Italy Fines Apple $12 Million for Misleading iPhone Water Resistance Claims

[Wando64]

Straight from the iPhone tech specs on Apple's site:

iPhone 12 Pro and iPhone 12 Pro Max are splash, water, and dust resistant and were tested under controlled laboratory conditions with a rating of IP68 under IEC standard 60529 (maximum depth of 6 meters up to 30 minutes). 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.

First of all, what they are saying for the iphone 12 is not necessarily what they said for iphones 7 to 11, which is what the fine refers to.
Secondarily, this is the information that they should advertise, not a stream of videos and images showing the phone being drenched, submerged, covered in cake, with no disclaimer whatsoever.

 

[deevey]

No, it’s idiotic to claim and advertise water resistance and then void warranty for water damage caused by contact with liquids at limited depth and for short time.

Water resistance is NOT water proof!

Stain resistant fabric can still get stained - same applies to water resistant items.

How do you prove that a customer only submerged their phone at a limited death for a short time ? How do you know that they don't regularly take the phone to the bath and get it soaked every other day in soapy water.

Take the customers word for it ?

And also it should be contact with fresh WATER not "liquids".

 

[v3rlon]

Water resistance is a feature. Like stronger glass is a feature. It doesn't mean with stronger glass the glass won't shatter. Some consumers have found the phone to be water resistant. It's something engineered into the phone and should be advertised, same as Samsung.

I'm jaded, but there is nothing wrong with mentioning water resistance, even if it is not warrantied. Apple is not claiming water-proof. As far as the "do not attempt", it reads like a car commercial, where a street car is driven on a closed track with the disclaimer, "do not attempt".

Is there a phone manufacturer that claims water resistance and then honors it? How can one even determine the phone wasn't abused like swimming in the Dead Sea?

As far as Jeep goes, if you break an axle off-road, will Jeep cover it under warranty?

If you break an axel off road, yes they do.
If you break an axel while racing (on or off road), you could run into issues.

I would expect them to have sensors to distinguish between "rained on/fell into the sink" and "scuba diving in dead sea."

I mean using this, they could say

"Our new jPhone is completely shatterproof*​

[3pt font] jPhone warranty voided by impact, activation, or purchase [/3pt font]

jPhone is practically indestructible!!!"​

[image of jPhone being shot from a canon into a brick wall]

 

[Septembersrain]

I never assume water resistance is anything more than I won't have extreme problems with humidity. Far as I'm concerned, it actually going into any kind of water will FUBAR it.

 

[newphone22]

this is idiotic

HOW DARE THEY CRITICIZE APPLE!!!!!

 

[Banich2]

and what sensor would that be? go ahead, tell me.

you can't, because there is no sensor in the iPhone to measure the amount of time submerged in the water. there is only a sensor to check if water made contact with the internals. so how the hell are you going to know if the iPhone was submerged longer than 30 minutes. YOU CAN'T.

do some research on liquid contact indicators before sarcastically calling me a "genius".

I'm not going to continue conversing with someone throwing around stupid insults and getting facts wrong. see ya 👋

It doesn't matter if it was submerged for 1 minute or 45 minutes. I don't have to research liquid contact indicators, freak show. It has a barometer in it, and it knows where it is elevation-wise.

I'm not conversing with you, I'm just adding my voice to the choir of people who think that you say the stupidest things online.

 

[I7guy]

They could be open and honest.
That would probably work...

Nobody says they weren't honest. And if the phone withstands the milli-seconds of spray what's dishonest about it?

 

[Banich2]

Nobody says they weren't honest. And if the phone withstands the milli-seconds of spray what's dishonest about it?

I'm not talking about anything on their website or in fine print or anything. This is only about the commercial linked at the end of the article.

Any reasonable person seeing that commercial would walking away believing that the version of iPhone shown in the commercial is 100% waterproof...when, In fact, it may be water resistant under certain conditions for certain people while the phone is still considered brand new.

But from what I'm hearing from the people on this website, it's about as water resistant as my first iPod.

 

[v3rlon]

and what sensor would that be? go ahead, tell me.

you can't, because there is no sensor in the iPhone to measure the amount of time submerged in the water. there is only a sensor to check if water made contact with the internals. so how the hell are you going to know if the iPhone was submerged longer than 30 minutes. YOU CAN'T.

do some research on liquid contact indicators before sarcastically calling me a "genius".

I'm not going to continue conversing with someone throwing around stupid insults and getting facts wrong. see ya 👋

Basic pressure sensor should do the trick just fine. I have one in a watch/dive computer made so long ago it connects via serial port. So

• it will fit in a phone
• drains so little battery that the watch battery lasts 3 years.
• it still works today, which is at least 15 years longer than most people keep an iPhone, and is older than any iPhone in existence so it will last longer than yours has so far, no matter what.
• Yes it is digital and can provide information to computer systems
• It reports depth from as little as 3 feet and time at depth on a graph (so 1:00 at 6' and :27 at 22').
• rated to at least 150' of salt water and I think 300'

Citizen Hyper Aqualand that I got in 1998 and used for diving until 2017

In fact, I was surprised the Apple Watch didn't have this capability built in.
There is a sensor that would do the trick nicely. I imagine that they could have gotten a lot of them for the $12 million they just paid.

If you advertise (and show in the advertisements) IP68 water resistance, you should back that up with the existing warranty. If you need sensors to verify you aren't being cheated, add them. If you don't want to warranty liquid damage, don't make the claim in your ads (earlier phones were supposedly IP67 resistant, but it wasn't marketed. If your phone got wet and survived, you breathed a sigh of welcome relief).

 

[Banich2]

Basic pressure sensor should do the trick just fine. I have one in a watch/dive computer made so long ago it connects via serial port. So

• it will fit in a phone
• drains so little battery that the watch battery lasts 3 years.
• it still works today, which is at least 15 years longer than most people keep an iPhone, and is older than any iPhone in existence so it will last longer than yours has so far, no matter what.
• Yes it is digital and can provide information to computer systems
• It reports depth from as little as 3 feet and time at depth on a graph (so 1:00 at 6' and :27 at 22').
• rated to at least 150' of salt water and I think 300'

Citizen Hyper Aqualand that I got in 1998 and used for diving until 2017

In fact, I was surprised the Apple Watch didn't have this capability built in.
There is a sensor that would do the trick nicely. I imagine that they could have gotten a lot of them for the $12 million they just paid.

If you advertise (and show in the advertisements) IP68 water resistance, you should back that up with the existing warranty. If you need sensors to verify you aren't being cheated, add them. If you don't want to warranty liquid damage, don't make the claim in your ads (earlier phones were supposedly IP67 resistant, but it wasn't marketed. If your phone got wet and survived, you breathed a sigh of welcome relief).

EXACTLY!
Like, every point you made.
I think we can close this at this point, as anything more would be akin to arguing with someone who thinks the planet is flat.

 

[farewelwilliams]

Basic pressure sensor should do the trick just fine. I have one in a watch/dive computer made so long ago it connects via serial port. So

• it will fit in a phone
• drains so little battery that the watch battery lasts 3 years.
• it still works today, which is at least 15 years longer than most people keep an iPhone, and is older than any iPhone in existence so it will last longer than yours has so far, no matter what.
• Yes it is digital and can provide information to computer systems
• It reports depth from as little as 3 feet and time at depth on a graph (so 1:00 at 6' and :27 at 22').
• rated to at least 150' of salt water and I think 300'

Citizen Hyper Aqualand that I got in 1998 and used for diving until 2017

In fact, I was surprised the Apple Watch didn't have this capability built in.
There is a sensor that would do the trick nicely. I imagine that they could have gotten a lot of them for the $12 million they just paid.

If you advertise (and show in the advertisements) IP68 water resistance, you should back that up with the existing warranty. If you need sensors to verify you aren't being cheated, add them. If you don't want to warranty liquid damage, don't make the claim in your ads (earlier phones were supposedly IP67 resistant, but it wasn't marketed. If your phone got wet and survived, you breathed a sigh of welcome relief).

"Basic pressure sensor should do the trick just fine"
no, this will trigger plenty of false positives. you need something to detect water droplets to go along with the pressure sensor.

"it will fit in a phone"
not within Apple's specifications. in the past, they removed the headphone jack to make room for the battery instead of just increasing the thickness. off the shelf sensor would be too big. so what makes you think Apple would just stick an off the shelf sensor that takes up too much space? Apple treats every millimeter of space in a product with intense scrutiny. they even filed for a patent for a "miniature water pressure sensor" which tells me the current solutions won't work for them.


Regardless, Banich2 was suggesting Apple use the current "goddam sensors" and my point still stands. Current iPhone sensors will not work reliably in detecting time underwater in which he's so damn wrong about. We're not talking about adding a new sensor here.


Apple advertised 4x better drop performance of the ceramic shield, but you don't see Apple offering standard warranty on drop incidents because it's impossible to tell if the drop would have been prevented by the stronger shield or if it was a drop that puts fault on the user.

 

[Banich2]

"basic pressure sensor"
no, this will trigger plenty of false positives.

"it will fit in a phone"
not within Apple's specifications. in the past, they removed the headphone jack to make room for the battery instead of just increasing the thickness. off the shelf sensor would be too big. so what makes you think Apple would just stick an off the shelf sensor that takes up too much space? Apple treats every millimeter of space in a product with intense scrutiny. they even filed for a patent for a "miniature water pressure sensor" which tells me the current solutions won't work for them.


Regardless, Banich2 was suggesting Apple use the current "goddam sensors" and my point still stands. Current sensors will not work reliably in detecting time underwater in which he's so damn wrong about. We're not talking about adding a new sensor here.


Apple advertised 4x better drop performance of the ceramic shield, but you don't see Apple offering standard warranty on drop incidents because it's impossible to tell if the drop would have been prevented by the stronger shield or if it was a drop that puts fault on the user.

Everything you've said is moot. No one agrees with you. Get back under your bridge *cough* troll *cough*

 

[dsut4392]

My iPhone 7 plus is supposed to be water resistance. I rinsed it under the tap lightly to clean off dirt on screen. It gets water in immediately and screen/touched got ruined. I never believe in Apple or any vendors claim on water resistance any more. I continue to use that **** and refuse to pay for another one as long as I can.

My iPhone 7 has been whitewater rafting and kayaking (including being in my PFD pocket running the rapids without my boat, for rolling practice and for a whole afternoon when I was playing the 'victim' for a sea kayak rescue course), taken down water slides etc etc. On the water I use it with a simple lanyard stuck to the back with 3M tape. Hasn't missed a beat.
[OTOH, the rear camera on my wife's iPhone 8 fogged up after she left it in the sun on a Franklin River packraft trip. It was fine after it dried out and is still working 2 years later]

 

[Nuno Lopes]

It's not about the $12M, which you and I know is pocket change for Apple and the cost of doing business, it's more about this seems like a money grab as the watchdog agency doesn't like the testing methodology applied in the USA.

Don’t know about you, but this looks pretty much like a political opinion. It’s technically baseless. You may disagree with the Italian gov stance on this or their methodology, but the fact is, and you also already confessed, you seam not to have enough data to arrive to a factual conclusion of their motivation. It’s just an opinion, you said.

I follow the rules on this site as much as you or any other guy In this thread.

It's up to the individual to ensure they are following the rules of the site. PRSI posts in non-political forums tend to get moderated, but of course respond to a post anyway you see fit.

So your conclusion was not political? Interesting. You even defended the notion that if an US regulator give a pass on an issue over some Company than by reason Italy should follow suit, because after no one can do it better ... How isn’t this a political stance? Sorry, this is becoming surreal, obviously you don’t seam to understand the difference between a political stance and a technical one.

Roger out.

 

[v3rlon]

"Basic pressure sensor should do the trick just fine"
no, this will trigger plenty of false positives. you need something to detect water droplets to go along with the pressure sensor.

"it will fit in a phone"
not within Apple's specifications. in the past, they removed the headphone jack to make room for the battery instead of just increasing the thickness. off the shelf sensor would be too big. so what makes you think Apple would just stick an off the shelf sensor that takes up too much space? Apple treats every millimeter of space in a product with intense scrutiny. they even filed for a patent for a "miniature water pressure sensor" which tells me the current solutions won't work for them.


Regardless, Banich2 was suggesting Apple use the current "goddam sensors" and my point still stands. Current iPhone sensors will not work reliably in detecting time underwater in which he's so damn wrong about. We're not talking about adding a new sensor here.


Apple advertised 4x better drop performance of the ceramic shield, but you don't see Apple offering standard warranty on drop incidents because it's impossible to tell if the drop would have been prevented by the stronger shield or if it was a drop that puts fault on the user.

Funny, it hasn't triggered a false positive in 20 years for me. It hasn't triggered a false positive for anyone else I know or have spoken to that has one. It has been REALLY solid like that. It hasn't failed to produce either (so no false negatives). Please point me to where you found these things generate false positives. 20 years of accurate readings from multiple units goes a little beyond anecdotal.

Oh, and water droplets would be covered by IP68. Don't need to detect those any more than oxygen for warranty purposes.

I am not suggesting put the entire watch in the phone, just the sensor. They could take out the existing crap which we KNOW gives false positives.

Apple advertised 4x better drop performance, but not how it was measured. IP67 and IP68 are SPECIFICATIONS detailing exactly what is measured and how.

Also, regarding warranty, the burden of proof is on the denial. As it is now, Apple can point to their sensors and say "water damage." But that does not cover IP68 exposure. If the phone cannot handle IP68 exposure, it should not be advertised as IP68 compliant, because it isn't.

 

[I7guy]

I'm not talking about anything on their website or in fine print or anything. This is only about the commercial linked at the end of the article.

Any reasonable person seeing that commercial would walking away believing that the version of iPhone shown in the commercial is 100% waterproof...when, In fact, it may be water resistant under certain conditions for certain people while the phone is still considered brand new.

But from what I'm hearing from the people on this website, it's about as water resistant as my first iPod.

I disagree. While there are some people that believe anything, a reasonable person would not make the leap the phone is 100% waterproof (there are very few phones that are a) waterproof and b) the manufacturer will guarantee the waterproof no matter what). But that leads me to believe this is a money-grab as they could have told Apple to add a disclaimer.

 

[I7guy]

Don’t know about you, but this looks pretty much like a political opinion. It’s technically baseless. You may disagree with the Italian gov stance on this or their methodology, but the fact is, and you also already confessed, you seam not to have enough data to arrive to a factual conclusion of their motivation. It’s just an opinion, you said.

I follow the rules on this site as much as you or any other guy In this thread.

[/QUOTE]
Nope, it's an opinion. The only fact is the watchdog agency wants to fine Apple. That's a fact. The rest is opinion on top of opinion.

So your conclusion was not political? Interesting. You even defended the notion that if an US regulator give a pass on an issue over some Company than by reason Italy should follow suit, because after no one can do it better ... How isn’t this a political stance? Sorry, this is becoming surreal, obviously you don’t seam to understand the difference between a political stance and a technical one.

Roger out.

It wasn't PRSI.(or so I believe)

 

[I7guy]

... But that does not cover IP68 exposure. If the phone cannot handle IP68 exposure, it should not be advertised as IP68 compliant, because it isn't.

In the lab it is ip68, when new...unless one wants to claim Apple is outright lying. Drop the phone, sit on it, leave in the sun and cold, after a few years it may not be ip68.

 

[v3rlon]

I disagree. While there are some people that believe anything, a reasonable person would not make the leap the phone is 100% waterproof (there are very few phones that are a) waterproof and b) the manufacturer will guarantee the waterproof no matter what). But that leads me to believe this is a money-grab as they could have told Apple to add a disclaimer.

Nothing is 100% waterproof. I wouldn't believe that for a minute.

Below is the exact wording for IP ratings for liquids (applies to the last digit so the "8" in "68" for example). Notice it says nothing about "Only in lab conditions when the device is les than37 minutes old." Yeah, if you crack the screen, expect a decrease in water resistance. If you bend the phone, you might damage a seal. An intact phone rated to IP68 should be able to withstand IP68 conditions. It isn't rocket science.

Anything else is bait and switch. "The car was red until you bought it. Now it is rated as green in color," sound stupid to you? This phone was IP68 until you opened the box, now it is IP60. Same thing.

Sheesh, its like Shrodingers Water Protection: The phone is 100% waterproof until it gets wet.

Ingress Protection (IP) and what it means​

The IP Code (or International Protection Rating, sometimes also interpreted as Ingress Protection Rating*) consists of the letters IP followed by two digits and an optional letter. As defined in international standard IEC 60529, it classifies the degrees of protection provided against the intrusion of solid objects (including body parts like hands and fingers), dust, accidental contact, and water in electrical enclosures. The standard aims to provide users more detailed information than vague marketing terms such as waterproof.

The digits (characteristic numerals) indicate conformity with the conditions summarized in the tables below. For example, an electrical socket rated IP22 is protected against insertion of fingers and will not be damaged or become unsafe during a specified test in which it is exposed to vertically or nearly vertically dripping water. IP22 or 2X are typical minimum requirements for the design of electrical accessories for indoor use.

0	Not protected	–
1	Dripping water	Dripping water (vertically falling drops) shall have no harmfull effect.
2	Dripping water when tilted up to 15°	Vertically dripping water shall have no harmful effect when the enclosure is tilted at an angle up to 15° from its normal position.
3	Spraying water	Water falling as a spray at any angle up to 60° from the vertical shall have no harmful effect.
4	Splashing water	Water splashing against the enclosure from any direction shall have no harmful effect.
5	Water jets	Water projected by a nozzle (6.3mm) against enclosure from any direction shall have no harmful effects.
6	Powerful water jets	Water projected in powerful jets (12.5mm nozzle) against the enclosure from any direction shall have no harmful effects.
7	Immersion up to 1m	Ingress of water in harmful quantity shall not be possible when the enclosure is immersed in water under defined conditions of pressure and time (up to 1 m of submersion).
8	Immersion beyond 1m	The equipment is suitable for continuous immersion in water under conditions which shall be specified by the manufacturer. Normally, this will mean that the equipment is hermetically sealed. However, with certain types of equipment, it can mean that water can enter but only in such a manner that it produces no harmful effects.

 

[Banich2]

My iPhone 7 has been whitewater rafting and kayaking (including being in my PFD pocket running the rapids without my boat, for rolling practice and for a whole afternoon when I was playing the 'victim' for a sea kayak rescue course), taken down water slides etc etc. On the water I use it with a simple lanyard stuck to the back with 3M tape. Hasn't missed a beat.
[OTOH, the rear camera on my wife's iPhone 8 fogged up after she left it in the sun on a Franklin River packraft trip. It was fine after it dried out and is still working 2 years later]

I disagree. While there are some people that believe anything, a reasonable person would not make the leap the phone is 100% waterproof (there are very few phones that are a) waterproof and b) the manufacturer will guarantee the waterproof no matter what). But that leads me to believe this is a money-grab as they could have told Apple to add a disclaimer.

I don’t think the average person (who spends 0 minutes a year on a messaging board about a cell phone and computer manufacturer) knows all that much about phone waterproofing. From that video, it definitely looks like you can cover the phone in moist cake and frosting and then spray it clean with a ton of water.

My mom is a reasonable, educated, 75 year old woman with poor eyesight, and I’m sure that if you show her that commercial and then asked her if she thinks that phone is waterproof, she’d say “Well, isn’t that what the commercial is saying?”

It’s not a lot of money at all, and it seems that most people think it’s definitely false advertising, so I don’t see how it could be a money grab.

 

[ipponrg]

While there are some people that believe anything, a reasonable person would not make the leap the phone is 100% waterproof

The average person does not understand the difference between water resistance and water proof.

 

[farewelwilliams]

Funny, it hasn't triggered a false positive in 20 years for me. It hasn't triggered a false positive for anyone else I know or have spoken to that has one. It has been REALLY solid like that. It hasn't failed to produce either (so no false negatives). Please point me to where you found these things generate false positives. 20 years of accurate readings from multiple units goes a little beyond anecdotal.

I never had issues with butterfly switch keyboards and I owned the MacBook 2015, MBP 2016, and the MBP 2018. Using your logic, that must mean butterfly switch keyboards were fine, right?

Citizen Hyper Aqualand's detection involves more than just a "basic pressure sensor". It has a water sensor. I'm saying a "basic pressure sensor" can't tell if you're underwater or not because that alone can generate false positives of being in water.

Oh, and water droplets would be covered by IP68. Don't need to detect those any more than oxygen for warranty purposes.

You misunderstood. I'm saying water droplet detection is needed to mitigate false positives from your supposed "basic pressure sensor".

I am not suggesting put the entire watch in the phone

I didn't say put the entire watch in the phone.

Apple advertised 4x better drop performance, but not how it was measured.

Apple advertised their 17 hour battery life and showed how it was measured. Yet people aren't getting that in real world conditions which is Italy's primary argument.

Also, regarding warranty, the burden of proof is on the denial. As it is now, Apple can point to their sensors and say "water damage." But that does not cover IP68 exposure.

As it should anyways. The liquid contact sensor wasn't designed to cover IP68 exposure. It's there to check if water entered the device.

You could argue if there should be sensors to check IP68 integrity, but your "basic pressure sensor" isn't going to prove whether or not IP68 held up for the reasons I stated above either. Even with more advanced sensors, I can always open the sim tray while in the rain to swap SIM cards, accidentally let some water drop inside, goto Apple and point to my phone: "hey, IP68 didn't hold up. give me a new phone". How do you prove it's the user's fault? You can't.

If the phone cannot handle IP68 exposure, it should not be advertised as IP68 compliant, because it isn't.

No, that's not what Italy is arguing. iPhones *are* IP68 compliant but what Italy is arguing is that that dropping soda on the phone is not representative of what it means to be IP68 water resistant compliant since soda is not freshwater.

 

[I7guy]

The average person does not understand the difference between water resistance and water proof.

That's quite the leap. Many people with expensive watches, I would think, understand the difference between water resistance and water proof. And while people can believe anything, the reasonable person not believe their personal electronic devices are water proof, imo.

It amazes me that there is this general discrediting of the intelligence of the population. Millions somehow manage to navigate the vagaries of buying a car, determining the model, understanding the operation of the vehicle, but can't figure out that personal electronic devices should be kept away from liquids.

 

[I7guy]

I don’t think the average person (who spends 0 minutes a year on a messaging board about a cell phone and computer manufacturer) knows all that much about phone waterproofing. From that video, it definitely looks like you can cover the phone in moist cake and frosting and then spray it clean with a ton of water.

My mom is a reasonable, educated, 75 year old woman with poor eyesight, and I’m sure that if you show her that commercial and then asked her if she thinks that phone is waterproof, she’d say “Well, isn’t that what the commercial is saying?”

It’s not a lot of money at all, and it seems that most people think it’s definitely false advertising, so I don’t see how it could be a money grab.

In that vein, even if a disclaimer was on the commercial some people would believe something it's not or misconstrue the intent. And if someone believes something it's not, any damage that would result treating the thing differently than it should be treated, is on the person.

 

[I7guy]

Nothing is 100% waterproof. I wouldn't believe that for a minute.

Below is the exact wording for IP ratings for liquids (applies to the last digit so the "8" in "68" for example). Notice it says nothing about "Only in lab conditions when the device is les than37 minutes old." Yeah, if you crack the screen, expect a decrease in water resistance. If you bend the phone, you might damage a seal. An intact phone rated to IP68 should be able to withstand IP68 conditions. It isn't rocket science.

Anything else is bait and switch. "The car was red until you bought it. Now it is rated as green in color," sound stupid to you? This phone was IP68 until you opened the box, now it is IP60. Same thing.

Sheesh, its like Shrodingers Water Protection: The phone is 100% waterproof until it gets wet.

Ingress Protection (IP) and what it means​

The IP Code (or International Protection Rating, sometimes also interpreted as Ingress Protection Rating*) consists of the letters IP followed by two digits and an optional letter. As defined in international standard IEC 60529, it classifies the degrees of protection provided against the intrusion of solid objects (including body parts like hands and fingers), dust, accidental contact, and water in electrical enclosures. The standard aims to provide users more detailed information than vague marketing terms such as waterproof.

The digits (characteristic numerals) indicate conformity with the conditions summarized in the tables below. For example, an electrical socket rated IP22 is protected against insertion of fingers and will not be damaged or become unsafe during a specified test in which it is exposed to vertically or nearly vertically dripping water. IP22 or 2X are typical minimum requirements for the design of electrical accessories for indoor use.

0	Not protected	–
1	Dripping water	Dripping water (vertically falling drops) shall have no harmfull effect.
2	Dripping water when tilted up to 15°	Vertically dripping water shall have no harmful effect when the enclosure is tilted at an angle up to 15° from its normal position.
3	Spraying water	Water falling as a spray at any angle up to 60° from the vertical shall have no harmful effect.
4	Splashing water	Water splashing against the enclosure from any direction shall have no harmful effect.
5	Water jets	Water projected by a nozzle (6.3mm) against enclosure from any direction shall have no harmful effects.
6	Powerful water jets	Water projected in powerful jets (12.5mm nozzle) against the enclosure from any direction shall have no harmful effects.
7	Immersion up to 1m	Ingress of water in harmful quantity shall not be possible when the enclosure is immersed in water under defined conditions of pressure and time (up to 1 m of submersion).
8	Immersion beyond 1m	The equipment is suitable for continuous immersion in water under conditions which shall be specified by the manufacturer. Normally, this will mean that the equipment is hermetically sealed. However, with certain types of equipment, it can mean that water can enter but only in such a manner that it produces no harmful effects.

Right, ip68 tested in the laboratory. Not in the Atlantic Ocean, not in the Pacific Ocean, Niagara Falls a chlorinated pool or the Dead Sea...the laboratory. Apples website has the full disclaimer.