iPhone X and iPhone 8 Feature IP67 Water Resistance Rating, Same as iPhone 7

[sulpfiction]

Maybe your phone doesn't die in water with a 7 rating but it sure does screw up ur speakers if they just get wet for a second or 2. A bottle of water spilled on the bottom of my 7 and the speakers were totally muffled for 2 days. The sound did come back but not as good as before it got wet. Hopefully the X is better.

 

[B4U]

The only difference is IP67 states "no harm when submerged for up to 30min at 1 meter or less", and the IP68 states "no harm when submerged more than 30min in more than 1 meter; companies should stablish the exact amount"

Which in Galaxy S8 and Sony Xperia case, that is 1.5 meters.

Which is reasonable for about pool depth instead of kiddie pool.

 

[WhiteHawk]

Use scenario, will the iPhone X be ok on the handle bar of a motorbike in heavy rain up to say 70MPH or will it need a cover?

 

[one more]

But then again, I never much cared for water resistance with iPhone, because I don't subject my iPhone near water.

Still handy when it rains, though.

 

[alleggerita]

They have glass phones now....IP68 should be much easier to implement especially when you don't have a headphone jack. Cheaping out again......

So a fair few Android phones for half the cost offer better water and dust resistance, he'll Samsung and even made the Note 8 stylus IP68.... Timmy must really want to have 400 billion US sat in off shore accounts..

You guys must have never watched how some youtubers tested the iPhone 7 vs the Note 7 for water resistance last year when it was just launched. The iPhone 7 survived longer than the Note 7 even though the Note 7 supposedly has a higher IP rating.

If Apple can underpromise and overdeliver last year, there’s no reason why they can’t do it again this year. Maybe even better than last year’s 7.

And I don’t see how a glass back affects water resistance. In fact I think it made it harder than a unibody aluminium body. Because there’s now two gaps to plug rather than just one.

 

[jamesrick80]

You guys must have never watched how some youtubers tested the iPhone 7 vs the Note 7 for water resistance last year when it was just launched. The iPhone 7 survived longer than the Note 7 even though the Note 7 supposedly has a higher IP rating.

If Apple can underpromise and overdeliver last year, there’s no reason why they can’t do it again this year. Maybe even better than last year’s 7.

And I don’t see how a glass back affects water resistance.

Note 7 doesn't even count as a phone after last year. Null and void....

 

[err404]

Which is reasonable for about pool depth instead of kiddie pool.

Both case are irrelevant since neither Samsung nor Apple warranties cover water damage.

 

[JM]

Nobody said it wasn't capable... surfing isn't 30 mph jets of water battering the face of the watch.

You've never surfed large waves I presume?

If you have, wasssssssssup dude. Just kidding... I miss surfing

 

[macTW]

You've never surfed large waves I presume?

If you have, wasssssssssup dude. Just kidding... I miss surfing

I miss it too. Was a season of life where I got to drive down to Mexico every few weeks for a weekend of surf and water sports. Definitely would've broke an Apple Watch on those jet skis though xD

 

[alleggerita]

Note 7 doesn't even count as a phone after last year. Null and void....

You’re just diverting the attention away from how Apple’s IP67 rating is severely underrated. I don’t see how a combustible battery in the Note 7 affects the water resistance of the phone. There’s no correlation at all.

 

[M.PaulCezanne]

Why's it so tough for people to take their Apple watch off before showering?

Geez.

 

[B4U]

Both case are irrelevant since neither Samsung nor Apple warranties cover water damage.

I don't recall I did mention anything about Samsung in this thread.
I did, however, mentioned Xperia XZ.
Here is the link to what Sony has to say about their warranty.
https://www.sonymobile.com/us/products/phones/xperia-xz/specifications/
Note:
"Abuse and improper use of device will invalidate warranty. The device has been tested under Ingress Protection rating IP65/68."
In other words, they would honor the warranty for water damage if it is NOT abuse and/or improper use.

 

[BestCellular]

This is a great reference sheet our employees use when a customer has a question about IP67 Vs. IP68 water resistance or dust resistance: https://bestcellular.com/ip67-vs-ip68/

It's got all the information about Ingress Protection and how that relates to your phone.

 

[err404]

This is a great reference sheet our employees use when a customer has a question about IP67 Vs. IP68 water resistance or dust resistance: https://bestcellular.com/ip67-vs-ip68/

It's got all the information about Ingress Protection and how that relates to your phone.View attachment 726313

The problem is that spec is actually very vague as to what IP68 really means. Go read it yourself. Purely by the spec, it would be nearly impossible for an IP67 device to not also be IP68. IP67 is at least 1m and IP68 is at minimum 1m. Tell me, what is the practical difference?
I understand that Samsung uses 1.5m in their marketing, but that is not a part of the industry spec.
Counter intuitively, due to the vagueness IP68 could actually be LESS waterproof than IP67. This is because no time frame is specified for IP68 and the spec explicitly states that a higher value rating is not inclusive of requirements from lower ratings.
The most important thing to keep in mind is that few companies warranty against water damage, so the ground truth reality is IP67 vs IP68 is nothing beyond marketing.