They just shouldn't be making commercials that make people want to get their phone wet if it's probably going to ruin the phone. Not sure why this 17guy is so obsessed with Apple having the right to advertise whatever they want despite how misleading it is. Also, not sure why he thinks 12 million euros (a nominal fine) is a lot of money, as they could have just as easily fined them a billion euros.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Italy Fines Apple $12 Million for Misleading iPhone Water Resistance Claims
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I honestly don't know how to respond to this, except to say stupid is as stupid does. As far as waterproof cameras, I don't know, there are many such as the 7D (along with some lenses: Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM), that are weather-sealed and generally accepted they can be used in inclement weather.
But that doesn't mean Apple's commercial represents a product that does not meet the specifications. Remember the pink champagne commercial that Samsung pulled? https://www.theverge.com/2016/3/11/11207070/lil-wayne-samsung-galaxy-s7-champagne-commercial
You are completely missing the point. All of this nonsense with what the website says, et cetera. The point is that the product does not perform as depicted in the commercial. Not talking about the website, not talking about fine print, not talking about comparing to Samsung, not talking about your conspiracy theory that Italy desperately needs 12 million euros so badly that they'd levy a nonsensical fine. I'm honestly picturing you in front of Four Seasons Landscaping yelling with hair dye dripping down your temples...
Last edited:
As soon as you've owned the the MacBook 2015, MBP 2016, and the MBP 2018 for >20 years and known at least a half dozen other people who've owned them for >20 years and never even heard of a complaint about them, you have a case. Of course, since you mentioned it, we already know you have failed this test. So no. Not the same thing at all.
The Citizen Hyper Aqualand is a 20 year old watch sized device. The sensor inside is not going to be a TSMC 5nm process running at 1.2GHZ. It is pretty basic by today's measure, and nearly archaic by iPhone standards.
If the phone can survive immersion in water up to 2 meters for an hour, a sensor that can determine if it has been immersed in water to a depth of 2 meters and measure how long should do just fine. See? That is the standard. That is how standards work. If you say you do not weigh more than 120 pounds, and I put you on a scale only to find you weigh 200 pounds, you did not meet that standard. The scale measures your weight. I cannot determine that you exceeded your weight because you are standing on a tile floor. The fact that you weigh anything at all is not proof that you weigh more than 120 pounds. If you say you refrigerator chills to 5C, and I measure with a thermometer that is is constantly at 10C, it doesn't meet that standard. I cannot say that you refrigerator fails just because the light stays on. The light staying on has nothing to do with your standard - even though lights produce heat. If you say your device is water resistant to 2 meters for an hour, and it dies after walking through a mister, it doesn't meet that standard, even if the water droplet detectors are tripped.
You didn't say put the entire watch in the phone, but you implied the sensor wouldn't fit because there isn't any space left in the iPhone. To be sure, if there wasn't ANY space, there would be no way for water to get in, and we wouldn't be having this conversation.
Apple advertised up to 17 hour batter life. That is very different than at least 16 hour battery life. The IP68 rating is that the device will withstand at least this much, not up to this much.
Water shouldn't be getting into the device from a misty rain if it is sealed for up to 2 meters submerged.
The "reasons" you stated are so riddled with logical fallacies I have to question whether you are arguing in good faith. You certainly do not seem to understand manufacturing specifications at all, and at other times seem to be deliberately misconstruing things to defend a bad position.
If the phones were, in fact, fully IP68 compliant, they wouldn't fail when caught in a rainstorm. My above referenced watch is rated to 300' of salt water. I would be rightfully upset if it failed at 20' in the first 6 months only to be told that the "water resistance is not guaranteed over the life of the device." I kept it within the operating parameters specified, and it failed.
Similarly, the iPhone is rated to work in ambient temperatures from 0-35C (32-95F). You could rightfully complain if the phone failed to work at 88F because heat is bad for semiconductors (and it is).
Xaxte
IP68 is from the standard ... the first digit defines the protection against solids. The second against moisture.
6: Protection from contact with harmful dust.
8:
I don’t need to go to Apples books to see what a standard means. Furthermore it looks like nothing but a redefinition of the standard they say they are compliant with. There no definition in terms of splash resistance! It’s a fabrication/
It’s very easy to check what the standard says.
Yes the facts seam to point to a direction. But the more I read they do not seam to point to your conclusion. But who knows, we need to wait and see.
As for the posted Rolex blog. It’s not a refutal. Of course things decay over time. That was never question, hence is nothing but an argumentative distraction. Rolex does back the entire watch features with a warranty neither they try to redefine what the each IP classification actually means.
As for Samsung ... But one cannot excuse ones mistake with the mistake of some other. The fact at hand is with Apple not Samsung. Now Apple in four may very well complain due to double standards much like they customers do regarding the App Store policies. Hey, I’m sure Samsung will follow if there is merit in such claim.
Samsung has the same type of "warranty" with it's ip68 rated phones such as the Note. As far as watches:
Water in Rolex Watch: Will Water Damage My Rolex? How Do I Fix It?
Most customers are a bit annoyed that their rolex watch has now failed them, since it is an expensive watch and supposed to be able to go in the water.blog.watchdoctor.biz
Sure, that is the exact definition of an opinion.
I'm as inclined to protect Apple interests are you are inclined for a "guilty until proven innocent."
Actually, the fact is, from Apple's website (Samsung's website is similar):
The above is the a fact. And because Italian regulators have an anecdotal case of a phone not working the way the marketing suggests, it seems to be a money grab. And I just posted two examples of water resistant goods that aren't warrantied for liquid damage.
- iPhone 12 and iPhone 12 mini 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.
Apple probably should have had a disclaimer, the least of which was to review the website for relevant information, but that doesn't mean the iphone 12 is not IP68 resistant. As a consumer of Apple products (and other electronic devices), I'm glad my iphone can withstand some water damage, but I wouldn't bet the farm by going swimming with my iphone. I totally understand why Apple (Samsung) does not warrant water damage. As an extra credit assignment can you name one manufacturer that claims water resistance that covers liquid damage?
There does seem to be much cognitive dissonance on this particular subject...I wonder why? As far as "accusing" an organization of a money grab without any facts to back it up, seems the facts speak for themselves. The iphone is ip68 rated, that doesn't mean water resistance lasts forever or works 100% of the time, based on abuse, heat or cold. Even if I don't have all of the facts, neither do you and you can't rule out this being a money-grab either.
IP68 is from the standard ... the first digit defines the protection against solids. The second against moisture.
6: Protection from contact with harmful dust.
8:
| Protected from immersion in water with a depth of more than 1 meter (manufacturer must specify exact depth) |
I don’t need to go to Apples books to see what a standard means. Furthermore it looks like nothing but a redefinition of the standard they say they are compliant with. There no definition in terms of splash resistance! It’s a fabrication/
It’s very easy to check what the standard says.
Yes the facts seam to point to a direction. But the more I read they do not seam to point to your conclusion. But who knows, we need to wait and see.
As for the posted Rolex blog. It’s not a refutal. Of course things decay over time. That was never question, hence is nothing but an argumentative distraction. Rolex does back the entire watch features with a warranty neither they try to redefine what the each IP classification actually means.
As for Samsung ... But one cannot excuse ones mistake with the mistake of some other. The fact at hand is with Apple not Samsung. Now Apple in four may very well complain due to double standards much like they customers do regarding the App Store policies. Hey, I’m sure Samsung will follow if there is merit in such claim.
Last edited:
Who said the product doesn't perform as depicted in the commercial? And does this apply to every unit produced or just one or two anecdotal tests? Or is it that they didn't like the fact the testing was done in a laboratory, but not mentioned in the commercial? One can parse this any way they want, which is why I believe this is a money grab.
Last edited:
If you read how smartphone manufacturers do their testing, some of them seem to do it the same way (with maybe one exception). So if YOU claim Apple is redefining the standard YOU must include every smartphone manufacturer.
As far as the definition of the "8":
The equipment is suitable for continuous immersion in water under conditions which shall be specified by the manufacturer. 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. The test depth and duration is expected to be greater than the requirements for IPx7, and other environmental effects may be added, such as temperature cycling before immersion.
Basically these manufacturers test in laboratory as opposed to a pool, the Atlantic Ocean or the Dead Sea.
It is not the product that doesn’t meet the specifications. It is the advertisement.
Yes indeed The standard under the 68 class makes no mention of splash resistance because is in fact far more demanding than simply be impermeable to kind splashes of water per a split second. It’s a bit weird that Apple mentioned splash resistance considering IP 68. Apple as a matter of its own conditions it simply informs a “maximum depth of 6 meters up to 30 minutes”, but fails to say that it need to comply impermeability at least of a 1 meter as required by the IP68 class. Than there a number of conditions they fail to specify “under laboratory conditions” that the customer simply does not know what they are, so offer no guidance over which conditions are actually at stake. On top of this ... “sorry no assurances”. Even for what the standard defines. That is why the regulators case along with the marketing may have some merit.
EDIT: As far as I read the Italian regulator says that the test has failed in the units used for testing with water that was less than clean. So it might be that these conditions that fall into the undisclosed “laboratory conditions” who know, it can be anything. I’m sure Apple will investigate such claim and either take to court and prove that such tests were invalid or pay the fine and at least tune their tests accordingly.
Honestly, there is no news here in the medium run. It’s business as usual.
EDIT: By the way. Samsung is being sued or was for the same thing in Australia. This subject is hot
EDIT: If it goes like before in other cases such as the throtling case with the Italian regulator. Samsung will be next of not already. The double standards theory kind of goes down the drain in time ...
EDIT: Look, I’m not thinking at all that Apple is lying. Don’t think that Apple does this as much as other do at all, by my own experience. But there is a fare amount of muddy waters around this subject as far as tech companies go that for sure regulators need to clarify. This is one way. Otherwise a standard is made towards giving some guarantee to users of such products, its usefulness is voided as a matter of practice! Becoming nothing more than a Marketing tool.
Last edited:
I noticed you edited your post after I responded, an "edit" notation would be proper internet form.
However, if the industry standard for smartphone testing is under laboratory conditions, it is what it is. This is a quote from the original posted story.
I find the bolded interesting as this seems to be an industry standard with few exceptions, which is why this seemingly is a money-grab.
Wait...why should a keyboard be tested for >20 years before you can comfortably say "it works" when even you yourself say "Not the same thing at all". You just contradicted yourself. This makes no sense. And you missed the point entirely which is that a personal experience means nothing when it comes to overall durability.
A pressure sensor can easily be fooled. There's a reason why there's a water sensor AND a pressure sensor on your watch. You said all you need is a "basic pressure sensor" but a "basic pressure sensor" alone doesn't have a water can be triggered by non-liquid means. You need a water sensor to trigger the "basic pressure sensor" so that you know the phone is underwater. Do you understand now?
No, I didn't imply that there isn't anymore physical space. I said it'll break Apple's design spec.
If you stuck a pressure sensor in the same sized enclosure without shrinking anything else, you've changed the thermal envelope of the design. The iPhone will throttle sooner when you're taking video outside in a summer heat. Apple's design spec probably stipulates that the iPhone should be able be able to record X minutes in 90F heat with the sun shining. Sticking in more components that are too big will reduce iPhone's ability to passively cool the SOC.
And Apple says it's IP68 which says it's freshwater only and so far iPhones have lived up to the IP68 spec. The Italy docket says a user's iPhone failed to withstand sea water, but sea water isn't what IP68 tests for. This is what Italy is arguing. Do you get it now?
It will if you have the sim card tray opened which IP68 doesn't test against.
Says the person suggesting a keyboard should last >20 years because their watch did. 🤦♂️
To use your words against you, a watch and a phone are "Not the same thing at all."
If your watch had a sim tray, it would fail against a rainstorm when the sim tray is open. Period.
Summary:
1. The point was Banich2 said the CURRENT "GODDAMN SENSORS" should detect how long an iPhone can be submerged. I said no. You jumped in the argument saying I'm wrong because Apple can easily add one which wasn't what we were talking about. The current sensors *can't* detect how long an iPhone can be under water. This is a cold hard fact and if you argued differently, you're just wrong.
2. A sim tray that's open will expose the internals of the device will fail for any device no matter the water resistant rating. Your watch included if it had one. But you seem to ignore this part.
3. You're telling me it's not okay to compare a keyboard and a watch and that they're two different things, but also say that if a keyboard lasted for longer than 20 years, it should be just as durable as your watch. A contradiction.
It's pretty annoying that you're ignoring these facts and instead trying to distort what I said to make you sound like you're in the right. It sounds like you're realizing you're wrong here and you're trying to get out of this so, like with Banich2, I'm done conversing with you. 👋
I hope you went all Karen on them at the Apple store because it's warranted.... err, I guess it wasn't literally, but ridiculous nonetheless.
I swear there was a Verizon or Sprint iPhone commercial (Made by Apple) where someone was taking pictures under water while swimming in a pool, but I can't find it.
BUT.... I did find the commercial where they throw a big ass water balloon at an iPhone 7:
This is timely. My iPhone XS had 10-15 exposure to cold water in my pocket this weekend and my Face ID no longer works despite no CLI color change. I didn't realize that Apple's water resistance advertising was such BS and thought the phone would be fine. Decided against the iPhone 12 I'd been considering and will get an SE since apparently Face ID can't handle a few inches of water.
Last edited:
All product tests are made in laboratory conditions and more. A laboratory, wether open air or closed an environment is created to emulate both normal and extreme conditions. If static and pure water were used to consistently achieve impermeability at one meter depth surely such conditions don’t meet the criteria of the intended usage.
The standard it seams that does not stipulate any requirements regarding lab conditions, but one. It needs to capture its intended use.
This is seams to be the concern of the regulators ... according to them it does not meet such a criteria. Certainty founded on their tests, that is than further clarified by Apple practice (there may be others) of not providing any form of warranty over such feature. Unlike Rolex for instance.
EDIT: So it may the case that Apple simply needs to improve their testing environment to meet its expected and advertised usage. Or that regulators have manipulated their lab conditions to extract $12 million from the company coffers. Or finally someone just made a mistake in the lab. Time will tell.
Last edited:
What's the intended usage you are referring to? Swimming? Deep sea diving? Or is the point the phone can withstand some amount of moisture? (assuming the phone isn't aged, damaged or abused)
Common sense says the intended usage is varied for the individual. The phone is not water-proof, it has some amount of water resistance.
Right, and that is why, my opinion is this is a money grab.
What is their criteria? Which smartphone manufacturers (with maybe a very few exceptions) provide such a warranty. This seems to be an industry standard.
Exactly, any or all or none of the above.
I'm not so sure why you think Apple shouldn't advertise water resistance? People do get their phones wet and phones do get ruined by liquid. That is why water resistance benefits the consumer more than the manufacturer.
It's pretty simple. The claims Apple makes are based on the international IP standards. The tests required to meet IP68 are well defined - it's not Apple saying it's static, pure water. That's the internationally agreed standard. That way you know that something with IP68 rating is better than IP66 but not as good at IP69K, for instance. If they claim IP68 they can still have cases that it's not protected against.
Well
First the standard is not defined in the terms of “some amount of moisture”. On the other point, in engineering and product making, intended usage is not defined by each individual, but by what the product was designed and marketed for, and of course you design and test for some variability. That is what common sense is in engineering. The phone is IP68, that is what Apple product states as being compliant.. It does not state “designed to with stand some amount of moisture, use it at your on risk”.
The AGCM said that that device coped consistently with water exposure, but only under specific controlled laboratory conditions, with completely still and pure water, and wasn't true in real-world scenarios where consumers might drop their phones in water for instance. They even provided an example! Don’t know if they are right or wrong. if the tests were conducted properly or not, but this is what they have said as I recall. Now, as for the matter of opinion, one can twist this how ever one may want according fondness of each organization working on this matter.
I’m a bit surprised you have up with this kind of argument over concepts such as “intended usage”, because from another topic / thread, it seams that you were some kind of app developer, or had at least had knowledge of the the business of making and building apps as well as digital service. The aim of testing of hard products is not much different, in fact its even more demanding in those aspects. I think I may have come out of the previous conversation with the wrong impression considering every software engeneer knows that you should test for intended use and variability.
Roger out.
First the standard is not defined in the terms of “some amount of moisture”. On the other point, in engineering and product making, intended usage is not defined by each individual, but by what the product was designed and marketed for, and of course you design and test for some variability. That is what common sense is in engineering. The phone is IP68, that is what Apple product states as being compliant.. It does not state “designed to with stand some amount of moisture, use it at your on risk”.
The AGCM said that that device coped consistently with water exposure, but only under specific controlled laboratory conditions, with completely still and pure water, and wasn't true in real-world scenarios where consumers might drop their phones in water for instance. They even provided an example! Don’t know if they are right or wrong. if the tests were conducted properly or not, but this is what they have said as I recall. Now, as for the matter of opinion, one can twist this how ever one may want according fondness of each organization working on this matter.
I’m a bit surprised you have up with this kind of argument over concepts such as “intended usage”, because from another topic / thread, it seams that you were some kind of app developer, or had at least had knowledge of the the business of making and building apps as well as digital service. The aim of testing of hard products is not much different, in fact its even more demanding in those aspects. I think I may have come out of the previous conversation with the wrong impression considering every software engeneer knows that you should test for intended use and variability.
Roger out.
Last edited:
Why would Apple have the below text on their website? I'll answer...because water resistance is not guaranteed due to variables beyond Apple's control. Drop the phone and it may get wet with "some amount of moisture". The product isn't marketed to be used for deep sea diving, swimming in the pool. The product is designed and marketed to withstand "some amount of moisture", it's only common sense. The iphone 12 is compliant with ip68, but that doesn't mean the end-user will find a water resistant phone, due to conditions outside of Apple's control. On the other hand, the phone could very well survive a dunk in the pool.
- iPhone 12 and iPhone 12 mini 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.
The phone is not marketed as water-proof and fully warrantied for water damage. The ip68 designation although clearly defined, doesn't translate to the usage a phone gets in the real world. Heat, cold, abuse, damage can affect the water resistance. There is no other standard but it's hard to apply ip68 to real world usage; eg dropped into the toilet, taken for a spin in the washing machine, dropped into soapy water in the sink, etc.
It's nice to know these phones have a modicum of water resistance and makes me feel better knowing if the inevitable accidental liquid exposure occurs, I may not need a replacement phone. And the phone potentially can withstand spills, mist, steam in the bathroom from the shower etc...but it's not guaranteed and exposure is at your own risk.
Personally I think I may have changed my mind in that all claims of water resistance and water proofing that are not guaranteed by the manufacturer should be banned from advertising, except on the manufacturers website. What is a laboratory designation, in this case does not apply in the real world.
I didn't bring up the keyboards. You did. I used my watch, which has a depth sensor on it as an example of a system that could be used in the iPhone (and not the only one, just AN example of one that would work). You said they would have false positives. I pointed out that I haven't heard of any false positives (or negatives) in over 20 years across several units all in service for over 20 years. You said that since you, personally, didn't have any issues with with butterfly keyboards, they must all be fine. This is despite the fact that you KNOW others have had numerous (but statistically minor) issues as evidenced by your post on June 12 of this year. So you are well aware of issues with the keyboard, unlike the pressure sensor in the watch in question.
"A pressure sensor can easily be fooled?" you say? Yeah, sure. Let me run down to my nearest hyperbaric chamber and ... are you even remotely serious? It is kind of easy, if deliberate, to fool into a higher rating. The trick here is to fool it into a LOWER rating - at the same time that you drop it into water by accident. What set of circumstances do you see simultaneously dropping your phone into a swimming pool while at the same time carefully setting it up to read as if it was a shallower depth than it actually was? This is sort of possible in air (not accidentally), but in liquid?
Please point me to the apparatus that will put more pressure than 2 meters (6') of water on a device while simultaneously generating less pressure than 2 meters (6') pressure water on the device (~1.2 atmospheres in fresh water). Remember, it has to be under water as if accidentally dropped. Sure, the combined might of Samsung, Google, and LG could defeat the test - as could the KGB, the CIA, the Italian government, and various other entities that all have better things to do than to fake warranty claims against Apple. What is it you think that might REALISTICALLY and ACCIDENTALLY fool the a sensor like this?
So no, I guess I do not understand. The sensor on said watch (or other dive computers) doesn't seem to have any trouble with atmospheric pressure tricking it. It reads properly on airplanes. It reads properly in salt water. It reads properly in fresh water. It reads properly at high altitude dives (it even warns you). It reads properly at low altitude dives. It just works. I just worked ~25 years ago. I just works today. Sure doesn't seem like it is something that would trip up the people who designed the iPhone (who, to be clear, I have tremendous respect for).
You say it would violate Apple's design SPEC. Apples design SPEC is IP68 water resistant. Assuming tales in this thread are reasonably true, it isn't meeting that. It is worth noting that this is APPLE'S design SPEC. They can change it. You go one to cite calamities that "might," "may," or "could possibly" happen if this sort of sensor were included, but you do not know this. You are just trying to rationalize.
I am not saying they NEED to include this sensor.
I am saying that if you sell a phone you advertise as IP68 water resistant, it needs to be IP68 water resistant. That doesn't mean "This phone resists ultra pure water only at up 2m for up to 1 hour, but only when inside the laboratory at the Apple campus in California while riding a zebra backwards and playing the Stanford fight song on Bagpipes." It means that any user can reasonably expect the phone to survive exposure of up to 2m of water (even Houston water) for up to an hour. If someone spills a glass of water on their phone at a restaurant, it should be covered. If someone drops their phone off a pier into 10' of seawater, Apple can complain.
Others, including you, implied that distinguishing types of water damage was beyond the capability of the iPhone design team. Some of us think you woefully underestimate what they could accomplish.
The truth is, Samsung made commercials with the ice bucket challenge, and showed their phone getting dropped in a lake. Apple responded by upping their water resistance spec. BUT, they need to back that up. Even if Samsung doesn't, I expect more from Apple than Samsung. That's why I buy Apple over Samsung.
Banich2 is correct. The "CURRENT GODDAMN SENSORS" should detect the amount of water exposure in comparison to the specification. If they do not, then the WRONG sensors are in the phone. They should go with one more like the one I have pointed out. Maybe not that precise one, but one with similar capabilities so that they can better determine which phones went scuba diving and which ones just got misted.
Your SIM tray argument doesn't hold water (you deserved the pun). There is already a lighting connector that has to be made IP68 water resistant. The same can be applied to the SIM tray.
And your third point in your fallacy filled summary, I already covered.
I guess we will see if you are done conversing with me. I do not often meet someone this wrong who gives up so easily.
The sensors can be triggered by high humidity and I agree it is BS. Though it is not clear what level of humidity and for how long triggers the sensors.
If the fine print is in the commercial (even if it is so fast and small no sane person could read it all) than Apple should have not been fined. However, if they went stupid as with the iPhone 7 commercial then they should be fined. Without actually seeing the Italian version of the commercial there is no way to tell.
In America it might not be sufficient, either, because if something like this ever had to be decided by a jury, Apple would probably lose (think about how everything has to say "Caution, HOT!") I don't know anything about Italian law further that what I learned in the Amanda Knox movie, but they have (had?) a relatively high percentage of elderly people for whom a disclaimer just wouldn't be as prominent, as well as an agency that actually polices it.
Last edited:
I’ll just focus on this one because the entire argument explaining the small letters in commercials seams to be based on a new theory of yours around the difference between “waterproof” and “water resistant” and it’s use in marketing.
The term “waterproof” was banned by the FTC in 1960 and replaced by “water resistant” from the technical and marketing description for any piece of machinery. It has not a thing to do with the level of impermeability but the simple fact that machinery a thing composed by multiple parts, will never be 100% impermeable as suggested by the term “waterproof”. For instance, Rolex, that you like to use articles from, uses the term “water resistant” yet backs their claims with a warranty regarding exposure to liquids up to 5 years, provided that the watch casing is not banged, glasses aren’t broken, crown stays fit .. a number of understandable conditions considering that is made of parts stick together that are than fastened so tight that water is not supposed to pass through if not damaged. Apple (as well as others) on the other hand provides not warranties on this matter, even if the device looks pristine.
The IP standard specifies the expected resistance to the elements.The marketing used by Apple visually enforces the perception of that resistance. IP68 is not just by some amount but by quite a lot (have a deep look at the lower levels, its a sum. Some commercial imply the iPhone to be beaten aggressively with the elements, things being smashed at it, deep dive into a cake ... so on and so forth). It’s the highest an item can get. The Italian regulator found on their tests that the iPhones tested are more fragile to the elements than what is suggested by the marketing, including the compliance to the standard. A simple drop of the phone into dirty waters seams to be enough to damage the device. This must have happened on their tests. As far as I understood their statement. Hence the decided to fine the company.
In another side of the globe, Australia sued Samsung for similar reasons.
It is just that simple.
Now probably Apple will appeal. The tests will be scrutinized and Apple might win or not. If Apple wins, hopefully it will also be news as much as the sue. It would be brilliant Marketing. If it looses, than this process may be improved and we, the customers, may get better info if not product.
Personally has a customer would be happy either way. I think Apple too.
Last edited: