New Video Demonstrates How iPhone 7 Fares in Deep Water

[DeepIn2U]

“But, but… IP68 > IP67”

But but Galaxy S7 has Edge to Edge Screen,
But the SGS has 4GB of RAM
But the SGS outsells the iPhone by a factor of 10:1,
But SGS 7 Edge has Exynos cpu with 2.1 xxx Giggawatts of power it's the BESSSTTSiSSS.

Uh-Huh and they still believe in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny.

 

[Tech198]

Deep see diving... except instead of fish u catch, its an iphone 7 and Galaxy.

I guess he didn't wanna get wet, but that would have been more convenient... Holding them as u jump in.

Where do people have time to do this ?

 

[cbrasileA330]

YouTube channel EverythingApplePro posted a video over the weekend demonstrating how the iPhone 7 fares in an extreme deep water test. The video, titled "How Deep Before it Dies?", shows an iPhone 7 and a Samsung Galaxy S7 being lowered into the ocean at increasingly lower depths.

Apple's iPhone 7 series is certified to IP67 standard water resistance, which means the handsets are built to withstand being submerged in up to 1 meter (about 3.28 feet) of water for half an hour at most. Samsung's handset carries the higher IP68 certification, indicating it can withstand continuous immersion in over 1 meter (3.28 feet) depths, or up to five feet, according to Samsung.

The first test drops the devices down 5 feet, exceeding the 3.28 feet rating that IP67 standard promises. Both devices emerge from the water undamaged. Then the devices are dropped at increasingly deeper intervals in 5 feet increments.

At 20 feet, with no signs of damage, the tester adds another 10 feet. The first signs of damage become evident at 30 feet of water for five minutes. The Galaxy begins sporadically rebooting, while the iPhone's Taptic Engine-based capacitive home button begins malfunctioning.

After 35 feet water immersion, the Galaxy's display refuses to come on, but the iPhone 7 continues to power up and the touchscreen still responds to touches, despite obvious water damage under the bottom half of the display.

Notwithstanding the highly unconventional and extreme nature of the test, it does serve to underline Apple's continuing strategy of being conservative in its waterproofing claims. The first Apple Watch for example was only rated for up to 1 meter of water depth, but regularly survived dives down to 40 meters in swimming tests.

Article Link: New Video Demonstrates How iPhone 7 Fares in Deep Water

[doublepost=1474330953][/doublepost]Thanks for doing the test! Electronics in water is a scary proposition that I don't want to test.

 

[elmaco]

Scary to see all the people who don't understand how pressure work.

 

[Kajje]

Your friend is a real trail Blaiser

Finally. At least *somebody* on this forum passed 1st grade!

 

[melgross]

This test is pointless.

Both phones failed at 30 metres. iPhone is not more water resistant than the galaxy in this test, when the device completely dies has nothing to do with water resistance.

All they had to do is dunk both phones in less than a metre for 30 min and over a meter for 30 min.

The correct way to test is to meet each IP rating and keep going up.

How are people concluding that apple is conservative, when the conditions of IP67 were not met??

These sites do these tests as much for the fun of it as to prove veracity. They don't have to meet any standards, as the tests aren't anythng official.. What it showed was that both phones worked to about 20 feet, not meters. Hopefully, no one is dumb enough to take them out swimming.

 

[Agilis]

This test is pointless.

Both phones failed at 30 metres. iPhone is not more water resistant than the galaxy in this test, when the device completely dies has nothing to do with water resistance.

All they had to do is dunk both phones in less than a metre for 30 min and over a meter for 30 min.

The correct way to test is to meet each IP rating and keep going up.

How are people concluding that apple is conservative, when the conditions of IP67 were not met??

This video is a follow-up to their first video testing the phone's resistance to water because many of the viewers were skeptical.

 

[dotnet]

No need to bash.

I guess diving bells never worked too?

Well, I blamed the education system, not you

And yes, diving bells did and do work, but they don't shield the occupants from pressure. On the way up a decompression schedule must be maintained, just like with scuba divers.

 

[Agilis]

As a certified SCUBA diver, here are my thoughts on the method of testing used in the video.

At sea level, the air surrounding us presses down on our bodies at 14.5 pounds per square inch or PSI. There are no ill effects or symptoms felt because the fluids in our bodies are pushing outward with the same force.

As you dive down into water, you feel an increase of pressure on the ear drums due to an increase in hydrostatic pressure, which is the force per unit area exerted by a liquid on an object. So for every 33 feet, or ~10 meters, you dive down into water, the pressure is increased by 14.5 PSI.

The holes in the bucket, like others have said, allow air to be forced out by the water surrounding the bucket until equilibrium inside the bucket has been reached. Once equilibrium is reached, the contents of the bucket are subjected to the same force as if they were not in the bucket. This is because at depth, the pressure of the water flowing through the holes in the bucket is equivalent to water flowing into a wide open container at depth.

In this video, the phones in the bucket were subjected to ~30 PSI. Remember, the phones have air in them so the construction and the seals of both these phones were holding back 30 PSI of water pressure.

 

[Archer1440]

It's really quite amazing how shockingly poor education has evidently become. Simply gobsmacking.

 

[garylapointe]

Water resistance is a difficult thing, and with something as complex as the iPhone it can't be guaranteed to maintain it's water resistance over time. Here's a quote from Apples notes on water resistance: "Splash, water, and dust resistance are not permanent conditions and resistance might decrease as a result of normal wear."

For example, lets say over the course of a few months a few instances have flexed your phone slightly. This might cause micro damage to the adhesive seal. Then it gets submerged accidentally and water seeps in. This is one instance the warranty doesn't cover because the water resistance failed due to wear on the phone. I'm sure some people will argue that Apple then needs to make it more durable, but where does it end? If that were the case, screen cracks would be Apple's fault too.

FWIW, Samsung doesn't cover water damage to their phones either.

Then they shouldn't be advertising it as "certified", if the certification doesn't mean anything....

The we know exactly what would happen. People who damage them phones while scuba diving taking pics of fish will claim they just had it it under a meter for less then 30 min.

And yet that doesn't help the people who bought a phone that is "certified" and let it get wet....

 

[BvizioN]

And yet that doesn't help the people who bought a phone that is "certified" and let it get wet....

I am one of these people. I know for sure my phone won't get damaged due to water from splashes, or from deeping in to a shallow waters and that's all I want from a phone . I don't want to skubadive with it, damage it and tell Apple... Oh, it only fell for a few seconds in a sink. We live in a world were people have been so infected by the "claimi for anything" desiese.

 

[Euge]

Then they shouldn't be advertising it as "certified", if the certification doesn't mean anything....

And yet that doesn't help the people who bought a phone that is "certified" and let it get wet....

The certification certainly does mean something. I think the problem is many people misunderstand its meaning, or what the certification is used for. The certification makes no guarantees of the water resistance. It is an standard to rate water resistance in controlled conditions so that the product's relative level of water resistance can be determined. What it doesn't take into account are real world conditions, because there are infinite scenarios that can't be measured.

If something is certified IPX7, it should be fine in rain, and for short and shallow water submerges. However, "The IP codes make no reference to the effect of external influences." [Source] In other words, the IP rating is conducted in controlled conditions, but the nature of a mobile device, something we take and handle every day, can't be accounted for in the certification. For other products, such as a security camera, they are not subjected to "external influences" as much and are more likely to maintain their water resistance over time.

I agree that the warranty is skewed in Apple's favor. But in their defense, I think a water damaged iPhone will most likely be a result of user error (e.g. usage/abuse over time, leaving it in the washer, etc.) than a manufacturing defect.

But even if a small percentage of people get screwed over warranty issues from water damage due to manufacturing defects, overall the IP rating is a good thing for Apple and customers. There should (hopefully) be a lot fewer broken iPhones from falling in toilets, getting pushed into a pool, a quick splash next to a sink, etc. This saves both Apple and the customer the expense of having to repair/replace a water damaged iPhone.