No it's not. If that is independent , than the benchmarks on AMD's site showing the FX 9590 outperforming all equivalent Intel processor are also independent . The board of directors auditing their own company accounts are also independent.
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
It's independent. As stated previously your bias doesn't affect my opinion.
If it's independent then that means the iPhone withstands 35 feet of water right? So how did the OP's iPhone stop working just after falling into a bucket? So OP is not a independent source ?
I will believe a user on an Apple forum over a channel owned by an Apple fanboy who is only after more hits. Thanks
Inside the EU they will have to cover it, as long as it was bought via Apple retail.
Not under Apple's voluntary 1 year warranty, but under the mandatory 2 year (and in some states even longer) warranty given by the retailer.
A manufacturer's warranty can cover things as he likes, there is no obligation for anything. The retailer's warranty is regulated and IP67 is a feature of the product, so it has to be covered.
[doublepost=1481605758][/doublepost]
Are you saying that people don't lie about how deep and how long a phone was in water to get it replaced under warranty?
How would any manufacturer prove that the IP67 certification wasn't exceeded? Trust me? yeah right
That's the manufacturer's problem.
Starting to claim water resistance while not (or only under certain circumstances) covering water damage issues a whole bunch of problems to deal with. Either you claim water resistance and honor the claim or you don't do it at all, anything in between will lead to customers feeling screwed.
[doublepost=1481606507][/doublepost]
Samsung will do it, just as Apple will.
Any lawyer could rip them apart easily.
In the EU der is no way out anyway and for the US I guess claiming false advertising could work.
Sorry but when a product is rated to a specification how is it the manufacturers responsibility to prove a customer did not exceed that spec? No wonder products are more expensive in the EU, Apple makes their profit then the premium pays for the "extended free warranty" that some take advantage of under the excuse of feeling screwed. I believe there is a difference between water resistance and water proof, don't you? One has limits the other more absolute even though it really isn't unless the product is called the Deepsea Challenger.
but it is not water resist nor water proof because they do not honor any water damages! Is it so hard to get it!
I'm postulating both companies have their bases covered worldwide with these ratings and thought before-hand of how to handle frivilous lawsuits. Claiming water resistance is not claiming water-proofing and the corporate lawyers will be on hand to enforce that point. That is not false advertising to show the phone in use by a pool not getting wet.
I personally thought water resistance as a useless gimmick .All phones have basic water resistance so that point isn't anything new. My Lumia 820 has withstood the basic spray of water falling on t which makes these ratings if they imply basic protection useless
Last edited:
Yes it is gimmick, but they highlighted it and misleading people!
Yesterday i go to the 3d party repair to ask "can you repair this phone?
he says : is it from dropping ?
i: No water.
he: But the new iPhone is water resist !!
i : no, it is not!
guy: I can believed, a sow commercial!
And this is the point here, that Apple created a impression of some kind "magical" protection from water but there is NOTHING!
Yes, they thought about this.
Roughly 1 to 5% of affected customers would even think about suing a multi billion dollar company for a few hundred dollars. Those 1 to 5% get their law suits settled before going to court. Paying for only 1 to 5% of water damaged phones instead of 100% means saving tens of millions for a product sold on the scale of iPhone.
The entire "but they have lawyers, they would've known if they violated some countries' law" argument has been used so often for different Apple-related problems in the past. They have a looooong history of ignoring european laws and I'm talking about basics here.
Any law student or even random people on the street could've predicted that Apple will have to change those policies in the long run, but a company with access to hundreds of lawyers couldn't?
They ALWAYS paddle-back on those issues.
You also have to take into account, that european law doesn't really punish companies like Apple for violating laws. Fines are basically paying the one affected customer back who sued and that's it for the most part. In the US they would get fined hundreds of millions for violating consumer rights.
Claiming water-resistance is nowhere near in saying water ingress will never happen, which is the point to be made.
People will always sue and companies sometimes do settle just to move on without admitting any wrong-doing.
But in this instance, I don't see false advertising to be found anywhere. A commercial is literary license and it's been like that since the dawn of commercials on television 80 years ago. Anybody claiming they don't understand that point must be living under a rock. It's a not so fine line between conveying a point and out and out deceit.
[doublepost=1481638091][/doublepost]
That is not what you said about 6s, when I said it had some basic waterproofing, verified by your go to site, ifixit.com.
If water resistance is a gimmick than why even bother with posts like this?
https://forums.macrumors.com/thread...rry-disapointed.2018610/page-18#post-24058194
[doublepost=1481638336][/doublepost]
Somehow, I think this post says it all and I trust the outcome of that video over a random internet poster. See how this works.
They do advertise the phone as IP67.
Does IP67 mean "Sometimes not damaged by submerging it for X minutes in up to X centimeters of water"?
Hint: no it doesn't.
You can even quote their own keynote for more material.
They will settle any arriving lawsuit before going to court. Guaranteed.
At least in all EU-countries.
Claiming water-resistance is nowhere near in saying water ingress will never happen, which is the point to be made.
People will always sue and companies sometimes do settle just to move on without admitting any wrong-doing.
But in this instance, I don't see false advertising to be found anywhere. A commercial is literary license and it's been like that since the dawn of commercials on television 80 years ago. Anybody claiming they don't understand that point must be living under a rock. It's a not so fine line between conveying a point and out and out deceit.
[doublepost=1481638091][/doublepost]
That is not what you said about 6s, when I said it had some basic waterproofing, verified by your go to site, ifixit.com.
If water resistance is a gimmick than why even bother with posts like this?
https://forums.macrumors.com/thread...rry-disapointed.2018610/page-18#post-24058194
[doublepost=1481638336][/doublepost]
Somehow, I think this post says it all and I trust the outcome of that video over a random internet poster. See how this works.
Because irrespective of that point being a gimmick ,facts are facts , and you keep posting biased videos . The fact that the OP's iPhone stops working after being immersed in a bucket of water while EveythingApplePro's magical iPhone lasted 35 feet under a lake says everything there is to say
Samsung has warranty on S7 Active iirc for water damage
Last edited:
Won't get to court, or if cases get to court apple will win. There is enough fine print in the EULA about this. There is a specific definition to the water ratings and apple has a disclaimer about being tested in the laboratory. I'll bet Phil never said water ingress will never, ever happen. He said ip67 rating, which has a specific meaning and is not a guarantee.
[doublepost=1481638984][/doublepost]
Nope, videos are unbiased. If there is any bias, it's not in the video and ops story cannot be confirmed, unlike the outcome in the video.
The only reason the iphone is magical is because of apple manufacturing processes, which produce a stellar device.
Outcome of the video is also unconfirmed because the channel did not show us what happened in the 15 minutes. It's very easy to doctor videos
Too bad their "stellar" manufacturing processes were not applied on the OP's iPhone nor did they prevent Touch Disease and hissgate being a thing
Expanded on that logic all youtube videos are suspect then, let's not be cherry picking as you said, it's easy to doctor videos.
Using that logic how do you know op didn't drop iphone from a third story window before throwing it in the water? You don't.
EULAs don't have the same standing in the EU as in the US.
EULAs are basically what a company wants the world to be. There is a very small margin for EULAs to actually affect any law suit at all. The margin of things you can regulate inside of your EULAs regarding end-customers is very, very small. Business to business relations are a different story.
If a company goes to court with a consumer, you can be sure that in most cases EULAs aren't even worth looking at.
Things are regulated by EU consumer law. You basically can't lower those standards in your EULA, do it and any judge will ignore the violating parts. Even worse: if you are violating too many regulations, they might even invalidate the entire contract between you and the customer.
There is no way of claiming IP67 and using those wet phone pics, images of people falling in pools etc. and not losing.
Apple knows this and they will refund you before there even is a law suit.
If you look at the video, the iphone wasn't wet, or did I miss it?
Apple is not a stupid company and I have to believe they have their bases covered. Advertising an ip67 rating, is not an invitation to go swimming with your phone, nor is it a guarantee water ingress will never, ever happen. Water resistance is a win-win for manufacturers and consumers as it's likely to save both time and money.
But if there are grievances the courts can take care of it. I believe the manufacturers have a "water-tight" case.
If there is only 1 video on the matter in question which is the case in this water resistance claim and not tons of em all pointing towards the same conclusion then sure
You do realise lying isnt getting him anywhere right?.I can understand making sensational claims on YouTube to increase subscriptions,increase hits and revenues but here on MR? What will he achieve?
[doublepost=1481648317][/doublepost]
Yet they lost in Denmark
Yet they lost against Samsung in the Supreme Court
[doublepost=1481648555][/doublepost]
I completely agree that this is unfair mate but you have to understand this is now the new Apple and they will take money whichever way it comes . The fact that they got consumers to pay for their own blunders with Touch Disease says its all really. Hence I have an Otterbox Defender Case on standby for my iPhone 7 just in case I am going hiking when it rains. Dont want to take the lottery with Apple's claims
[doublepost=1481648881][/doublepost]
You clearly did not see the ad.They showed an iPhone 7 in landscape getting wet due to a glass of water
And THIS was shown in the keynote
Also I am not sure on this one but they actually showed someone diving in the Water with an AW which has ip67
Last edited:
When I got my 7, I went to the local Apple store for an hour of their school. I was told "200 feet for 30 minutes". I said, "WHAT?", and he repeated the numbers. No mention of IP67. I guess this makes me another 'no nothing' school graduate.