iphone 7 Water resist.... I am verry verry disapointed

[BeeGood]

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.

It's definitely not a hard concept. It's just not true.

All Apple has to do is make sure they're not lying to you in their ads. And they're not. The iPhone 7/7+ has been tested and is IP67 water resistant.

They don't have to guarantee anything to you, me or anyone else. And they're very clear that they don't make any such guarantees

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.

None of this has anything to do with the subject at hand, because the iPhone 7/7+ does meet the IP67 standard.

Or do words, specific words used for a specific purpose, have no meaning?

They absolutely do mean something. I would urge you to read all of them. The ones that basically say, "We've made the iPhone more water resistant but we do not cover water damage".
[doublepost=1480952282][/doublepost]

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.

I'm not sure how any of this addresses the post you quoted.

Yes, the OP said his kid dropped the phone in a bucket.

The question is, should Apple take his word for it? Should Apple take everyone's word for it?

 

[StayPuft]

How could that be logical when other phone with the jack are water resistant?

I didn't say that at all, but thanks for that.

 

[lordofthereef]

the OP said his kid dropped the phone in a bucket.

The question is, should Apple take his word for it? Should Apple take everyone's word for it?

I'm going to go out on a limb and say the vast majority of water damaged devices happen in rather shallow water.

Clearly we are on different wavelengths. I don't think that "but you can't prove you didn't drop it and let it sink to the bottom of the lake" is a good enough policy.

Maybe it holds water legally. Maybe it's clever marketing. I guess over the last decade of buying their products I had reason to believe Apple was better than that. This stance coupled with the Touch disease nonsense has me feeling like they're just like everyone else. :/

 

[newellj]

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?

Why would I need to? They make that claim on their website.
[doublepost=1480960235][/doublepost]

It's definitely not a hard concept. It's just not true.

All Apple has to do is make sure they're not lying to you in their ads. And they're not. The iPhone 7/7+ has been tested and is IP67 water resistant.

They don't have to guarantee anything to you, me or anyone else. And they're very clear that they don't make any such guarantees



None of this has anything to do with the subject at hand, because the iPhone 7/7+ does meet the IP67 standard.



They absolutely do mean something. I would urge you to read all of them. The ones that basically say, "We've made the iPhone more water resistant but we do not cover water damage".
[doublepost=1480952282][/doublepost]


I'm not sure how any of this addresses the post you quoted.

Yes, the OP said his kid dropped the phone in a bucket.

The question is, should Apple take his word for it? Should Apple take everyone's word for it?

So, the short version is: you believe words have no meaning? Apple claims the phone meets IP67 standards on its website. That means: "Ingress of water in harmful quantity shall not be possible when the enclosure is immersed in water under defined conditions of pressure and time (up to 1 m of submersion)." Apple needs to be clear and honest about what that means - so far, they have not been either.
[doublepost=1480960380][/doublepost]

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.

The standard says: "Ingress of water in harmful quantity shall not be possible when the enclosure is immersed in water under defined conditions of pressure and time (up to 1 m of submersion)." I think you don't understand "range." The point of the standard isn't that you can submerge a device in 1mm of water and claim that it meets the standard. The point is that if it's submerged in, say, 2m of water the conditions exceed those provided for in the standard.
[doublepost=1480960518][/doublepost]

I'm going to go out on a limb and say the vast majority of water damaged devices happen in rather shallow water.

Clearly we are on different wavelengths. I don't think that "but you can't prove you didn't drop it and let it sink to the bottom of the lake" is a good enough policy.

Maybe it holds water legally. Maybe it's clever marketing. I guess over the last decade of buying their products I had reason to believe Apple was better than that. This stance coupled with the Touch disease nonsense has me feeling like they're just like everyone else. :/

That's actually an interesting question: what is the most common failure involving liquids and phones? Dropping them into a sink, tub or toilet? Jumping into a lake or pool with the phone in your pocket? (That is the only water failure I've ever heard about personally, and I've heard that several times.) Spilling a cup of coffee or water or another beverage on the phone? I didn't google for numbers - but I think it's an interesting question.

 

[lakaiordie]

Why would I need to? They make that claim on their website.
[doublepost=1480960235][/doublepost]

So, the short version is: you believe words have no meaning? Apple claims the phone meets IP67 standards on its website. That means: "Ingress of water in harmful quantity shall not be possible when the enclosure is immersed in water under defined conditions of pressure and time (up to 1 m of submersion)." Apple needs to be clear and honest about what that means - so far, they have not been either.
[doublepost=1480960380][/doublepost]

The standard says: "Ingress of water in harmful quantity shall not be possible when the enclosure is immersed in water under defined conditions of pressure and time (up to 1 m of submersion)." I think you don't understand "range." The point of the standard isn't that you can submerge a device in 1mm of water and claim that it meets the standard. The point is that if it's submerged in, say, 2m of water the conditions exceed those provided for in the standard.
[doublepost=1480960518][/doublepost]

That's actually an interesting question: what is the most common failure involving liquids and phones? Dropping them into a sink, tub or toilet? Jumping into a lake or pool with the phone in your pocket? (That is the only water failure I've ever heard about personally, and I've heard that several times.) Spilling a cup of coffee or water or another beverage on the phone? I didn't google for numbers - but I think it's an interesting question.

regardless of what you think, its never smart to have electronic devices near any liquid. no matter if its water resistant or waterproof. they clearly state that its water resistant. and their warranty does not cover it if you actually read it, Samsung does the same thing even with their s7 active with has a higher water resistant rating.

 

[BeeGood]

I'm going to go out on a limb and say the vast majority of water damaged devices happen in rather shallow water.

Clearly we are on different wavelengths. I don't think that "but you can't prove you didn't drop it and let it sink to the bottom of the lake" is a good enough policy.

Maybe it holds water legally. Maybe it's clever marketing. I guess over the last decade of buying their products I had reason to believe Apple was better than that. This stance coupled with the Touch disease nonsense has me feeling like they're just like everyone else. :/

Well, I'll give you that. Apple is definitely like everyone else because to my knowledge, no other manufacturer of water resistant phones includes a warranty against water damage. Samsung doesn't with the galaxy/note and Sony doesn't with the Xperia.

I wouldn't put this in the same category as touch disease. That is a complete disaster and Apple should be ashamed of themselves for not making iPhone 6 owners whole.

Their stance on water resistance doesn't hurt anyone. If you don't trust the IP67 rating, then use your phone like you always have. You're no worse off.
[doublepost=1480962474][/doublepost]

So, the short version is: you believe words have no meaning? Apple claims the phone meets IP67 standards on its website. That means: "Ingress of water in harmful quantity shall not be possible when the enclosure is immersed in water under defined conditions of pressure and time (up to 1 m of submersion)." Apple needs to be clear and honest about what that means - so far, they have not been either.

I know what the IP67 standard is. Do you not believe that the iPhone has been tested and proven to meet that standard?

And what do you mean by Apple not being "clear and honest"? Have they lied about testing the phone? Did they claim that they would give people new phones to replace water damaged ones?

 

[Applejuiced]

I feel like that burden of proof is on the manufacturer. And when the manufacturer reserves the right to refuse water damage under any and all constitutions... well, I think my opinion in this matter is clear.

The manufacturer independently received certifications for that IP67 rating for both iPhone 7 and iPhone 7 plus devices.
If anyone throws such statements that such ratings is a lie or false and not accurate then its not the manufacturer that has to prove it but a 3rd neutral party to conduct various testing.
You'll see that the testing holds up and passes its claims, but the random claims that you see on the internet saying I only splashed it and barely got it wet for a few seconds and it died that are not true.
Not the manufacturer such as Apple making up a water resistance rating without proper results and verification.
Anyone can claim and post anything on the internet...
[doublepost=1480968534][/doublepost]

Is this an official claim made by Apple? Was the iPhone 7 officially certified or rated? Or was this some sort of advertising gimmick?

If there is an official rating then I would think they have to honor the damage and replace the phone.

Seems pretty cut and dry no?

No, its not even close to cut and dry at all.
Anyone can claim anything and without Apple having a way to verify anyone's stories they will not be sitting there replacing devices for free any time someone gets them liquid damaged. That would be a nightmare and every time anyone wants a free replacement iphone they would on purpose get it water damaged and will claim that the rating failed and its not their fault.

 

[lordofthereef]

The manufacturer independently received certifications for that IP67 rating for both iPhone 7 and iPhone 7 plus devices.
If anyone throws such statements that such ratings is a lie or false and not accurate then its not the manufacturer that has to prove it but a 3rd neutral party to conduct various testing.
You'll see that the testing holds up and passes its claims, but the random claims that you see on the internet saying I only splashed it and barely got it wet for a few seconds and it died that are not true.
Not the manufacturer such as Apple making up a water resistance rating without proper results and verification.
Anyone can claim and post anything on the internet...
[doublepost=1480968534][/doublepost]

No, its not even close to cut and dry at all.
Anyone can claim anything and without Apple having a way to verify anyone's stories they will not be sitting there replacing devices for free any time someone gets them liquid damaged. That would be a nightmare and every time anyone wants a free replacement iphone they would on purpose get it water damaged and will claim that the rating failed and its not their fault.

As was pointed out later in the thread apparently using the term "resistant" means that it hardly has to be resistant at all. Ful submersion only covered in completely still water, which, as we all know, isn't a real world scenario.

I tried to say the burden being on the manufacturer in terms of warranty repair. I don't think it's good enough to say "you cant prove you didn't abuse this". At that point I feel a rating is almost pointless because Apple isn't standing behind any water damage scenario. Just my opinion. I don't like the stance Apple has taken lately on warranty claims. For sure people are abusing them. And yet they're still the most successfu/profitable company on the planet. /shrug
[doublepost=1480971838][/doublepost]

Well, I'll give you that. Apple is definitely like everyone else because to my knowledge, no other manufacturer of water resistant phones includes a warranty against water damage. Samsung doesn't with the galaxy/note and Sony doesn't with the Xperia.

I wouldn't put this in the same category as touch disease. That is a complete disaster and Apple should be ashamed of themselves for not making iPhone 6 owners whole.

Their stance on water resistance doesn't hurt anyone. If you don't trust the IP67 rating, then use your phone like you always have. You're no worse off.
[doublepost=1480962474][/doublepost]

I know what the IP67 standard is. Do you not believe that the iPhone has been tested and proven to meet that standard?

And what do you mean by Apple not being "clear and honest"? Have they lied about testing the phone? Did they claim that they would give people new phones to replace water damaged ones?

I wasn't meaning to imply it's in the same category. I was just saying that Touch disease coupled with their stance on water damage is starting to cause a sour taste in my mouth. Perhaps all good things come to an end, but it's always sad to see that happen.

I think there is some misleading advertisement out there. To me it doesn't matter how every other company treats their warranties. Apple was always above and beyond. This is what I mean about Apple falling in line and being just another tech company doing like everyone else does. Used to be my number one reason for going Apple was customer service and warranty claims.
[doublepost=1480972008][/doublepost]

That's actually an interesting question: what is the most common failure involving liquids and phones? Dropping them into a sink, tub or toilet? Jumping into a lake or pool with the phone in your pocket? (That is the only water failure I've ever heard about personally, and I've heard that several times.) Spilling a cup of coffee or water or another beverage on the phone? I didn't google for numbers - but I think it's an interesting question.

I don't really know. I do know I've spilled tea on my phones (none of which have an ip67 rating) and they were fine. My son just this morning did that lol.

 

[Applejuiced]

As was pointed out later in the thread apparently using the term "resistant" means that it hardly has to be resistant at all. Ful submersion only covered in completely still water, which, as we all know, isn't a real world scenario.

I tried to say the burden being on the manufacturer in terms of warranty repair. I don't think it's good enough to say "you cant prove you didn't abuse this". At that point I feel a rating is almost pointless because Apple isn't standing behind any water damage scenario. Just my opinion. I don't like the stance Apple has taken lately on warranty claims. For sure people are abusing them. And yet they're still the most successfu/profitable company on the planet. /shrug
[doublepost=1480971838][/doublepost]
I wasn't meaning to imply it's in the same category. I was just saying that Touch disease coupled with their stance on water damage is starting to cause a sour taste in my mouth. Perhaps all good things come to an end, but it's always sad to see that happen.

I think there is some misleading advertisement out there. To me it doesn't matter how every other company treats their warranties. Apple was always above and beyond. This is what I mean about Apple falling in line and being just another tech company doing like everyone else does. Used to be my number one reason for going Apple was customer service and warranty claims.
[doublepost=1480972008][/doublepost]
I don't really know. I do know I've spilled tea on my phones (none of which have an ip67 rating) and they were fine. My son just this morning did that lol.

I get what you're saying but lets just say Apple does decide to change their stance on this and provide warranty replacement for all liquid damaged iPhone 7's.
What stops me and millions of others from just putting our phones in water and then bringing it in for free replacement? Any time I feel like it, free replacement for a full year or 2 years if I buy Apple care plus.
Anyone that has any OCD problems, people that get a scratch, or their jet black finish gets dull or has a hairline scratch and want to get it replaced for free. Just leave it in water Or take it in the pool, Jacuzzi with you, swimming at the beach. Its all good. Just rinse the salt and sand off and say I spilled a glass of water on it.
Your suggestion is for Apple to just take anyone's word and just give out free replacements?
Off course people will never abuse it or lie in order not to pay the $349 replacement fee
The certification and rating given is very clear what it means and what it certifies. If people think they can go swimming or drown their electronics then its their problem and not the manufacturers to prove that the person abused it. Because they can never confirm nor deny any customer claim.

 

[Europa13]

I get what you're saying but lets just say Apple does decide to change their stance on this and provide warranty replacement for all liquid damaged iPhone 7's.
What stops me and millions of others from just putting our phones in water and then bringing it in for free replacement? Any time I feel like it, free replacement for a full year or 2 years if I buy Apple care plus.
Anyone that has any OCD problems, people that get a scratch, or their jet black finish gets dull or has a hairline scratch and want to get it replaced for free. Just leave it in water Or take it in the pool, Jacuzzi with you, swimming at the beach. Its all good. Just rinse the salt and sand off and say I spilled a glass of water on it.
Your suggestion is for Apple to just take anyone's word and just give out free replacements?
Off course people will never abuse it or lie in order not to pay the $349 replacement fee
The certification and rating given is very clear what it means and what it certifies. If people think they can go swimming or drown their electronics then its their problem and not the manufacturers to prove that the person abused it. Because they can never confirm nor deny any customer claim.

I agree. I think we are a long way from Apple covering water damage under the free, one-year manufacturer's warranty. They're covered because it's only marketed as water resistant. AppleCare+ does cover water damage, but it only covers two instances of accidental damage over a two-year period...so there's that to hold people back from abusing the policy.

 

[bopajuice]

The manufacturer independently received certifications for that IP67 rating for both iPhone 7 and iPhone 7 plus devices.
If anyone throws such statements that such ratings is a lie or false and not accurate then its not the manufacturer that has to prove it but a 3rd neutral party to conduct various testing.
You'll see that the testing holds up and passes its claims, but the random claims that you see on the internet saying I only splashed it and barely got it wet for a few seconds and it died that are not true.
Not the manufacturer such as Apple making up a water resistance rating without proper results and verification.
Anyone can claim and post anything on the internet...
[doublepost=1480968534][/doublepost]

No, its not even close to cut and dry at all.
Anyone can claim anything and without Apple having a way to verify anyone's stories they will not be sitting there replacing devices for free any time someone gets them liquid damaged. That would be a nightmare and every time anyone wants a free replacement iphone they would on purpose get it water damaged and will claim that the rating failed and its not their fault.

Awe, but if the phones lived up to their stated rating, this would not even be an issue.

 

[Applejuiced]

Awe, but if the phones lived up to their stated rating, this would not even be an issue.

They do live up to it, people just have unreasonable expectations beyond that.
And again this is the internet, anyone can post a story and claim whatever they want.
Try looking first at what that rating really means though.
Very limited said water conditions, for a short period of time and until the said seal eventually deteriorates over time and weather exposure and personal use, not including warm/hot water exposure and so many other requirements.

 

[lordofthereef]

I get what you're saying but lets just say Apple does decide to change their stance on this and provide warranty replacement for all liquid damaged iPhone 7's.
What stops me and millions of others from just putting our phones in water and then bringing it in for free replacement? Any time I feel like it, free replacement for a full year or 2 years if I buy Apple care plus.
Anyone that has any OCD problems, people that get a scratch, or their jet black finish gets dull or has a hairline scratch and want to get it replaced for free. Just leave it in water Or take it in the pool, Jacuzzi with you, swimming at the beach. Its all good. Just rinse the salt and sand off and say I spilled a glass of water on it.
Your suggestion is for Apple to just take anyone's word and just give out free replacements?
Off course people will never abuse it or lie in order not to pay the $349 replacement fee
The certification and rating given is very clear what it means and what it certifies. If people think they can go swimming or drown their electronics then its their problem and not the manufacturers to prove that the person abused it. Because they can never confirm nor deny any customer claim.

I'm not really sure what stops you. That's not really my argument. Apple decided to sell a product with a certain rating and have no way to know if a production fault causes the product not to live up to that rating.

They are deciding to advertise this. They don't advertise ram specs, they choose to advertise water resistance. My stance is either cover it or don't, but if you're not covering it, don't make s claim. As a consumer it frankly isn't my job to prove what happened to a product. And I'm not an engineer so I don't have an answer. In the one spending thousands on a product that Apple isn't 100% standing behind, in my view.

 

[Applejuiced]

I'm not really sure what stops you. That's not really my argument. Apple decided to sell a product with a certain rating and have no way to know if a production fault causes the product not to live up to that rating.

They are deciding to advertise this. They don't advertise ram specs, they choose to advertise water resistance. My stance is either cover it or don't, but if you're not covering it, don't make s claim. As a consumer it frankly isn't my job to prove what happened to a product. And I'm not an engineer so I don't have an answer. In thenine dunling thousands in a product that Apple isn't 100% standing behind, in my view.

Nothing could stop me or millions of others from such an unlimited scam. It would be a nightmare
The rating is very accurate, tested and certified. That's what they are advertising as verified rated water resistance up to a minimum limit. No one can claim 100% waterproof anything.
No one can ever know if it's a production fault or customer abuse. I think people need to research and understand what that IP67 rating is and what exactly it represents.
And then come back to reality
If someone can prove that the whole thing it's a scam and all the devices falsely received that rating with professional tests and accurate data then you have a case. Not some internet posts and flyby random anonymous claims.
But i doubt it's something Apple would do to fake millions of devices water resistance rating cause that will leave them exposed to lots of liability.

 

[lordofthereef]

Nothing could stop me or millions of others from such an unlimited scam. It would be a nightmare
The rating is very accurate, tested and certified. That's what they are advertising as verified rated water resistance up to a minimum limit. No one can claim 100% waterproof anything.
No one can ever know if it's a production fault or customer abuse. I think people need to research and understand what that IP67 rating is and what exactly it represents.
And then come back to reality

I've actually researched quite a bit in the last few days since we are talking sonferventyl about it lol. And my stance is against denying claims due to a production fault. Multi billion dollar company denying a potential production issue as user misuse sucks. No matter who they are. That's all I'm saying. I understand you can't test it. But you decided to sell the thing.

But now we are going around in circles. I just hope this isn't first in a long series of "untestable promises" we have to look forward to.

Most water resistant products we have likely come in contact with have been watches. Many companies do indeed have a stance of protecting against water resistance. And the way they gauge abuse is by the amount of water within the unit, from what I read. Not a fine science. But a logical step. After all, who wants a water resistant Watch that's isn't in fact water resistant?
[doublepost=1480990771][/doublepost]As a slightly hilarious caveat, simply searching "water resistant warranty" in google gives me about two pages of nothing but articles related to iPhone 7 lol. As if it's somehow THE DEFACTO product to discuss when talking warranty information due to water damage.

 

[Applejuiced]

I've actually researched quite a bit in the last few days since we are talking sonferventyl about it lol. And my stance is against denying claims due to a production fault. Multi billion dollar company denying a potential production issue as user misuse sucks. No matter who they are. That's all I'm saying. I understand you can't test it. But you decided to sell the thing.

But now we are going around in circles. I just hope this isn't first in a long series of "untestable promises" we have to look forward to.

It's testable and can be easily verified.
Have an independent company go purchase a bunch of them and test them in a lab under the specific conditions it's supposed to withstand.
If it passes good, if they fail then it's a manufacturers defect.
Its funny you keep repeating they don't stand behind something that they never promised to stand behind in the first place.
A rating it's just that.
It's tested to withstand under certain conditions that's all.

 

[lordofthereef]

It's testable and can be easily verified.
Have an independent company go purchase a bunch of them and test them in a lab under the specific conditions it's supposed to withstand.
If it passes good, if they fail then it's a manufacturers defect.
Its funny you keep repeating they don't stand behind something that they never promised to stand behind in the first place.
A rating it's just that.
It's tested to withstand under certain conditions that's all.

The manufacturer defect is what is not testable. This is what I am referrring to 100% of every instance I have said "not testable or verifiable"

I realize there was no promise to stand behind something. The entire issue I have with this situation is a philosophical one. I feel Apple SHOULD stand behind something that they are marketing. This WAS what made Apple different (for me). Apple is in a pedestal partially of their own making. And I'm disappointed by the stance they've taken here. That's all.

 

[C DM]

The manufacturer defect is what is not testable. This is what I am referrring to 100% of every instance I have said "not testable or verifiable"

I realize there was no promise to stand behind something. The entire issue I have with this situation is a philosophical one. I feel Apple SHOULD stand behind something that they are marketing. This WAS what made Apple different (for me). Apple is in a pedestal partially of their own making. And I'm disappointed by the stance they've taken here. That's all.

All of this feels like repeat of page 1, 2, 3, ... of not just this thread but other same ones that came before it.

 

[lordofthereef]

All of this feels like repeat of page 1, 2, 3, ... of not just this thread but other same ones that came before it.

I don't disagree with that statement. You'll find most threads that are pages long are the same way lol.

 

[Applejuiced]

The manufacturer defect is what is not testable. This is what I am referrring to 100% of every instance I have said "not testable or verifiable"

I realize there was no promise to stand behind something. The entire issue I have with this situation is a philosophical one. I feel Apple SHOULD stand behind something that they are marketing. This WAS what made Apple different (for me).

Your feelings are not aligning or agree with any smartphone manufacturer out there though
Anyone can claim it wasn't me, I only got it a little bit wet. It's a manufacturers defect.
Apple is different but is also not stupid to let themselves exposed in such a manner to just take anyone's word and get into a never ending replacement frenzy.
Just like any other company out there they are for profit.

 

[Timothy Leo Crowley]

Your son destroyed your iPhone and your mad at Apple.

Wow!

 

[lordofthereef]

Your feelings are not aligning or agree with any smartphone manufacturer out there though

I don't feel like they have to. In my mind it's simple. Don't sell something that you have knownway to tell whether there was a fault going forward. Make your phone with the specification but don't show a video of a guy doing a cannonball by the pool. Plenty of companies do shady BS. Don't get me started in the food industry. Plenty of legal but shady immoral crap goes on there too lol. Far more than here, in fact.

 

[Applejuiced]

All of this feels like repeat of page 1, 2, 3, ... of not just this thread but other same ones that came before it.

I agree.
It's the bad bad Apple, they are the Devil and are ripping us all off
It's never my fault, it's Apples fault.
[doublepost=1480991658][/doublepost]

I don't feel like they have to. In my mind it's simple. Don't sell something that you have knownway to tell whether there was a fault going forward. Plenty of companies do shady BS. Don't get me started in the food industry. Plenty of legal but shady immoral crap goes in there too lol. Far more than here, in fact.

Lol
I hear you. Plenty of companies pull shady practices all the time.
If there is a certain number or series of devices that are faulty it will eventually come out in the end. But it has to have evidence and not just anecdotal finger pointing blame.

 

[C DM]

I agree.
It's the bad bad Apple, they are the Devil and are ripping us all off
It's never my fault, it's Apples fault.
[doublepost=1480991658][/doublepost]

Lol
I hear you. Plenty of companies pull shady practices all the time.
If there is a certain number or series of devices that are faulty it will eventually come out in the end. But it has to have evidence and not just anecdotal finger pointing blame.

It's not really bad Apple or anything like that. Simply the same points being made with the same rebuttals and the same rebuttals to those same rebuttals.
[doublepost=1480993587][/doublepost]

I don't disagree with that statement. You'll find most threads that are pages long are the same way lol.

Some (much) more than others, especially when the same long threads about the same thing just happened a few times fairly recently.

Ultimately, if the previous threads showed is anything it's that essentially the only memorable thing that will end up happening is that another thread about the same thing will surface in the (most likely near) future with the same points being made again growing that thread into a similarly long one.

 

[bopajuice]

Nothing could stop me or millions of others from such an unlimited scam. It would be a nightmare
The rating is very accurate, tested and certified. That's what they are advertising as verified rated water resistance up to a minimum limit. No one can claim 100% waterproof anything.
No one can ever know if it's a production fault or customer abuse. I think people need to research and understand what that IP67 rating is and what exactly it represents.
And then come back to reality
If someone can prove that the whole thing it's a scam and all the devices falsely received that rating with professional tests and accurate data then you have a case. Not some internet posts and flyby random anonymous claims.
But i doubt it's something Apple would do to fake millions of devices water resistance rating cause that will leave them exposed to lots of liability.

IP67

The first digit 6 means = Dust Tight No ingress of dust; complete protection against contact.

The second digit 7 means = "Ingress of water in harmful quantity shall not be possible when the enclosure is immersed in water under defined conditions of pressure and time (up to 1 m of submersion)."

"immersed" = plunged or sunk in or as if in a liquid.

Sounds like it should withstand a dunk in a bucket of water to me.