Yeah Apple Store Edition Try on video on YouTube showed the guy saying the same thing. But who has a spare usb c cable lying around?
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.
Why didn't apple just use the lightning cable for the watch?
- Thread starter Appl3FTW
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Yeah Apple Store Edition Try on video on YouTube showed the guy saying the same thing. But who has a spare usb c cable lying around?
I don't know I think I could care less about the others . Lulz
----------
Well I don't have friends who has a Samsung with a flap... I could care less. Haha
IPx7 is 1 meter depth for 30 minutes MINIMUM with no ingress or damage. Since Apple is selling 10s of millions and is always conservative you can bet the rating is closer to ATM5 than IPx7 anyway.
Doesn't matter since it is rated IPx7 and it would be covered under warranty for any water damage.
That would be nice... I'm sure I'm gonna love buying new cables all over again....
When I glanced at the port on the Edition watch case, it looked like a lightning port and the employee told me it was a lightning port when I asked him to confirm.
Hoping we will see a lightning to magport adaptor hit the store soon
excellent idea, for 15 ill buy one.
You mean MAXIMUM. The water ingress test is 1 meter for 30 minutes, so if you soak it not deeper than 1 meter but longer than 30 minutes, that's outside of the IPX7 rating.
No, because if it failed at 29 minutes it would not meet the minimum requirement of 30 minutes to qualify.
No, because if it failed at 29 minutes it would not meet the minimum requirement of 30 minutes to qualify.
Then minimum isn't the right word either. It has to be exactly 30 minutes. If it doesn't fail at 30 minutes, it won't fail at the earlier time point.
That's not how Apple rolls. Have you ever seen Apple include unnecessary ports on anything they produce? And besides, a cover would get lost. I'm very thankful they have a magnetic puck for charging.
Yes it is. Do a search for "minimum requirements to meet a specification"
https://www.google.com/search?num=1...9DdsASojIDICw&ved=0CBsQBSgA&biw=1257&bih=1250
EDIT: Here is Apple using the term.
No. That's not right at all. Minimum is the correct term. The tests will cause a device to fall into a particular bucket. IPX8 is "continuous immersion at depths below 1m" so anything that qualifies for IPX7 and fails IPX8 will be classified as IPX7 by sheer fact that it's the most permissive test it passed. An IPX7 device was just certified at 1m for 30 minutes. It does not mean that if you go below 1m your device will instantly die, or that if you hold it in for 31 minutes, it will stop working. It just means that it did not pass the IPX8 test, which is continuous immersion at below 1m (typically 3m), it says absolutely nothing about why it failed that test. It could have been that after 24 hours, it died at 2m. It could be that it instantly died at 3m. We simply don't know by the qualification alone, but we do know that 30 minutes at 1m is its minimum certified protection level.
I was thinking in term of minimum time, which isn't right. You can take it to a maximum of 30 minutes and still be within the IPX7 rating. If it passes the test at 1 meter at 30 minutes, then it follows that it'll still be water resistant at 1 meter at an earlier time point than 30 minutes.
Now we're just arguing semantics. Julien didn't define "minimum" so it's moot.
Because there is no maximum to qualify for a specification, only a minimum. The specification defines the minimum that MUST be meet (not me). Once you pass the minimum specification you qualify for the rating/standard. You are not disqualified for being above the minimum rating.
Now that you've defined minimum as minimum rating (rather than minimum time), we're good.
See, that's why scientists/engineers have to be careful with their words
Well of course it does, but that's not a maximum. It's the very definition of "minimum":
the least or smallest amount or quantity possible, attainable, or required.
That's exactly what you described, that the smallest amount of time you can hold it in the water without dying is 30 minutes, and that the smallest depth you can hold it in the water without dying is 1m. It says nothing of values above either of them, but it guarantees that values below these are safe.
A maximum is the exact opposite. There is no maximum depth or time because we don't know why it failed the IPX8 test. It could ostensibly go down to 10m without breaking a sweat for a very short period of time (failing continuous), or stay at 1m for 24 hours (since the test is 30min, we don't know how long it could have stayed down, we just know it's good for 30min)
Now that you've defined minimum as minimum rating (rather than minimum time), we're good.
See, that's why scientists/engineers have to be careful with their words
It is time too. It must meet a minimum of 30 minutes at a minimum of 1 meter to qualify for a IPx7 rating.
I can't wait until we can charge our iPhones this way.
Also would love some level of water resistance with the phones.
Also would love some level of water resistance with the phones.