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.
Next iPhone Said to Have Even Better IP68-Rated Water Resistance
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
so dust free would indicate losing the lightning port, no? That's really the last thing that can ingest dust. Wireless charging, here we come!
(but, like, slowly b/c we all still have a ton of corded charger peripherals)
(but, like, slowly b/c we all still have a ton of corded charger peripherals)
Water resistance in phones is a relatively new thing, and people (as well as companies) are still figuring it out.
As far as warranty coverage goes, to say that "no one does" is not true. In other product categories, such as watches, water resistance is definitely something companies have to warranty for. After all, you can't advertise a feature and then claim no responsibility when it doesn't work as advertised.
I actually can't believe how many people "side" with a multi-billion dollar company and worry about their warranty claims rather than consumer rights.
As far as warranty coverage goes, to say that "no one does" is not true. In other product categories, such as watches, water resistance is definitely something companies have to warranty for. After all, you can't advertise a feature and then claim no responsibility when it doesn't work as advertised.
I actually can't believe how many people "side" with a multi-billion dollar company and worry about their warranty claims rather than consumer rights.
Last edited:
There is no way "to prove" water ingress is from abuse. I can see the companies point here. This is water resistant not water proof.
Yes. My opinion exactly. A 4" phone should come out every year together with the other phones.
They already have cyclic logs, and flash that a service tech can access.
It's not a black box, but it's fit for purpose, by a wide margin.
Since the health apps log this data, I'm indeed assuming it actively measures and records this data.
This issue practically defines "easily solved problem" as regards privacy. Keep a cyclic log of area under curve pressure vs time at a low time resolution, recording only values that are out of spec (doesn't occur in free air), and don't upload that, just keep it in one of the various nonvolatile stores on the phone, where a service tech can read it out if the customer is making a claim that seems bogus / worth investigating. That's my five seconds top-of-my-head approach. Apple has a bunch of skilled people who can think of a better solution given a few minutes to ponder it.
Apple warranties against reasonable water damage in my jurisdiction. They have no choice, by law. The difference is they would now be able to differentiate between reasonable claims and unreasonable ones, whereas currently they just have to assume the claim is reasonable and fork over.
Never said they weren't. Ease up.
I'm not saying there's a problem. Reread. I said there's an opportunity to enhance something. Vague assurances aren't relevant to me. More specific ones, backed by a warranty, could be. And it could be a selling point. Though, not for me, since I already have those assurances by law.
When people don't have to sweat over the money, they don't sweat over the legalities, IME.
[doublepost=1484670940][/doublepost]
Would've been nice if that became possible, but I don't think that's what people are asking for, ATM.
[doublepost=1484672595][/doublepost]
Disagree. You can prove to the standard of "preponderance of the evidence" that water ingress is from exceeding rated water resistance, with minimal effort, and that standard suffices for contract law. The point isn't to be perfect about it. Rather, the point is to curb excessive false claims, while enabling the average consumer to assume "it just works" and not worry about whether casual use of their phone will result in a sudden, unexpected expense.
Peace of mind is one of the reasons some people choose Apple products, and the "it just works" phrase encapsulates that well. I'll pay extra to have one less thing on my mind, and it's been my experience I'm far from the only one. Having the reasonable expectation that my phone will remain serviceable as long as I care to keep it is one of the reasons I got one.
Last edited:
I don't agree you can actually "prove" it's from abuse, or age, or tampering or whatever. How are you going to tell if the phone was underwater for 5min or 1 hour at a depth of 1 ft, 5 ft or 30 foot?They already have cyclic logs, and flash that a service tech can access.
It's not a black box, but it's fit for purpose, by a wide margin.
Since the health apps log this data, I'm indeed assuming it actively measures and records this data.
This issue practically defines "easily solved problem" as regards privacy. Keep a cyclic log of area under curve pressure vs time at a low time resolution, recording only values that are out of spec (doesn't occur in free air), and don't upload that, just keep it in one of the various nonvolatile stores on the phone, where a service tech can read it out if the customer is making a claim that seems bogus / worth investigating. That's my five seconds top-of-my-head approach. Apple has a bunch of skilled people who can think of a better solution given a few minutes to ponder it.
Apple warranties against reasonable water damage in my jurisdiction. They have no choice, by law. The difference is they would now be able to differentiate between reasonable claims and unreasonable ones, whereas currently they just have to assume the claim is reasonable and fork over.
Never said they weren't. Ease up.
I'm not saying there's a problem. Reread. I said there's an opportunity to enhance something. Vague assurances aren't relevant to me. More specific ones, backed by a warranty, could be. And it could be a selling point. Though, not for me, since I already have those assurances by law.
When people don't have to sweat over the money, they don't sweat over the legalities, IME.
[doublepost=1484670940][/doublepost]
Would've been nice if that became possible, but I don't think that's what people are asking for, ATM.
[doublepost=1484672595][/doublepost]
Disagree. You can prove to the standard of "preponderance of the evidence" that water ingress is from exceeding rated water resistance, with minimal effort, and that standard suffices for contract law. The point isn't to be perfect about it. Rather, the point is to curb excessive false claims, while enabling the average consumer to assume "it just works" and not worry about whether casual use of their phone will result in a sudden, unexpected expense.
Peace of mind is one of the reasons some people choose Apple products, and the "it just works" phrase encapsulates that well. I'll pay extra to have one less thing on my mind, and it's been my experience I'm far from the only one. Having the reasonable expectation that my phone will remain serviceable as long as I care to keep it is one of the reasons I got one.
I was Talking about consumer electronics here, not Rolex's or watches though or stuff like that
Apple calls these "Nice to have not really a selling point features" innovation.
Last edited by a moderator:
Agreed. If it's not covered by warranty then it's a $1000 gamble at best and fraud at worst when it consistently under performs specifications in short shallow water immersions.
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/iphone-7-water-resist-i-am-verry-verry-disapointed.2018610/
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/iphone-7-water-damage.2017009/
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/my-jet-black-7-bricked-water-damage.2006929/
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/do-not-get-your-iphone-7-wet.2004243/
https://forums.macrumors.com/thread...ef-swim-and-speakers-now-sound-awful.2001098/
Nope it's an industry trend. It's like saying if the screen is made from gorilla glass it's not breakable.
It's not fraud when they specifically call out that it's not covered by warranty; however if what you're referring to is a specific contextual example where the iPhone isn't water resistant per its listed spec, that's fine, that WOULD be fraud. The problem with that is that there is no way for Apple to know the phone didn't go in 1m of water or 100m. It's supposed to just take your word for it? Legally speaking, that just never will happen, unless the company wants to become a loss-leader and eat repair costs. Everyone would take their iPhone deep-sea diving until it breaks and then walk into the store and say "But sir, I was just in the shower, and THIS happened."
I'll keep it simple: Ignore that they even say it's water resistant. Treat it as if it isn't. Problem solved. Those things that aren't covered by warranty? Don't test them.
If water resistance plus warranty is so important, vote with your wallet. Let us know which cellular phone you find that has actually has that offering though!
Edit: The sensible consumers here fully recognize the legal limitations and still appreciate that Apple is doing much better at making the phones water resistant. My wife's iPhone 4 or somesuch was destroyed in a freak sudden rain... and that kind of thing is better protected now. Rather than downplay the obvious legal problems with full guarantees of immeasurable intangibles, I would rather cheer for progress. Huzzah!
Last edited:
And neither will I; however, I also will not hesitate to use my phone while sitting in my hot tub... that's the difference.
Thanks. it nice to know you and I still read 5 month old post when relevant.
What a bunch of babies there are in this thread. An IP68 rating is brilliant. I got my S7 wet ALL the time and it worked like new till the day i swapped it for my S8. IP68 is not a gimmick!!
I agree. I used to have to take my iPhone5s in a zip lock bag plus a waterproof BT speaker to my hot tub. Now my iPhone7 plus (solo) can handle task. I just want some protection from a quick (in-n-out) accidental dunking. Complete waterproof is not required.
Why are people so stupid about this? It is not the company’s responsibility to replace a product that the user breaks. Warranties cover manufacturing defects, not damage caused by the user. A new car may have a 10 year, 100 thousand mile warranty, but it still won’t give you a replacement if you go crash your car into a pole. That’s what insurance is for.
When the car company says the car can withstand crashing into a pole, it better cover pole crashes under warranty.
No, it just means it's a feature that you dont care about. Damage by water is not the same as user damage if the product is marketed with that condition being normal.
BTW, the difference between IP67 and IP68 is meaningless. Literally. The specification is so vague that any device that qualifies for IP67 also qualifies for IP68. Before anybody challenges that, go read the official definitions. In general IP67 is rated to atleast 1m, while IP68 may fail at any point beyond 1m. What's the difference? Sure Samsung claims 1.5m, but that number is from Samsung, not the spec.
So are you buying the next iPhone, whatever that is?
[doublepost=1497871961][/doublepost]
My car bumpers are supposed to withstand a low speed crash, I trained myself not to crash the car into a tree. Doesn't mean I don't care about the ability to withstand a low speed crash.