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

BCWorld said:
Wow, I honestly have to give credit where credit is due. Apple got down with the Apple Watch and the new Macbook. I was blown away by this news and shocked at how small the s1 chip is. I am not interested in either products yet, but one cannot help but admire the engineering of these brilliant products. Great Job Apple....🙂:apple:
Click to expand...

Yeah, looking forward to the big improvement next year in battery life, if the temptation of buying the :apple:watch doesn't get me this year. Definitely waiting for the MBA's successor next year.
 
Try SEA WATER; all the best 😀

Oh, and will it blend? THAT is the question...

will-it-blend-screen-shot.jpg


----------
heeloliver said:
did anyone else get bothered by how he used the digital crown? he's using it so wrong...
Click to expand...



"You're rolling it wrong..."

The new phrase for Apple Watch.
 
Back in the days of old when I still wore a watch you could get a dirt cheap Casio or Timex for $20-$30 that was waterproof to a few hundred meters.

I really don't see how it could be that hard to do the same with a $500 watch.
 
bbeagle said:
Your wrist beneath the watch is also designed to stink when not cleaned properly.
Click to expand...

My watch is not air tight stuck to my arm. It moves, so i can clean all areas just fine. This is the first time i heard that somebody thinks that area beneath watch smells.
 
mazz0 said:
You need a watch to survive at depths at which the wearer wouldn't?
Click to expand...

The number refers to a static and isotropic pressure. E.g. sitting still in a bucket. When you create a more complex scenario such as putting it on an arm and moving that arm through the water in various directions, there will be turbulence in the water that hits different parts of the watch with different pressures, dynamically. The local pressure at certain points will then be higher than the static pressure at the actual depth. For such variations you need a margin of safety if you want to be sure you are not damaging the watch.
 
After accumulating minute amounts of water, before you know it, there are moisture droplets that begin sticking to the inside of the crystal upon changes in temperature.

This is such a limited test performed by people who appear to have only limited experience with watches and the concept of watch case water resistance.

What needs to happen is someone placing the case into an actual watch pressure testing machine to detect response to pressurization and depressurization.
 
NY Guitarist said:
Back in the days of old when I still wore a watch you could get a dirt cheap Casio or Timex for $20-$30 that was waterproof to a few hundred meters.

I really don't see how it could be that hard to do the same with a $500 watch.
Click to expand...

If it's so easy how come the new Up3 didn't manage it and it was one of their original "promises"
 
NY Guitarist said:
Back in the days of old when I still wore a watch you could get a dirt cheap Casio or Timex for $20-$30 that was waterproof to a few hundred meters.

I really don't see how it could be that hard to do the same with a $500 watch.
Click to expand...

Does your casio have a mike and speakers? If not, which I expect, you got your answer just there. No smart watches with a mike/speaker will be waterproof to 100m.

----------
Boris-VTR said:
My watch is not air tight stuck to my arm. It moves, so i can clean all areas just fine. This is the first time i heard that somebody thinks that area beneath watch smells.
Click to expand...

Sports bands are tighter on the wrist (because otherwise it would move around while you run with it. I'D expect needing to remove them to do a proper watch (you'd also probably want to remove sweat/sebum/grime on the band itself too).

Not getting in the shower with a leather band... Well, that's to be expected I hope.

For the link band, which can be slightly looser than the sport band, there's probably a bit of space to wash, but why not take the 10 seconds to remove it... I don't get it really. Especially since you need to remove it to charge it anyway.
 
MarkusL said:
The number refers to a static and isotropic pressure. E.g. sitting still in a bucket. When you create a more complex scenario such as putting it on an arm and moving that arm through the water in various directions, there will be turbulence in the water that hits different parts of the watch with different pressures, dynamically. The local pressure at certain points will then be higher than the static pressure at the actual depth. For such variations you need a margin of safety if you want to be sure you are not damaging the watch.
Click to expand...

Ah, interesting. What sort of ratio are we talking about?

Is that why they don't recommend swimming with the Apple watch, even though it's rated to one meter?

I tried taking mine in the shower, by the way. Was weird! 😛
 
mazz0 said:
Ah, interesting. What sort of ratio are we talking about?

Is that why they don't recommend swimming with the Apple watch, even though it's rated to one meter?

I tried taking mine in the shower, by the way. Was weird! 😛
Click to expand...

It's not a linear ratio. The difference between the lab-tested marking and real-world performance is more pronounced near the lower end of the scale. I tend to follow the recommendations in this table:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_Resistant_mark#Water_resistance_classification
That is, I don't shower with my Swatch Sistem 51 with a 30m rating.

However, you can bend the rules if you 1) are not in a situation where your safety is dependent on the correct function of the watch and 2) the watch is inexpensive enough to not make you terribly sad if it breaks.

It should also be mentioned that water resistance can degrade over time. So being able to dive down to a couple of meters with a brand new Apple Watch (today) can be completely consistent with the "no swimming" recommendation (in a year or two).
 
Why not be safe rather than sorry?

Keirasplace said:
but why not take the 10 seconds to remove it... I don't get it really. Especially since you need to remove it to charge it anyway.
Click to expand...
I don't get this either. I mean, if someone really wants to wear a watch, any watch, 24/7 then the Apple watch isn't for them as they have to take it off to recharge. And spending that much money, why would you risk wearing it in the shower or swimming in a pool even if tests show it'll probably survive it? I mean, this was one test for five minutes. You do that every day, with soap or, in the case of a pool, chlorine and such, and eventually it might penetrate and there goes the watch.

I certainly don't want to fear that a splash of water or a spilled drink will ruin my watch--so I'm glad to see it's not going to get damaged by that. However, for that money, and for that kind of specialized technology, I'm not going to treat this watch like a some $30 gizmo that only tells time. I'm going to treat it with love and respect and if that means taking a few seconds to remove it from my wrist before I shower, then remove it I will. Along with my phone, which I also don't take into the shower or pool.

People need to think of this device less like a watch (just tells time) and more like a smartphone on your wrist. Outside of for specialized reasons, you wouldn't complain about the fact that you can't take you phone swimming with you, would you?

And, again, if that is absolutely needed then I suspect that we'll be seeing special covers for such very soon. As we do to protect smartphones.
 
Just because it doesn't *immediately* fail is rather meaningless. While IPX7 is 'splash proof' the limits of it are much greater (see below). However, water proofing ratings (like product shelf-lives, etc) are always conservative so that 99.99% of people don't have a problem. It's entirely possible that most Apple watches would survive at 10 metres, or deeper, for longer... but if that results in a 10% failure rate, that's unacceptable.

The Apple Watches will cope with being submerged at a metre for up to 30 minutes but that doesn't mean that it's a good idea to do it. I'd bet that the second Generation will be waterproof to 5 ATM... like my Garmin Forerunner 920XT which won't be replaced by an Apple Watch just yet. 🙂

From Garmin's site.

Water Rating: IPX7
Definition: IPX7 Withstands incidental exposure to water of up to 1 meter for up to 30 minutes

Suitable Activities: Indoor/outdoor use in the presence of rain, snow or brief splashes of water. Indoor/outdoor use in the presence of rain, snow or brief splashes of water,

Unsuitable Activities: Any immersion of more than 1 meter, regardless of duration of immersion, or any immersion of more than 30 minutes, regardless of depth of immersion
 
MarkusL said:
It's not a linear ratio. The difference between the lab-tested marking and real-world performance is more pronounced near the lower end of the scale. I tend to follow the recommendations in this table:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_Resistant_mark#Water_resistance_classification
That is, I don't shower with my Swatch Sistem 51 with a 30m rating.

However, you can bend the rules if you 1) are not in a situation where your safety is dependent on the correct function of the watch and 2) the watch is inexpensive enough to not make you terribly sad if it breaks.
Click to expand...

If you follow there rules, you are on the safe side.
But some manufactors gurantee more water resistance than this standard.

Example: I have a Polar RCX5. Specified to only 30m. Normally not even suitable for the shower. But the RCX5 is a triathlon watch. It is designed to be used by athletes in the water. It has a swimming mode and it can monitor heart rate under water. I have used both in the pool an open water many times, for hours. I ran and jumped into water with it. I ran with it in heavy rain. I do wear it in the shower allmost every day. No problems.

Casio also speicifies some "50m" watches suitable for swimming, as long as you do not press buttons in the water.

It should also be mentioned that water resistance can degrade over time. So being able to dive down to a couple of meters with a brand new Apple Watch (today) can be completely consistent with the "no swimming" recommendation (in a year or two).
Click to expand...

This is a problem with the Apple watch. It is nearly unservicable. Replace the o-ring in a normal, water resistant watch every two years (when you replace the battery) and it will stay water resistant forever.

Christian
 
NY Guitarist said:
I really don't see how it could be that hard to do the same with a $500 watch.
Click to expand...

If there's a "can't be that hard" way to do it, and doing it increases sales by even a tiny percentage, and sales will easily be around $50,000,000,000 ... then surely it would have been done. But ... it wasn't, which probably means it isn't that easy when those with a real financial interest in doing it looked into doing something that "obvious".
 
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