I have seen plenty of car commercials in the past where the car crashed into a barrier at under 3 or 5 MPH and had no damage. Bumpers are specifically designed to withstand crashes under a certain speed - it is a government requirement.
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.
Samsung Sued by Australian Consumer Watchdog for 'Misleading' Galaxy Phone Water Resistance Ads
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I have seen plenty of car commercials in the past where the car crashed into a barrier at under 3 or 5 MPH and had no damage. Bumpers are specifically designed to withstand crashes under a certain speed - it is a government requirement.
Hmmm. I don’t recall any commercials of such things growing up. I’m 37. When where these commercials? The 70’s?
I remember them in the late 70's. Look at pics of cars of that era and most had these huge "lower lip" bumpers that could hold up under very slow hits. They were butt ugly and eventually went away. From what I hear now, a 5 mph bump costs hundreds of $ in damage.
Sure, if you can sufficiently prove that you NEVER hit your phone and NEVER submerge your phone to the water 1mm (or more) deeper or 1 second (or more) longer than the standard states.
Yes, according to "About Apple Watch water resistance - Apple Support":
Apple Watch Series 1 and Apple Watch (1st generation) have a water resistance rating of IPX7 under IEC standard 60529. Apple Watch Series 2, Apple Watch Series 3, and Apple Watch Series 4 have a water resistance rating of 50 meters under ISO standard 22810:2010
The watches, being rated to 50 meters (really, 5atm), are suitable for swimming use.
And another example from keynote
Does this mean that the time stops when you fall into the pool or magically your iphone7 stays above the waterline?
That image is not of the iPhone 7 it was them depicting what has happened in the past when someone fell in the pool and tried to save their phone. They have never shown an iPhone completely submerged in an ad period. iPhones are made to withstand a brief incident like that. It is not the same as Samsung showing an ad with their phone at the bottom of a fish tank for the several minutes.
If someone brings in a water damaged phone to the Genius Bar it is impossible for them to tell whether the phone was used in water the way it was intended. They can’t tell if it’s someone who simply fell in the pool or intentionally left it there for hours to get warranty replacement.
Apple making your phone more resistant to damage is not helping them. In fact it leads to less people damaging their phones and less iPhones sold.
Last edited:
Using IP codes in phones is ”Misleading”!
I don’t understand why IEC allows this.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/IP_Code
IPx8: ”The equipment is suitable for continuous immersion in water under conditions which shall be specified by the manufacturer.”
If it’s suitable, then it should be under warranty, correct?
[doublepost=1562371213][/doublepost]
I don’t understand why IEC allows this.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/IP_Code
IPx8: ”The equipment is suitable for continuous immersion in water under conditions which shall be specified by the manufacturer.”
If it’s suitable, then it should be under warranty, correct?
[doublepost=1562371213][/doublepost]
The manufacturer can’t specify ”continuous”, because it’s in the standard.
Last edited:
Quite the opposite: the company avertises it IP68 and then people use it underwater. And then they have to buy another one. If it would be specced ”Might be IP68 or not”, then the company would miss the second purchase.
Ip68 is a well defined rating and is tested under ideal laboratory conditions. Consumer should read what it means and it doesn’t mean water proof. Hence why the rating benefits the consumer as having a water resistant phone may mean saving the day and $$$ for the consumer.
If you recall the champagne commercial by Samsung was also pulled...I wonder why.
The amount of water damaged iPhones has dropped dramatically since the release of the iPhone 7. That’s not to say that none have failed but the vast majority are completely fine. Apple isn’t selling more phones because of that. I can assure you. What you are saying just isn’t the case. I repair iPhones and we no longer see water damaged phones. It is extremely rare. This isn’t some conspiracy to sell more phones. The first thing I hear out of people’s mouths when I tell them the iPhone is water resistant is “wow I wouldn’t want to risk it.” There aren’t many people who will throw their 1000$ phone into the pool.
Last edited:
...spot the weasel words inserted to get the international standard signed off by the industry...
That would be the defence in the USA - where caveat emptor hasn't quite gone away and the phrases "advertising" and "free speech" can get used in the same sentence without people sniggering.
In Europe and Australia (where the Samsung are in trouble) ads can get banned and/or firms fined for being misleading rather than flat-out pants-on-fire lies. Not saying that its perfect or uniformly enforced - but consumer protection has significantly more teeth outside the USA. A typical consumer would not be expected to look up IP68 or to realise that a technical standard that talked about "continuous immersion in water" was only intended to test accidental immersion - they would be entitled to think that - if the ad showed a phone being used quite deliberately by a guy in swimming trunks and goggles at the bottom of a pool - it was suitable for sustained underwater use (not, 'you could get away with this once under controlled conditions').
Apple have been bitten a few times in the UK:
https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-b...3g-advert-is-misleading-idUKTRE4AP01620081126
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/11/26/iphone_ad_pulled/
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2012/may/02/asa-forces-apple-withdraw-claims-ipad-4g
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2008/aug/27/apple.apple
Yeah water resistance is something that I would never intentionally test. It’s great in an accident but it’s not worth the risk if it would happen to fail. A friend had an LG G6 that was IP68 rated it and would often submerge it just to show it off. After a couple months, guess what, it started having issues from water damage.
Apple has been bitten, but the timeframe is 7 to 11 years ago. Does that really count?
The Samsung champagne commercial is the perfect example of misleading advertising.
I don't think the definition of "misleading advertising" has changed over that time period. Your argument (consumers should have looked up IP68) was relevant to at least two of those examples (consumers could have found out the the iPhone didn't support Flash or Java, or that the version of "4G" supported by the iPad 4G was never going to be available outside of the US or Japan) but neither advertising rules
Its possible that Apple have learned their lesson (or at least learned how to play the game) - the last complaint wasn't upheld:
https://www.asa.org.uk/rulings/apple--uk--ltd-a18-445104.html
...that wasn't a particularly convincing complaint though, - but if you look at the ruling you'll see that the main reason it wasn't upheld was because the ASA felt that the ad made it perfectly clear to consumers that it was talking about the iPhone's ability to mimic studio lighting etc. effects.
Pretty blatantly (if the authorities doing their job properly they wouldn't buy small-print that contradicted the visuals) - but no more so than the swimming pool ad. Not sure what you think the difference is.
NB: At least in EU/UK, probably Australia, the small print in the Warranty is mostly bluff and bluster. if your phone (doesn't matter what type) is sold as being splash/rain/shirt-dunk/tweet-from-the-bottom-of-the-pool-proof and it proves not to be within a reasonable period (usually a lot longer than the warranty) then you have rights to a repair or maybe a refund - although you may have to shovel your way though a lot of BS to get them (the company will insist that you deep-sixed the phone in the Marianas trench for a year instead of dropped it in the sink, of course).
No, but these examples aren’t relevant as things have changed over the years.
Ip68 is very common. Saying a phone is ip68 complaint and showing the phone submerged in a pool definitely should be considered misleading advertisements. However shoo g someone in pool holding the phone over the water, reminds me of those beer commercials where no one takes a sip.
I would guess all companies learn as they go. Some faster than others.
I find all the "this should be covered by warranty or not mentioned at all" to be self-serving on the users' part. Nothing less than a guarantee of water-resistance will satisfy them. They think that by refusing Apple (or Samsung) the right to claim water-resistance that the companies will be forced to add water resistance to the warranty. The opposite might happen - why do something that adds cost to the product if you can't mention it as a feature?
What's the difference between this and advertising the use of Gorilla Glass? Should broken displays be covered under the warranty because Apple advertises they use extra-tough glass (or sapphire in some Watches)? I haven't seen many arguments of that sort - people understand that glass breaks.
People also understand that water has a way of getting into things, and they should understand that water is especially dangerous to electronic/electrical products. There are always limits to "waterproof/water-resistant" construction.
Fact: Earlier iPhones had no gaskets or water-resistance design features
Fact: Today's iPhones have gaskets and and other water-resistance design features
Fact: Today's iPhones pass specific laboratory tests for water- and dust-resistance
So, do you ignore those facts when marketing your product? Despite the fact that they add costs to both the manufacture and repair of the product, do you remain silent?
What's likely true: A smaller percentage of today's iPhones are damaged when exposed to liquids.
If that is true, then it is a product benefit to those whose iPhones continue to work after getting wet, regardless of whether Apple promises the water resistance will work in every case of exposure.
It's certainly a cause for dissatisfaction for those for whom it didn't work, but when isn't a person unhappy when something bad happens to their stuff? We can take all the care and precautions in the world, and a bad thing may still happen. "Well, I was careful, so it must be someone else's fault." Well, maybe it is, or maybe it isn't.
Yes, Apple could include water resistance in the basic warranty. It would undoubtedly add to the cost of the product, and would definitely complicate warranty repair claims. Apple would want to distinguish between liquid damage due to defects in workmanship and materials (such as an improperly-installed gasket) and liquid damage due to customer behavior (was it really submerged in less than 2 meters of water for less than 30 minutes, did it go through a washing machine cycle, was that back-pocket bend enough to break the gasket seal...). This is why AppleCare+ accidental damage coverage costs extra. No questions asked - that's partly what you've paid for.
What's the difference between this and advertising the use of Gorilla Glass? Should broken displays be covered under the warranty because Apple advertises they use extra-tough glass (or sapphire in some Watches)? I haven't seen many arguments of that sort - people understand that glass breaks.
People also understand that water has a way of getting into things, and they should understand that water is especially dangerous to electronic/electrical products. There are always limits to "waterproof/water-resistant" construction.
Fact: Earlier iPhones had no gaskets or water-resistance design features
Fact: Today's iPhones have gaskets and and other water-resistance design features
Fact: Today's iPhones pass specific laboratory tests for water- and dust-resistance
So, do you ignore those facts when marketing your product? Despite the fact that they add costs to both the manufacture and repair of the product, do you remain silent?
What's likely true: A smaller percentage of today's iPhones are damaged when exposed to liquids.
If that is true, then it is a product benefit to those whose iPhones continue to work after getting wet, regardless of whether Apple promises the water resistance will work in every case of exposure.
It's certainly a cause for dissatisfaction for those for whom it didn't work, but when isn't a person unhappy when something bad happens to their stuff? We can take all the care and precautions in the world, and a bad thing may still happen. "Well, I was careful, so it must be someone else's fault." Well, maybe it is, or maybe it isn't.
Yes, Apple could include water resistance in the basic warranty. It would undoubtedly add to the cost of the product, and would definitely complicate warranty repair claims. Apple would want to distinguish between liquid damage due to defects in workmanship and materials (such as an improperly-installed gasket) and liquid damage due to customer behavior (was it really submerged in less than 2 meters of water for less than 30 minutes, did it go through a washing machine cycle, was that back-pocket bend enough to break the gasket seal...). This is why AppleCare+ accidental damage coverage costs extra. No questions asked - that's partly what you've paid for.
Sorry if there was a misunderstanding - I wasn't really talking about that one (which may have been excusable in context).
Still - what do you think happened next? freak gravitational anomaly? The guy turned out to be Mr Incredible and extended his arm to 6 feet to keep the phone merely splashed? Using that photo to promote an iPhone is effectively saying that "this phone can survive if you fall into a swimming pool" not "in brand-new condition this phone will survive a single brief immersion in distilled water under laboratory conditions".
Well, that's they get in jurisdictions like Europe, UK, Aus (and possibly even some US states) where statutory, irrevocable, consumer rights go way beyond what the typical US warranty offers and consumer products are required to be as advertised and fit for purpose.
If the advert says it has Gorilla Glass/sapphire and it really does have Gorilla Glass/sapphire then, no.
If, however, the advert says it has Gorilla Glass while showing it being dropped 10 feet onto a concrete floor and surviving unscathed then yes, the manufacturer should be required to put their money where their mouth is.
It's really not that difficult.
...even if the warranty says, in 5-point type, "phone must land face-up; surface must be completely flat and 100% gravel free; warranty not valid for g > 8m/s^2".
They advertise that using tougher glass formulations has a benefit (greater resistance to damage). That's no different than advertising that they've taken design and manufacturing steps to make phones that are more resistant to the intrusion of water and dust. Feature-plus-benefit. Not feature-with-no-attributed-benefit.
This particular thread started because of a charge of false advertising involving Samsung. That ad is very similar to your hypothetical of an advert showing a phone being dropped 10 feet onto a concrete floor and emerging unharmed - they're showing their product being used underwater, as if it was a normal, risk-free activity.
Apple's not making the kind of claims you're talking about. They stick to terms like "splash-resistance," and images of being caught in a rain shower.
I'm specifically addressing the position taken by some people that, if Apple claims water-resistance, then Apple must cover that water resistance in the warranty or say nothing at all about water-resistance. Again, they have advertised the break-resistance of the glass, yet no demands the glass be covered by warranty.
Then their warranty should cover damage caused by splashes or being caught in the rain (potentially very different things, by the way).
Nobody is saying that because they show someone being caught in the rain, the warranty should cover sub-aqua instagramming...
Meanwhile, they did use a picture of someone falling into a pool holding a phone - but apparently that's OK because it wasn't an iPhone X and was taken before the phone actually entered the water so using it doesn't actually imply that the iPhone X could survive a fall into a pool and a strange invisible man I met in a bar did it and ran away...
If they just specify that its IP68 then they should warrant that it meets IP68 - no more, no less.
However, there seems to be a side-problem with IP68 being easy to misinterpret (possibly by design) and representing a set of circumstances that don't really reflect real life (...e.g. being dropped into salty/chlorinated/detergent-filled water by someone who hasn't memorised the manufacturer-approved post-immersion drill) so maybe they shouldn't give it too much weight as a feature.
This thread is about water-resistance claims. Other threads discussing BendGate, CrackGate, FlexGate, HoldingItWrongGate etc. and whether or not Apple should fix them under warranty are available.
I think a "reasonable person" understands that toughened glass does not mean "unbreakable" and I don't recall offhand seeing Apple (or Samsung) claim any more than that. I don't plan to waste my morning hunting for claims that Apple and/or Samsung may have made about break resistance - but whatever they claim, they should warrant (...and, in many jurisdictions, could be held to what they claim - plus a general requirement along the lines of being 'reasonably durable' for that class of product - whatever the warranty says).
This really comes down to what you or I believe a "reasonable person" understands. You think a reasonable person understands that glass breaks, but that same reasonable person sees water resistance differently. I think a reasonable person understands the two are little different.
Maybe it's a matter of age? I grew up in the age of mechanical watches. It was settled law at that time (in the U.S.) that a "water resistant" watch is different than a "waterproof" watch. "Resistant" meant (and still means) it is built to resist water intrusion, but that the risk is the owner's. The owner's expectation is that a bit of water now and then probably won't hurt (washing hands, accidentally wearing in the shower, etc.), but if they go swimming or snorkeling, all bets are off. "Waterproof" is a manufacturer claim that water can't get in (well, so long as the crystal, case, and crown remain intact), and generally is covered under warranty.
Maybe I'm not a typical "reasonable" person, because my personal experience extends to whitewater canoe/kayak and hiking/backpacking. Whether it's full immersion in a river or an occasional day of hiking in the rain (or nights in tents during downpours)... water usually wins, even when using so-called waterproof gear. Brand-new gear tends to perform as advertised, but after some use things begin to break down. Some cleaning/maintenance, maybe lubrication of o-ring seals and patching of punctures will keep things going for a while longer, but that's about it.
That's the same expectation I bring to electronics. Again, my background may make me atypical, as I've done a fair amount of electronics repair in my day. I know how the stuff is built, and I certainly know what even a tiny bit of water can do to an electrical circuit. Truly "waterproof" electronics (the kind found on ships) is built to a very different standard.
So I see the water resistance of an electronic device to be little different to these other examples - that it's great that it's built to withstand some exposure to liquids, but that water can still be expected to win. Defenses tend to break down over time and must be maintained, while water's properties never change.
One last time: nobody here is saying that a "water resistant" watch should be suitable for swimming - the issue here is watches prominently advertised as "water resistant" where the warranty excludes any and all water damage - or, where the advertising misrepresents what "water resistant" means.
Probably the same definition elsewhere if the product is simply described as "water resistant", but in UK and EU at least, if the seller tells you that it is OK to wear in in the rain then that's the contract regardless of any small print in the warranty. (...and if the advert shows it being worn underwater, expect the ad to get banned, at least - I don't think that the keynote where Apple showed the guy with the phone falling into the pool is within the remit of UK/EU/Aus advertising standards - I don't think they'd get away with it in an ad outside the US).