If it was Apple would have said so.
Pretty much the only real "-gate" that actually existed and was tied to a scandal.I agree. We've seen liquid dunk tests with the Apple Watch survive on YouTube but Apple won't acknowledge that feat. I believe Apple is hesitant on water resistance until they are 110% confident, if that ever happens at all.
Could you IMAGINE the public backlash and outcry of Apple releasing a "water resistant iPhone" and it fails all over the world?
I wonder what "-gate" that would be called.
Apple sealed the iPhone 6S, even if they didn't claim it to be water resistant.Here is a link to a water test on a 6s and 6s plus. Over an hour dunked underwater, so I would conclude they are unofficially water resistant!
Here is a video link of an iPhone 6 getting blow torched. I doubt a 6s would do any better on a test like this, 7000 series aluminum or not, and probably not something you'd want to test on your personal phone!The real question is: is it flame retardant? If you accidentally hit it with a blow torch will the phone survive?
Pointless to you, interesting to me. I wouldn't do it. Why don't you do a proper video with your phone and test it out.sinking the phone under the water is quite pointless... air has difficulties to escape and water cant go inside without air escaping at the same time... also the surface tension and the cohesion plays significant role here..
it would be much interesting to see test results in a high humidity and testing the condensation too. or at least they should put the phone under water in a slight angle to help air to escape.
So basically don't 'em the shell of the phone is stronger, the camera lens is stronger, the gorilla glass is stronger, the home button is stronger, the water resistance of the phone has been improved....because if you do, more people will abuse the phones, satisfaction will go down and genius bar appts and warranty service will go up?From Apple's perspective:
Quietly making its devices more water-resistant = customers take greater care of their stuff = fewer unhappy accidents/more happy customers = lower customer support costs + fewer debates over what constitutes a warranty-covered repair.
Claiming its devices are water-resistant = customers take less care of their stuff = customers unhappy that their devices weren't sufficiently water-resistant = more debates with customers about what constitutes a warranty-covered repair = fewer happy customers = higher customer turnover + higher customer support costs
Which choice would you make? (The same holds true if Apple starts using a more crack-resistant screen - the fewer up-front claims, the better - let word-of-mouth sell the feature
The fact that the SE uses essentially the same case as the 5s does not mean it would necessarily be less water resistant than the 6s. What happens inside the case is more important than the externals. I'm sure we'll have an ifixit tear-down soon enough.