And more in the official rating system here...
https://www.nema.org/Standards/ComplimentaryDocuments/ANSI-IEC-60529.pdf
https://www.nema.org/Standards/ComplimentaryDocuments/ANSI-IEC-60529.pdf
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
iphone 7 Water resist.... I am verry verry disapointed
- Thread starter thefather
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
If they claim the phone meets the rating and it can't meet it, sounds like a class action lawsuit in the making.
That's not quite my understanding of it. See the links I've posted above.
[doublepost=1480914909][/doublepost]
You'll see me questioning the legality of this entire situation multiple pages ago
A lot of folks seem to be stuck in the situation. A four year old. A bucket of water. It seems to me that all is and should be largely irrelevant. If the situation yhenohone was under was not outside the specifications that Apple claims to have rated thenohone against, it shouldn't matter why it was in the water, assuming thenohone wasn't physically damaged before hand. I supposed there is the slight possibility the phone knocked the side of the bucket and was physically damaged that way moments prior to immersion but... that's really the perfect storm. My money is on a seal on yhenohone not actually having been up to the standard.
I've read the NEMA paper several times and am very familiar with the standards. Apple only claims water resistance and that only requires UP to 1M of STANDING water. The words are very literal here.
What does that mean? That as soon as you drop or move the phone through the water, you have exceeded the rating.
How tested? Place phone in container and slowly fill container with water to see if it fails. If it doesn't, you have past the test. It doesn't even have to be at 1M! Pressure plays little in this one.
The good news? Your phone has a chance of survival in a drop to the toilet or tea. However, it is not a guarantee, and the company has left themselves an out by only saying it was water resistant.
Apple QC is not 100℅ perfect, example: there are yellow screens, bad mic or camera. With Apple's good customer support, it is easy to get replacements for the above issues.
The problem with the water resistance feature is, if there is a manufacturer defect, there is no way for the customer to prove it was the factory worker that messed up.
The problem with the water resistance feature is, if there is a manufacturer defect, there is no way for the customer to prove it was the factory worker that messed up.
Great. I believe you and that you're far better versed in this than I am. Then my issue is with marketing. As I feel like people are led to believe this thing is far better than it actually is at keeping water out.
And my issue is also still with the fact that Apple reserves the right to not honor any water damage under warranty. Under any and all conditions.
I'm betting that we see a class action lawsuit here within a year. It wouldn't be the first they've lost. I don't think it's even arguable that this is confusing and misleading to the average consumer.
[doublepost=1480916076][/doublepost]
This sums up my feelings pretty accurately
Oh, I don't disagree with you at all. In fact, my iPhone 7 has been back to Apple twice (they have had it longer than me) because it keeps shutting off. My point was that people should still be careful with their phones.
Not sure who is foolish here. What you all get by complaining here. Go ahead and sue Apple, see you can win or not.
Or sue Samsung and Sony, as both also won't warranty you on water damage on water resistance phone. Lol
Please explain how it hasn't passed the test under those criteria?
It has to come out with zero damage in water up to a certain depth, at 25±5c without being powered on (again, the specs), with no movement/impact/manipulation while underwater. I've yet to see evidence that contradicts the IP67 rating of the iPhone.
I can slide a piece of paper between the top of the screen and the body. I've very little faith in my phones water resistant properties.
Apple has made a specific claim as part of its advertising. It has an obligation to back that up. This is not a hard concept. If you sell a bicycle helmet as meeting a safety standard, and it fails to meet that standard, you're responsible. If you sell a car claiming that it meets emission standards, and it doesn't, you're responsible. If you sell a toaster oven claiming that it meets UL standards, and it doesn't, you're responsible.
Or do words, specific words used for a specific purpose, have no meaning?
The problem is that you don't understand the word "range". The rating says "up to 1m", not "1m". This means that they can test it with a simple splash of water and then let it sit for 30 min to see if it fails. It is also the reason why they stated that the phone is water resistant, not water proof. Bicycle helmets are the same way (this I know because I have worked in the industry and I am an avid cyclist). A helmet can be tested (Bell for instance) and "just" pass or a helmet "POC" can pass at a much better rate thus you pay more.
The other two options have less of a range and a standard must be obtained. Apple has met the standard and stated that it is water resistant, not proof.
orrrrrr maybe the problem is people dropping their phones into water...
do we blame auto manufacturers relentlessly when people crash their vehicles? i mean sometimes there are investigations, but...It's the car's fault, the metal shouldn't have crushed so easily! I didn't know the glass could break, I should have been told that before!
Or just use some friggin common sense and don't hand a brand new $500-1000 device to your child. It's not a toy, it's an expensive electronic device!
also, i'm willing to bet there was some sort of chemical or other cleaning fluid that perhaps could have eaten away at the VHB seal along the edges of the phone. Or it was submerged for a lot longer than you realize.
Why don't you email Apple and ask them to provide the evidence of them being awarded the IP67 rating? Would that finally clear it up for you?
Bad argument.
Practically all modern passenger cars are DESIGNED to protect human occupants by absorbing energy through being crushed in front and rear sections. The crush zones take the hit to save the passenger compartment.
Completely different than a device that supposedly meets a standard that says it will survive XYZ conditions.
Here are the facts as we know them:
IP67 certification is based on a set of controlled conditions. The conditions are controlled because IP ratings are an industry standard so have to be repeatable and applicable to multiple devices.
The iPhone 7 and 7 Plus have been given an IP67 rating based on those controlled conditions.
The controlled test conditions may not be representative of conditions in the real world.
The iPhone 7 and 7 Plus is advertised as 'splash, water and dust resistant' with the following caveat "iPhone 7 and iPhone 7 Plus are splash, water and dust resistant and were tested under controlled laboratory conditions with a rating of IP67 under IEC standard 60529. Splash, water and dust resistance are not permanent conditions and resistance might decrease as a result of normal wear. Do not attempt to charge a wet iPhone; refer to the user guide for cleaning and drying instructions. Liquid damage not covered under warranty."
IP67 certification is based on a set of controlled conditions. The conditions are controlled because IP ratings are an industry standard so have to be repeatable and applicable to multiple devices.
The iPhone 7 and 7 Plus have been given an IP67 rating based on those controlled conditions.
The controlled test conditions may not be representative of conditions in the real world.
The iPhone 7 and 7 Plus is advertised as 'splash, water and dust resistant' with the following caveat "iPhone 7 and iPhone 7 Plus are splash, water and dust resistant and were tested under controlled laboratory conditions with a rating of IP67 under IEC standard 60529. Splash, water and dust resistance are not permanent conditions and resistance might decrease as a result of normal wear. Do not attempt to charge a wet iPhone; refer to the user guide for cleaning and drying instructions. Liquid damage not covered under warranty."
Pages and pages...and that's just multiple previously existing threads rehashing the same exact things.
Again, how is Apple supposed to tell under what conditions a phone died? They either cover all types of water damage or none at all.
If there was an empidemic of this, like even 1% of all iPhone 7/7+ allegedly fail within the IP67 standard, then absolutely...Apple should do something about that. But I've literally only seen two or theee posters claim they had water damage. And somehow, based on that, we have an 11 page thread discussing how serious of a problem this is.
An ad can't mislead you if you take it for what it is. Material made by someone who is paid to put a product on the best possible light.
Last edited:
just don't drop your phone in water, the toilet or anything. how hard is that to do.
also, why would someone have a random bucket of water in their home? what were they doing?
and if so why would you give your kid your iPhone 7 near a bucket of water, thats just irresponsible.
also, why would someone have a random bucket of water in their home? what were they doing?
and if so why would you give your kid your iPhone 7 near a bucket of water, thats just irresponsible.
Some of the ingress protection relies on surface tension of water. So it really is a delicate condition, more so than people seem to be willing to admit.
From the first post: Talk with Apple, nice employee told me- blah, blah (technology is not there yet....) that warranty is only for water splash, not for dropped in water!
From the keynote:
Not sure how the pool is differend than a bucket. Except in the pool the phone can be submerged under 1 meter.
It would be nice to hear what apple ment when they showed ip67 standard and on the next the guy in the pool.