Apple Watch Stands Up to 1,200m Swim Workout and 10m High Dive Test

[2headedgeek]

What !

Am I missing something here?

Why are people so impressed by a waterproof watch !

Watches have been waterproof since 1926, and more impresivly they had moving parts and not just plastic and synthectic parts.

Get a chuffing grip people will you be just as excited when they announce that the watch is wind proof ...

 

[6836838]

This is a great point. Every submersion might imperceptibly weaken the watch's water resistance. Even a tiny amount of water leakage could ruin the watch weeks or months after the fact.

If you want to see how real water resistance testing is done, check out this article on Rolex:

Rolex Dive Watches Are Individually Tested In Pressurized Tanks With Water
http://www.ablogtowatch.com/10-things-know-rolex-makes-watches/2/

"After the watches exit the tank, they are heated up and a drop of cold water is placed on the crystal to see if condensation forms. An optical sensor then scans them for trace amounts of water."

And a Rolex watch will NEVER become obsolete. Quite the contrary.

Truth is, the Apple Watch isn't a watch. It's a device warn on the wrist that can also tell the time.

 

[Kissaragi]

Good to know you have nothing to worry about in even heavy rain

 

[69Mustang]

Now if Apple could advertise it to do this I could go swim with mine Damn it Apple just say if there is any water damage you got my back on warranty.

Apple would never do it because it's not a smart idea. The water resistance isn't static. WR lessens over time and that lessening is hastened by certain activities. Apple outlines the activities:
Submerging Apple Watch is not recommended. Apple Watch has a water resistance rating of IPX7 under IEC standard 60529. The leather bands are not water resistant. Water resistance is not a permanent condition and Apple Watch cannot be rechecked or resealed for water resistance. The following may affect the water resistance of Apple Watch and should be avoided:

Dropping Apple Watch or subjecting it to other impacts.

Submerging Apple Watch in water for long periods of time.

Swimming or bathing with Apple Watch.

Exposing Apple Watch to pressurized water or high velocity water, for example, showering, water skiing, wake boarding, surfing, jet skiing, and so on.

Wearing Apple Watch in the sauna or steam room

So no, they won't have your back. Nor should they. Enjoy your watch. Don't ruin it by letting some video convince you certain activities are okay. Remember, that water resistance has diminishing effectiveness. Heck even the guy in the video realizes his watch may crap out down the road because of what he did in the video.

This is a great point. Every submersion might imperceptibly weaken the watch's water resistance. Even a tiny amount of water leakage could ruin the watch weeks or months after the fact.

100% this. More people need to understand why Apple says what they say about the water resistance. I think the biggest problem is most consumers thing water resistance and water proof are the same thing.

I have sapphire. That's probably why. Tough break, sorry about your glass.

Why does this train of though persist even after all the GTAT thread? Sapphire is more scratch resistant because of it's hardness. That same hardness makes it more shatter prone than the Gorilla Glass.

 

[Haxley]

Am I missing something here?

Why are people so impressed by a waterproof watch !

Watches have been waterproof since 1926, and more impresivly they had moving parts and not just plastic and synthectic parts.

Get a chuffing grip people will you be just as excited when they announce that the watch is wind proof ...

Umm this isn't a watch, this is a computer or your wrist. A lot of watches don't even use electricity. Tell me about the other wrist computers that can withstand a 120 ft dive.

Also, I think Zuckerberg's older brother should do more videos like this. They're pretty good.

 

[freediverx]

Now if Apple could advertise it to do this I could go swim with mine Damn it Apple just say if there is any water damage you got my back on warranty.

Water resistance isn't proven by dunking the watch for a few minutes and checking if it still works. These tests do not determine whether any water has penetrated the watch, whether any water will penetrate the watch after weeks or months of repeated immersions, nor whether the watch will continue to function over time after these repeated immersions.

I suspect that Apple made the Watch as water resistant as they could, sufficiently so to protect against light or accidental immersions over the product's lifespan. They could not make it water resistant enough to encourage people to swim with them regularly, and thereby expose themselves to the cost of replacing these en masse after they fail.

----------

Wow, a waterproof watch. Meh.

The Apple Watch is just a watch in the same way an iPhone is just a phone.

 

[69Mustang]

Truth is, the Apple Watch isn't a watch. It's a device warn on the wrist that can also tell the time.

The Apple Watch isn't a watch? So that's why Apple calls it... wait for it... a watch. It's a watch. It has additional functionality but it's a watch nonetheless. Hence the word watch in the product name.

Umm this isn't a watch, this is a computer or your wrist. A lot of watches don't even use electricity. Tell me about the other wrist computers that can withstand a 120 ft dive.

Suunto and Oceanic would like a word with you.

 

[freediverx]

Am I missing something here?

Why are people so impressed by a waterproof watch !

Watches have been waterproof since 1926, and more impresivly they had moving parts and not just plastic and synthectic parts.

Because it's not really a watch. It's a computer with a touch screen, an electromechanical dial/button, microphone, speaker, and numerous sensors.

Even an $8500 Rolex Submariner's water resistance depends on its crown being locked down tight during submersion. How do you provide this level of water sealing to a device with external buttons, dials, plus mic and speaker?

A mechanical watch's movement isn't directly harmed by water - only by the eventual corrosion that water would cause. A wrist-mounted computer, on the other hand, would instantly short circuit if its components were exposed to water.

 

[Gooberton]

Ion x

Image

How did you burn all your daily calories without workout and by 5:30am no less hahaha

 

[freediverx]

And a Rolex watch will NEVER become obsolete. Quite the contrary.

Truth is, the Apple Watch isn't a watch. It's a device warn on the wrist that can also tell the time.

Absolutely. And while one might argue that the Rolex offers more enduring value over time, one might also argue that the wrist will become too valuable a piece of real estate to waste on a device that only tells you the time.

 

[CrAkD]

How did you burn all your daily calories without workout and by 5:30am no less hahaha

530am is sunset. It was 11:10pm when that picture was taken. I do a lot of running around at work.

 

[crsh1976]

So, Apple promised IPX7 waterproofing and they really delivered... IPX7?

This is just a blatant joke, especially when the review says stuff like:

"Of course, the slightly awkward thing is that despite this battery of tests, the unit still isn’t warrantied for any of this, including even a simple shower with soap."

That's not true at all; Apple always claimed the watch is IPX7-rated, so it was always supposed to handle more than a quick shower - Cook was downplaying it so that the Watch appears better than what it is.

I'm glad it's not a piece of junk, but the Watch's waterproofing is nothing to write home about.

 

[freediverx]

The Apple Watch isn't a watch? So that's why Apple calls it... wait for it... a watch. It's a watch. It has additional functionality but it's a watch nonetheless. Hence the word watch in the product name.

Suunto and Oceanic would like a word with you.

Then again, those dive computers costs $1000+, have low resolution displays, don't have anywhere near the processing power/battery life ratio of an Apple Watch, and are a little too big, heavy, and ugly to wear with a suit.

 

[orev]

None of these tests show if any water actually seeped into the case, only that it didn't cause catastrophic damage to the point of total failure.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

Apple says don't do it. But some keep doing it anyway.

Water damage is not always immediate. For example, flood waters rise and flood a home. Then they recede. One can go in and thoroughly clean that home, paint the walls and generally make it seem good as new. But then the invisible water damage inside (like inside the walls) gets to do it's damage. Mold grows. Etc.

Water spills or dips don't always show immediately in tech. But what none of these amazing tests show is the medium & longer-term effect. If any water gets inside, it may still work fine... for a while. But then what? Rust forms slowly but is generally doom for circuits.

Again, Apple says don't do it. So do it at your own risk. If your watch is damaged by you taking any of these "tests" as proof it's waterproof, don't be surprised when Apple won't repair/replace after it fails. And, of course, none of these "testers" will either.

 

[69Mustang]

Then again, those dive computers costs $1000+, have low resolution displays, don't have anywhere near the processing power/battery life ratio of an Apple Watch, and are a little too big, heavy, and ugly to wear with a suit.

With free diver in your name, I'm going to assume you know you can get a dive computer for far less than $1000 and in far smaller traditional watch sizes.

Bolded from your quote: What does any of that have to do with the quote from Haxley? I don't see any mention of dispay res, processing power, battery life, size, or attractiveness.

"Tell me about the other wrist computers that can withstand a 120 ft dive." - Haxley

 

[usarioclave]

Did he test the sport or the stainless apple watch?

 

[orev]

Did he test the sport or the stainless apple watch?

The type of metal wouldn't make a difference. That's not the thing that determines how waterproof something is. Everything else between the watch versions are the same, so it would apply to all of them.

 

[macduke]

I'll add this to the data points I'm collecting mentally. This seems to be a significant data point in favor of me using it in the pool. Hopefully we hear more about this as summer approaches in the northern hemisphere. Many of us are waiting until June for our orders to arrive anyway so we might as well let others tell us how well it goes. I certainly wouldn't take my watch diving, as that will probably cause issues over time, but I think for most backyard pool use it's probably fine. However I am surprised that this was the Sport model. Everything I've read so far seems to suggest that the stainless steel and sapphire model might have slightly better waterproofing. Perhaps the real reason Apple didn't give it a higher waterproof rating is because they couldn't guarantee the manufacturing consistency?

----------

None of these tests show if any water actually seeped into the case, only that it didn't cause catastrophic damage to the point of total failure.

I also have to wonder how much failure could happen immediately anyway given that the S1 SOC is embedded in some type of resin. I would guess that most iPhone water damage issues happen almost immediately when the water comes into contact with the logic board. If the logic board was sealed up such as the Apple Watch, then other components might be affected slower like the display, cabling, mic, digital crown movement or taptic engine. Some of these parts might slowly corrode over months until there is a complete failure.

 

[bhayes444]

I'm a little surprised with the simulated 40m tests, but come one. Did anybody really expect the thing to crap out at 1.1m in water? The engineers guarantee it to the ratings specified, but engineers also have to have a safe buffer on top of their guarantee so that they don't run into issues if the product is pushed to the limits of the guaranteed safety every time, or if there is a slight manufacturing defect that compromises it a little.. It sure would be a shame if that floor in your house was guaranteed to hold 5000 lbs of stuff, then at 5001 it just gave out. The apple watch will endure these stress tests; but don't expect it to every time for every watch.

 

[SuperMatt]

Did that already too. No nicks and scratches, and still showering with it.

And unlike Google glass, Scoble hasn't shown a picture of himself in the shower with the Apple Watch...

 

[doelcm82]

The Apple Watch isn't a watch? So that's why Apple calls it... wait for it... a watch. It's a watch. It has additional functionality but it's a watch nonetheless. Hence the word watch in the product name.

The iPhone has "phone" in it's name. The word "phone" tells you all you are capable of understanding. The fact that it has the computing power of an old Cray Supercomputer doesn't mean anything to you. You use the phone that stays connected to the wall and requires you to turn a crank to signal the operator. You don't see the difference. They're both phones. That's how you are telling us you think.

 

[Moonlight]

Nogate-gate?

 

[ApfelKuchen]

I'm also skeptical/cautious about its long term durability after repeated submersions. Rust, however, has nothing to do with it. It's a stainless steel watch, and one designed and manufactured by Apple. Unless you neglect to rinse it off after salt water exposure there's no way this thing is going to rust.

If we change "rust" to "corrode" there's a stronger possibility, especially when you mix electricity and water. But that will be interior, not exterior. Anodized aluminum, stainless steel, or gold... all will remain quite pretty long after replacement batteries will no longer be available.

Never seen a watch exterior corrode.... I take that back. I had a gold-plated pocket watch where some previous owner's attempt at obscuring the engraved monogram exposed the underlying brass. And it's questionable whether the interior metals would have lasted long-term in a hot, humid climate, no less submerged for a half-hour at one meter.

 

[69Mustang]

The iPhone has "phone" in it's name. The word "phone" tells you all you are capable of understanding. The fact that it has the computing power of an old Cray Supercomputer doesn't mean anything to you. You use the phone that stays connected to the wall and requires you to turn a crank to signal the operator. You don't see the difference. They're both phones. That's how you are telling us you think.

What ever you were intending to say got lost between your thoughts and the keyboard. I have no idea what your point is. I would hazard a guess but based on what I read I wouldn't know where to begin. Maybe if you skipped the hyperbole about Crays and hand cranked phones your point would come across better. At least for me it would.