Safety, Handling, & Support - Important Handling Information

Iconoclysm said:
Who in the world said that Apple invented or improved anything at all? People are merely surprised that the watch is more resistant than Apple is leading on.
Click to expand...

You're right on the first part. I don't think anyone said Apple improved/invented IPx7. Not sure how you figure the watch is more resistant than Apple led people to believe. Apple described the watches capabilities exactly as they should. Naysayers believed those capabilities to be less than what they are just like supporters are looking at these "tests" as proof of higher capability. They're both wrong.

The more exposed the watch is to water, the less water resistant it becomes. A "test" done out of the box is not indicative of the level of resistance 6 months from now.
 
mingoglia said:
I don't consider a watch to be quality unless it's rated for at least 50 meters. This whole expectation of being able to "shower" with it makes me laugh. I expect the lowest of quality watches to be able to "survive" a shower.
Click to expand...

point taken, but it's also a complex computer..


And you should always know where your towel is. A towel has immense psychological value.
 
69Mustang said:
Check the Apple Watch Users Guide - Safety, Handling, & Support - Important Handling Information



You're right on the first part. I don't think anyone said Apple improved/invented IPx7. Not sure how you figure the watch is more resistant than Apple led people to believe. Apple described the watches capabilities exactly as they should. Naysayers believed those capabilities to be less than what they are just like supporters are looking at these "tests" as proof of higher capability. They're both wrong.

The more exposed the watch is to water, the less water resistant it becomes. A "test" done out of the box is not indicative of the level of resistance 6 months from now.
Click to expand...

While you aren't wrong, you're getting pretty involved with this discussion for somebody who just wants people to stop being impressed by something.

Reminds me of a certain line by the Dude in the Big Lebowski.
 
freediverx said:
I would love for this to be true, but the more I've researched this the less optimistic I am. Making the Apple Watch more water resistant (there's no such thing as water proof) would require adding o-ring type seals and gaskets at every seam, which in turn would require the case of the Watch to be thicker. This would be particularly challenging with the digital crown and the speaker and microphone. I think Apple is highly unlikely to do this in the foreseeable future.
Click to expand...
Well, it's a question of waterproof vs. able to do all it's functions underwater. I'm sure some third party can come up with a plastic cover that will protect the watch even if you take it scuba diving. BUT, unlike watches worn by scuba divers, you might not be able to do much with it while under water.

And leave us remember that a lot of the functions the watch does requires it be connected (via bluetooth) to a phone. So you'll have to have the phone on you also, and the bluetooth connection needs to work also, there under the sea.

I'm not so sure it's worth it even if they do create a waterproof one. What, exactly, will you do with it while surfing? Especially if you don't have the phone on you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back