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

[Maximara]

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.

Given I still see commercials with that (perhaps as an ADA requirement) whit many medication I say it much be enough. Heck, the speed at which the audio part of those disclaimers in commercials go has in become a meme. Itislikehavingasentenacewithnospaces.

I might add that movies and TV shows are a horrible (and for the most part, useless) source for laws. The channel LegalEagle has many videos where the lawyer, admitted to the bar at four states (California, Maryland, New York, Virginia) and D.C., takes a movie/show and plays "spot the violation" of actual modern law with. Yes, there is sometimes an ex post de facto aspect (especially with older movies) in what he does as well as apply US law to movies set in places and times where our US law doesn't apply (Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory being a good example. In the case of Phoenix Wright he does point out this out as that is actually based on Japanese not US law and the translation turns it into this really bad mess that violates key provisions of the Constitution -Trial by Jury being top of the parade).

 

[Sarbun96]

I am amazed, while I was expecting this on page 1 and one of the first 10 or so posts, instead it's on page 3 #52.
So in a way, there's progress.

Stop these foolish comments.

I'll stop my foolish comment if you stop yours

 

[I7guy]

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.

The point is anything that is water resistant (even if claimed waterproof https://www.rolex.com/watch-care-and-service/faq.html#:~:text=Are all Rolex watches waterproof?&text=All Rolex wristwatches are waterproof,1,220 or even 3,900 metres) is tested in certifiable, repeatable conditions. Rolex backs up their claim and of course one is buying a ultra-expensive device. (and if one forgets to push the crown closed, your phone gets wet)

It's seems to be an industry standard (for the most part), that phones are declared water resistant according to a standard and not backed by a warranty. (That this is allowed to happen is another story) Phones are more fragile than the said watch, which I just quoted and water resistance varies by usage, age, damage and abuse.

I quoted from the article what the Italian regulators seemed to have an issue with and that is why to me, it is a money grab. The commercial depicts a situation in which a phone may or may not have water damage based on many factors about the phones history.

However, it turns out, it turns out. But this reminds me of the car commercials showing ordinary cars being driving like they are on a racing track, with the appropriate disclaimer at the end of the commerical. While Apple's website does have the disclaimer, some information should probably have been on the commercial.

 

[JaJaWa]

Rain killed my cameras, Face ID, and RAM on my first 11 Pro Max (had to get it replaced). Apple’s claims are ridiculous.

 

[I7guy]

Rain killed my cameras, Face ID, and RAM on my first 11 Pro Max (had to get it replaced). Apple’s claims are ridiculous.

And yet: https://9to5mac.com/2018/12/15/ipho...=The iPhone 7 was the,people out of the water.

iPhone 12 should change the water resistance game

Would Apple go the extreme and make the iPhone 12 as swim-proof as the Apple Watch? Well, no, because nobody is really that interested in swimming with their iPhones. But...

www.imore.com

I'm sure a thread could be filled with anecdotal stories of water resistance with good and bad endings.

 

[Nuno Lopes]

I'm sure a thread could be filled with anecdotal stories of water resistance with good and bad endings.

Much like the functioning of any product. Some go bad, other go well, some worst than others ... But the fact is that the theme of the thread is not really about how much a feature of a product can fail.

But about wether a company can claim beyond its abilities. Well it can’t by law, it can’t. Which seams to be the finding of the regulators.

It might be even simply the case of a bad batch ... who knows. Only close examination can both Apple and regulator arrive to a conclusion one way or another given the phones tested.

But I understand your opinion considering your interest in protecting your stocks. It’s just common sense on your part. Even if they don’t seam to need it for now.

 

[I7guy]

Much like the functioning of any product. Some go bad, other go well, some worst than others ... But the fact is that the theme of the thread is not really about how much a feature of a product can fail.

But about wether a company can claim beyond its abilities. Well it can’t by law, it can’t. Which seams to be the finding of the regulators.

Fully agree. Nobody said any company claimed beyond it's abilities. With respect to the iphone 12, nobody said the phone isn't water resistant. The regulators may be claiming the commercial exceeds the abilities of the iphone 12, but that's where the money grab comes in. Claiming and proving are two different things.

It might be even simply the case of a bad batch ... who knows. Only close examination can both Apple and regulator arrive to a conclusion one way or another given the phones tested.

Maybe or the regulators were not able to duplicate the conditions of the commercial, but in fact their tests well exceeded ip68,

But I understand your opinion considering your interest in protecting your stocks. It’s just common sense on your part. Even if they don’t seam to need it for now.

Protecting ones' portfolio is never a bad idea. But the cognitive dissonance is deafening.

 

[Nuno Lopes]

Nobody said any company claimed beyond it's abilities.

That seams to be the case that lead to the fine. When I mentioned the abilities was referring to the product, not Apple. Marketing abilities beyond the product offers. You have read the same thing as I did.

Stop making things up man, simply put the case at hand is not what you are trying to sell that it is. Making things along to sell your baseless conclusion ... sorry opinion.

Geez just stop. Your making a full of yourself

What you think! An Italian regulator wakes up one morning and thinks ... “let me see who can we grab some money from ... right, let just pick on that giant over there backed by by an army of lawyers and grab their money ... and for fun we just drop the ball on the lab experience” It’s insanity man.” If you are in the grab for money you don’t pick on giants man ... you go to the littles guys. Take this for common sense of your theory. How about this for cognitive dissonance?

It may be the case that Apple can win the appeal. It will for sure be scrutinized. Maybe there are production batchs better than others who knows ... for sure you and I do not.

As I’ve said, either outcome is great for Apple and their customers. For sure this will be explained in the following months or years.

 

[I7guy]

That seams to be the case that lead to the fine. When I mentioned the abilities was referring to the product, not Apple. You have read the same thing as I did.

Stop making things up man, simply put the case at hand is not what you are trying to sell that it is. Making things along to sell your baseless conclusion ... sorry opinion.

Geez just stop. Your making a full of yourself

What you think! An Italian regulator wakes up one morning and thinks ... “let me see who can we grab some money from ... right, let just pick on that giant over there backed by by an army of lawyers and grab their money ... and for fun we just drop the ball on the lab experience” It’s insanity man.” If you are in the grab for money you don’t pick on giants man ... you go to the littles guys. Take this for common sense of your theory.

It may be the case that Apple can win the appeal. It will for sure be scrutinized. Maybe there are production batchs better than others who knows doentes time being.

As I’ve said, either outcome is great for Apple and their customers. For sure this will be explained in the following months or years.

Let's start at the top. This is quoted from the news article:

"However, according to the country's competition regulator, the messages did not clarify that the claims are only true under specific conditions, for example during controlled laboratory tests with the use of static and pure water, and not in the normal conditions of use by consumers.

The regulator also took issue with Apple's warranty terms, which do not cover damage caused by liquids. The authority considered it inappropriate to push an "aggressive" commercial practice highlighting water resistance as a feature, while at the same time refusing to provide post-sales warranty assistance if the iPhone models in question suffer water damage."

So the regulators seem to have an issue with the limitations. Do these regulators have any common sense? Did they think these phones could be taken deep sea diving? Do they think people will mistake some slight mist being sprayed against the phone for the ability to dive into the pool with it?

The regulators also took issue with the warranty terms, which do not cover damage. Have these regulators done their due diligence to see which phones claim water resistance and have warranty against liquid damage. Only one phone that I know of and that is the Active. Samsung, OnePlus (which didn't even bother with the certifications as far as I can tell) do not warranty their phones, except as noted.

Neither of the above has anything to do with the performance of the phone, which is why my opinion this is a money grab. Now there may be some other "stuff" involved with this...

 

[Nuno Lopes]

Look man you are holding on to “laboratory conditions” conditions that you don’t know about and never were specified by Apple. What does that mean to a consumer? Zilch, nada, zero. It’s a mind game, conditioning of the mind. To make something appear to be what it may be not.

Further more. Take the entire product. The iPhone m. For sure before launch was tested, and tested and tested ... in a lab. Under controlled conditions. Now, Apple comes up and instead of using this muddled writings over just this specific feature, uses this approach to the entire equipment. Great, now ... no warranty done. You could came up exactly with the same kind of arguments for the entire product. “Oh ir got broken, hey machines break all the time, maybe it was dropped, heck ... maybe it was a act of god, it is supposed to work under laboratory conditions, don’t you know that?... só suck its up”

Now the fact is that things do not work this way. There are laws, regulations and regulators. That is it!

The regulators specifically said that some units on their tests did not survived 30 minuta under water, specifically, non pure, clean water. While if the water was clean, pure, meaning no dirt or other kinds of resíduos, the units endured. The IP68 standard, does not make a difference between kinds of water, salt, dirty or muddy. The advertisements even shown a cake falling over the phone, that looked quite moist and “dirty”. So their finding lead to conclude that according to the found abilities, the marketing was misrepresenting them. And they found issue with the lack of written conditions that the machine can resist to water.

Of course it has to the performance of the machine. Resistance to water is part of its performance.

This is so obvious that paired with your blanked conclusion it does seam that it maybe you who is in the money grab business.

That is it!

PS: By the way, being a share holder, please mention to Tim that this autocorrect thing on the iPhone it’s kind of trashy.

 

[I7guy]

Look man you are holding on to “laboratory conditions” conditions that you don’t know about and never were specified by Apple. What does that mean to a consumer? Zilch, nada, zero. It’s a mind game, conditioning of the mind. To make something appear tone what it may be not.

So now a consumer is "too dumb" to understand what "laboratory conditions" mean? The dumbing down of the consumer, I guess.

Further more. Take the entire product. The iPhone m. For sure before launch was tested, and tested and tested ... in a lab. Under controlled conditions. Now, Apple comes up and instead of using this muddled writings over just this specific feature, uses ir to entire equipment. Great, now ... no warranty done. You could came up exactly with the same kind of arguments for the entire product. “Oh ir got broken, hey machines break all the time, maybe it was dropped, heck ... maybe it was a act of god, it is supposed to work under laboratory conditions, don’t you know that?... só suck its up”

Maybe the regulators should "suck it up" and get some common sense?

Now the fact is that things do not work this way. There are laws, regulations and regulators. That is it!

The regulators specifically said that some units on their tests did not survived 30 minuta under water, specifically, non pure, clean water. While if the water was clean, pure, meaning no dirt or other kinds of resíduos, the units endured. The IP68 standard, does not make a difference between kinds of water, salt, dirty or muddy. The advertisements even shown a cake falling over the phone, that looked quite moist and “dirty”. So their finding lead to conclude that according to the found abilities, the marketing was misrepresenting them. And they found issue with the lack of written conditions that the machine can resist to water.

That is not correct. The ip68 allows the manufacturer to set some of the standards. And one of the standards that Apple set is clean water. And that is why all of this seems like a money grab.

Of course it has to the performance of the machine. Resistance to water is part of its performance.

This is so obvious that paired with your blanked conclusion it does seam that it maybe your who is in the money grab business.

That is it!

PS: By the way, being a share holder, please mention to Tim that this autocorrect thing on the iPhone it’s kind of trashy.

I called Tim and asked him to speed up the planned obsolescence, introduce more throttling, raise the prices, and lower the specs. He already said they were working on it. /s

 

[Maximara]

After a bit of searching I found iPhone 7 – Dive – Apple [HD] and there is nothing in that that even suggest you can drop the phone into water and have it still function.

 

[Nuno Lopes]

So now a consumer is "too dumb" to understand what "laboratory conditions" mean? The dumbing down of the consumer, I guess.

For one, I don’t know what it means actually. That its not covered by warranty? That it does not work outside the laboratory? Oh the Marketing says it can so. Oh that YouTube’s shown it running on tap water. I guess that is what it means. Hey, but I used like they shown on the TV and got water in. Go to the Apple Store, sorry, you need to buy a news device. Is that what it means?

Now for you it means that it “might” resist to water even if just out of the factory. Ok. It might save life’s or live them to die. Ok You are smarter than I am. I would say, than they should market it as, .. it “might resist save lives”. Is water in the pool clean? What about see water?

I think we already explained very well our opinions on the subject.

PS: On a more down to earth note, I believe that it might be the case that some production batch’s may come out better than others in this context. Some might even be below par. Assuming that the tests done by the regulator are ok, that may be very well the case. And because Apple dismisses this cases based on the The user not using the device under laboratory conditions this is not detected. Hence, explaining why the fine is not that high.

Regulators usually decide to investigate subjects when there is a number of complaints that justifies it. “You are holding it wrong” is not enough of an explanation.

It’s just business as usual. Have fun.

 

[Nuno Lopes]

I called Tim and asked him to speed up the planned obsolescence, introduce more throttling, raise the prices, and lower the specs. He already said they were working on it. /s

I believe that you wish it would be the case. Let me add “we provide warranty to usage under laboratory conditions” There would be more money grabbing talk shows for some to exercise their opinion.

Don’t get me wrong. I really like Apple. It’s a fascinating company. It’s products are good. But that does not mean that their practice can’t be improved considering the important role that they now play.

EDIT: Because I have some time let me tell you a little story of mine. I few months ago noticed that the lightening port of my iPhone X was not working. It might have gone months like because I charged wireless, who knows for how long. Because I needed to change battery I thought ... “well just go to an authorized Apple repair center and pay to fix it and replace the battery”. Went there, they told me they could replace the battery. Than I told them, that it the lightning port does not seam to be working. They did some test to confirm it ... and yes they assured me that was not working. I ask them, “can you fix it?”. They said, “no”, you can instead pay 600 euros for a replacement and leave the device that is not working. I asked them to than just replace the battery considering that I rarely need to the port. They told me that they aren’t allowed to do it ... the device needs to be fully working to replace the battery (most be one of those unwritten laboratory conditions). They even said, the situation is weird considering that the device looked, brand new ... still irrelevant, can’t fix it.

So I went to one of those Indian shops, and they fixed the port under 45 minutes. Went back to repair center to than just replace the battery. They managed to do it ... amazing. Phone is ok now ... probably not water resistant now ... hey but who cares, its a dicing feature anyway right?

This has some nasty effects, even for the environment if Apple just thrown my device to the trash smash into pieces. But I guess, what they would is fix it, probably even better than the Indian shop, and sell it refurbished or something. Lovely. So much usable energy lost. Sorry, not lost, just converted into $$, but not for me.

I smell money “grabbing” here. I‘ve heard that now with the iPhone 12, not even Indians can fix what Apple “can’t”. I smell that this thing needs to be regulated. Because someone seams to be covering up their true intent with policy.

 

[Maximara]

I believe that you wish it would be the case. Let me add “we provide warranty to usage under laboratory conditions” There would be more money grabbing talk shows for some to exercise their opinion.

Don’t get me wrong. I really like Apple. It’s a fascinating company. It’s products are good. But that does not mean that their practice can’t be improved considering the important role that they now play.

EDIT: Because I have some time let me tell you a little story of mine. I few months ago noticed that the lightening port of my iPhone X was not working. It might have gone months like because I charged wireless, who knows for how long. Because I needed to change battery I thought ... “well just go to an authorized Apple repair center and pay to fix it and replace the battery”. Went there, they told me they could replace the battery. Than I told them, that it the lightning port does not seam to be working. They did some test to confirm it ... and yes they assured me that was not working. I ask them, “can you fix it?”. They said, “no”, you can instead pay 600 euros for a replacement and leave the device that is not working. I asked them to than just replace the battery considering that I rarely need to the port. They told me that they aren’t allowed to do it ... the device needs to be fully working to replace the battery (most be one of those unwritten laboratory conditions). They even said, the situation is weird considering that the device looked, brand new ... still irrelevant, can’t fix it.

So I went to one of those Indian shops, and they fixed the port under 45 minutes. Went back to repair center to than just replace the battery. They managed to do it ... amazing. Phone is ok now ... probably not water resistant now ... hey but who cares, its a dicing feature anyway right?

This has some nasty effects, even for the environment if Apple just thrown my device to the trash smash into pieces. But I guess, what they would is fix it, probably even better than the Indian shop, and sell it refurbished or something. Lovely. So much usable energy lost. Sorry, not lost, just converted into $$, but not for me.

I smell money “grabbing” here. I‘ve heard that now with the iPhone 12, not even Indians can fix what Apple “can’t”. I smell that this thing needs to be regulated. Because someone seams to be covering up lyes with policy.

Sounds more like they were either trying to use the statement that there was a problem with the lightning port as an excuse to charge you 600 euros or they were using out of date guidelines. Hard to tell though they didn't spot the fact the iPhone X had been opened (there are ways to tell this) makes me lean towards the former.

There are regulations regarding a lot of things but they are not always followed - this is one reason the EPA and BLM are so overworked here in the US. They just down't have the money or resources to deal with all the violations that do happen. Creating a regulation doesn't mean jack if their are few or no resources to enforce it.

 

[Nuno Lopes]

Sounds more like they were either trying to use the statement that there was a problem with the lightning port as an excuse to charge you 600 euros or they were using out of date guidelines. Hard to tell though they didn't spot the fact the iPhone X had been opened (there are ways to tell this) makes me lean towards the former.

What's strikes me the most is that Apple is refusing to fix things on their equipment that are fixable. I'm sure I'm not the only one that had a similar problem. Offering only a complete replacement for the unit. As the time passes by, it's becoming even clearer that the strategy is to make it more and more difficult to fix anything arguing technical reasons that no one can know for certain. And when the technical reasoning fail, as it is this case, then comes the policy. If their practice is an indication of anything, is that it seams that they can indeed design things so that it can be fixed, yet choose to invest in engineering ways for it not to be fixable (heck water resistance is not even a reason considering that as another poster posted, its only assured to work in the lab has it seams . Outside it may work or not.

I for certain agree that no organisation should be told how to design their products. But the fact is, still criteria can be established by regulators that companies need to comply in order ti market their products and its features. This happens in multiple industries.

If not for the sake balancing the power relationship between major corps and customers, then for the environment. Talking about double standards, for sure this simple case exposes that simply fixing the thing (a replacement of a small piece) is way more or energy efficient than building and distributing a new one, dismantling the old and transport it to some safe storage in the middle of some waste land in "Zimbabwe" (made this last part up, no idea where non working devices are being stored). All this is favor of maximising their profits and customer spending as required by share holders.

In abstract, details aside, the water resistance theme is being dealt the same way by Apple. As so well pointed out by another poster the justification is variability, impossible to know, acts of god, security, who knows if it can be well fixed, it can harm the customer ... so on and so forth. Imagine this modus operandi with cars, planes, houses ... its pure insanity and greed. This tendency, of the entire computing industry, should I say lead by Apple, is not sane. Computing is today an essential industry, much like cars, planes, electricity ... all of them are regulated!

This is not an Apple issue alone. This is happening across the entire computing Industry.

PS: And yes, politicians are elected by people to take care of their business, even issues that people do not know that they have, but were yet not confronted with in general. The idea that true approval is done only through peoples wallets its indeed a fallacy. If there is no other options it just means that someone that is supposed to take care of the peoples business and manage conflicts among many players of interest is not! The aim of major corps is to manage the business for share holders and very well organised.

EDIT: I assume that the technician of this authorised Apple repair shop made the mistake of replacing the battery and delivering a fully function iPhone X back to me. Call it an act of god, or a wear an teared technician.

 

[sinkkxxy]

No it's not. I fell down while swimming this summer and my iPhone only briefly went in shallow water and would not charge for days before being ok. I almost junked it as I thought it might be hopeless. So these waterproof claims are seriously bogus. And we're not talking meters here either. I'm talking only splashing inches into the water and that made it fail! to charge anymore!

And guess what the solution was? Spraying more water on the connector and then putting it back in the tray of rice! HAHA!

First of all there is no "waterproof" claim made by Apple anywhere. Secondly, the water resistance of the smartphone wears down with time depending on how you mistreat it.

Regulators should focus their attention on whether companies are straight lying, not assessing arbitrary interpretation of what constitutes a "misleading" claim

 

[tridley68]

Exactly. Even if the manufacturers claim the opposite.

Never trust a sales pitch if it sounds to goo to be true it usually is. My 2cent

 

[ericwn]

Never trust a sales pitch if it sounds to goo to be true it usually is. My 2cent

All very valid, I just think that what we consider common sense isn’t really that common anymore, both for consumers and marketing companies.

 

[I7guy]

For one, I don’t know what it means actually. That its not covered by warranty? That it does not work outside the laboratory? Oh the Marketing says it can so. Oh that YouTube’s shown it running on tap water. I guess that is what it means. Hey, but I used like they shown on the TV and got water in. Go to the Apple Store, sorry, you need to buy a news device. Is that what it means?

Clearly this is an industry wide problem and not Apples per se...how many phones out of the totality are actually tested in the deep sea and are warranted as water-proof.

Now for you it means that it “might” resist to water even if just out of the factory. Ok. It might save life’s or live them to die. Ok You are smarter than I am. I would say, than they should market it as, .. it “might resist save lives”. Is water in the pool clean? What about see water?

It might be better to make the phone ip68 compliant, but not get the certification..but then Apple would seem to be "withholding features"...again.

I think we already explained very well our opinions on the subject.

PS: On a more down to earth note, I believe that it might be the case that some production batch’s may come out better than others in this context. Some might even be below par. Assuming that the tests done by the regulator are ok, that may be very well the case. And because Apple dismisses this cases based on the The user not using the device under laboratory conditions this is not detected. Hence, explaining why the fine is not that high.

Regulators usually decide to investigate subjects when there is a number of complaints that justifies it. “You are holding it wrong” is not enough of an explanation.

It’s just business as usual. Have fun.

True, for the bolded. But we may not the complaints. "I dropped my iphone into the toilet." "I went swimming with my water-proof iphone." "I went into the jacuzzi, with my iphone." We just don't know.

I believe that you wish it would be the case. Let me add “we provide warranty to usage under laboratory conditions” There would be more money grabbing talk shows for some to exercise their opinion.

Don’t get me wrong. I really like Apple. It’s a fascinating company. It’s products are good. But that does not mean that their practice can’t be improved considering the important role that they now play.

Sure all companies could stand to be improved in some way shape or form...but it's not an instant process.

EDIT: Because I have some time let me tell you a little story of mine. I few months ago noticed that the lightening port of my iPhone X was not working. It might have gone months like because I charged wireless, who knows for how long. Because I needed to change battery I thought ... “well just go to an authorized Apple repair center and pay to fix it and replace the battery”. Went there, they told me they could replace the battery. Than I told them, that it the lightning port does not seam to be working. They did some test to confirm it ... and yes they assured me that was not working. I ask them, “can you fix it?”. They said, “no”, you can instead pay 600 euros for a replacement and leave the device that is not working. I asked them to than just replace the battery considering that I rarely need to the port. They told me that they aren’t allowed to do it ... the device needs to be fully working to replace the battery (most be one of those unwritten laboratory conditions). They even said, the situation is weird considering that the device looked, brand new ... still irrelevant, can’t fix it.

So I went to one of those Indian shops, and they fixed the port under 45 minutes. Went back to repair center to than just replace the battery. They managed to do it ... amazing. Phone is ok now ... probably not water resistant now ... hey but who cares, its a dicing feature anyway right?

This has some nasty effects, even for the environment if Apple just thrown my device to the trash smash into pieces. But I guess, what they would is fix it, probably even better than the Indian shop, and sell it refurbished or something. Lovely. So much usable energy lost. Sorry, not lost, just converted into $$, but not for me.

I smell money “grabbing” here. I‘ve heard that now with the iPhone 12, not even Indians can fix what Apple “can’t”. I smell that this thing needs to be regulated. Because someone seams to be covering up their true intent with policy.

So this is a bigger issue than just that. Apple would have to charge a king's ransom to fix the phones to the level of taking it apart, unsoldering and resoldering components. It's easier for them to recycle the old phone and give a replacement (is my guess/opinion). And as an aside, I don't know where their policies came from.

I don't believe Apple just throws the phones away. But not being able to fix devices is not confined to Apple. I've thrown out, and they went into the trash, TVs and microwave ovens because they broke and were unfixable.

 

[JaJaWa]

Rain killed my cameras, Face ID, and RAM on my first 11 Pro Max (had to get it replaced). Apple’s claims are ridiculous.

I wouldn’t have used my phone in the rain if Apple didn’t claim it was water resistant (and even show people using it in the rain in their ads). That the iPhone could not the survive the rain is what feels slightly scammy.

(I wouldn’t care and wouldn’t have done so if they claimed you shouldn’t).

 

[Nuno Lopes]

Clearly this is an industry wide problem and not Apples per se...how many phones out of the totality are actually tested in the deep sea and are warranted as water-proof.

Between you and me only you seam to be still on the waterproof register. Waterproof was not even a term used by regulators as far as I can tell.

Fixing the lightning port did not cost me a kings ransom kind of value by any level ... a 40 euros fix including parts and labor and I’m sure that all parts involved still had a profit.

According to you it seams it would be very expensive for Apple todo the same job. You think they are so good at it that would require them to dismantle the entire thing and reassemble to swap the piece. Go figure.

Now, it’s actually understandable that for them, having me pay 600 for a replacement, that probably came from some other person that had a problem that they couldn’t fix as I did, a thing that could earn them say 150 euros tops with good profit between two customers, earns them 1200 euros. Talking about the grab .

Hey. Even this for me is just business as usual.

 

[I7guy]

Between you and me only you seam to be still on the waterproof register. Waterproof was not even a term used by regulators as far as I can tell.

Correct. Performance is one of the aspects that concerned the regulators. One can't discuss performance unless one knows what the benchmarks are. The benchmarks are measurements made in a controlled manner in a laboratory. Seems like the Italian regulators don't think that is "real-world" enough. So that brings us back to these phones are water-resistant, not water-proof. Even Rolex has a limit to the warranty on the water resistance.

 

[Nuno Lopes]

Performance is one of the aspects that concerned the regulators. One can't discuss performance

It seams to be that you think that you are the only one who knows what the benchmark is. Or better, that the regulators It’s kind of an arrogance way to go about.

Anyway, still regardless regulators can take issue with it if it affects the balance of power between users and suppliers. I’m sure they had plenty of complaints before they even decided testing. The concern about the water resistance marketing is not new. In this case, the devices under test, happened that it did not even met IP68 expectations.

 

[Maximara]

I don't believe Apple just throws the phones away. But not being able to fix devices is not confined to Apple. I've thrown out, and they went into the trash, TVs and microwave ovens because they broke and were unfixable.

My late father was a real handyman and even with his skill and the older stuff there was point where trying to fix something wasn't worth it in time and/or money. The same is true of modern electronics.