You are confusing the rating with a warranty. They aren't the same thing at all. The rating requires certain performance under controlled conditions, which the iPhone achieved. I'm told that it actually did one rating category better than the rating Apple advertises, but Apple wanted to be conservative. (I don't know to a certainty that is correct, but it came from a reliable source.) The warranty concerns the conditions under which Apple will replace the phone.
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.
My Jet Black 7+ Bricked - Water Damage
- Thread starter AIen
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
You are confusing the rating with a warranty. They aren't the same thing at all. The rating requires certain performance under controlled conditions, which the iPhone achieved. I'm told that it actually did one rating category better than the rating Apple advertises, but Apple wanted to be conservative. (I don't know to a certainty that is correct, but it came from a reliable source.) The warranty concerns the conditions under which Apple will replace the phone.
http://www.trustedreviews.com/opinions/what-is-ip68-ip-ratings-explained
A 7 rating ensures “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 1m of submersion)” according to the IEC.
I find it interesting all the scientists and physicists here nitpicking what IP67 is, and using it against the OP.
No one cares. What matters to 99.99% of the iPhone consumers is we saw the keynote saying the iPhone is now water resistant to some never-before-heard-of "IP67" standard. Are we, as consumers, supposed to already know what that is like it's something we should have learned in high school science class? We look it up and see 1m for 30 minutes. To many, that might mean they can go in the pool shallow end and take a picture under water for 10 seconds. Seems reasonable, right?
If Apple is going to the trouble to tell us the iPhone can withstand being in water for any significant period of time, but THEY KNOW IT WILL FAIL IF YOU USE IT UNDERWATER, they should make that perfectly clear. And by perfectly clear, that means a sticker on the phone IN THE BOX, that says DO NOT USE UNDERWATER.
Is this really that hard to do? If you're going to advertise to the general public 1m/30min, then people are going to do things underwater with it. Period.
No one cares. What matters to 99.99% of the iPhone consumers is we saw the keynote saying the iPhone is now water resistant to some never-before-heard-of "IP67" standard. Are we, as consumers, supposed to already know what that is like it's something we should have learned in high school science class? We look it up and see 1m for 30 minutes. To many, that might mean they can go in the pool shallow end and take a picture under water for 10 seconds. Seems reasonable, right?
If Apple is going to the trouble to tell us the iPhone can withstand being in water for any significant period of time, but THEY KNOW IT WILL FAIL IF YOU USE IT UNDERWATER, they should make that perfectly clear. And by perfectly clear, that means a sticker on the phone IN THE BOX, that says DO NOT USE UNDERWATER.
Is this really that hard to do? If you're going to advertise to the general public 1m/30min, then people are going to do things underwater with it. Period.
Hence my saying Apple should remove their ads and claim or revise their warranty. Bring it down to say the same thing as the Google Pixel. IP53. Capable of surviving rain.
Apple can't have it both ways.
Last edited:
I believe they claim it to be water "resistant" not waterproof. There is a difference.
Their claim...IP67
And also see the video jaylenochinimac posted at around the 1H 1M mark.
My Jet Black 7+ Bricked - Water Damage
They should've followed up the picture of the guy falling into a pool with him getting denied coverage based on the fine print.
The guy in the photo was holding the phone away from the water - in all likelihood, he would have gotten the phone out of the pool with minimal exposure (hell, if he's 6' and it only has an 8' bottom, it may have only been dunked about a foot).
They're suggesting that it provides protection against accidental exposure.
So if the iPhone happens to have a defective seal due to a manufacturing defect and the sensor turned pink as a result, Apple would refuse to warranty it because "Liquid damage (is) not covered under warranty."
Apple can tell if there is water damage. Many phone manufacturers can now.
It does sound like a lawsuit waiting to happen. In the keynote saying you'll be fine if you happen to get pushed into a pool and they won't cover that. Seems like a pretty big thing to say and not cover such things happening. They should of just stuck to rainproof till they get a higher rating like the new watches.
Isn't the ip67 certification that the iPhone 7 and the likes of the Samsung and Xperia phones based on 'fresh water'. They don't include pool water which would be riddled with a mix of bromine & chlorine, and likewise sea water because of the salt. Both of which would be considered corrosive ...
The OP used the phone underwater. It didn't just fall in, he was pushing buttons which allows water ingress. This is not the situation Apple presented.
I seriously doubt pushing the button allows water ingress. Otherwise, many more IPX7-rated Apple Watches would have croaked from pushing the side button while wet or submerged.
The OP reported that the top right corner of where the screen attaches to the chassis looks loose and that's likely where the water ingress occurred. Moreover, the sim tray sensor didn't turned pink.
Everything is a "lawsuit waiting to happen." Anyone can sue, not all will succeed.
It's interesting to see the speculation and assumptions about what Apple will or won't do. Sure, go ahead, get righteously indignant about what you THINK Apple will do. If you like to get indignant, any excuse will do.
Apple isn't building its devices to IPV67 so that its Geniuses and managers can argue with customers over warranty terms. They're not advertising IPV67 to encourage people to take undue risks or behave carelessly. They're doing it to assure the vast majority of average consumers, who takes a reasonable level of care when using their expensive electronics, that they will be less likely to have an unfortunate accident.
That may mean fewer accidental damage claims under AppleCare+. That may mean fewer "make the customer happy" replacements. Fewer people visiting the Genius Bar or phoning AppleCare. In other words, IPV67 may reduce Apple's costs, and improve customer satisfaction. For every unhappy swimming pool incident there are likely to be many more examples of, "OMG, I dropped it in the sink and it still works!"
So, say there's a class action lawsuit. Let's say Apple walks into court with statistics that show that the number of consumers with accidental water damage was reduced by IPV67, maybe even substantially. "Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, where was the harm? Even allowing for the people who intentionally took risks with their iPhones and those who were less careful than they might otherwise have been, the number of water-damaged iPhones dropped substantially. As a whole, the class of iPhone 7 users was not harmed by this feature, it benefited from this feature." Will the judge and jury be sympathetic to a "class" composed of careless people?
Similarly, suits over false or misleading advertising tend to focus on what assumptions and actions a "reasonable person" might make after seeing the ads. "Everyone knows" that cell phones and water don't mix. Would a "reasonable person" ignore decades of experience and knowledge and start treating a smartphone like Jacques Cousteau's underwater gear?
"Water resistant" may be a relatively new concept when it comes to smartphones, but if they're told, "Your wristwatch is water resistant to a depth of 1 meter," very few would risk wearing them into a pool.
Even if a percentage of Apple's customer's do behave less carefully than they had previously, even if a percentage take risks they would not have previously taken... those percentages are likely to be small when compared to the overall population of iPhone 7 owners. The majority of the population won't risk the possibility that their phone will stop working and will need replacement. They don't want to risk the possibility of a dispute with Apple staff. They'll keep buying Otter Boxes, they'll keep treating their expensive stuff with care.
Are you serious? Wow. The measures in which people will go to defend Apple. LOL. Come on people. It's ok to say Apple is wrong. They're just a company looking to make money from us and everyone else. They're not God or even your mom.
But either way. Even in your explanation they are showing the phone being dunked.
A "reasonable person" would expect if they accidentally fell into the pool and the iPhone 7 croaked as a result of a defective seal/manufacturing defect that Apple should replace it under the standard warranty, as it's advertised and sold with an IP67 rating. As it stands, Apple is refusing to warranty water-damaged iPhones even if it was caused by a manufacturing defect. We already have an incident where they refused to replace a member's iPhone 7 that was accidentally dropped in water.
Agreed. It is unquestionably ridiculous that some people will twist themselves into pretzels to defend Apple, and defy any kind of common sense in the process.
Seriously, between the IP67 rating, advertising on TV, and Apple's own presentations, no reasonable person would walk away thinking that the iPhone couldn't survive a pool dunk. Apple bragged about this feature and did so repeatedly, so they have to own it. It's that simple.
In that case the best path would be to not advertise it; it seems they made the iPhone 6s partly waterproof, without advertising it. They could have done the same with iPhone 7.
They do advertise it as a feature. That is, something you can use. Like the off-road capability of an SUV.
I had to dig a little to find the thread: https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/do-not-get-your-iphone-7-wet.2004243/
I'm not so sure about the scenario in the thread. It appears the OP admitted that there was an impact, not simply submersion. Having suffered an impact, it may not be reasonable to expect the iPhone 7 to retain its water resistance.
There are clearly two camps here, and if they were to buy a Tesla, they'd fall into the same categories:
1. A group who sees Autopilot as a nice new technology that they can rely on as a fail safe measure, while taking all other necessary precautions and being ready to take the wheel at a moments notice.
2. A group who saw a youtube video of a guy sleeping in his backseat while autopilot was on, thought that in combination with the Tesla keynote and the term "autopilot," it means they can do the same despite sufficient warnings and disclaimers from Tesla.
Which camp do you want to fall into?
1. A group who sees Autopilot as a nice new technology that they can rely on as a fail safe measure, while taking all other necessary precautions and being ready to take the wheel at a moments notice.
2. A group who saw a youtube video of a guy sleeping in his backseat while autopilot was on, thought that in combination with the Tesla keynote and the term "autopilot," it means they can do the same despite sufficient warnings and disclaimers from Tesla.
Which camp do you want to fall into?