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

[Phoenixx]

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.

Agreed. I can't understand the people rushing to defend Apple on this one. A product is either rated at IP67 or it isn't. In order to meet this standard, it MUST be able to be submerged in 1 meter of water for 30 minutes without damage. If this is not possible, then it DOESN'T meet the standard. This is the same with ANY product claiming to be IP67 rated no matter who manufactures it.

There are large numbers of stories coming out of iPhone 7s been dropped in water and suffering water damage, which indicate very clearly that this phone DOES NOT meet the IP67 rating. These phones are either faulty, or Apple is guilty of FRAUD by advertising the phone as meeting this standard. As usual, Apple's response is to weasel their way out of their responsibilities. I can see yet another class action law suit on the way.

 

[Ds6778]

Agreed. I can't understand the people rushing to defend Apple on this one. Either the phone is rated at IP67 or it isn't. If it suffers water damage after being dropped in a bucket of water, then clearly it isn't water proofed to the IP67 standard, and Apple is basically guilty of FRAUD.

Lol what? You can't just claim IP rating, they obviously went through the proper procedures.

 

[3lionsbecks]

As usual all you do is complain and attack Apple and repeat on every thread how bad and terrible Apple is and manipulative and anyone that has a different point of view you insult and name call.
I wonder why you keep posting here at an Apple iPhone forum if you hate them so much.

I actually don't hate Apple products. I almost exclusively use them (phone, watch, Apple TV, laptop and iPad) but that doesn't mean I am blind to their faults.

I've been a big fan of Apple since I got my first PowerPC back in 1995 and had my gen2 iPod.

But recently I can't help but admit they aren't producing the same quality in their manufacturing that they used to. And have also noticed their customer service is very hit and miss. They have more problems with production quality than ever and try to skirt the blame more and more

 

[Applejuiced]

Lol what? You can't just claim IP rating, they obviously went through the proper procedures.

Anyone can claim oh I just splashed my phone or just a few sprinkles of water and its now dead. And then act like its Apple's fault or that they owe them a free replacement.
To get that water resistance rating you dont just put a sticker on a box.
Apple or any phone manufacturer is supposed to just believe whatever anyone claims and just keep replacing devices for free?
I think not.
[doublepost=1480889991][/doublepost]

I actually don't hate Apple products. I almost exclusively use them (phone, watch, Apple TV, laptop and iPad) but that doesn't mean I am blind to their faults.

I've been a big fan of Apple since I got my first PowerPC back in 1995 and had my gen2 iPod.

But recently I can't help but admit they aren't producing the same quality in their manufacturing that they used to. And have also noticed their customer service is very hit and miss. They have more problems with production quality than ever and try to skirt the blame more and more

You could have fooled me.
But if you feel they started falling behind or they not good any more you vote with your wallet.
You dont buy a product that doesn't have any liquid damage warranty, get it liquid damaged and then cry for something that they never promised you to cover in the first place.
Makes sense?

 

[Ds6778]

Anyone can claim oh I just splashed my phone or just a few sprinkles of water and its now dead. And then act like its Apple's fault or that they owe them a free replacement.
To get that water resistance rating you dont just put a sticker on a box.
Apple or any phone manufacturer is supposed to just believe whatever anyone claims and just keep replacing devices for free?
I think not.

Exactly, there's no way to determine what exactly happened.... could have been more then 30 minutes... deeper then 1 meter... etc. everyone has a sob story.

 

[Applejuiced]

Exactly, there's no way to determine what exactly happened.... could have been more then 30 minutes... deeper then 1 meter... etc. everyone has a sob story.

And every time someone wants to get their phone replaced for free they can just kill it with water damage and say that they only splashed it for a few seconds.
Imagine that, it will be out of control and never end.
When or where do you draw the line or verify and accept anyone's claim?
You cannot.

 

[BeeGood]

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?

I *think* gorilla glass was first used on the iPhone 4 (hopefully someone here knows for sure). Better scratch resistance was mentioned in that keynote (see 10:35AM mark).

https://www.cnet.com/news/steve-jobs-introduces-iphone-4-at-wwdc-live-blog/

7000 series aluminum was definitely mentioned in the 6s keynote.

 

[C DM]

I *think* gorilla glass was first used on the iPhone 4 (hopefully someone here knows for sure). Better scratch resistance was mentioned in that keynote (see 10:35AM mark).

https://www.cnet.com/news/steve-jobs-introduces-iphone-4-at-wwdc-live-blog/

7000 series aluminum was definitely mentioned in the 6s keynote.

Which is quite a ways off from listing it in specifications or actually blatantly and explicitly advertising it.

 

[BeeGood]

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.

I'm not making this hard. I'm stating what is reality and explaining why it is so.

And reality is opposite to what you are declaring "must" happen.

 

[Brian Y]

Agreed. I can't understand the people rushing to defend Apple on this one. Either the phone is rated at IP67 or it isn't. If it suffers water damage after being dropped in a bucket of water, then clearly it isn't water proofed to the IP67 standard, and Apple is basically guilty of FRAUD.

IP67 is a very specific rating. It also only applies when the product is new.

There are several reasons why Apple is not guilty of fraud:

- IP67 only applies when new, as with anything which is water resistant - general use, knocks, bumps etc will all degrade water ingress protection
- Continuing from above - we have no idea if there was prior damage which would have compromised the seals
- A bucket is a shallow object - chances are it has around 30cm of water in it. If it was dropped from 1m height (which is plausible), without *any* downward force (with a child, unlikely), by the time it hit the water it would be travelling at 3.7m/s. At that speed, unless it lands flat (unlikely), it *will* hit the bottom of the bucket. IP67 tests submersion, not manipulation (hitting the bottom could move the screen slightly, for example) or impact
- Apple doesn't advertise it as being able to survive being in a bucket of water, they advertise it as splash, dust and spill resistant - not proof.
- They state quite clearly several times that the warranty doesn't cover water damage"

The iPhone page says:

"Built to be water resistant. With its entire enclosure re‑engineered, iPhone 7 is the very first water‑resistant iPhone.1 So now you’re protected like never before against spills, splashes and even dust."

"1. Phone 7 and iPhone 7 Plus are splash, water and dust resistant, and were tested under controlled laboratory conditions with a rating of IP67 under IEC standard 60529. Splash, water and dust resistance are not permanent conditions and resistance might decrease as a result of normal wear. Do not attempt to charge a wet iPhone; refer to the user guide for cleaning and drying instructions. Liquid damage not covered under warranty."

You need to use common sense here. It's designed to survive being splashed, or having something spilled on it. You cannot reasonably expect a company to fix something free of charge because you gave a 4 year old a £700 phone and he threw it in a bucket of water. Take responsibility for your actions (giving your phone to the child in the first place) and that of your children.

 

[Phoenixx]

I agree with those saying that Apple is misleading its customers since IP67, heavy marketing focus on water-resistance features, + several high profile ads with the iPhone either being or seemingly about to be used in heavy rain situations would lead one to assume that they are waterproof as per the IP67 certification.

However, in terms of what's written, Apple is very careful to not say 'waterproof' and instead says 'water resistant'. Two different things, the moment something is submerged that enters the realms of waterproofing not water resistance. Sadly for us consumers Apple obviously did just enough to pass IP67 but are explicitly stating that water damage is not covered by the warranty since they are fully aware that they just barely passed the certification test.

Exactly, and they actually WANT people to end up with water damaged phones, because they know they will get additional sales of insurance claims. It's all about greed, like everything Apple does these days.

 

[BeeGood]

Which is quite a ways off from listing it in specifications or actually blatantly and explicitly advertising it.

Is the problem the ad or is it the keynote? Most people here seem to have a problem with the slide from the keynote.

If you're issue is with the ads, then there is no issue because I haven't seen one add where an iPhone 7/7+ is sumerged in water.

 

[3lionsbecks]

Anyone can claim oh I just splashed my phone or just a few sprinkles of water and its now dead. And then act like its Apple's fault or that they owe them a free replacement.
To get that water resistance rating you dont just put a sticker on a box.
Apple or any phone manufacturer is supposed to just believe whatever anyone claims and just keep replacing devices for free?
I think not.
[doublepost=1480889991][/doublepost]

You could have fooled me.
But if you feel they started falling behind or they not good any more you vote with your wallet.
You dont buy a product that doesn't have any liquid damage warranty, get it liquid damaged and then cry for something that they never promised you to cover in the first place.
Makes sense?

Well I agree and after seeing all the issues with the MacBook Pro line up I'm probably going to have to look at alternatives as a replacement for my 2010 MacBook Pro.

 

[Ds6778]

Exactly, and they actually WANT people to end up with water damaged phones, because they know they will get additional sales of insurance claims. It's all about greed, like everything Apple does these days.

Lol and us Apple fans are the insane ones. I have a tin hate for you. If you can't afford Apples prices go buy an android phone. The S7 is water resistant, be careful though, they don't guarantee anything either. Bur sure, lets hold Apple to a higher standard then the rest of the industry.

 

[C DM]

Is the problem the ad or is it the keynote? Most people here seem to have a problem with the slide from the keynote.

If you're issue is with the ads, then there is no issue because I haven't seen one add where an iPhone 7/7+ is sumerged in water.

Seems like the discussion is about everything. And there are certainly ads with the phone being in rain and being splashed, yet if one was to fail because of that Apple wouldn't do anything about it. That's not even addressing the part that IP67 rating means that the phone can withstand being submerged. Seems like we are once again back to the same points over and over again.

 

[Phoenixx]

IP67 is a very specific rating. It also only applies when the product is new.

There are several reasons why Apple is not guilty of fraud:

- IP67 only applies when new, as with anything which is water resistant - general use, knocks, bumps etc will all degrade water ingress protection
- Continuing from above - we have no idea if there was prior damage which would have compromised the seals
- A bucket is a shallow object - chances are it has around 30cm of water in it. If it was dropped from 1m height (which is plausible), without *any* downward force (with a child, unlikely), by the time it hit the water it would be travelling at 3.7m/s. At that speed, unless it lands flat (unlikely), it *will* hit the bottom of the bucket. IP67 tests submersion, not manipulation (hitting the bottom could move the screen slightly, for example) or impact
- Apple doesn't advertise it as being able to survive being in a bucket of water, they advertise it as splash, dust and spill resistant - not proof.
- They state quite clearly several times that the warranty doesn't cover water damage"

The iPhone page says:

"Built to be water resistant. With its entire enclosure re‑engineered, iPhone 7 is the very first water‑resistant iPhone.1 So now you’re protected like never before against spills, splashes and even dust."

"1. Phone 7 and iPhone 7 Plus are splash, water and dust resistant, and were tested under controlled laboratory conditions with a rating of IP67 under IEC standard 60529. Splash, water and dust resistance are not permanent conditions and resistance might decrease as a result of normal wear. Do not attempt to charge a wet iPhone; refer to the user guide for cleaning and drying instructions. Liquid damage not covered under warranty."

You need to use common sense here. It's designed to survive being splashed, or having something spilled on it. You cannot reasonably expect a company to fix something free of charge because you gave a 4 year old a £700 phone and he threw it in a bucket of water. Take responsibility for your actions (giving your phone to the child in the first place) and that of your children.

This example of an iPhone 7 dropped in a bucket isn't the only one where the water "resistance" has failed. There are examples of people testing brand new iPhone 7s online in less than 30cm of water and ending up with water damage after only a few minutes. Clearly the iPhone 7 is NOT IP67 rated, if it was then the phone would be able to be submerged for up to 30 minutes without the risk of water damage. The very fact that Apple is claiming that a IP 67 rating only makes the phone splash proof is evidence enough of their deception. If the phone is only rated for being splash proof, then it is an IP64 rated product, maybe IP65 at best. Given that Apple is using the IP67 rating as one of the selling points of the phone, the ARE guilty of fraud.

 

[Ds6778]

This example of an iPhone 7 dropped in a bucket isn't the only one where the water "resistance" has failed. There are examples of people testing brand new iPhone 7s online in less than 30cm of water and ending up with water damage after only a few minutes. Clearly the iPhone 7 is NOT IP67 rated, if it was then the phone would be able to be submerged for up to 30 minutes without the risk of water damage. The very fact that Apple is claiming that a IP 67 rating only makes the phone splash proof is evidence enough of their deception. If the phone is only rated for being splash proof, then it is an IP64 rated product, maybe IP65 at best. Given that Apple is using the IP67 rating as one of the selling points of the phone, the ARE guilty of fraud.

Lol you keep throwing "fraud" around. THEY PASSED THE TEST GET OVER IT.

 

[Phoenixx]

Seems like the discussion is about everything. And there are certainly ads with the phone being in rain and being splashed, yet if one was to fail because of that Apple wouldn't do anything about it. That's not even addressing the part that IP67 rating means that the phone can withstand being submerged. Seems like we are once again back to the same points over and over again.

A phone being in the rain and being splashed meets the IP64 rating, maybe the IP65, if the water is under pressure. Only when a phone can be submerged in up to 1m or water does it begin to meet the IP67 rating.
[doublepost=1480891666][/doublepost]

Lol you keep throwing "fraud" around. THEY PASSED THE TEST GET OVER IT.

The real world experiences of their customers indicate very clearly that they did NOT pass the IP67 rated test in the product they released to the public. I think you will find, if you look carefully, that the phone used for this test was an early version of the iPhone 7, not the final product.

As has been stated on other similar threads, Apple really messed up on this, and it won't be long before there is a class action lawsuit from all those people who have bought the phone specifically because it was water resistant, only to find themselves with a water damaged phone, because it doesn't meet the standards for the IP67 rating.

 

[BeeGood]

Seems like the discussion is about everything. And there are certainly ads with the phone being in rain and being splashed, yet if one was to fail because of that Apple wouldn't do anything about it. That's not even addressing the part that IP67 rating means that the phone can withstand being submerged. Seems like we are once again back to the same points over and over again.

Yeah, round and round we go.

Personally, I'm just going to enjoy the fact that I don't have to worry about incidental splashes as much as in the past. That's good enough for me.

 

[C DM]

Yeah, round and round we go.

Personally, I'm just going to enjoy the fact that I don't have to worry about incidental splashes as much as in the past. That's good enough for me.

Unless one of those incidents causes some sort of liquid damage.

 

[BeeGood]

Unless one of those incidents causes some sort of liquid damage.

If that happens then that's on me. I'll buy a new phone and I won't expect Apple to honor some imaginary promise they never made.

 

[C DM]

If that happens then that's on me. I'll buy a new phone and I won't expect Apple to honor some imaginary promise they never made.

But you apparently altered how you would go about some things based on their statements and advertisements as you are now not worried as much about some things that can cause damage that isn't covered (things that you would have been more careful about before when those statements and advertisements weren't around).

 

[Brian Y]

This example of an iPhone 7 dropped in a bucket isn't the only one where the water "resistance" has failed. There are examples of people testing brand new iPhone 7s online in less than 30cm of water and ending up with water damage after only a few minutes. Clearly the iPhone 7 is NOT IP67 rated, if it was then the phone would be able to be submerged for up to 30 minutes without the risk of water damage. The very fact that Apple is claiming that a IP 67 rating only makes the phone splash proof is evidence enough of their deception. If the phone is only rated for being splash proof, then it is an IP64 rated product, maybe IP65 at best. Given that Apple is using the IP67 rating as one of the selling points of the phone, the ARE guilty of fraud.

If they're guilty of fraud, sue them. I'm sure the courts will accept YouTube videos as evidence.

From a certification organisations test procedures:

IP67: Immerse sample in water 39.4 in (1 m) deep for 30 min. Water temperature = 25  5C. The component is not energized during the test. The component is inspected for signs of cracks and water ingression. A functional test of the component is then conducted. Signs of cracking, water ingression, or failure of the functional test would cause a failure of this test. Perform acceptance tests 2.1.0 and 2.2.0. Perform additional component functional tests as required. If the component passes three immersion cycles, continue to IP68.

Therefore a powered on iPhone being dropped in a bucket doesn't prove failure of compliance.

 

[3lionsbecks]

If they're guilty of fraud, sue them. I'm sure the courts will accept YouTube videos as evidence.

From a certification organisations test procedures:

IP67: Immerse sample in water 39.4 in (1 m) deep for 30 min. Water temperature = 25  5C. The component is not energized during the test. The component is inspected for signs of cracks and water ingression. A functional test of the component is then conducted. Signs of cracking, water ingression, or failure of the functional test would cause a failure of this test. Perform acceptance tests 2.1.0 and 2.2.0. Perform additional component functional tests as required. If the component passes three immersion cycles, continue to IP68.

Therefore a powered on iPhone being dropped in a bucket doesn't prove failure of compliance.

Then what's he purpose of the specification in real world experice for the consumer. Nothing.
It only serves to be part of a manipulative marketing campaign on Apple's behalf.

 

[Ds6778]

Then what's he purpose of the specification in real world experice for the consumer. Nothing.
It only serves to be part of a manipulative marketing campaign on Apple's behalf.

So so t buy Apples sh**. Where is the gun to your head?