Thanks for the information however all of that is completely unrelated to the article other than location.
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
Thanks for the information however all of that is completely unrelated to the article other than location.
And that is why the action by Italy's antitrust watchdog should not be taken seriously?
Because your dealer friend had to buy back some cars (whatever that means), your Aprilia was a disappointment and so was your other friend's Ducati?
If you don't like Italian engineering, just don't buy it. They can probably survive without your custom.
It was FIAT that bought Chrysler after Chrysler filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, not the other way around.
Yet, none of that is relevant to Apple running some objectively misleading advertisement.
i did. and i’m giving the reason why apple excludes water damage from the warranty as you highlighted and as the article explained.
why are you suggesting i didn’t read the article when i literally am responding to the bit in the article you pointed out? what a stupid question.
The weather resistant rating literally states that it isn't waterproof.
This is not limited to Apple, Samsung won't warranty water damaged phones either. And if the impressions these phones are impervious to external damage, maybe some people are just "interpreting it wrong".
No but the ad indicated that it is by implying it’s no problem to get your devices submerged in water which is likely what that regulation authority will have taken issue with.
I give up. From what you are saying it would seem that you still have no idea of why Apple have been fined (clue: it was only partly about the warranty, and even then it was in the context of the exaggerated claims made in advertisements).
On top of that, I find some of your comments quite offensive and obnoxious. Over and out.
The reasoning in verdict seems quite thorough, and it is clear that the agency is very much aware of what Apple does and does not claim, explicitly, in their advertising. This is not about what the ads say when you analyze them with all their fine print and with a good understanding of IP-ratings. In that regard they are factually correct.
It is about how the ads are geared towards creating the impression that the iPhones are more water-resistant than they actually are. The ads are designed to mislead the customers into believing they can indeed be careless with the iPhone around water, and the fine print with ambiguous wording is Apple's attempt to absolve itself from responsibility without making this obvious.
This was an investigation against Apple because customers had complained about Apple. Maybe there are other investigations against other companies that other customers complained about.
Once again, fair enough. But that is what they should have made clear in their ads.
The fact that they didn't is why they got fined and why they had to add a disclaimer to the ads.
Take a look at the charges document linked in the article:
It is in Italian, but even if you don't understand it you will get the crux of the issue from the images included within.
Why would anybody use this image to advertise a phone that is not waterproof and not guaranteed against water damage?
How can anybody say that this is not deceiving/misleading?
The writing underneath translate as "water resistant up to 4 meters for 30 minutes".
Last edited:
Fair enough, but the pictures are out of line with the youtube video and the disclaimer is on Apple's website. What's going to come of this is that Apple will just include a disclaimer, or a reference to the disclaimer.
But it still seems like a money grab(which maybe it is) as the watchdog agency could have just asked Apple to include a disclaimer in future advertisements.
Don't know, didn't saw an ad for phones since ages. 🤷♂️
And what exaggerate water resistant ad is Apple using? The one linked in the article? 😂
As I said.. semantics. Their advertisements suggest they are. And that's what this thread is all about. Shady advertising. No small print can change that.
Last edited:
Agreed. What a load of BS. Hopefully this changes some things on Apple’s side. I always believed those water resistance claims but gonna be extra careful now, especially as warranty doesn’t seem to cover liquid issues.
Well if you or any other emit an opinion beyond the scope of the this suit of course that becomes a theme. If you want to argue based on facts regarding this suit and your interpretation of these facts its all well indeed.
Well, consider my intervention as an opinion.
Agreed.
But on the matter of opinions ... they do carry value. Most of our entire systems of beliefs are made of opinions, impressions, perceptions. So I do take them seriously as they tend to move a lot of people, even mine, it would be a mistake not to.
So I rather prefer to take more of a neutral stance when it comes to sensitive issues and wait to see how it unfolds With more facts. Even than, blanked statements beyond the thing in suit are rarely wise. Restraining for instance of having the opinion that American financial institutions aren’t to be trusted inspite of some evidence of BILLIONS that were grabbed. why? Because the alternative to simply consider it to be a gigantic regulatory blunder blunder would be far worst. Instead ... s* happens.
Last edited:
Wait the sink?Apple will now update the warranty small print to say:
25.1a Device not covered if the following occurs:
dropped in:
The sea
The sink
The bath
The toilet
Any type of swimming or paddling pool.
A lake
A river
A stream
A waterfall
A pool of water (see exceptions)
A puddle of water (see exceptions)
A bucket of water (see exceptions)
Any liquid not listed in exceptions
25.1b Device not covered if the following occurs:
covered or splashed in:
Tea
Coffee
Wines & Spirits
Alcohol
Soft drinks / Soda's
Milkshakes
Water (see exceptions)
Any liquids not listed in the exceptions
26.1 Exceptions
Your iphone is covered under this agreement if dropped in or splashed with the following liquids:
Static Water
Pure Water
Watch this space with regards to the warranty agreement
Are you saying we can't sync our phones? Because that's what it sounds like.
Apple's water resistance marketing is totally ridiculous. I did not read the fine print and took the water resistance claims at face value (they show these phones partially submerged in water on markeing materials to demonstrate how cool they are!) and took my iPhone XS to the pool with me this summer to read an ebook, just as I take my Apple Watch with me. I was really surprised that after a short while the phone died spectacularly.
I now understand that "water resistant" does not mean "waterproof", but come on! I definitely felt deceived afterwards. I was especially annoyed when I found out that it is all my fault and I should have understood better based on some almost invisible notes at the bottom of the marketing page that water resistance is "not a permanent condition" (this "condition" conveniently ends the moment the phone comes into contact with water) and does not actually mean that my phone will resist water penetration in real life circumstances.
I now understand that "water resistant" does not mean "waterproof", but come on! I definitely felt deceived afterwards. I was especially annoyed when I found out that it is all my fault and I should have understood better based on some almost invisible notes at the bottom of the marketing page that water resistance is "not a permanent condition" (this "condition" conveniently ends the moment the phone comes into contact with water) and does not actually mean that my phone will resist water penetration in real life circumstances.
They should be fined way, way more. I'm addicted to Apple products, but the company itself sucks.
To be fair, though, from what I've understood through the marketing, it'll only be water resistant for the first month or so, while the seals are really new
the problem is, how do you show one way or the other that the water damage was because of a failed seal vs. someone took the phone too deep/left it submerged too long?
[/QUOTE]
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.
Depends on the opinion. Some opinions aren't worth the cost of the bits to transmit them to the site...some are. As far as sneaking in the dirty laundry, well okay, as it directly relates to the topic at hand. NOT!