iPhone 7 Water resistant but water damage not covered - ********* at Genius Bar?

[fischersd]

I would like to direct everyone to this page

https://www.consumer.ftc.gov/articles/0252-warranties

Warranties are not required by law. Straight from the Federal Trade Commission.

Yes, but if you provide one, you're liable to fulfill it. (then you get into all of the lovely T's & C's which all of us so blithely click on every time there's an update)

Argh! There's that "proof" word again (@Black Magic ). Isn't. Not remotely. Will not be in our lifetimes.

Apologies @ApfelKuchen I missed your post. A couple things you stated I disagree with:
" If the phone is operational, then they could get a hardware diagnostic that reports the state of liquid contact indicators, barometers, etc., but it still doesn't tell them how/why the liquids got there, and "how/why" is the bone of contention."
Actually how/why doesn't matter in the least if Apple has indicators that the depth was exceeded. Regardless of how or why the water got in there, if it's deeper than 1m of water, you're in violation of the warranted limit.

and
"The knowledge that the phone is water-resistant will not change their behavior."
So, you've turned a blind eye on all the gleeful idiots on here that have been showering and swimming with their AW1's over the last year and a half? .

Agree with everything else you posted. Apple will most assuredly be scrutinizing every water damaged phone that they get back to make the resistance better for future iterations.

 

[garyleecn]

Heh. Who's to say that they can't have NVRAM for this? Ooh - maybe they make the entire secure enclave ATM20 resistant? The key is - water incursion / damage along with the data from the barometric sensor. The two work together to substantiate that the last actions of the phone (which resulted in water damage) resulted with indications the water rating of the phone was exceeded.

Heh...2cm is within the rating depth-wise anyways - or, did you plan on leaving it in that puddle for one of the neighbourhood kids to pick it up?

what you mean by NVRAM? keep recording data after the phone is power off? what if battery is dead? keep a reservoir on battery just to keep recording data in the background? imagine the headline "the new iPhone keeps recording data after you turn the phone off, even after the battery is dead, and you cannot turn it off" what's the impact on apple's company image?

your 'solution' creates more problem than it solves...

and your 'key' has a deadly flaw. iPhone does not detect water incursion, it just start to have problem. and the problem does not occur the second water enters. in many situations the problem only start to occur hours even days after dropping into the water. so how can you 'sync' barometric data with those damages? plus, in many situations you don't know it's a water damage, you just know the logic board is fried and there is water incursion signs. you don't know that's directly caused by water, which makes it harder to 'sync' barometric data to physical damage.

at last, i know it was 2cm, but do you know that? does apple know that?
based on your theory, all you/apple know is that: the pressure on the phone suddenly increases from 0.8atm to 1atm, and (let just assume you can detect) water damage occurs. do you know for sure the 0.2atm pressure increase is because of 2 meters of water and hence water seal broke. why can't it be i walked into a lab which has 0.2 atm higher pressure than outside, and dropped under 2cm of water, for some reason the iPhone is defect on water seal during mass production, and hence the water damage.

 

[bradbomb]

Yes, but if you provide one, you're liable to fulfill it. (then you get into all of the lovely T's & C's which all of us so blithely click on every time there's an update)

Yes, you are liable to fulfill it. BUT, you can limit your warranty to certain aspects, like saying even though we advertise water resistance, we are not covering water damage. Again, internally they might be evaluating it and still might honor warranty repairs with water damage (only time will tell after the phone officially hits the market), but they are protecting themselves with warranty verbage to avoid people from bringing a phone that was damaged due to obvious misuse.

 

[JayLenochiniMac]

Yes, you are liable to fulfill it. BUT, you can limit your warranty to certain aspects, like saying even though we advertise water resistance, we are not covering water damage. Again, internally they might be evaluating it and still might honor warranty repairs with water damage (only time will tell after the phone officially hits the market), but they are protecting themselves with warranty verbage to avoid people from bringing a phone that was damaged due to obvious misuse.

That'd still be considered false advertisement. I agree with the latter part of your post and personally think that the language is there to serve as a scare tactic. There's already a precedent of Apple's covering water-damaged AWs despite their very specific disclaimer that "submerging the AW is not recommended."

 

[bradbomb]

That'd still be considered false advertisement. I agree with the latter part of your post and personally think that the language is there to serve as a scare tactic. There's already a precedent of Apple's covering water-damaged AWs despite their very specific disclaimer that "submerging the AW is not recommended."

Its not false advertisement. Again, as per the FTC here https://www.consumer.ftc.gov/articles/0252-warranties Warranties can limit what they cover (Apple is allowed to say water damage is excluded from warranty coverage even though the phone has IP67 rating) Apple has stated before purchase that it is not covered so how is it false advertising. They have advertised that they will not cover this type of damage.

Also, I'm curious if you are a lawyer and are familiar with Consumer Law and Protections. I'll admit, I am not a lawyer and my knowledge is based on both my previous experiences working in an Import/Export company as well as my current experience as the Director of Operations at a for-profit higher-ed school.

 

[deany]

I am interested in this as well/


I think you didn't get my point.
When you buy a phone, you can have bad luck and get a model with something defective. It can be the home button (for previous phones ), or the camera or *anything*. It just happen as millions of devices can't be 100% perfect.
In all these cases, an appointment to the genius bar will solve the problem as it will be exchanged under warranty.
So the "waterproofing" (or water-resistant function) could be, as any other functions, defective.
Some say iphone 6S was already water resistant but it wasn't advertised. So if you went to genius bar with a water damaged iphone 6S, Apple had grounds to refuse the warranty exchange.
Here, water resistance is a function like any others. What if you get a defective one, and your phone gets a water damage under a rain or with a few splash? On what grounds can Apple not replace a phone with a defective, advertised function?


My first guess is that geniuses will have instructions to be quite relaxed about it and assert the situation by questionning the customer, but maybe I am wrong

Here in the UK we have a "six year rule" - if it can be proven to be not fit for purpose and fault developed not due to wear and tear and fault was there from new (your example) you are covered.
So in the UK you just say "never been in water below 1.5 metres for 30 mins - fault must have been there from day one" as long as its under 6 years you get a full refund.
Hope you have something like 'lemon law' for phones in USA cheers

 

[Berwtmans]

You don't know that - you're guessing.
Let's not forget that there's a barometer in the iPhone. It may be as simple as a software tweak to also be able to measure water pressure. So, if your phone registers water pressure (and/or duration) exceeding IPX7, you're cooked.
(then you better have additional coverage, such as AC+).

So... if your phone is destroyed by water getting in the case and short circuiting / oxidizing everything, how exactly can this data be used against you (or in your favor, in case of a construction issue)?

 

[fischersd]

So... if your phone is destroyed by water getting in the case and short circuiting / oxidizing everything, how exactly can this data be used against you (or in your favor, in case of a construction issue)?

(again, we're theorizing what Apple may have done inside the iPhone 7 - no-one knows for certain outside of the company - and even then, I'd suspect something like this to be contained on a need to know basis).
If the phone is destroyed by water ingress and the internal barometer registers pressure exceeding the IPX7 rating, then Apple could state that your claim isn't covered by standard warranty (then, if you have AC+, you use one of your accidental claims).
If the pressure hasn't exceeded the rating, then you're covered.
(they could do work around these components to also record duration...but that would be trickier...and may not pose a great value - the vast majority of warranty damage will be exceeding the 1m depth they've warranted it for).

Edit: Also, think it's likely a given that they've engineered it to withstand a depth greater than 1m, just so there's very few "grey area" claims. Most people that have water damage will have exceeded the limit and not be covered by the standard warranty.

 

[Berwtmans]

(again, we're theorizing what Apple may have done inside the iPhone 7 - no-one knows for certain outside of the company - and even then, I'd suspect something like this to be contained on a need to know basis).
If the phone is destroyed by water ingress and the internal barometer registers pressure exceeding the IPX7 rating, then Apple could state that your claim isn't covered by standard warranty (then, if you have AC+, you use one of your accidental claims).
If the pressure hasn't exceeded the rating, then you're covered.
(they could do work around these components to also record duration...but that would be trickier...and may not pose a great value - the vast majority of warranty damage will be exceeding the 1m depth they've warranted it for).

Edit: Also, think it's likely a given that they've engineered it to withstand a depth greater than 1m, just so there's very few "grey area" claims. Most people that have water damage will have exceeded the limit and not be covered by the standard warranty.

I understand your reasoning but I just mean: how to read the pressure/duration data off a destroyed phone?

 

[fischersd]

I understand your reasoning but I just mean: how to read the pressure/duration data off a destroyed phone?

Pretty sure there's already NVRAM (non volatile memory) in the iPhone. All you have to do is have key components protected marginally to ensure the data's written before the phone fails.
You also tend to increase water pressure as the device sinks...so, it records that the pressure has exceeded 1.5m, then the seals give out at oh, 4meters. Pretty damning that these two events are so close together in time.

 

[mrbusiness]

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but Apple has never covered liquid damage under warranty. At least as far back as I remember.

It DOES cover accidental damage (including liquid damage) under AppleCare+ Protection plan, but not the limited One Year warranty.

And if you're on the iPhone upgrade program, you're automatically covered.

 

[fischersd]

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but Apple has never covered liquid damage under warranty. At least as far back as I remember.

It DOES cover accidental damage (including liquid damage) under AppleCare+ Protection plan, but not the limited One Year warranty.

And if you're on the iPhone upgrade program, you're automatically covered.

They didn't previously, but they've also never had an iPhone with a water resistance rating either. By stating that the iPhone supports an IP67 (6 for dust, 7 for water) rating they open up the potential that people could have water damage due to manufacturers defects.
The Apple Watch 1 was the first device that they warranted against water damage in the standard warranty (though, they DID state in the user guide to not bathe or swim with it)

IUP includes AC+, so yep, you have accidental coverage.

 

[foxconn]

Here in the UK we have a "six year rule" - if it can be proven to be not fit for purpose and fault developed not due to wear and tear and fault was there from new (your example) you are covered.
So in the UK you just say "never been in water below 1.5 metres for 30 mins - fault must have been there from day one" as long as its under 6 years you get a full refund.
Hope you have something like 'lemon law' for phones in USA cheers

6 years is a lot of time for technology.

No wonder apple charges you guys an extra premium... I don't feel sorry anymore.

 

[HaydenWI]

Given my experience with Apple customer service, my thought is that in the rare case of a defective seal from the factory, Apple would almost certainly step up and cover it without hassle.

 

[deany]

6 years is a lot of time for technology.

No wonder apple charges you guys an extra premium... I don't feel sorry anymore.

Most of the UK population don't know about the six year rule. Its a little known fact.
Please continue to feel sorry for us here

 

[mrbusiness]

They didn't previously, but they've also never had an iPhone with a water resistance rating either. By stating that the iPhone supports an IP67 (6 for dust, 7 for water) rating they open up the potential that people could have water damage due to manufacturers defects.
The Apple Watch 1 was the first device that they warranted against water damage in the standard warranty (though, they DID state in the user guide to not bathe or swim with it)

IUP includes AC+, so yep, you have accidental coverage.

The claim that it's water resistant only means that it's harder to damage via liquid - not that it's impossible. Just because it's water resistant doesn't mean liquid damaged is most likely a manufacturer defect.

 

[fischersd]

The claim that it's water resistant only means that it's harder to damage via liquid - not that it's impossible. Just because it's water resistant doesn't mean liquid damaged is most likely a manufacturer defect.

If you caught up on this thread, you would have realized that nothing that you typed there as a response to my statement was valuable at all.
"The claim that it's water resistant only means that it's harder to damage via liquid - not that it's impossible"
Where did you pull "impossible" from?

"Just because it's water resistant doesn't mean liquid damaged is most likely a manufacturer defect."
If the internals are damaged due to exposure within the confines of IPX7, then, yes, it's a manufacturer's defect, as they've warranted the product for that level of durability. If IPX7 was exceeded, then it shouldn't be covered by warranty.

 

[username:]

So I am quite excited about the water resistant part of the iphone 7.
But as we all know, Apple won't cover water damage under warranty. We can understand that for example because they wouldn't be able to tell you didn't dive to 20m with your phone
BUT
Let's say I buy an iphone 7 and follow all the guidances about water resistance, AND I get a water damage because I got a phone where the water resistance sealing is defective - How Apple can justify not to repair my phone?
It means that Apple is advertising a feature (water resistance) but if this feature isn't working properly (as can happen with anything when you buy any phone, there can be a problem) they won't cover it.
I wonder how that will go at genius bar:
"-your phone has water damage, we can't repair it under warranty"
"-but i used it as per your guidelines, i just used it under the rain and didn't even drop it in the water, it shouldn't get a water damage from that"
"-but we don't cover water damage"
"-but you advertise water resistance and it's not working on my phone and I should get a phone that has all the features advertise"
.....

I think Apple will in the future see some problems with this and I don't know how it could be solved.

They almost made it very clear that water damage is not covered in the warranty. Which makes me think they will not have any problems with this.

 

[deany]

I dont think apple will say were you 1501cm for 31 minutes

I just dont see an issue here at all - they are a decent company.

If they did and ask you weren't over the guidelines then case closed.

 

[mrbusiness]

If you caught up on this thread, you would have realized that nothing that you typed there as a response to my statement was valuable at all.
"The claim that it's water resistant only means that it's harder to damage via liquid - not that it's impossible"
Where did you pull "impossible" from?

"Just because it's water resistant doesn't mean liquid damaged is most likely a manufacturer defect."
If the internals are damaged due to exposure within the confines of IPX7, then, yes, it's a manufacturer's defect, as they've warranted the product for that level of durability. If IPX7 was exceeded, then it shouldn't be covered by warranty.

Wow. So, I guess because we have a difference of opinion, you being a rude c*nt makes what you say law. Glad you don't speak for Apple.