My Jet Black 7+ Bricked - Water Damage

[Harambedid911]

So I got my iPhone 7+ for just 5 days, went to took some pictures/videos near and in the pool. Phone was never submerged more than 2 feet for more than 1 minute. I didn't think that would be an issue since I watched that Galaxy S7 / iPhone 7 video in that Seattle lake.

Anyhow, phone started vibrating near the home button nonstop and now won't turn on. I'm in a dilemma - should I just return this or actually tell Apple what happened? I know Apple has been careful to not cover water damage in their agreement; however, I feel like I've been somewhat misled and/or received a lemon.

I really think this phone was a lemon. I took great care of it, bought a case right away and never dropped it. I read here that they had some manufacturing difficulties with the Jet Black. Perhaps that's what happened, they cannot get the right quality control and seal the phones properly.

Hope this story can help others not brick their phone, first and foremost.

Definitely call apple their quality control this year sucks! I'm on my 5th 7+ for various reasons. You almost definitely received a lemon. They're throwing out more lemons than a lemon tree. What's been affecting me the most is these two threads:
https://forums.macrumors.com/thread...g-creaking-sound.1998513/page-9#post-23693699

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/iphone-7-plus-no-service-vzw.1997680/page-53#post-23702235

I'm really disappointed in apple this year. Call apple care try to get them to give you customer relations. Maybe if enough people are disgruntled they'll do something.

 

[Thor_1]

Definitely call apple their quality control this year sucks! I'm on my 5th 7+ for various reasons. You almost definitely received a lemon. They're throwing out more lemons than a lemon tree. What's been affecting me the most is these two threads:
https://forums.macrumors.com/thread...g-creaking-sound.1998513/page-9#post-23693699

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/iphone-7-plus-no-service-vzw.1997680/page-53#post-23702235

I'm really disappointed in apple this year. Call apple care try to get them to give you customer relations. Maybe if enough people are disgruntled they'll do something.

There are a lot of people happy too, so not all lemons.

 

[masotime]

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?

The situation is not that black and white. Even in the case of your example, why is the German government insisting that Tesla remove the wording "autopilot"? Perception matters, and it is not reasonable to expect every person to spend the time to research the specifics of what a feature can or cannot do. Misleading marketing should not be justification to ignore customer complaints and concerns.

But you're right, there are mainly 2 camps here, both in the extreme. One is the "entitled" camp, which thinks that Apple should replace any phone that suffers water damage under almost all circumstances, and another "lawyer" camp that insists on the specific wording of IPX7 and no warranty for water damage clause.

There needs to be a middle ground. Under reasonable circumstances, Apple should replace iPhones that suffer water damage, especially if it's only a few minutes in the specified depth, and there is no other physical damage that could have affected the seals. At the same time, it must also be fair to Apple to screen against abusive use cases of the iPhone where water damage claims are used to cover for accidental physical damage or unreasonable use underwater.

Granted, it is easier to say than to enforce, but Apple should have a responsibility to good customer service, even as customers should have a responsibility to reasonable use of the iPhone 7.

 

[JayLenochiniMac]

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.

The OP in that thread claims there wasn't much of an impact, which is believable. When you drop something in water, it gets slowed down substantially once it hits the water and basically floats to the bottom. It isn't the same as dropping something in air.

Given that the unit was submerged for only 5 seconds, it looks like a manufacturing defect with the sealing.

 

[Retired Cat]

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?

Bad analogy.

Tesla does not advertise their "Autopilot" feature as a full autonomous solution where people can sleep while the car drives itself.

Citing the YouTube video is nonsensical, because this isn't a claim that Tesla is making. Apple ITSELF specifies IP67, said it would survive a pool dunk, and aired TV ads showing a guy going out into a heavy thunderstorm with his iPhone on the handlebars of a motorcycle. These weren't third parties doing idiotic out-of-spec activities. These were APPLE communications.

The excuses you make for Apple dodging responsibility are ridiculous. Liquid damage within IP67 spec should be covered.

No, I don't expect coverage for Scuba diving 30 ft under water.

 

[fischersd]

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.

Nope, not a fanboy - point your assumption elsewhere. My point was that we're talking about accidental damage here.

People shouldn't be treating their phones any differently than they did the prior revision (just have greater confidence that if something DOES happen, you have a greater likelihood of the phone surviving).

@JayLenochiniMac - you and I had these debates already when the AW0 came out. We're not doing it again.

The SIGNIFICANT delta that people should make note of, between the AW0 and IP7/7+ is that Apple did NOT state implicitly in the AW warranty that liquid damage was not covered. This is why all of these idiots that swam with it and showered with it got goodwill from Apple (it was also a brand new market / device for Apple, so, "quel suprise" that they're bending over backwards to make the initial impressions as good as possible).

We've also had multiple threads discussing water damage (wish the mods would have made a sticky for it...so we're not repeating ourselves over and over again) - but then, half the people don't even try to get caught up on the threads before posting anyways.

IPX7 is splashes, running in the rain. It's not intended for intentional submersion. If you do this, you really shouldn't be surprised that it doesn't survive your undersea adventures.

Oh...and...one more time with feeling. Please take the phrase "waterproof" out of your vocabulary folks. Nothing Apple makes within our lifetimes will be (maybe our grandchildren). "Waterproof" means regardless of depth or duration. Think nuggets of lead or gold. Think Marianas Trench.

 

[koigirl]

The strange thing is that both my daughter and I had water immersion accidents with our 6S and 6SPlus phones in the past year where we dropped our phones (into a sink of hot soapy water in my instance and a pedicure tub in her instance) yet both phones seemed undamaged after turning off and allowing to dry in a ziploc bag of rice for 24 hours. No issues in the year following both incidents last fall which caused me to assume even the 6S models were water-resistant. I'm surprised your 7 has water damage after a similar incident, esp now that they advertise water resistance as a new feature.

 

[daviddth]

Like I said the first batches of any iPhone are super faulty generally and that's something I would not risk.

So we have had the following phones

3G - 3 days after Release
3GS - Release day
4 - Release day
4S - 3 of them on Release day
5 - Release day
5S - sons, about 2 weeks after release
6 - Due to order issue 6 weeks after release, but was an early week model
6+ - the only non release model, and the phone had been out 12 months at the time, with the 6S just being released, but son opted for the 6+ over the 6S
7 - 2 of them for wife and son
7+ - Mine

Guess which one of them has had issues..... None, but the 3GS did get destroyed when my son dropped it, so we got an out of warranty replacement. My 7+ has a little whistling, but while I thought I'd likely get it replaced I probably wont as I don't think its that bad

 

[JayLenochiniMac]

I'm surprised your 7 has water damage after a similar incident, esp now that they advertise water resistance as a new feature.

It's not surprising if it was defective to begin with. Even IPX7-rated Apple Watches with a manufacturing defect involving the sealing are known to croak upon exposure to even simple hand washing.

 

[C DM]

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?

Where would we be without car analogies...especially when it comes to water resistance...

 

[rijc99]

People shouldn't be treating their phones any differently than they did the prior revision (just have greater confidence that if something DOES happen, you have a greater likelihood of the phone surviving).

Perhaps we shouldn't. Except Apple says we can treat it differently. You're ignoring the fact Apple is claiming this as a feature. They're using it to sell phones so it's reasonable for people to use it as they claim it's capable of doing.

We're not interpreting or guessing what the phone may be capable of. We're relying on what Apple says it's capable of. It's their video, ads, spec sheet and key note.

 

[lordofthereef]

I say be honest. But I'm kind of amazed people are being so critical of the user. The phone is rated to a certain level against water. It should stand up to that. It doesn't matter why it was submerged. It seems the seal didn't live up to the rating. This is assuming everything the OP has reported is accurate.

 

[JayLenochiniMac]

Perhaps we shouldn't. Except Apple says we can treat it differently. You're ignoring the fact Apple is claiming this as a feature. They're using it to sell phones so it's reasonable for people to use it as they claim it's capable of doing.

Accidental immersion is accidential immersion and you don't really treat it differently. The only difference is it should survive it, and if it doesn't due to a manufacturing defect it's reasonable to expect Apple to warranty it for failing to live up to its advertised water resistance rating.

 

[AIen]

I say be honest. But I'm kind of amazed people are being so critical of the user. The phone is rated to a certain level against water. It should stand up to that. It doesn't matter why it was submerged. It seems the seal didn't live up to the rating. This is assuming everything the OP has reported is accurate.

No reason to lie on here as I'm trying to warn people and see what people's views are. My intention was to copy my brother in law's S7 when he took it with him to take pics of his son swimming. I figured, seeing his samsung working normally, and seeing the washington lake video of the samsung vs. apple depth test, this phone can withstand <30 sec submerged in less than 1 feet of water. Unfortunately it did not.

Cute cocker spaniel btw

 

[MH01]

Tell the truth. Everyone is assuming Apple will not stand behind their advertising but there is no basis for that conclusion. The warranty exception for water damage is necessary not because of situations like this but because not including it would subject Apple to a return obligation where someone improperly water damaged their phone, e.g., deep diving in excess of the water resistance rating. That exception does not apply where the phone was used as expected.

This is where you need to also install pressure sensors to verify the phone has gone beyond its depth.

Though i suspect this has more to do with people abusing the system , i.e. You want a new iPhone replacement cause yours in scratched up etc, open the sim tray and let water in..... claim water resistance failed.

I don't mind what apple is doing , but concerns me when there is a valid mamfacturing fault and the customer is blamed.

As I had a long wait due to a misplaced phone in an Apple Store , I had a good chat with one of the apple employees, when they are churning out batches , only x amount in Y are tested for QC. He even stated you are better off with a refurb, each one is tested, more than once. So all these units that are being sold, have not had thier Water resistance tested, customer is the first, like in this case it seems.
[doublepost=1476690816][/doublepost]

Mkay cause every year (including my 6s+) a lot of people have issues with first batches. You were just super lucky. My 6s+ came with a cracked motherboard, broken haptic engine, bad battery and a few other issues that I have the repair receipt for. (My Apple Store insisted the issues I had were my imagination, Apple repair said differently :^])

Can I ask why you did not just get a replacement in the 14 day return period? Straight away you would have noticed a broken hepatic engine.

Also why did apple repair a broken motherboard, battery, hepatic engine and some other issues? And not just issue a replacement. Apart from the case and screen...they replaced everything.

a cracked motherboard is not a manufacturing defect, it's a broken part.

 

[Donoban]

Sounds misleading to me. It's not really waterproof as apple claims or pretty much implies. Hopefully we'll see a lawsuit against them for it.

Oh god...
[doublepost=1476693506][/doublepost]

No reason to lie on here as I'm trying to warn people and see what people's views are. My intention was to copy my brother in law's S7 when he took it with him to take pics of his son swimming. I figured, seeing his samsung working normally, and seeing the washington lake video of the samsung vs. apple depth test, this phone can withstand <30 sec submerged in less than 1 feet of water. Unfortunately it did not.

Cute cocker spaniel btw

Update on how Apple handled your claim?

 

[ApfelKuchen]

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.

Yes, they have promoted it as a feature. There's no reason not to. Do watchmakers promote water resistance as a feature? Of course they do. Do automakers promote airbags and anti-lock brakes?

A feature is not just an active capability (like four-wheel drive). It can be passive, like airbags, durability, or quality of fit and finish. Do you mean to say such things cannot be mentioned in advertising because they don't come with a pushbutton?

Yes, iPhone 6s had unheralded water-resistance. There's no law that required Apple to speak of it. Perhaps, in part, it was a test. But if they took further steps to ensure water resistance in the next model (including compliance with an industry standard), if they were confident that the majority of customers would be happy with the existence and performance of the feature, why must they remain quiet? Samsung certainly wasn't quiet about Galaxy S7's water resistance:

 

[its Dale]

Got our 7's release day. My wife spilled alcohol on her phone a couple of days after and rinsed it off in the sink. Yesterday, she spilled a full glass of water on it and water got in the case. no issues so far.. not quite submerged, but you get the idea....

 

[ApfelKuchen]

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.

Reasonable people may disagree about what a "reasonable person" might expect. Granted that many reasonable people don't bother to read warranties (or EULAs), nonetheless, they can read them if they choose. Before they buy.

Now, a small linguistic quibble. Apple has not "refused" to warranty water-damaged iPhones. Did someone ask them to do that, and did they then say, "No?" No.

Apple can choose to extend warranty coverage to this feature, or not. If they choose to include water resistance in the warranty, the cost of that additional coverage would have to be factored into the cost of the phone. If they built that additional cost into the phone, they most likely would include language like "warranted to be water-resistant" in their advertising, because that would certainly be noteworthy - many water-resistant products are not warranted to be water-resistant.

My experience with wrist watches has been to expect that water damage is not covered by the warranty, even if the watch is advertised to be water resistant. Some watches come with that coverage, some don't, so I always check the fine print. So, if someone like Apple or Samsung says their electronic device is water resistant, I don't assume that the warranty will cover water damage.

Hey, the OtterBox warranty https://www.otterbox.com/en-us/warranty-full.html does not cover damage to the iPhone it protects - you're paying extra for protection, but the risk is still yours. The OtterBox is not an insurance policy, it's a precaution. That's how I look upon water resistance in iPhone 7 - at no noticeable additional cost to me, Apple has reduced the chances that my iPhone will fail if it gets wet.

 

[JayLenochiniMac]

Now, a small linguistic quibble. Apple has not "refused" to warranty water-damaged iPhones. Did someone ask them to do that, and did they then say, "No?" No.

Yes, that in fact happened to one member who dropped it in the toilet without much impact and it was fully submerged in water for 5 seconds. They made that member pay the $99 deductible, so they did refuse warranty what appears to be an obvious case of a manufacturing defect under the standard warranty.

 

[ApfelKuchen]

Yes, that in fact happened to one member who dropped it in the toilet without much impact and it was fully submerged in water for 5 seconds. They made that member pay the $99 deductible, so they did refuse warranty what appears to be an obvious case of a manufacturing defect under the standard warranty.

One more linguistic quibble, then. They refused to cover the liquid damage on a no-charge basis.

They did not "refuse" to honor the warranty, because the warranty does not cover damage due to accidents (see below).

AppleCare+ does provide coverage for accidental damage, but there is a $99 "deductible" charge - that's quite clearly stated in the AppleCare+ agreement.

A warranty is a legal document that describes what the manufacturer will and will not do, what is and is not covered. You may believe that this should be covered as a defect in workmanship or materials, but that is not what the warranty says.

From Apple's iPhone 7 product page:

1. iPhone 7 and iPhone 7 Plus are splash, water, and dust resistant and were tested under controlled laboratory conditions with a rating of IP67 under IEC standard 60529. 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.

From the warranty (emphasis added):

Apple warrants the included hardware product and accessories against defects in materials and workmanship for one year from the date of original retail purchase. Apple does not warrant against normal wear and tear, nor damage caused by accident or abuse.

You're free to feel indignant, you're free to believe that Apple ought to include damage due to accidents in their warranty, but in the end, a warranty is a product feature. If you don't like a feature, you can decide whether to live with it (because the overall product is desirable), or to buy another product with a more appealing group of features. For what it's worth, the Galaxy S7 warranty also doesn't include accidental damage, even though Samsung also advertised the water resistance of that model.

You could try to argue that the phone fell into the toilet because of something Apple did, "They made the phone too slippery," but if Apple did not cause the accident, why should Apple be responsible for the damage?

 

[mildocjr]

Best case is to be completely honest with them. Support reps will know when you are lying to them and may refuse to help you for "free" if they catch you in a lie. I've been on the phone with support reps who have done things not covered in the warranty simply because I was honest with them.

Here's the reasoning, they will figure out eventually what happened to the phone, instead of saying "well I was standing on a chair trying to change a lightbulb and my kid picked up my phone and started playing with the dog.... blah blah blabbity blah"

You could have just said, "the phone fell in the toilet, I tried saving it with a bag of rice but it didn't work. I was hoping the phone was a bit more water resistant than that."

Giving the second explanation just makes the rep think, heck this could happen to anyone, it shouldn't be covered without extra proof, but I'll let this one slide because he made my job easy. Next thing you know you are making arrangements for a replacement.

You just have to be careful and hope you get a sympathetic representative.

 

[JayLenochiniMac]

One more linguistic quibble, then. They refused to cover the liquid damage on a no-charge basis.

They did not "refuse" to honor the warranty, because the warranty does not cover damage due to accidents (see below).

AppleCare+ does provide coverage for accidental damage, but there is a $99 "deductible" charge - that's quite clearly stated in the AppleCare+ agreement.

A warranty is a legal document that describes what the manufacturer will and will not do, what is and is not covered. You may believe that this should be covered as a defect in workmanship or materials, but that is not what the warranty says.

From Apple's iPhone 7 product page:

From the warranty (emphasis added):

You're free to feel indignant, you're free to believe that Apple ought to include damage due to accidents in their warranty, but in the end, a warranty is a product feature. If you don't like a feature, you can decide whether to live with it (because the overall product is desirable), or to buy another product with a more appealing group of features. For what it's worth, the Galaxy S7 warranty also doesn't include accidental damage, even though Samsung also advertised the water resistance of that model.

You could try to argue that the phone fell into the toilet because of something Apple did, "They made the phone too slippery," but if Apple did not cause the accident, why should Apple be responsible for the damage?

I get what you're saying semantically. It sounds like Apple simply wants to eat their cake and have it too. I am of the opinion that if they advertise and sell the iPhone 7 with a certain water resistance rating and it incurs water ingress within the scope of that rating due to a manufacturing defect, they should stand behind it and not refuse to cover the liquid damage on a no-charge basis. Otherwise, it's false advertisement in my book.

 

[NovemberWhiskey]

I get what you're saying semantically. It sounds like Apple simply wants to eat their cake and have it too. I am of the opinion that if they advertise and sell the iPhone 7 with a certain water resistance rating and it incurs water ingress within the scope of that rating due to a manufacturing defect, they should stand behind it and not refuse to cover the liquid damage on a no-charge basis. Otherwise, it's false advertisement in my book.

I agree fully. So if OP's phone broke because he was caught in some rain, some water splashed on his phone, etc., then I definitely think Apple should honor a warranty, or at worst, call it a good-will replacement.

But for OP, and all those others showering with their phones to watch Netflix (something Apple warns against because steam may break the water barriers), you deserve what you have coming to you.

As repeated MANY times in this thread, look up the IP67 rating again. "UNDER DEFINED LAB CONDITIONS...STATIC WATER" That does NOT equal submerging your phone in a pool with unknown solutions (Chlorine, etc.), under unknown conditions. You really think OP measured 1 meter and said "ok, I'm not going underneath this point?" Nah. OP was horsing around and recalled what he saw on a youtube video, and started taking pics and messing around under water. Just jumping into the pool will break the 1m mark, and also may force water into the phone at high velocity, something else Apple warns against (same with coming up from the bottom of a pool by pushing off with your legs).

Pool play was not used in the IP67 rating. How was it tested? They had a controlled container of water, a measuring device, and a timer. Probably also water without known additives like Chlorine and Salt.

My problem with OP, and people who are showering with their phones to watch Netflix: you are messing up returns and good will replacements for the rest of us. Do you know how many of these warranty replacements Apple will have to deal with because of these people?

It's like the Costco effect. You have a bunch of return/warranty abusers who cause the company to change its awesome policy, and ruin it for the rest of us. So if I go in because my phone died when I was caught in a rain shower (which I think should be covered), they automatically assume I was watching netflix in the shower or taking underwater photos, and deny my replacement.
[doublepost=1476734899][/doublepost]Can we all admit that Apple NEVER advertised the iPhone in situations like taking pictures under water or showering with the phone to watch Netflix? In fact, can we all admit that Apple specifically warns AGAINST those activities as posted earlier?

So, what is causing this impasse here? It is one singular thing: your interpretation of what IP67 means.

Now how did you find what IP67 meant? Did you do a lot of research, write a letter to the testing body, and look up scholarly legal constructions of the wording they used in the rating? No. You did a Google, or saw a third party reviewer say something [based on his Google], about how this means "...up to one meter," and you completely omitted terminology like "up to" "under controlled lab conditions" etc.

Your interpretation of what a third party's rating means, does not make Apple liable for damage you caused outside of those testing conditions.

Now, if Apple started marketing the phone like the S2 Watch, where they have commercials with a person taking underwater photos, and swimming with his phone...if they make an underwater photo app encouraging people to take underwater photos: then I agree with you 100%, regardless of what the rating says.

 

[MRU]

I get what you're saying semantically. It sounds like Apple simply wants to eat their cake and have it too. .

More semantics ... the expression is to 'have your cake and eat it'.

Not as you wrote to 'eat your cake and have it' ...

And regardless, it's fundamentally a stupid expression because why would anyone want to have a cake and purposely 'not' eat it ? Cake has one sole purpose, to be eaten ....