I live in the United States. Yeah, we don't have that right here.
It's great that you have that in your country, but I'm amazed that anything gets advertised at all since all of your ads have implied warranties built into them.
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
I live in the United States. Yeah, we don't have that right here.
It's great that you have that in your country, but I'm amazed that anything gets advertised at all since all of your ads have implied warranties built into them.
Why yes I am! Thank you.
As for the phone, it clearly states on their web site that liquid damage is not covered. I guess you wish you felt special as well.
Because it's not an industry precedent, that is why I'm discussing another manufacturer.
[doublepost=1481043262][/doublepost]
In this part of the world the fine print rules.
Not saying I agree with the ads but there are plenty of examples where you'd be wrong. Fast food ads, drug ads, car ads. Car manufacturers often specifically exclude from warranty things they show cars doing in commercials. They sometimes show things the car simply cannot do.
Yah I mean seriously they never claim it's water proof and even in ads it's raining the phone is never submerged though, ad I'm sorry but your sorta silly to hand a iPhone 7 to a 4 year old, even if it's your son it's a little kid he doesn't know the value of what he's holding he thinks it's any other toy.
Why even bothering announcing Water? resistance and the certification if they are not going to cover anything??? Worthless feature and wasn't even worth even mentioning in the keynote.
This is a more important consideration than anything being discussed. OP hasn't made this clear.
Some possibilities:
1.) Water had soap or other cleaning solution in it, COMPLETELY altering the hydrostatic properties of the liquid.
2.) OP thinks it was water (because water with a surfactant can easily still appear to be water), but it had surfactant (soap) in it
3. It was water
We are having this discussion in depth with OP... and WE don't know which of the above are the facts as they occurred, relative to potential hydrostatic properties and interfacial tension... so what is Apple supposed to do?
The phone is water-resistant, not waterproof, there's a difference. Look it up.
water was "pure" tap water in a
laver
once again the point is - why the hell they put IP 67 certificate and ads if they do not cover ANY water damages.
This is carp, if they (Apple) do not honor water damages why they highlight IP certificate and "care" (6:57min iPhone 7 key note) at all ????
This is reason for creation of this thread!
For me this is manipulation of consumers !
In our busy World who have time to read the fine print warranty for gadget, you(I) put trust to brand like Apple that they will care for me , and this is the point here. That this brand, this company (which i adore) is manipulated me in the same way that all other company do, and they try so despaired (in later years) to differentiate of.
laver
once again the point is - why the hell they put IP 67 certificate and ads if they do not cover ANY water damages.
This is carp, if they (Apple) do not honor water damages why they highlight IP certificate and "care" (6:57min iPhone 7 key note) at all ????
This is reason for creation of this thread!
For me this is manipulation of consumers !
In our busy World who have time to read the fine print warranty for gadget, you(I) put trust to brand like Apple that they will care for me , and this is the point here. That this brand, this company (which i adore) is manipulated me in the same way that all other company do, and they try so despaired (in later years) to differentiate of.
Last edited:
And this part of the world people dont need to check the real facts from the websites before buying the thing because companies have to respect consumers and false advertizing isnt allowed. =}
Agree on water + electronics. Shame on Samsung, too, but if you look at their track record (and I don't mean with respect to phones), you wouldn't expect much from them, unfortunately.
Meh, not so sure? The IP67 claim is made without any accompanying text, but does have a footnote (in faded gray text) that says "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."
Until you get to the last sentence, you wouldn't know that Apple was basically not standing behind the IP67 claim. With that said, though I'm going to drop out of this conversation after this post.
[doublepost=1481053651][/doublepost]
Apple says they've tested it. Apple says it meets the test. Apple then says, in a grayed-out footnote, that they won't stand behind their claims. It's a great model for honest, straightforward marketing.
Lol
[doublepost=1481054889][/doublepost]
I agree.
Simple and logical.
[doublepost=1481055102][/doublepost]
Bam, /end thread and drop the mic
HAHALol
[doublepost=1481054889][/doublepost]
I agree.
Simple and logical.
this is pointless, guys just sell your toys without lies if you show pool with water and phone falls in it, it is pool proof that is. Do not give me this business model ******** , if is all about shares prices then you have it for now! But it is nothing more, and next time when "new" "incredible" "magical" feature appears (from this hands Tim and company) i will think about it " oh it is all about numbers nothing more" and that is the way innovation get killed. By a Counter! (this is personal for me i cried when Jobs died)
Last edited:
Apple isn't advertising that it can or cannot handle being submerged... Apple is advertising the following: "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." They then follow it up with: "Liquid damage not covered under warranty."
Boom, end of story. That is the fine print whether anybody likes it or not. I had purchased an iPhone 7 hoping I'd be able to run and cycle in the rain with it, after reading stories such as this I no longer think of the phone as being water resistant, I treat it as it doesn't have anything at all. I guess just because something has water resistance does not mean that it can handle water, just that in a super-controlled laboratory setting it was fine.
Boom, end of story. That is the fine print whether anybody likes it or not. I had purchased an iPhone 7 hoping I'd be able to run and cycle in the rain with it, after reading stories such as this I no longer think of the phone as being water resistant, I treat it as it doesn't have anything at all. I guess just because something has water resistance does not mean that it can handle water, just that in a super-controlled laboratory setting it was fine.
I don't disagree with anything you said. I've also personally had great experiences with Apple perhaps aside from this latest iPhone 6s battery replacement (wasn't a big deal I just feel like I wasted a trip to be told to come back anyway).
Unfkrtunately I've seen service decline, possibly to maximize profits, possibly because people abused a good thing. But I'm only comparing Apple to Apple (pun intended lol) and so I feel like they're less different from the competitors than they were three or four years ago.
Are they still the best? Of course. I actually just had a discussion with an android friend telling me how terrible it was his coworker came in with a baby and was told to wait three hours because she didn't have an appointment. I simply pointed out that she was offered a same day resolution despite not having an appointment; nobody else comes close.
Sorry to know your condition, mate. All the companies are very tricky about their warranty clauses. They make their points tough to understand. So from next be aware of the warranty conditions and keep your gadgets away from kids.
I can definitely understand you being upset about this. I'd be upset too if I had the expectation that Apple would replace my water damaged phone and they didn't.
But there is a state of mind that lies somewhere between total cynicism (it's all about money) and total naivety (Apple says it'll be magical so that's what I'm expecting). It's possible to be wowed by their glittery advertisements while at the same time, understanding that you need to do a little homework and know the limitations of your purchase. Or as Ronald Regan puts it, "trust, but verify".
Again, so sorry for your loss. I hope you find peace about this situation soon.
yes of course...that is called an advertisement
[doublepost=1481131725][/doublepost]hey everyone, i used my iPhone 7 plus in the rain and it continued to work. So there's my anecdote. Therefore what Apple says is true, not false advertising. Thread over.
I haven't seen service decline personally. I've read in these forums Apple is not throwing free new phones at people anymore. Don't know if that Is considered a service decline or not.
Ouch!
Very sorry to hear this.
They got rid of the 3.5mm jack to take advantage of the MFi Programme with the Lightening Port.
Very sorry to hear this.
They didn't remove the 3.5mm audio jack to make it water resistant. There are plenty of phones that are IP67 and IP68 WITH a 3.5mm jack.
They got rid of the 3.5mm jack to take advantage of the MFi Programme with the Lightening Port.
What "plenty of phones" have ip67 and ip68. I know if only one and the headphone is going in that phone.Ouch!
Very sorry to hear this.
They didn't remove the 3.5mm audio jack to make it water resistant. There are plenty of phones that are IP67 and IP68 WITH a 3.5mm jack.
They got rid of the 3.5mm jack to take advantage of the MFi Programme with the Lightening Port.
Also, you have no proof, the lack of headphone jack has anything to do with a money grab. However if it is your opinion...