Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
It appears you're the only rational person left in this place.

I deal with IP ratings every single day when ordering equipment for assembly lines, robots, etc. that I design. IP67 IN NO WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM MEANS WATER PROOF. Neither does IP68. IP69 is required for anything that's going to be hosed off, steam cleaned, or deal with repeated submersion. Even at that point, IP69 does not mean you'd be covered under warranty if you took it swimming. It means it passed the required tests in a controlled lab setting to receive that rating. Plenty of IP69 rated equipment still gets labeled water resistant.

It's entirely up to the manufacturer to decide if they want to call something water proof, and warranty it. Apple never called the phone water proof. For reasons I'll never understand, feel free to shower with your phone, just know that you're taking a risk with no liability on Apple's part.

The issue is apple has several commercials advertising using the phone in the rain/water. That is really poor on their part. They should not encourage people to use it under those conditions and then not honor a claim.
 
The only way my 7 would get wet is if I get caught in a rain while on a run. Or if i decide to go running with it while raining. I see no reason to have it in a shower where I will not be spending more than 10 mins.

I do really like the water resistant thing, I have been caught in rain before and I had to cover up the phone with a small towel or move my arm band to underneath the sleeve.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jbachandouris
The only way my 7 would get wet is if I get caught in a rain while on a run. Or if i decide to go running with it while raining. I see no reason to have it in a shower where I will not be spending more than 10 mins.

I do really like the water resistant thing, I have been caught in rain before and I had to cover up the phone with a small towel or move my arm band to underneath the sleeve.

but, if you get caught in the rain and the phone malfunctions you are not covered according to apple. That is messed up.
 
but, if you get caught in the rain and the phone malfunctions you are not covered according to apple. That is messed up.

It wasn't covered before and it had a much greater chance of suffering damage. I don't blame Apple for not covering water damage, I blame users. Because Apple knows (and this thread proves) that people will go out of their way to get their phones frequently and unnecessarily wet even though water resistance is not a magic force field that can't possibly ever fail. This is why we can't have nice things, because if you give people an inch they will try to take a mile and ruin it for everyone,
 
It wasn't covered before and it had a much greater chance of suffering damage. I don't blame Apple for not covering water damage, I blame users. Because Apple knows (and this thread proves) that people will go out of their way to get their phones frequently and unnecessarily wet even though water resistance is not a magic force field that can't possibly ever fail. This is why we can't have nice things, because if you give people an inch they will try to take a mile and ruin it for everyone,

I don't think people taking advantage was the point of this thread. The question was do you or don't you. The op didn't ask people if they deliberately try to get water damage and get apple to replace it.
 
The irony here is that some of the "can't you wait to be out of the shower to text, ffs??" snobs probably have texted while driving at some point.

As for Apple, if they chose this year to switch from "don't ask don't tell" (6S and SE were secretly resistant to being submerged, look it up on youtube) to "make a big deal of it" (and introducing the revolutionary gaskets), they have probably taken into account that some people can and will be careless.

I would probably have kept it "don't ask don't tell" (maybe secretly plant rumors about it in the press) but they had to sugar the pill of the headphone jack removal.
 
I don't think people taking advantage was the point of this thread. The question was do you or don't you. The op didn't ask people if they deliberately try to get water damage and get apple to replace it.

My comment was not in response to the OP.
 
I shower and take baths with my phone (the bathtub is shorter than the IP67 rating depth so I can submerge my phone). So far, no problems except that the speakers don't work and the home button is very glitchy
That certainly sounds like no problems.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gathomblipoob
The irony here is that some of the "can't you wait to be out of the shower to text, ffs??" snobs probably have texted while driving at some point.
.

Or not. That's a totally baseless accusation which doesn't invalidate any points raised.
 
It wasn't covered before and it had a much greater chance of suffering damage. I don't blame Apple for not covering water damage, I blame users. Because Apple knows (and this thread proves) that people will go out of their way to get their phones frequently and unnecessarily wet even though water resistance is not a magic force field that can't possibly ever fail. This is why we can't have nice things, because if you give people an inch they will try to take a mile and ruin it for everyone,
To be fair, the difference now is that Apple is enticing people to buy the iPhone specifically because of its water resistance features by running commercials that are directly related to it.
 
It really sounds that like Apple is setting themselves up for a lawsuit WRT to their advertising and water resistance.

Which is why it's stated in no uncertain terms that water damage isn't covered. Also, water "resistant" devices have been around for a long time. I'm sure there is legal precedent by now stating that water resistance is not an absolute guarantee that your device is impervious to water.
 
To be fair, the difference now is that Apple is enticing people to buy the iPhone specifically because of its water resistance features by running commercials that are directly related to it.

Thank you. That is exactly my point. It is one thing to have a water rating, but to actually encourage people to use it in the rain and then not cover it if it got damaged under those circumstances is very misleading.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jbachandouris
To be fair, the difference now is that Apple is enticing people to buy the iPhone specifically because of its water resistance features by running commercials that are directly related to it.

True, but as others have noted, taking it out in the rain (which is something I've even done with my iPhone 6 when necessary) is quite different than taking a shower with it.
 
True, but as others have noted, taking it out in the rain (which is something I've even done with my iPhone 6 when necessary) is quite different than taking a shower with it.
There's definitely that too. But if a phone gets damaged from rain or sprinklers (or potentially from falling into a pool) which are things Apple has referenced and essentially advertised, doesn't quite seem like they should be able to get out of dealing with it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jbachandouris
Which is why it's stated in no uncertain terms that water damage isn't covered. Also, water "resistant" devices have been around for a long time. I'm sure there is legal precedent by now stating that water resistance is not an absolute guarantee that your device is impervious to water.

I'm no expert on consumer protection laws, but it seems to me a commercial showing a cyclist decidingnot accidentally being caught in a storm, but deciding—to take his iPhone out in the rain and then saying "lol this isn't actually covered, sucker" is the very definition of false advertising and if it is not illegal, it certainly should be illegal.
 
I'm no expert on consumer protection laws, but it seems to me a commercial showing a cyclist decidingnot accidentally being caught in a storm, but deciding—to take his iPhone out in the rain and then saying "lol this isn't actually covered, sucker" is the very definition of false advertising and if it is not illegal, it certainly should be illegal.

The trial will go like this:
Attorney: "Did the water damage occur while passing through a sprinkler for a few seconds?"
Customer: "No. I took my phone into the shower with me for about 10 minutes."
Judge: "Case dismissed!"

:p
 
  • Like
Reactions: ABC5S
The trial will go like this:
Attorney: "Did the water damage occur while passing through a sprinkler for a few seconds?"
Customer: "No. I took my phone into the shower with me for about 10 minutes."
Judge: "Case dismissed!"

:p
Unless the person says "Yes", and there's really not much of a way to disprove that.
 
Then they probably shouldn't focus on advertising that aspect of it all as selling point.

Why not? It helps them sell phones, and then they're not on the hook when people damage them through wreaklessness. How is that not good for them? People saying that Apple should cover water damage or they shouldn't promote the phone's water resistance seem to be forgetting that Apple is a company, not their buddy.
 
Why not? It helps them sell phones, and then they're not on the hook when people damage them through wreaklessness. How is that not good for them? People saying that Apple should cover water damage or they shouldn't promote the phone's water resistance seem to be forgetting that Apple is a company, not their buddy.
It's certainly good for them, just like false advertising is good for companies in that sense, or all kinds of things that are at least unethical if not beyond that are good for profiting off of.
 
I've been wanting a phone that I can shower with for a long time. The last one I was able to use was the Sony Xperia Z.

I listen to audiobooks and podcasts in shower. Being able to play/pause, change channels easily with the iPhone 7 is great.
 
People saying that Apple should cover water damage or they shouldn't promote the phone's water resistance seem to be forgetting that Apple is a company, not their buddy.

And people saying that sausage factories should have cleanliness standards or they shouldn't use sawdust as filler seem to be forgetting sausage factories are companies, not their buddies.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.