Dont all companies "skate" when it comes to assuming financial responsibility for something ineffective they put out?
In this case Apple never promised to cover any such damages or liability. If it was falsely assumed by consumers that's on 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
Dont all companies "skate" when it comes to assuming financial responsibility for something ineffective they put out?
In this case Apple never promised to cover any such damages or liability. If it was falsely assumed by consumers that's on them.
Slightly OT but those autonomous braking commercials really piss me off. The technology is intended to brake when collision is imminent to reduce the force of impact. It is NOT intended to safely stop you when not paying attention. A broken iPhone is one thing but a life lost is quite another. It shouldn't take a massive lawsuit to stop this moronic advertising.
Clearly they don't all skate all the time. Look at what's happening with VW and much less important and more innocuous dealings with estimated fuel economy.
[doublepost=1481218298][/doublepost]
It's safe to say that it has been quite an understatement for a while now, even before this thread.
The only fuel economy issues that I'm aware of are where companies are outright lying about what their cars can do. To date, I've seen no evidence that Apple is lying about their water resistance ratings.
If we're going to be sticklers about it then yes, the S7 and S7 Edge are usually not covered for water damage but in the spirit of this thread it needs to be pointed out that the S7 Active can and will be replaced through warranty if water damage occurs and that is per the carrier and the manufacturer. I believe that's the point of the OP when he says that was what he was expecting from a company that implies their device was manufactured to specs that would survive in water for a short amount of time and a shallow depth.
Apple is not willing to do that period. Samsung does not either on some of their devices but there is at least one device that Samsung will cover. Since many, including you, were making it seem like no device that states this certification is covered in the US, I was pointing out that is not the case.
I personally believe no company should be allowed to use that in advertising if they're not going to warrany it. Please note I own a Galaxy S7 Active and I also own an iPhone 7 Plus so my opinion truly has zero bias.
The point is the s7 isn't covered for water damage same as the iPhone 7 and probably the same as other other phones. Whether or not this is legal or ethical are two different questions. Apple is not willing to warranty water damage same as Samsung. If you want water damage coverage in your s7 you have the option of purchasing one device or buying an extended warranty. That's a real choice for consumers.
Not the same.
Samsung has a choice of a phone they WILL warranty for water damage. I will grant you it is not a variety of choices but there is a choice (which you allude to) unlike zero options for Apple so it's not the same.
Either way I believe it is unethical, though likely not unlawful, for both companies to insinuate protection (by using these ingress protection certifications) from some water damage but then not warranty it. They want to have their cake and eat it too.
Last edited:
This is not the point being discussed as I specifically excluded the the active in my original post that started this sub-thread. Consumers are given a choice, if they want the warranty, get that one phone, or pony up additional dollars for the extended warranty. This point is being dismissed as the s7 specifically is not covered.
As I see it, there are 2 basic issues here.
First: How should iPhone 7/7+ buyers treat their devices with respect to the IP67 rating?
Second: Is Apple's warranty position ethical?
With regard to the first issue, I would advise people not to tempt fate by dunking their phones in liquid, and by continuing to treat their devices as if they aren't water resistant. The reality is that Apple decided not to cover water damage.
With respect to the second issue, I do not believe it is ethical for Apple to advertise is such a way that an average person of average intelligence could infer that the iPhone 7 will survive pool dunks. The reality is that most people don't read the fine print and will never read the fine print. I suspect that the issue will only be resolved once blood sucking lawyers become involved.
First: How should iPhone 7/7+ buyers treat their devices with respect to the IP67 rating?
Second: Is Apple's warranty position ethical?
With regard to the first issue, I would advise people not to tempt fate by dunking their phones in liquid, and by continuing to treat their devices as if they aren't water resistant. The reality is that Apple decided not to cover water damage.
With respect to the second issue, I do not believe it is ethical for Apple to advertise is such a way that an average person of average intelligence could infer that the iPhone 7 will survive pool dunks. The reality is that most people don't read the fine print and will never read the fine print. I suspect that the issue will only be resolved once blood sucking lawyers become involved.
Have you seen the s7 commercial where the phone is dunked in champagne? The s7 warranty, without paying for extra coverage, doesn't cover water damage either.
My Xperia XZ has an IP68 rating but again no manufacturer's warranty for liquid ingress. It's the way it goes, so just avoid water completely. If you live in Atlantis and you're a Twitter addict then just buy a waterproof housing.
After few days the speaker will back to normal. This is common for all water resistance phone in market.
[doublepost=1481417204][/doublepost]
Sony, Samsung also won't warranty for water damage. This is the way it is since year 2013 on water resistance phone - Sony Xperia Z.
It is very common and not a new issue. It is old thing where no manufacturer will cover water damage warranty on water resistance phone.
Last edited:
Lol
[doublepost=1481054889][/doublepost]
I agree.
Simple and logical.
[doublepost=1481055102][/doublepost]
Bam, /end thread and drop the mic
Not really because the point of the OP thread was about Apple misleading people with there ads/keynote claims.
You've just decided to focus on something that is not at all what the OP is actually about.
This article telling everything, only first Sony Xperia Z advertising as water proof at beginning and they reliasing they are wrong and change it because no technology can make water proof phone yet. Water resistance is big far different than water proof.
https://www.cnet.com/google-amp/new...apple-iphone-7-samsung-galaxy-s7-sony-xperia/
https://www.cnet.com/google-amp/new...apple-iphone-7-samsung-galaxy-s7-sony-xperia/
What is your point with this info? Are you saying that since other companies use manipulation in their ads that it is also okay for Apple to do so?
I think many people here are saying they expect more from Apple
Expect more from a ip67 rating phone, only people without knowledge of this rating will expect more and said the company misleading. Apple didn't misleading users during keynote and also in the advertisement.
But that is because people never read and fully understands the rating. If really wanna blame then blame the standard not the company using it.
"The IP tests were conducted under lab conditions while the phone was in standby mode" in actual world pressure and chemical thing will break it.
http://www.trustedreviews.com/opinions/what-is-ip68-ip-ratings-explained