iphone 7 Water resist.... I am verry verry disapointed

[Ds6778]

Lol last year people complained that It wasn't water resistant, this year people can't go deep sea diving with it so they complain. Apple can't do anything right. There's always the vocal minority "APPLE SUX THEY WONT FIX MY PHONE THAT WENT 1000 LEAGUES UNDER THE SEA WHAT A RIP OFF!!" For me, the rating doesn't mean I'm gonna go see how much it can take. It is more of a peace of mind kind of thing. Using my phone in the rain, drop it in a sink etccc

 

[Andrewtst]

Seems like you are talking about something other than what I'm bringing up.

You ask what happen if it still damage in the way that not suppose be damage. (No such thing as the water resistance will degrade from time to time and also depends on condition, all this is clearly mentioned as well)

The answer is straightforward they no need to paid you single cents or repair free or replacement as it already said water damage is not under cover.

 

[mrex]

For me, the rating doesn't mean I'm gonna go see how much it can take. It is more of a peace of mind kind of thing. Using my phone in the rain, drop it in a sink etccc

If yoy think you get a peace for your mind, then you should read the text again: "Splash, water, and dust resistance are not permanent conditions and resistance might decrease as a result of normal wear. "

So dont use the phone in the rain... water resistance isnt permanent as apple says -maybe it was only few hours after manufactured...

 

[newellj]

I presume you mean only in circumstances where the water damage hasn't been caused by some other damage or mistreatment by the user.

Yes, that's what I was getting at, although I was being slightly facetious in my response to an absurd post.
[doublepost=1480880628][/doublepost]

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.

You are making this too hard.

If Apple claims that the phone meets an objective standard, it must warrant the phone for damage cause by water that's within the standard.

 

[Ds6778]

If yoy think you get a peace for your mind, then you should read the text again: "Splash, water, and dust resistance are not permanent conditions and resistance might decrease as a result of normal wear. "

So dont use the phone in the rain... water resistance isnt permanent as apple says -maybe it was only few hours after manufactured...

Peace of mind as in "Oh, my phone got some rain on it, there's a better chance of it being ok then it not being rated at all." Don't be ridiculous... realistic expectations go a long way.

 

[C DM]

You ask what happen if it still damage in the way that not suppose be damage. (No such thing as the water resistance will degrade from time to time and also depends on condition, all this is clearly mentioned as well)

The answer is straightforward they no need to paid you single cents or repair free or replacement as it already said water damage is not under cover.

And the point is that they shouldn't get to explicitly advertise that then. But that part of it keeps on getting ignored and something else gets focused on.
[doublepost=1480881251][/doublepost]

Then I guess Apple would replace the device.

But they are saying that they won't, that's part of the issue.

 

[Ds6778]

And the point is that they shouldn't get to explicitly advertise that then. But that part of it keeps on getting ignored and something else gets focused on.

They didn't advertise people getting refunds/replacements due to water damage. Don't be so literal.

 

[C DM]

They didn't advertise people getting refunds/replacements due to water damage. Don't be so literal.

Righr...I'm the one that's being overly literal there.

 

[Ds6778]

Wait, I'm the one that's being overly literal there?

Yes.

 

[mrex]

They didn't advertise people getting refunds/replacements due to water damage. Don't be so literal.

Phil said "and what that means for all of us ... your iphone will be safe from water and dust." while there is a huge pic about a dude falling to the pool:

So... should i imagine that the guy magically stop sinking to the pool and the phone gets only few waterdrops if any because i actually cant see the phone and waterdrops? And Phil didnt say: "... will be safe from water..."?

 

[Ds6778]

Phil said "and what that means for all of us ... your iphone will be safe from water and dust." while there is a huge pic about a dude falling to the pool:

So... should i imagine that the guy magically stop sinking to the pool and the phone gets only few waterdrops if any because i actually cant see the phone and waterdrops? And Phil didnt say: "... will be safe from water..."?

I'm sure for every one person that gets actual water damage, there's a million iPhones that were saved due to the IP rating.... I'll take those odds.

Plus, they NEVER guaranteed it.

 

[C DM]

I'm sure for every one person that gets actual water damage, there's a million iPhones that were saved due to the IP rating.... I'll take those odds.

Plus, they NEVER guaranteed it.

Then they shouldn't blatantly and explicitly advertise something they can't stand behind. It's all rather simple.

 

[Ds6778]

Then they shouldn't blatantly and explicitly advertise something they can't stand behind. It's all rather simple.

They're not lol no where does it say we 100% guarantee

 

[mrochester]

Then they shouldn't blatantly and explicitly advertise something they can't stand behind. It's all rather simple.

They can stand behind it. They have the IP67 rating. They aren't claiming IP67 rating without it being IP67 rated!

 

[C DM]

They're not lol no where does it say we 100% guarantee

Which isn't related to what I'm talking about.

 

[Ds6778]

If anything, you have a problem with the RATING not Apple. They obviously passed whatever testing that is required to gain said certification. So, direct your hate/anger towards that.

 

[C DM]

They can stand behind it. They have the IP67 rating. They aren't claiming IP67 rating without it being IP67 rated!

Then if it doesn't hold up to that rating they should do something about it, right?
[doublepost=1480884693][/doublepost]

If anything, you have a problem with the RATING not Apple. They obviously passed whatever testing that is required to gain said certification. So, direct your hate/anger towards that.

If they are benefiting from the rating and using it to advertise then they should stand behind it then.

 

[Ds6778]

Then if it doesn't hold up to that rating they should do something about it, right?
[doublepost=1480884693][/doublepost]
If they are benefiting from the rating and using it to advertise then they should stand behind it then.

THEY PASSED THE TEST.
Direct your dissatisfaction with whomever is in charge of the rating....

 

[mrochester]

Then if it doesn't hold up to that rating they should do something about it, right?

Absolutely. And if it fails due to someone having previously damaged the device then it shouldn't be repaired. The problem for Apple arrives when you have people claiming warranty repair on devices they have damaged which has resulted in water ingress. You also have the issue that a device's ability to repel water diminishes over time due to the degradation of the materials used to repel said water. If Apple stated they would replace for water damage they would open themselves up to all sorts of abuse. I presume this is why Sony quite quickly changed their policy on the matter.

 

[C DM]

THEY PASSED THE TEST.
Direct your dissatisfaction with whomever is in charge of the rating....

But can't stand behind the results.

Absolutely. And if it fails due to someone having previously damaged the device then it shouldn't be repaired. The problem for Apple arrives when you have people claiming warranty repair on devices they have damaged which has resulted in water ingress. You also have the issue that a device's ability to repel water diminishes over time due to the degradation of the materials used to repel said water. If Apple stated they would replace for water damage they would open themselves up to all sorts of abuse. I presume this is why Sony quite quickly changed their policy on the matter.

They they shouldn't so blatantly and explicitly advertise it.

We are going around the same circles.

 

[mrochester]

But can't stand behind the results.

You're just saying the same thing over and over now without adding anything new. Manufacturers of smartphones aren't going to guarantee against any kind of water damage any time soon, even if their devices are rated IP67 or IP68. That's just the reality of it I'm afraid. You're just going to have to live with it for now until there is the technology to guarantee total waterproofness.

And if you think that the way Apple advertises these things is misleading, then I suggest that you make a complaint to the Advertising Standards Authority, or whatever the equivalent authority is in your country.

 

[Ds6778]

But can't stand behind the results.

You say "results" like it's a widespread issue of faulty phones getting water damage. You can't make a stupid proof phone.

 

[C DM]

You're just saying the same thing over and over now without adding anything new. Manufacturers of smartphones aren't going to guarantee against any kind of water damage any time soon, even if their devices are rated IP67 or IP68. That's just the reality of it I'm afraid. You're just going to have to live with it for now until there is the technology to guarantee total waterproofness.

And if you think that the way Apple advertises these things is misleading, then I suggest that you make a complaint to the Advertising Standards Authority, or whatever the equivalent authority is in your country.

No one is saying anything new. It's all been hashed and rehashed in many threads already. Nothing any of us can do except to discuss it here as it keeps on just coming up over and over apparently.

 

[mrochester]

No one is saying anything new. It's all been hashed and rehashed in many threads already. Nothing any of us can do except to discuss it here as it keeps on just coming up over and over apparently.

Well I guess that's the end of the discussion then.

 

[C DM]

Well I guess that's the end of the discussion then.

Realistically it has been that even before this thread was posted given that the same discussion already happened multiple times in multiple previously existing threads.