Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
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

thefather said:
sorry if you feel offended in any way, I apologise to you, this was not my point!
My point is that companies (in this case Apple) deliberately misleading us (consumers and shareholders 🙂) with their ads and false words to assume things that are untrue, and you can't do nothing.
And one more thing this toddler operating on this phone in way I think you will get jealous.
And one more thing, you as shareholder can suggest to the board of directors to put age restriction on IPhone - do not use under 12 years old, or if you not enough coordinated!
Last one is a joke once again do not feel offended!
Click to expand...

it's not misleading. you're just mad they wont replace your phone under warranty. grow up, learn from your mistakes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ABC5S
ppcebay said:
I would agree with that reasoning if they said it can be submerged, they never did, they always talk about splashes and as said they are very careful to specify that water damage is not covered.

He was careless and I feel for him, I never let my kids / nephews touch my main device (it's the reason they have their toys, I will keep mine for myself 😛 ), because they are kids, and it happens (nor I get mad if I let them touch stuff and they brake it).

Trying to blame someone else won't change the situation, changing the way he approaches / handles (or let someone else handle) expensive gadgets might prevent future issues, it is a process called growing and learning (something you never do if you blame someone else)!

EDIT:
Should have red here
To prevent liquid damage, avoid these:

  • Swimming or bathing with iPhone 7 or iPhone 7 Plus
  • Exposing iPhone 7 or iPhone 7 Plus to pressurized water or high velocity water, such as when showering, water skiing, wake boarding, surfing, jet skiing, and so on
  • Using iPhone 7 or iPhone 7 Plus in a sauna or steam room
  • Intentionally submerging iPhone 7 or iPhone 7 Plus in water
  • Operating iPhone 7 or iPhone 7 Plus outside the suggested temperature ranges or in extremely humid conditions
  • Dropping iPhone 7 or iPhone 7 Plus or subjecting it to other impacts
  • Disassembling iPhone 7 or iPhone 7 Plus, including removing screws
Click to expand...
Interestingly they don't just say avoid submerging the device, they make it a point to specifically say "intentionally".
 
newellj said:
This isn't hard. Apple claims the phone meets a standard that specifies 30 minutes submerged. Either it does, or it doesn't. Claiming it meets the standard but not standing behind it is nonsense, and dishonest nonsense at that.
Click to expand...
How do they know for sure he did not went over IP67 limits?

I can go swim in the ocean with the iPhone , destrouy it and then go to the Apple store and claim it just splashed!
 
  • Like
Reactions: !!!, ABC5S, BeeGood and 1 other person
rockitdog said:
I'm going to side with the OP here. The iPhone 7s are rated to to IP67 which means they should be able to remain submerged in 1 meter of water for up to 30 mins. Dropping a iPhone into a bucket shouldn't be enough to kill an iPhone unless it sat submerged for quite a while.
Click to expand...

Finally some sense instead of bashing the OP. Did anyone forget Apple promo picture showing a guy jumping into a pool with iPhone in hand? Another great
 
There's a disclaimer that water damaged is not covered under warranty. You see, Apple doesn't know how you treat your iPhone. You could've dropped it into a swimming pool... they don't know how the water got in, so they can't honor the warranty.

If your son DROPPED it into a bucket, perhaps that compromised the water-resistant (not waterproof) seal in a way where water was able to get into the phone.

These phones are not designed to go in water.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ABC5S, BeeGood and 8692574
Jayson A said:
There's a disclaimer that water damaged is not covered under warranty. You see, Apple doesn't know how you treat your iPhone. You could've dropped it into a swimming pool... they don't know how the water got in, so they can't honor the warranty.

If your son DROPPED it into a bucket, perhaps that compromised the water-resistant (not waterproof) seal in a way where water was able to get into the phone.

These phones are not designed to go in water.
Click to expand...
exactly. and I'm sure it hit the bottom of the bucket pretty hard. that probably messed it up. whatever test they did was in a controlled situation. where it was 'placed' in water, not dropped. its not hey let me test this phone, ill just throw it in my bath tub full of water, or into a pool.
 
sunking101 said:
Why do they have an IP67 rating then? Why did Apple bother. Would anyone seriously have skipped iPhones if they had just made them dust resistant? I don't need a 'maybe, maybe not' water resistant phone and when it isn't guaranteed anyway then it's a worthless feature.
Click to expand...

because a minor splash or a little rain shouldn't 'break' it. thats all its really good for. they went and got the certification for it. whatever the test was. samsung has done the same thing and has a higher rating on one of their phones. water damage is still not covered under warranty with them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BeeGood
Jayson A said:
There's a disclaimer that water damaged is not covered under warranty. You see, Apple doesn't know how you treat your iPhone. You could've dropped it into a swimming pool... they don't know how the water got in, so they can't honor the warranty.

If your son DROPPED it into a bucket, perhaps that compromised the water-resistant (not waterproof) seal in a way where water was able to get into the phone.

These phones are not designed to go in water.
Click to expand...

Be careful. Logic and common sense = "You're bashing the OP" in this thread.
 
  • Like
Reactions: T5BRICK and 8692574
I'd be curious how this would hold up in court, honestly. They give the phone a specific rating but then decline water damage. In unsure what the point of an official rating is in such a case then.

My worry is as follows. Let's say the seal wasn't properly done in factory. You'll never know that until you get the phone wet (lets use apple's latest advertisement as an example where music is playing whilst the phone sits in a small puddle of water and is also splashed). So I put my phone through this same scenario, the failed seal allows water in anyway, and Apple declined me warranty service.

In just trying to understand how a company can advertise water resistance but then not hold the product to that standard, officially speaking. I understand full well the burden of people lying about going deep sea diving (or some ridiculous scenario), but the converse seems to be pretty consumer unfriendly.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Rina11, JCCL, Ulenspiegel and 2 others
newellj said:
This isn't hard. Apple claims the phone meets a standard that specifies 30 minutes submerged. Either it does, or it doesn't. Claiming it meets the standard but not standing behind it is nonsense, and dishonest nonsense at that.
Click to expand...

How do you propose they stand behind their claim that it is IP67 water resistant?

Serious question. Because unless they just take everyone at their word, I really don't see how they can do this.


lordofthereef said:
I'd be curious how this would hold up in court, honestly. They give the phone a specific rating but then decline water damage. In unsure what the point of an official rating is in such a case then.

My worry is as follows. Let's say the seal wasn't properly done in factory. You'll never know that until you get the phone wet (lets use apple's latest advertisement as an example where music is playing whilst the phone sits in a small puddle of water and is also splashed). So I put my phone through this same scenario, the failed seal allows water in anyway, and Apple declined me warranty service.

In just trying to understand how a company can advertise water resistance but then not hold the product to that standard, officially speaking. I understand full well the burden of people lying about going deep sea diving (or some ridiculous scenario), but the converse seems to be pretty consumer unfriendly.
Click to expand...

I'm no lawyer, but I don't think this case would go anywhere. Like you said, maybe the seals failed, or maybe the buyer is lying about how the phone got wet. Who knows? A jury certainly wouldn't.

The only way I see Apple or Samsung or any other device manufacturer could be held liable by a court is if there was video evidence of a pattern of these phone failing to meet the IP67 standard, but we've seen the opposite. Video after video on YouTube shows these phones are not just meeting the standard, but surpassing it to ridiculous levels.

The best course of action is to just keep in mind that it is still an expensive electronics device and use it around water at your own risk, regardless of what some marketing team is blabbering on about.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: willmtaylor
For me the more shocking response in the forum is the focus on the phone being dropped.

The water resistance of the iPhone is offered by a special adhesive seal that goes around the device. If that adhesive seal fails under a drop that doesn't result in any visible physical damage then IP67 would be the least of my concern.
 
BeeGood said:
How do you propose they stand behind their claim that it is IP67 water resistant?

Serious question. Because unless they just take everyone at their word, I really don't see how they can do this.




I'm no lawyer, but I don't think this case would go anywhere. Like you said, maybe the seals failed, or maybe the buyer is lying about how the phone got wet. Who knows? A jury certainly wouldn't.

The only way I see Apple or Samsung or any other device manufacturer could be held liable by a court is if there was video evidence of a pattern of these phone failing to meet the IP67 standard, but we've seen the opposite. Video after video on YouTube shows these phones are not just meeting the standard, but surpassing it to ridiculous levels.

The best course of action is to just keep in mind that it is still an expensive electronics device and use it around water at your own risk, regardless of what some marketing team is blabbering on about.
Click to expand...
I don't think something like this even goes to a jury. I believe it would be covered under small claims.

But I do believe it is the manufacturers burden to prove you damaged a good by misusing it. Otherwise all warranties could just easily be claimed as abuse and refused by corporations.

My stance (and opinion) on the matter is that the ip67 rating shouldn't be advertised if there is no way to hold Apple (or insert manufacturer here) accountable to the claim.
[doublepost=1480699506][/doublepost]To add to this it would be interesting to see how Apple responds to dust going forward. To my knowledge their response to dust is to just swap a device with dust inside. I could take it into a situation where there is s great deal of dust (i.e. Rock climbing) and my guess is they're still replace the device, based on what I've read in the past.
 
Last edited:
lordofthereef said:
I don't think something like this even goes to a jury. I believe it would be covered under small claims.
Click to expand...

I think that's right. It's probably very obvious now that I'm no lawyer. 😀


But I do believe it is the manufacturers burden to prove you damaged a good by misusing it. Otherwise all warranties could just easily be claimed as abuse and refused by corporations.
Click to expand...

That's the point I've been trying to make all along. They can't prove it. So they can't warrant against it.

My stance (and opinion) on the matter is that the ip67 rating shouldn't be advertised if there is no way to hold Apple (or insert manufacturer here) accountable to the claim.
Click to expand...

That's one idea, but I just don't understand why this is now all of a sudden a problem. Apple advertised Gorrila glass (in their keynote several years ago) as being more scratch resistant. They've never warrantied against scratches and not a single person has a problem with that. Saying it's "IP67" is a lot more specific than the claims they make about the screen, yet people still feel mislead. I truly don't understand.


To add to this it would be interesting to see how Apple responds to dust going forward. To my knowledge their response to dust is to just swap a device with dust inside. I could take it into a situation where there is s great deal of dust (i.e. Rock climbing) and my guess is they're still replace the device, based on what I've read in the past.
Click to expand...

Hmmm. That's an interesting question. My guess is that they'll still replace panels with dust in them. It doesn't happen as often as contact with water, but it'll be interesting what Apple chooses to do.
[doublepost=1480701214][/doublepost]
C DM said:
Some would say that if a claim couldn't be stood by then the claim probably shouldn't be made.
Click to expand...

Tear down videos show that the iPhone 7/7+ has been sealed with several rubber gaskets and rubber-like adhesives.

Apple has tested it, and the phone has been tested by several people independently showing that the iPhone 7/7+ meets the IP67 standard.

The phone is clearly more water resistant than its predecessor. Personally, I'd be interested in having this information before I make a purchase decision as opposed to Apple concealing it out of fear that someone will misunderstand what it means.
 
BeeGood said:
I think that's right. It's probably very obvious now that I'm no lawyer. 😀




That's the point I've been trying to make all along. They can't prove it. So they can't warrant against it.



That's one idea, but I just don't understand why this is now all of a sudden a problem. Apple advertised Gorrila glass (in their keynote several years ago) as being more scratch resistant. They've never warrantied against scratches and not a single person has a problem with that. Saying it's "IP67" is a lot more specific than the claims they make about the screen, yet people still feel mislead. I truly don't understand.




Hmmm. That's an interesting question. My guess is that they'll still replace panels with dust in them. It doesn't happen as often as contact with water, but it'll be interesting what Apple chooses to do.
[doublepost=1480701214][/doublepost]

Tear down videos show that the iPhone 7/7+ has been sealed with several rubber gaskets and rubber-like adhesives.

Apple has tested it, and the phone has been tested by several people independently showing that the iPhone 7/7+ meets the IP67 standard.

The phone is clearly more water resistant than its predecessor. Personally, I'd be interested in having this information before I make a purchase decision as opposed to Apple concealing it out of fear that someone will misunderstand what it means.
Click to expand...
To my knowledge Apple doesn't give a specification as to what conditions gorilla glass will not scratch. The ip67 rating is a specific testable metric (the analogue to this with gorilla glass would be a printed and/or advertised hardness rating) Hence why I'm questioning their (and other manufacturers) reasoning for placing anwater and dust ingress rating but basically saying they have no way to stand behind said rating because... reasons.
[doublepost=1480702337][/doublepost]
C DM said:
Some would say that if a claim couldn't be stood by then the claim probably shouldn't be made.
Click to expand...
This is essentially my stance.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3lionsbecks
Why are $700 electronics being dropped into water in the first place? Do you drive your car into a lake an expect Chevy or Ford or whoever to fix your car for free? If rain gets on your car nothing happens, if you splash water on your phone, apple says nothing will happen. It's water resistant, not water proof.
 
lordofthereef said:
To my knowledge Apple doesn't give a specification as to what conditions gorilla glass will not scratch. The ip67 rating is a specific testable metric (the analogue to this with gorilla glass would be a printed and/or advertised hardness rating) Hence why I'm questioning their (and other manufacturers) reasoning for placing anwater and dust ingress rating but basically saying they have no way to stand behind said rating because... reasons.
[doublepost=1480702337][/doublepost]
This is essentially my stance.
Click to expand...


I guess it's a matter a preference then. If I understand you correctly, you're saying you'd prefer a less specific "we've improved the phone's water resistance" as opposed to saying "it's IP67 water and dust resistant".

I prefer to know the extent to which the phone is water resistant. Either way, the manufacturer can't stand behind either claim.
 
BeeGood said:
I guess it's a matter a preference then. If I understand you correctly, you're saying you'd prefer a less specific "we've improved the phone's water resistance" as opposed to saying "it's IP67 water and dust resistant".

I prefer to know the extent to which the phone is water resistant. Either way, the manufacturer can't stand behind either claim.
Click to expand...
But seems like it's not really resistant to the extent that is implied, at least not always or perhaps even not most of the time in the real world. Seems like stating that specific extent isn't all that meaninful then.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3lionsbecks and sunking101
OP is right in his frustrations but I can see apple side of things. They have no idea how long a phone had been put in water. That's the issue.

Should the phone work perfectly after being in water? Yes

I used mine by the pool once and dropped it in the sink when putting water in before I began to wash up and mine is flawless.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BeeGood
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back