I'm not necessarily saying I have a preference. I entered the conversation wondering how a manufacturer can make a claim and essentially not stand behind it "because it's not testable". Moreover hiw can be held up in court (or if it can be at all).
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
Sorry about your phone, that must suck.
I agree that Apple should not be advertising the phone was water resistant, unless they will back it up.
Possible, but unlikely. Both of my kids have done multiple under-water videos with their iPhones (one a 7, the other a 7 Plus). I've done multiple outdoor runs in the pouring rain. There are lots of videos out there of people using their phones underwater or exposed to lots of water without issue. To date, the only time I've heard people complain about water exposure hurting their 7's is when a drop was involved. It seems far, far more likely that the drop compromised the seal and was therefore the larger contributing factor to the damage, not just simple exposure to liquid.
I've only read a handful of threads on this board where people have claimed that their iPhone 7/7+ was damaged by water. But I've seen (visual proof) at least a dozen videos of people getting their iPhones wet to varying degrees without breaking. I'd be willing to bet that the vast majority of iPhone 7/7Pluses can withstand more than a casual submersion in shallow water.
The iPhone has an accelerometer and barometer. It can measure sudden drops and pressure changes (like when underwater).
They replace, for free under warranty, phones that have water damage unless Apple can demonstrate that the phone was in the water > half an hour.
That wouldn't work for instances where the phone is hit with high pressured water without being dropped, like spraying it with a water hose, or taking it in the shower.
[doublepost=1480810193][/doublepost]
So....you're saying Apple should just take people at their word.
Apple seems to want people to take them at their own word by advertising water resistance capabilities.
I would say yes, Apple should take people at their word that they haven't abused their phone past the IP67 spec.
The vast majority of iPhone owners are not going to intentionally subject their phone to abuse just for lulz. People are too busy in the first place working and taking care of kids or studying. People actually care about their devices because they have become a primary means of communication.
For most of my life I would not have had the time to subject my phone to a pressure wash even if I wanted to do that.
No they don't. You can take any iPhone 7/7+ apart and see for yourself that measures have been taken to make it more water resistant.
Right, they removed it because of courage. Water resistance would've been an actually logical explanation, at the very least.
One word about that bolded part: Teenagers.
Randomly line up 5 of them and ask them to pull out their phones. At least 2 of them will be visibly damaged in some way.
Most people won't intentionally abuse their phones, but a quick search on eBay will show you that lots of people are fairly careless with their phones, particularly around water.
And it's not like you have to go out of your way to subject your phone to high pressure water. Take it in the shower with you and leave it under the stream of water. Phone gets damaged? No worries. No change in accelerometer reading or barometric pressure means Apple owes you a new phone. Rinse and repeat (pun intended).
It will happen thousands of times, and Apple knows this.
And if things don't hold up to the specific advertised rating or to the advertised situations?
As I've said, how would anyone other than the person who damaged the phone know that?
So that means Apple can't stand by what they list in specifications and advertise, right? Then they shouldn't get the benefits of listing that and in particular advertising that, right?
Please explain what versatility the lightning port has now from the lightning port that already existed by removing the microphone port. Also, "daft" and "ass" are most certainly insults, regardless of context.
You can't dunk it in a few inches of water either, apparently.
Didn't many consumers ask for the IP67 rating? As usual, consumers asked for something without really knowing what they were asking for I'd suggest.
[doublepost=1480847251][/doublepost]
So if Apple can't prove or disprove whether the user exceeded the IP67 rating or whether any other damage contributed to the subsequent water damage, no phone should be permitted to have a degree of water resistance? That's a very backwards way of looking at things!
Apple did, in fact, make the phone more water resistant. There is nothing wrong with them saying that they've done so.
The absence of a warranty doesn't mean that a company should waive the right to advertise an enhancement to their product, especially if they're clear about what is and isn't covered (both Apple and Samsung are very clear about this).
When they added gorilla glass, Apple didn't guarantee the iPhone's screen against scratches. When they began using 7000 series aluminum, they didn't guarantee the phone against bending. Why are you expecting water resistance to be any different?
[doublepost=1480859457][/doublepost]
Except for the fact that I've never, with my own eyes, seen an iPhone 7/7+ fail after being dunked in a few inches of water.
Have you?
Last edited:
No, they should test for water damage. If Apple determines that the phone suffered water damage, they should replace it with no further questions asked.
Right now Apple is trying to have it both ways, and is completely misleading buyers. Apple is claiming that the phone meets a very specific standard. They need to stand behind that claim.No, they should test for water damage. If Apple determines that the phone suffered water damage, they should replace it with no further questions asked.
I presume you mean only in circumstances where the water damage hasn't been caused by some other damage or mistreatment by the user.
No, they should test for water damage. If Apple determines that the phone suffered water damage, they should replace it with no further questions asked.
The phone can withstand 1 meter of water for 30 minutes and you're saying Apple should cover any water damage? I think that is absurd.
The only people that are being mislead are those that refuse to read/listen. Apple clearly states that the phone is IP67 water/dust resistant, but they don't cover any water damage. What's misleading? It might not be the most consumer-friendly policy but it seems pretty straightforward to me.
Apple doesn't have to "stand behind" anything. All they have to do is test the phones to make sure they meet the IP67 standard. They've done this. Independent parties have as well.
Where was it mentioned that phones shouldn't be made more water resistant? That's a very weird way of looking at what was said, which wasn't anything of the sort.
[doublepost=1480866957][/doublepost]
And there you bring up some good points--when Apple made the screen more scratch resistant did they advertise any of that in commercials or even list Gorilla glass in the specifications, or when they made the metal stronger, did they make commercials about it or even list that in specifications? And there you have it, why should we expect water resistance to be any indifferent, indeed?
Last edited: