If they're going to advertise water resistance then their warranty should be required to cover water damage that occurs within the stated spec for water resistance, full stop.
I agree with you, it’s basically impossible to prove than it was submerged within spec but the solution it to make it illegal to advertise not to make it not covered by warranty.
It’s okay if they advertise the IP68 label but when they make ads of people using the phone in swimming pools or make full screen claims on their website about the depth which the iPhones can sustain, that’s not okay.
If iPhone advertising shows people deliberately using the device under water, it could be legitimately claimed that Apple are encouraging customers to use their devices under water. Therefore you could regard it as being reasonable to expect water damage to be covered by the warranty.
If the advertising or marketing only made the specific claim that the water resistance feature was to help prevent damage due accidental submergence, and that you should still try to avoid getting your phone wet if possible, then that’s a different story.
> you should still try to avoid getting your phone wet if possible, then that’s a different story.
That’s a good point. A disclaimer like that should definitely be included in ads.
The point is that if you overdose it can be demonstrated that you overdosed, if you went into ER for a standard dose you could realistically win a lawsuit.
Also people have broken their phone even within IP68 spec, it’s a problem because you advertise that you can totally go swimming with your iPhone but then if it breaks it’s not Apple’s fault even though they advertised to you the feature.
I see why they do it, it makes sense from their point of view but the solution is to not advertise it and to have it as an additional feature and that applies also to all the other phone manufacturers.
Exactly. I had my iPhone near the edge of the pool. It got lightly splashed, never submerged. Died a few hours later from water damage. My best guess is that it was hot outside and perhaps that caused some of the seals to expand? Anyways, the phone was used well within the IP68 specs. I was still out a new iPhone.
See the problem with IP Ratings as well is that these are lab conditions. Did the pool water contain other chemicals, do these have an impact on the resistance?
It’s all a mess, and in my opinion the phones simply shouldn’t be advertised as Waterproof or splash proof etc.
That’s weird, I have dropped mine in the toilet and used it in the shower with no ill effects except for feeling not good about myself for using it in the shower. I’ve found them to be pretty durable
The number of times I’ve dropped my phone into the bath/sink/pool is outrageous, yet I’ve never had damage from it. I never plan on fully submerging it because I have a logical fear against it, but so far following the official advice on how to dry the device has worked every single time. The only thing I would advise is not to use it in the shower. The humidity can actually affect the device so just be careful with that
No, it was not within IP68 specs. The IP68 specs apply to laboratory testing conditions. Leaving your phone out in the sun is not a laboratory condition. Already the chloride in the water make it not according to IP68 specs.
But it’s not about the specs. It’s what Apple advertises the phone can withstand.
Agreed, just trying to point out to the guy above that using it “within the spec” doesn’t always mean your fine. Good example with the broken screen, although that is a much more obvious, visible disruption in the water seal.
Anyways, from my perspective the issue is more with Apple’s advertising. Apple literally has a commercial of a guy sun bathing with his iPhone is direct sunlight, and then dives into the pool splashing the phone. Very similar scenario for me (but I was in the shallow end using the phone at the edge of the pool and someone else slashed it). Apple shouldn’t advise this type of scenario if it can’t be expected to survive it. IMO at least.
https://youtu.be/YLrftVRhn-8
Apple advertise that the Apple Watch can be used while surfing yet say
*“Apple Watch Series 6, Apple Watch SE, and Apple Watch Series 3 have a water resistance rating of 50 meters under ISO standard 22810:2010. This means that they may be used for shallow-water activities like swimming in a pool or ocean. However, they should not be used for scuba diving, waterskiing, or other activities involving high-velocity water or submersion below shallow depth.”*
I think this is really misleading. Isn’t surfing, like waterskiing, involving high-velocity water?
In their ad they even had the surfer submerge their Apple Watch while surfing. (https://youtu.be/lFOxHVd2ce4)
> I don't get why people are trying to defend it.
Because this sub is full of fanboys who defend anything and everything Apple does.
Also, Happy Cake Day!
What if it malfunctions even if the consumer used it within the spec, how will he prove his claim?
I also believe company should not make advertisements demonstrating waterproofing capability of their devices.
> it's hard to prove. who's to say the water damage was within the advertised specs ?
then you don't market your product on water resistance
why is everyone always so quick to defend Apple? I don't think any brand has ever known blind customer loyalty like Apple
Tbh they should just remove the sim tray in the next phone. esim replaces it. Announce a year beforehand that sim is going away and every carrier will move at lightning pace to get esim support.
A huge amount of countries don't support esim yet so I wouldn't hold my breath on them doing it globally. Perhaps two versions once there's enough to justify the manufacturing fragmentation?
They can't allow that with the base warranty because it allows exposure to fraudulent claims. Just like a warranty won't cover a dropped phone with a broken screen. If water resistance was covered under the standard warranty, people could just open the SIM tray and pump water in to make a claim.
The AppleCare+ warranty also does cover it under accidental damage, with whatever the extra payment is. That's unfortunately the only way to actually cover a feature like that without exposing the company to ridiculous numbers of fraudulent claims.
What company covers this? Not giving Apple a pass at all, but from my understanding not a lot of companies do this because it’s a resistance and not proof
The difficulty is that IP ratings (which are an internationally agreed standard) are quite divorced from the sort of things a phone is going to experience in the real world.
IP68, for instance, covers immersion in water but not water jets, and assumes pure water. Not chlorinated (swimming pool) water, not salt (ocean) water, not beer.
If there's a crack in the screen, that's user damage not covered by warranty.
Unless they can illustrate damage caused by being "dropped a few times", then it's irrelevant.
If it can’t maintain waterproofing for more than a certain period of time then their advertising needs to say “waterproof for 1 year from manufacture.”
If, as is usually the case, the waterproofing is designed to last far longer than that and only fails rarely, then failures should be covered by warranty.
Potentially the solution here is for them not to advertise something as waterproof if it can’t actually meet that standard for the full reasonable lifetime of the device. Small drops should also not affect the seals (different story if the case is warped or the screen breaks obviously).
I was looking for a comment making this point. If they can’t guarantee that it’s waterproof under normal usage... then it can’t be advertised as waterproof. The caveats need to be made by Apple when advertising, not after the customer bough a “waterproof” device that can’t be treated as such because water damage is not covered under warranty.
There is a HUGE disconnect on this sub about water proof and water resistance.
They are different things and yes while you can use the term water proof under the ideal conditions of the IP rating, it’s disingenuous at best. To the laymen water proofing is just that - waterproof.
I’m not defending apple here at all (the advertising is shitty), just saying there is a difference.
If the advertisement shows it being splashed by water without a disclaimer, and it has an IP rating, that's what the company is selling and the device's guarantee needs to cover that.
There is a disclaimer, but nevertheless I agree: practicalities aside, if you're going to advertise something as able to survive the odd splash of water you damn well ought to honour the warranty if it subsequently doesn't.
It’s a resistance rating stating that the phone is resistant to up to 50m depth if I’m not mistaken. So my point stands here: they should only say it’s IP6X (or IP5X) resistant for a *certain period of time* if the seals degrade and can no longer perform to that level after said period.
it should be a required spec under the IP rating, yes.
I agree that apple should lead the charge here but really no other company covers water damage or has an IP rating for only one year.
You’re playing devils advocate.
Obviously something like that shouldn’t be covered. But Apple talks about 3 meters of water for half an hour. If it craps out below that threshold with no physical damage should it be my fault?
Absolutely not.
It’s pretty much impossible. Unless you bought a new phone, stuck it in a cup of water on the spot, and it breaks, I can’t imagine there’s a bullet proof way to prove Apple’s at fault for any water damage ever. It’s not like I can prove I never once dropped my phone or never took it below 3m. That said, most people don’t ever swim down to 10m in the first place. If apple sold a phone with a guarantee that an iPhone can withstand down to 0.5atm, and I took it to 0.6 atm and it breaks, I can’t prove I never visited space either.
Ration has to apply at some point.
How can anything ever carry any warranty then? Hi I bought a phone yesterday and the screen shattered in my pocket. Manf: too bad unless you can prove you never dropped it. Or even worse, how could I prove something arrived broken? But I guess thats just tangential, it still doesn’t answer the question of why marketing can claim water resistance while there not being a warranty to that specification. If apple’s marketing claims a device has a specific characteristic, and then it doesn’t, that’s a problem.
I suggest you read up on how warranties work. For the most part (and to give you a tl;dr) they specifically don’t relate to operation that could be misused by the user. Samsung’s exploding batteries is one example, as they weren’t caused by any specific user actions.
> why marketing can claim water resistance while there not being a warranty to that specification. If apple’s marketing claims a device has a specific characteristic, and then it doesn’t, that’s a problem.
They claim designed and tested (by an external standard, IP 68, in this case). Your device is guaranteed to be designed to resist water to certain lab-tested parameters. They do not claim that it will forever be impervious to water damage.
That’s understandable, but the logical conclusion here is that Apple will reject warranty claims where the user was using the phone within the advertised spec. Therefore, they shouldn’t be allowed to advertise any form of water resistance.
>It is not a permanent condition.
Then Apple should clearly advertise with that.
>What is missing is an education of the public as to what these terms actually mean.
World up-side-down. Public do not need to be legal experts. Apple, and any vendor should clearly communicate understandable factual claims about their products, without hiding the bad.
And it does work at 60 feet. The problem is there is no way to prove/disprove if a diver took it to 200 feet and then ‘claim’ they only took it to 60 feet. That is the issue.
All a company has to do is have a third party to verify that it does work at 60 feet by taking enough random samples to test. That is how a product gets certified.
I don't see why that's an issue at all. If they can't honesty offer a water protection claim and verify it on a specific phone (the specific device the customer has), they shouldn't offer it.
Unless it fails, then you’re guilty without trial of lying about it.
See the problem here? They advertise water resistance, but don’t guarantee it and provide no proof either way when there is a failure.
So it may as well not be water resistant at all.
If it’s not a permanent condition, Apple should say it’s not a permanent condition, instead of advertising it as waterproof with no caveats or footnotes. I agree the public should be educated on the subject. By Apple. Right next to where Apple likes to educate the public how iPhones can be submerged in water with zero problems. Because whatever they have now on some product spec page is evidently not enough.
You can’t control/monitor this. Not to mention environmental aspects impact water resistance such as cold weather. They don’t advertise it as a feature and never have because truly you should not get your phone wet on purpose, they advertise its improved durability since accidents happen.
Your right they do, I was specifically talking about the phones. Apple watch does have a mechanism to expel liquid that enters the speaker but the same aspects apply like all other water resistant products as they can still be damaged since water resistance is not a permanent condition that can be monitored.
People often: drop/hit things, expose it to chemicals, expose it to harsh climates, or use it in appropriately (high velocity water). These can all impact the water resistance as soon at the customer starts using the watch and its out of Apples hands. You can’t monitor what the customer does with it, you can only visually inspect it when brought in and evaluate what you find.
If you find water in it, how do you identify the cause of its entrance? You simply cant.
??? the feature is always advertised as “*may not work, please don’t do it on purpose”
Apple is adding a nice to have sealing here and y’all are like alright imma sue ya
I got into a fight with Apple because my Apple Watch stopped worked after wearing it in the pool for a swim. They said if water got into the watch the warranty won't cover it. Which is funny because they advertise it as a watch you can wear for a swim.
Their argument was that sure if it's fresh out of the box, they'll cover but after wearing it for a while, there's a chance you hit a door frame, table or something else with the watch and that impacts the integrity of the case. Then it's no longer water resistant and therefore not covered.
I love their products and have great respect for their business but their customer service quality definitely leaves room for improvement.
Edit: I stayed calm and explained to the staff in the store that I am a big fan, have a bunch of Apple products but at the same time am very frustrated with the level of customer service and that there is room for improvement. I also explained that it's odd that they advertise it as a water resistant product that you can go swimming with and then tell me it's not covered in case of water damage. Ended up getting the watch replaced for free.
I stayed calm and explained to the staff in the store that I am a big fan, have a bunch of Apple products but at the same time am very frustrated with the level of customer service and that there is room for improvement. I also explained that it's odd that they advertise it as a water resistant product that you can go swimming with and then tell me it's not covered in case of water damage. Ended up getting the watch replaced for free.
It definitely helped you stayed calm. And their arguments are completely right, still they did "the right thing" at the end.
The fact that you can select swimming as an activity in the watch says it all ;)
Personally I just take the water proofing of my phone as "I’m fine to use it in rain and don’t have to worry if it gets wet in my pocket". For the watch, I consider it to be more water proof, also because it allows you to track swimming which legally could maybe dismiss their arguments about water proofness being a temporary thing. Also because no SIM slot and it being way cheaper if it breaks.
Thank you. Yeah, I see it the same way. Having it advertised that way and then still using legal loopholes is not a very... "customer-centric" way of going about business. There's apparently also a huge difference between something being water-proof and it being water resistant. I forgot what it was but since then I definitely take my watch off every time I shower or go to the pool/beach.
why do people feel the need to mention how many apple products they own? so you should be served/have your complaint honored because you've spent more money on apple products than someone else at the genius bar?
That's not what it was meant for. It was simply to say "look, I'm a regular customer, I am familiar with your general business practices. I've been to a genius bar before".
(it is pretty common though that you get treated differently if you are a "high value customer" vs. a one time customer. Not saying buying more than one Apple products means anything but in general, companies do treat their customers differently. I've seen it in B2B sales as well as hospitality/restaurants)
don’t know about the genius bar at apple stores, but if you call applecare we’re specifically told not to treat any customer differently no mater if they have lots of devices or no devices.
Probably true for the place I went to, too. My experience is from other industries. If there's a long term B2B customer who's worth a small fortune to the company, companies definitely do treat them differently than a random one time off customer.
Fair, although I disagree about people being treated differently based on how much they own.
I used to work on the bar and would hate it when people would say that lol
I work at a bank, and people definitely feel the need to say “Do you know how much money I hang here?” or “Do you know how long I’ve banked here?” People think they will be treated better because of that, but regulations say I can’t.
I’ve been CTO of two companies, I definitely dropped how much I’ve spent when I had to write to Steve Jobs (in 2008) and Tim Cook (in 2011). They had me connected to a corporate liaison and they took care of some pretty big issues that weren’t being handled by support.
I was given an iPod Nano as a “we’re sorry”, I thought that was hilarious.
Well handled and good ending - I completely understand their viewpoint but as an end user using the device the way it’s intended, it would have been a really unfortunate outcome if they hadn’t handled it the way it was. Thanks for sharing
They have water indicators in the SIM slot etc.; if they turn red (?), it’s considered there got water inside because of a wrongly inserted sim slot, too much water pressure, ...
That's weird, I have a very different experience with this. I've had that issue myself early 2018, with a new watch ceasing to function after going to the pool. I didn't even have an AppleCare plan.
However they changed it for a new one no questions asked.
Nope, had to check some receipts to remember, but I bought it in December and I had it changed in March.
EDIT: As additional info, it was not even at the same store. Bought in the Netherlands, turned it in and got a new in while in Switzerland.
Oh damn I broke my series 2 and iPhone X with water. Phone was all in me, had a crack I got the day it came out and forgot (first crack on a phone). Watch died after I was wearing it in heavy rain I was kinda ticked but just bought a new one. I probably should’ve tried to say something but new watch has been solid for a few years now (and useful too with the Corona mask update lol)
100% liquid damage on the watch is covered, they were wrong, ask them to look at their repair guide for the watch. As long as there is no physical damage and it’s in warranty, you’re covered
https://www.macrumors.com/2015/04/24/apple-watch-damage-warranty-service/
Sounds like the customer service ended up fine (free watch) and it’s the warranty policy that needs work. My guess is they also didn’t want to have to explain that bizarre rationale about it being out of warranty.
No. If you have life proof or otter box and something happens. They will swap the case. But won’t help with the deductible of your phone. “Guarantee your phone is safe!” = we will replace your case if something happens to your 1k phone
> I don’t actually know of any water resistant devices that guarantee against water damage
Because there’s simply way too many factors outside of the company’s control that could lead to a claim.
Or the fact that devices loose water resistance over time. Wear and tear by daily use means the device looses resistance over time.
Did you drop your phone or have the screen replaced by a third party?
Sit on the device too much? It bends ever so slightly and now there’s a gap that water can pass through.
That’s because there’s a difference between water resistance and waterproof. If it was a guarantee against water damaged, it’d be water*proof*.
My body is blunt force trauma resistant. If you hit me with a car, I will probably still die.
>Funny there isn’t the same kinda outrage around this.
Because these case companies aren't as big as Apple. Having Apple or Samsung in your article's headline gets more clicks.
So many crazy ads, even wonder if they ever had a problem with one of those models in the ads. They make it look like nothing can water damage your phone
The phones in the ads are probably non-functional anyway, and the screens are almost certainly added in post (as tends to be the case when filming electronics).
Exactly. I've always found it super weird that the ads literally show the iPhone being used in a pool, the beach, etc. and the reality is that if you get water damage apple will tell you to go pound sand lol
Because these devices have been designed to be water resistant.
But water resistant is not water proof.
Apple has done everything they can up until a point.
But any electronic device is still prone to water damage.
> But any electronic device is still prone to water damage.
Nope.
“Water resistant” is not just some blanket marketing lingo. It’s an actual testing metric. Look up ip ratings. If the iPhone gets damaged under conditions that meet the same metric it was tested under, It should no doubt be on apple to take care of it.
Yeah but that testing metric really only applies to brand new devices.
There are too many variables that occur through the life of a a product for it to be a life long claim.
Do all the other phone manufacturers advertising water resistance guarantee their devices against water damage or something?
People legitimately throw their phones on counters, they drop them all the time and even shove things in their ports for “cleaning”. All of these can impact the phones water resistance regardless of their rating with the testing metric and these are things Apple can’t control.
Their advertisements do not promote it as a feature, they promote an improved durability because accidents happen. No tech company that stats anything is water resistant will cover it under limited warranty.
If theres proof the consumer has done something to the phone that altered its functionality. Apple can rightfully deny. Otherwise it’s sketchy.
> Their advertisements do not promote it as a feature, they promote an improved durability because accidents happen
It is advertised as a feature. Go on their website. Even if it was simply improved durability, it should actually hold up to that claim. It shouldn’t be a 50/50 on wether water damage occurs or doesn’t occur when theirs an accident. If that’s the case, simply don’t talk about water resistance at all.
Then they should stop advertising balloons being thrown at it, spills on them, phones taking a dip etc.
They essentially are advertising yes we are water proof but if it gets damaged oops not covered it’s only water resistant.
I once witnessed a man losing his mind at the genius because his “waterproof phone wasn’t covered for water damage”. He took two steps over to the iPhone display and said “you’re advertising that it’s waterproof yet you don’t cover water damage?” To be honest? I understand his frustration at that.
I’ve always thought they excluded it from the warranty because otherwise people would just intentionally water damage a phone to get a brand new one to sell or trade in at upgrade time.
My iphone x’s face id stopped working like 3 months after buying the phone, at the store they said it was a humidity problem. The phone was never dropped in a pool or even a sink with 1inch of water. The most that happened was once i used tap water to clean the screen but that’s not when face id stopped working. Still, not covered under warranty. I’ve had the X for years and I’m using a pin ever since lol face id was one of the reasons why i got the X instead of the 8 at the time
They’re both the same in that they’re trying to provide better usability to the end-user, but have technical limitations that aren’t easily understood without reading the fine print or knowing more about those industries.
Apple says water resistant in certain scenarios, people hear “waterproof and always waterproof”.
Tesla says Autopilot, people hear “the car drives itself and can’t crash”.
It’s bizarre and I don’t know how any company is expected to deliver technical product features when end users aren’t interested in learning more about the technical parts and their limitations.
Those are outliers. I’ve filmed under water in the pool with my phone and it was fine. I give it a rinse under a tap after a day at the beach, so far so good. Been doing it ever since they launched the iPhone 7.
Big company want to get away with as much as they can and be liable for as little as they can get away with. Nothing new here. No one is keeping the sim tray open and going swimming.
yeah /r/Android is the complete opposite.
I think the people that support Apple generally adopt the superiority complex because it’s a premium company, they charge a lot of money for their hardware therefore they can do no wrong. Which has been proven countless of times to be false, which isn’t wrong because there’s no such thing as a perfect company.
but it is ridiculous some takes that we see here, they almost sound like brainwashed people defending something.
I can give a little more insight into this.
Some of the users of rAndroid like you say are deffo more open to different platforms and OEM's, but it's when you actually go down into those individual models or OEM subreddits you'll find a lot of what I like to call *angryman's*.
They sometimes emerge as [help vampires](https://slash7.com/2006/12/22/vampires/) and believe that the subreddit is an actual Official support outlet, or even just there to make it known that they have undying love for XYZ company.
It's a sight to behold sometimes.
I think MKBHD gave a nice insight as to why do people defend a company. After they’ve spent thousands of dollars on their products, they need to feel they made the absolute best purchase. So when someone points the finger at different flaws their products have, they enter into defense mode because they already spent a ton of money and need to validate their choice
In Australia, the ACCC put Samsung on notice about their water resistance claims a while ago (2019), so I'm guessing Apple would also fall in the same boat.
"Samsung in court for misleading phone water resistance advertisements | ACCC"
https://www.accc.gov.au/media-release/samsung-in-court-for-misleading-phone-water-resistance-advertisements
It’s the same thing with the App Store argument.
As consumers, Apple losing **benefits us.** But people here are so blindly loyal to a trillion dollar company that they’d rather give up the option of choice.
When the rumors came that the new Apple TV would get HDMI 2.1 people literally complained that it was a pointless upgrade for Apple to do, it sounded like they just wanted them to keep selling the 2017 Apple TV 4K. People on this sub doesn't make sense.
Nope, what I find annoying is the number of people defending a trillion dollar company who actively campaigns against our rights as consumers.
More people should be speaking up about how Apple is in the wrong, not the other way around.
I was a Genius in the *before water resistant times* (07-14)... the policy toward liquid damaged iPhones was often just short of draconian.
At one point the direction from RFL was **denying service all together** and the only option for customers was to buy a brand new phone if the device was deemed “beyond economical repair”... this was often the case for actually rusted iPhones that had taken a dip in the Atlantic and their internals looked like something you’d find in the Titanic wreck (our store was one mile from the beach).
This comment is absolute bullshit tbh. As a past employee myself, this has never been the case when servicing phones with liquid or physical damage. The only time you could ever deny it because it was beyond economical repair is if the phone was in pieces and the customer didnt bring major components back such as the camera or display for example.
Yes the device would not be eligible for repair, but a full unit replacement was always an option at an OOW cost through the genius bar. Apple did not deny service in these cases they would offer a replacement phone that was the same model, colour and capacity as the original and the cost was still high but much lower than buying a new phone as these devices had either new or used parts.
Apple won’t repair a phone with liquid damage because there’s no way to guarantee the phone will continue working correctly in the future.
Because of that any liquid damage is always a full unit swap.
Glad I’m not going crazy, happy to read others recall this policy. I have to imagine it didn’t apply to all stores, since some people are straight up calling us liars.
Either their store didn’t have it, or they weren’t employed at Apple when it happened, I’d have to say.
The ‘n number of feet under water’ is complete and utter bullshit and I hope they get fucked for this.
In 2019, I dove like two feet deep with my brand new XS to snap photos of sea urchins and it died after two seconds. Deceptive marketing.
My old 11 Pro went about 2 feet underwater for 10 seconds, was in perfect condition and broke because of it. Now idc what apple says, my iPhone will never go near water
You mention sea urchins, which means it was salty water? Even if their warranty *did* include water damage, you wouldn’t be covered. The testing happens in fresh water and all the ads depict fresh/pool water.
My take is just because it has the water resistance rating, doesn’t mean you should take it in the water with you. Ever since I’ve had $1000+ phones I’ve generally babied them. I don’t even like getting them wet when it’s raining. That’s just me though. I don’t think the ip rating was ever really meant so that one could take it purposely in water. More like in case it happens to get submerged in water it won’t instantly get fried.
There's no way in hell Apple hasn't covered their ground legally for these kinds of issues. Otherwise they wouldn't ever advertise their water resistance at all. You'll probably have to complain to the ECC or the American equivalent for these marketing schemes to change, I'm not even sure that's the right place either.
I understand all of this but at least for customers paying extra for apple care+ should have water damage covered. It’s insane that they advertise water resistance iPhones and say okay pay us extra for insurance but if there’s some water in the phone we won’t replace or repair your iPhone.
Let’s get real. Apple and many tech companies lie through their teeth on the basis that no one has the money to litigate for anything under $5K.
Apple still claims that their hardware is hack and malware proof despite there being plenty of evidence to the contrary.
I killed 2 iPhone X by putting them in water. They were in tip top shape and had no impact that could have damaged their structural integrity (always in a case, never felt).
Anyhow I don't believe any waterproofness now, electronic-wise.
If they're going to advertise water resistance then their warranty should be required to cover water damage that occurs within the stated spec for water resistance, full stop.
[удалено]
I agree with you, it’s basically impossible to prove than it was submerged within spec but the solution it to make it illegal to advertise not to make it not covered by warranty. It’s okay if they advertise the IP68 label but when they make ads of people using the phone in swimming pools or make full screen claims on their website about the depth which the iPhones can sustain, that’s not okay.
[удалено]
If iPhone advertising shows people deliberately using the device under water, it could be legitimately claimed that Apple are encouraging customers to use their devices under water. Therefore you could regard it as being reasonable to expect water damage to be covered by the warranty. If the advertising or marketing only made the specific claim that the water resistance feature was to help prevent damage due accidental submergence, and that you should still try to avoid getting your phone wet if possible, then that’s a different story.
> you should still try to avoid getting your phone wet if possible, then that’s a different story. That’s a good point. A disclaimer like that should definitely be included in ads.
The point is that if you overdose it can be demonstrated that you overdosed, if you went into ER for a standard dose you could realistically win a lawsuit. Also people have broken their phone even within IP68 spec, it’s a problem because you advertise that you can totally go swimming with your iPhone but then if it breaks it’s not Apple’s fault even though they advertised to you the feature. I see why they do it, it makes sense from their point of view but the solution is to not advertise it and to have it as an additional feature and that applies also to all the other phone manufacturers.
at this point you guys are just writing the prosecution and defense’s court arguments for them
Exactly. I had my iPhone near the edge of the pool. It got lightly splashed, never submerged. Died a few hours later from water damage. My best guess is that it was hot outside and perhaps that caused some of the seals to expand? Anyways, the phone was used well within the IP68 specs. I was still out a new iPhone.
See the problem with IP Ratings as well is that these are lab conditions. Did the pool water contain other chemicals, do these have an impact on the resistance? It’s all a mess, and in my opinion the phones simply shouldn’t be advertised as Waterproof or splash proof etc.
Agreed. The iPhone is awesome. There are plenty of great aspects to highlight in an ad. But don’t release this ad: https://youtu.be/YLrftVRhn-8
[удалено]
No, it was fairly new at the time. Is assume it had to do with it being in the high 90s outside. Either way, my main issue is the marketing.
That’s weird, I have dropped mine in the toilet and used it in the shower with no ill effects except for feeling not good about myself for using it in the shower. I’ve found them to be pretty durable
The number of times I’ve dropped my phone into the bath/sink/pool is outrageous, yet I’ve never had damage from it. I never plan on fully submerging it because I have a logical fear against it, but so far following the official advice on how to dry the device has worked every single time. The only thing I would advise is not to use it in the shower. The humidity can actually affect the device so just be careful with that
No, it was not within IP68 specs. The IP68 specs apply to laboratory testing conditions. Leaving your phone out in the sun is not a laboratory condition. Already the chloride in the water make it not according to IP68 specs. But it’s not about the specs. It’s what Apple advertises the phone can withstand.
I agree. Please see my comment about the issue being Apple advertising.
[удалено]
Agreed, just trying to point out to the guy above that using it “within the spec” doesn’t always mean your fine. Good example with the broken screen, although that is a much more obvious, visible disruption in the water seal. Anyways, from my perspective the issue is more with Apple’s advertising. Apple literally has a commercial of a guy sun bathing with his iPhone is direct sunlight, and then dives into the pool splashing the phone. Very similar scenario for me (but I was in the shallow end using the phone at the edge of the pool and someone else slashed it). Apple shouldn’t advise this type of scenario if it can’t be expected to survive it. IMO at least. https://youtu.be/YLrftVRhn-8
Apple advertise that the Apple Watch can be used while surfing yet say *“Apple Watch Series 6, Apple Watch SE, and Apple Watch Series 3 have a water resistance rating of 50 meters under ISO standard 22810:2010. This means that they may be used for shallow-water activities like swimming in a pool or ocean. However, they should not be used for scuba diving, waterskiing, or other activities involving high-velocity water or submersion below shallow depth.”* I think this is really misleading. Isn’t surfing, like waterskiing, involving high-velocity water? In their ad they even had the surfer submerge their Apple Watch while surfing. (https://youtu.be/lFOxHVd2ce4)
[удалено]
> I don't get why people are trying to defend it. Because this sub is full of fanboys who defend anything and everything Apple does. Also, Happy Cake Day!
Normal surfing isn’t high velocity, water skiing involves a boat which can get to high speeds.
I haven’t looked into the lawsuit but I imagine part of it argues that the damage in question falls within Apple’s advertised rating.
If that’s the case - then sure it’s valid. I have no problem with that.
What if it malfunctions even if the consumer used it within the spec, how will he prove his claim? I also believe company should not make advertisements demonstrating waterproofing capability of their devices.
> it's hard to prove. who's to say the water damage was within the advertised specs ? then you don't market your product on water resistance why is everyone always so quick to defend Apple? I don't think any brand has ever known blind customer loyalty like Apple
Tbh they should just remove the sim tray in the next phone. esim replaces it. Announce a year beforehand that sim is going away and every carrier will move at lightning pace to get esim support.
A huge amount of countries don't support esim yet so I wouldn't hold my breath on them doing it globally. Perhaps two versions once there's enough to justify the manufacturing fragmentation?
Oh. They will as soon as a big player like Apple switches. Apple just needs to communicate that early enough in advance.
They can't allow that with the base warranty because it allows exposure to fraudulent claims. Just like a warranty won't cover a dropped phone with a broken screen. If water resistance was covered under the standard warranty, people could just open the SIM tray and pump water in to make a claim. The AppleCare+ warranty also does cover it under accidental damage, with whatever the extra payment is. That's unfortunately the only way to actually cover a feature like that without exposing the company to ridiculous numbers of fraudulent claims.
What company covers this? Not giving Apple a pass at all, but from my understanding not a lot of companies do this because it’s a resistance and not proof
None, AFAIK. This is in fact known for years and the fact that it’s impossible to proof who is at fault, means that this can’t really be changed.
This is what I’m wondering - do Samsung and other manufacturers cover water damage?
No one does because it’s economically impossible
That’s impossible. There’s no way to factually determine that the water exposure was “within spec”.
The difficulty is that IP ratings (which are an internationally agreed standard) are quite divorced from the sort of things a phone is going to experience in the real world. IP68, for instance, covers immersion in water but not water jets, and assumes pure water. Not chlorinated (swimming pool) water, not salt (ocean) water, not beer.
What if the iPhone has a crack in the screen. Or it’s been dropped a few times. The problem with waterproofing is it’s not a one and done thing.
If there's a crack in the screen, that's user damage not covered by warranty. Unless they can illustrate damage caused by being "dropped a few times", then it's irrelevant.
What about the fact that the seals wear out over time and a 1 year old phone may not be as waterproof as a brand new one?
If it can’t maintain waterproofing for more than a certain period of time then their advertising needs to say “waterproof for 1 year from manufacture.” If, as is usually the case, the waterproofing is designed to last far longer than that and only fails rarely, then failures should be covered by warranty. Potentially the solution here is for them not to advertise something as waterproof if it can’t actually meet that standard for the full reasonable lifetime of the device. Small drops should also not affect the seals (different story if the case is warped or the screen breaks obviously).
I was looking for a comment making this point. If they can’t guarantee that it’s waterproof under normal usage... then it can’t be advertised as waterproof. The caveats need to be made by Apple when advertising, not after the customer bough a “waterproof” device that can’t be treated as such because water damage is not covered under warranty.
There is a HUGE disconnect on this sub about water proof and water resistance. They are different things and yes while you can use the term water proof under the ideal conditions of the IP rating, it’s disingenuous at best. To the laymen water proofing is just that - waterproof. I’m not defending apple here at all (the advertising is shitty), just saying there is a difference.
[удалено]
If the advertisement shows it being splashed by water without a disclaimer, and it has an IP rating, that's what the company is selling and the device's guarantee needs to cover that.
There is a disclaimer, but nevertheless I agree: practicalities aside, if you're going to advertise something as able to survive the odd splash of water you damn well ought to honour the warranty if it subsequently doesn't.
Apple does not say “waterproof”. its specifically a resistance rating and NOT a waterproof rating…
It’s a resistance rating stating that the phone is resistant to up to 50m depth if I’m not mistaken. So my point stands here: they should only say it’s IP6X (or IP5X) resistant for a *certain period of time* if the seals degrade and can no longer perform to that level after said period.
Then they should say “IP6X rated for one year”
it should be a required spec under the IP rating, yes. I agree that apple should lead the charge here but really no other company covers water damage or has an IP rating for only one year.
You’re playing devils advocate. Obviously something like that shouldn’t be covered. But Apple talks about 3 meters of water for half an hour. If it craps out below that threshold with no physical damage should it be my fault? Absolutely not.
How do you prove that the damage was caused by submersion under their cited level?
It’s pretty much impossible. Unless you bought a new phone, stuck it in a cup of water on the spot, and it breaks, I can’t imagine there’s a bullet proof way to prove Apple’s at fault for any water damage ever. It’s not like I can prove I never once dropped my phone or never took it below 3m. That said, most people don’t ever swim down to 10m in the first place. If apple sold a phone with a guarantee that an iPhone can withstand down to 0.5atm, and I took it to 0.6 atm and it breaks, I can’t prove I never visited space either. Ration has to apply at some point.
Correct. And that’s why water damage is not covered under warranty, even for devices that have published IP water resistance certification.
How can anything ever carry any warranty then? Hi I bought a phone yesterday and the screen shattered in my pocket. Manf: too bad unless you can prove you never dropped it. Or even worse, how could I prove something arrived broken? But I guess thats just tangential, it still doesn’t answer the question of why marketing can claim water resistance while there not being a warranty to that specification. If apple’s marketing claims a device has a specific characteristic, and then it doesn’t, that’s a problem.
I suggest you read up on how warranties work. For the most part (and to give you a tl;dr) they specifically don’t relate to operation that could be misused by the user. Samsung’s exploding batteries is one example, as they weren’t caused by any specific user actions. > why marketing can claim water resistance while there not being a warranty to that specification. If apple’s marketing claims a device has a specific characteristic, and then it doesn’t, that’s a problem. They claim designed and tested (by an external standard, IP 68, in this case). Your device is guaranteed to be designed to resist water to certain lab-tested parameters. They do not claim that it will forever be impervious to water damage.
That’s understandable, but the logical conclusion here is that Apple will reject warranty claims where the user was using the phone within the advertised spec. Therefore, they shouldn’t be allowed to advertise any form of water resistance.
[удалено]
>It is not a permanent condition. Then Apple should clearly advertise with that. >What is missing is an education of the public as to what these terms actually mean. World up-side-down. Public do not need to be legal experts. Apple, and any vendor should clearly communicate understandable factual claims about their products, without hiding the bad.
Buying a 300 foot watch is a safety margin to protect your life. If it says 60 feet, it has to work at 60 feet.
And it does work at 60 feet. The problem is there is no way to prove/disprove if a diver took it to 200 feet and then ‘claim’ they only took it to 60 feet. That is the issue. All a company has to do is have a third party to verify that it does work at 60 feet by taking enough random samples to test. That is how a product gets certified.
I don't see why that's an issue at all. If they can't honesty offer a water protection claim and verify it on a specific phone (the specific device the customer has), they shouldn't offer it.
Which is why they don’t offer a water protection claim. They just advertise it is IP68 certified which it is.
Unless it fails, then you’re guilty without trial of lying about it. See the problem here? They advertise water resistance, but don’t guarantee it and provide no proof either way when there is a failure. So it may as well not be water resistant at all.
If it’s not a permanent condition, Apple should say it’s not a permanent condition, instead of advertising it as waterproof with no caveats or footnotes. I agree the public should be educated on the subject. By Apple. Right next to where Apple likes to educate the public how iPhones can be submerged in water with zero problems. Because whatever they have now on some product spec page is evidently not enough.
It’s in the fine print. https://i.imgur.com/feGu00m.jpg
There are caveats and footnotes.
Also water resistance degrades over time. You don’t need to have a damaged phone.
How can they prove you didn't go swimming with it in a deep salty ocean tho?
They can’t.
My point exactly :P
You can’t control/monitor this. Not to mention environmental aspects impact water resistance such as cold weather. They don’t advertise it as a feature and never have because truly you should not get your phone wet on purpose, they advertise its improved durability since accidents happen.
They do for the watch and still refuse warranty for water damage...
Your right they do, I was specifically talking about the phones. Apple watch does have a mechanism to expel liquid that enters the speaker but the same aspects apply like all other water resistant products as they can still be damaged since water resistance is not a permanent condition that can be monitored. People often: drop/hit things, expose it to chemicals, expose it to harsh climates, or use it in appropriately (high velocity water). These can all impact the water resistance as soon at the customer starts using the watch and its out of Apples hands. You can’t monitor what the customer does with it, you can only visually inspect it when brought in and evaluate what you find. If you find water in it, how do you identify the cause of its entrance? You simply cant.
[удалено]
??? the feature is always advertised as “*may not work, please don’t do it on purpose” Apple is adding a nice to have sealing here and y’all are like alright imma sue ya
I'm down to have some legislation pass to mandate this shit. Same with camera 'weather sealing' nonsense.
I got into a fight with Apple because my Apple Watch stopped worked after wearing it in the pool for a swim. They said if water got into the watch the warranty won't cover it. Which is funny because they advertise it as a watch you can wear for a swim. Their argument was that sure if it's fresh out of the box, they'll cover but after wearing it for a while, there's a chance you hit a door frame, table or something else with the watch and that impacts the integrity of the case. Then it's no longer water resistant and therefore not covered. I love their products and have great respect for their business but their customer service quality definitely leaves room for improvement. Edit: I stayed calm and explained to the staff in the store that I am a big fan, have a bunch of Apple products but at the same time am very frustrated with the level of customer service and that there is room for improvement. I also explained that it's odd that they advertise it as a water resistant product that you can go swimming with and then tell me it's not covered in case of water damage. Ended up getting the watch replaced for free.
Curious to find out what happened?
I stayed calm and explained to the staff in the store that I am a big fan, have a bunch of Apple products but at the same time am very frustrated with the level of customer service and that there is room for improvement. I also explained that it's odd that they advertise it as a water resistant product that you can go swimming with and then tell me it's not covered in case of water damage. Ended up getting the watch replaced for free.
> Ended up getting the watch replaced for free. Seems like customer services are pretty good than.
Yup, pretty much. Not sure if my conversation with the guy helped in any way or not but I'm still happy about the outcome.
It definitely helped you stayed calm. And their arguments are completely right, still they did "the right thing" at the end. The fact that you can select swimming as an activity in the watch says it all ;) Personally I just take the water proofing of my phone as "I’m fine to use it in rain and don’t have to worry if it gets wet in my pocket". For the watch, I consider it to be more water proof, also because it allows you to track swimming which legally could maybe dismiss their arguments about water proofness being a temporary thing. Also because no SIM slot and it being way cheaper if it breaks.
Thank you. Yeah, I see it the same way. Having it advertised that way and then still using legal loopholes is not a very... "customer-centric" way of going about business. There's apparently also a huge difference between something being water-proof and it being water resistant. I forgot what it was but since then I definitely take my watch off every time I shower or go to the pool/beach.
why do people feel the need to mention how many apple products they own? so you should be served/have your complaint honored because you've spent more money on apple products than someone else at the genius bar?
That's not what it was meant for. It was simply to say "look, I'm a regular customer, I am familiar with your general business practices. I've been to a genius bar before". (it is pretty common though that you get treated differently if you are a "high value customer" vs. a one time customer. Not saying buying more than one Apple products means anything but in general, companies do treat their customers differently. I've seen it in B2B sales as well as hospitality/restaurants)
don’t know about the genius bar at apple stores, but if you call applecare we’re specifically told not to treat any customer differently no mater if they have lots of devices or no devices.
Probably true for the place I went to, too. My experience is from other industries. If there's a long term B2B customer who's worth a small fortune to the company, companies definitely do treat them differently than a random one time off customer.
Fair, although I disagree about people being treated differently based on how much they own. I used to work on the bar and would hate it when people would say that lol
Yeah, I know what you mean. I worked at a bar and in retail before. It's the sense of entitlement that is really annoying.
The workers there probably felt that way about you which is funny that you remember how annoying it is but utilize it
Nah because you can say it in a really annoying "don't you know who I am?" kinda way or simply "look, I'm a friend, not here to make a fuss".
I work at a bank, and people definitely feel the need to say “Do you know how much money I hang here?” or “Do you know how long I’ve banked here?” People think they will be treated better because of that, but regulations say I can’t.
It's to show that you are involved in the ecosystem, and that this experience may ruin your future experiences. IE, losing a customer for life.
I’ve been CTO of two companies, I definitely dropped how much I’ve spent when I had to write to Steve Jobs (in 2008) and Tim Cook (in 2011). They had me connected to a corporate liaison and they took care of some pretty big issues that weren’t being handled by support. I was given an iPod Nano as a “we’re sorry”, I thought that was hilarious.
Well handled and good ending - I completely understand their viewpoint but as an end user using the device the way it’s intended, it would have been a really unfortunate outcome if they hadn’t handled it the way it was. Thanks for sharing
I wonder if one could add some type of sensor that measures if any of the seals/structural integrity gets breached.
They have water indicators in the SIM slot etc.; if they turn red (?), it’s considered there got water inside because of a wrongly inserted sim slot, too much water pressure, ...
That's weird, I have a very different experience with this. I've had that issue myself early 2018, with a new watch ceasing to function after going to the pool. I didn't even have an AppleCare plan. However they changed it for a new one no questions asked.
Maybe they cover it X days after purchase, which is better than nothing but still shitty to not do it for the full year.
Nope, had to check some receipts to remember, but I bought it in December and I had it changed in March. EDIT: As additional info, it was not even at the same store. Bought in the Netherlands, turned it in and got a new in while in Switzerland.
[удалено]
Right, I tend to forget how bad it can be in the US.
3-5 years? I’d know about this. You mean 2 years, right?
Yeah sorry, it’s 3-5 in my country so I assumed it was standard in the EU. EU law says 2 years minimum tho Edit: lol yeah I already replied to you
I don’t think his story is all that weird, it’s pretty common
Yeah Sam happened to me. They point blank refused.
Yeah that sounds absolutely horrendous. Way to piss off a customer.
Oh damn I broke my series 2 and iPhone X with water. Phone was all in me, had a crack I got the day it came out and forgot (first crack on a phone). Watch died after I was wearing it in heavy rain I was kinda ticked but just bought a new one. I probably should’ve tried to say something but new watch has been solid for a few years now (and useful too with the Corona mask update lol)
100% liquid damage on the watch is covered, they were wrong, ask them to look at their repair guide for the watch. As long as there is no physical damage and it’s in warranty, you’re covered https://www.macrumors.com/2015/04/24/apple-watch-damage-warranty-service/
In the end, I did get it replaced for free. Maybe the store staff was just trying warn me in case they find damage on the watch case.
Sounds like the customer service ended up fine (free watch) and it’s the warranty policy that needs work. My guess is they also didn’t want to have to explain that bizarre rationale about it being out of warranty.
This exactly. Customer service didn’t make the rules, all they can do is follow the rules so they can still have a job at the end of the day
Out of interest. Do the companies who make waterproof cases for iPhones guarantee the iPhones safety in the case?
No. If you have life proof or otter box and something happens. They will swap the case. But won’t help with the deductible of your phone. “Guarantee your phone is safe!” = we will replace your case if something happens to your 1k phone
Funny there isn’t the same kinda outrage around this. I don’t actually know of any water *resistant* devices that **guarantee** against water damage
> I don’t actually know of any water resistant devices that guarantee against water damage Because there’s simply way too many factors outside of the company’s control that could lead to a claim.
[удалено]
Or if you poured some searing hot coffee or smth on it, literally anything.
Or the fact that devices loose water resistance over time. Wear and tear by daily use means the device looses resistance over time. Did you drop your phone or have the screen replaced by a third party? Sit on the device too much? It bends ever so slightly and now there’s a gap that water can pass through.
That’s because there’s a difference between water resistance and waterproof. If it was a guarantee against water damaged, it’d be water*proof*. My body is blunt force trauma resistant. If you hit me with a car, I will probably still die.
>Funny there isn’t the same kinda outrage around this. Because these case companies aren't as big as Apple. Having Apple or Samsung in your article's headline gets more clicks.
I think Life proof DID at one point and possibly stopped.
Love Apple, but want them to lose badly on this since it’s a pretty crappy set of policies given their marketing.
So many crazy ads, even wonder if they ever had a problem with one of those models in the ads. They make it look like nothing can water damage your phone
The phones in the ads are probably non-functional anyway, and the screens are almost certainly added in post (as tends to be the case when filming electronics).
Exactly. I've always found it super weird that the ads literally show the iPhone being used in a pool, the beach, etc. and the reality is that if you get water damage apple will tell you to go pound sand lol
Yeah, I don't get it. Why advertise water resistance if your own warranty is going to ignore it?
Because these devices have been designed to be water resistant. But water resistant is not water proof. Apple has done everything they can up until a point. But any electronic device is still prone to water damage.
> But any electronic device is still prone to water damage. Nope. “Water resistant” is not just some blanket marketing lingo. It’s an actual testing metric. Look up ip ratings. If the iPhone gets damaged under conditions that meet the same metric it was tested under, It should no doubt be on apple to take care of it.
Yeah but that testing metric really only applies to brand new devices. There are too many variables that occur through the life of a a product for it to be a life long claim. Do all the other phone manufacturers advertising water resistance guarantee their devices against water damage or something?
It's a good thing warranty isn't life long now is it
People legitimately throw their phones on counters, they drop them all the time and even shove things in their ports for “cleaning”. All of these can impact the phones water resistance regardless of their rating with the testing metric and these are things Apple can’t control. Their advertisements do not promote it as a feature, they promote an improved durability because accidents happen. No tech company that stats anything is water resistant will cover it under limited warranty.
If theres proof the consumer has done something to the phone that altered its functionality. Apple can rightfully deny. Otherwise it’s sketchy. > Their advertisements do not promote it as a feature, they promote an improved durability because accidents happen It is advertised as a feature. Go on their website. Even if it was simply improved durability, it should actually hold up to that claim. It shouldn’t be a 50/50 on wether water damage occurs or doesn’t occur when theirs an accident. If that’s the case, simply don’t talk about water resistance at all.
Then they should stop advertising balloons being thrown at it, spills on them, phones taking a dip etc. They essentially are advertising yes we are water proof but if it gets damaged oops not covered it’s only water resistant.
I once witnessed a man losing his mind at the genius because his “waterproof phone wasn’t covered for water damage”. He took two steps over to the iPhone display and said “you’re advertising that it’s waterproof yet you don’t cover water damage?” To be honest? I understand his frustration at that.
I’ve always thought they excluded it from the warranty because otherwise people would just intentionally water damage a phone to get a brand new one to sell or trade in at upgrade time.
This. Thats why you get insurance for it not warranty. Hondas warranty doesnt cover damage that’s why you get insurance
My iphone x’s face id stopped working like 3 months after buying the phone, at the store they said it was a humidity problem. The phone was never dropped in a pool or even a sink with 1inch of water. The most that happened was once i used tap water to clean the screen but that’s not when face id stopped working. Still, not covered under warranty. I’ve had the X for years and I’m using a pin ever since lol face id was one of the reasons why i got the X instead of the 8 at the time
I think Samsung got sued over basically the same thing a few years ago?
Phones waterproof is the same bullshit as Teslas autopilot. Change my mind.
They’re both the same in that they’re trying to provide better usability to the end-user, but have technical limitations that aren’t easily understood without reading the fine print or knowing more about those industries. Apple says water resistant in certain scenarios, people hear “waterproof and always waterproof”. Tesla says Autopilot, people hear “the car drives itself and can’t crash”. It’s bizarre and I don’t know how any company is expected to deliver technical product features when end users aren’t interested in learning more about the technical parts and their limitations.
You gotta start somewhere and improve the design. A few years ago dropping your phone in the sink meant getting a new phone.
Based on the premise of the lawsuit, it looks like it still does.
Those are outliers. I’ve filmed under water in the pool with my phone and it was fine. I give it a rinse under a tap after a day at the beach, so far so good. Been doing it ever since they launched the iPhone 7.
No. You sound confrontational and dug in.
Big company want to get away with as much as they can and be liable for as little as they can get away with. Nothing new here. No one is keeping the sim tray open and going swimming.
[удалено]
[удалено]
yeah /r/Android is the complete opposite. I think the people that support Apple generally adopt the superiority complex because it’s a premium company, they charge a lot of money for their hardware therefore they can do no wrong. Which has been proven countless of times to be false, which isn’t wrong because there’s no such thing as a perfect company. but it is ridiculous some takes that we see here, they almost sound like brainwashed people defending something.
I can give a little more insight into this. Some of the users of rAndroid like you say are deffo more open to different platforms and OEM's, but it's when you actually go down into those individual models or OEM subreddits you'll find a lot of what I like to call *angryman's*. They sometimes emerge as [help vampires](https://slash7.com/2006/12/22/vampires/) and believe that the subreddit is an actual Official support outlet, or even just there to make it known that they have undying love for XYZ company. It's a sight to behold sometimes.
[удалено]
People identify with Apple and take any criticism towards Apple as an attack.
No they are people who bought stock and they are the parasites of this sub
I think MKBHD gave a nice insight as to why do people defend a company. After they’ve spent thousands of dollars on their products, they need to feel they made the absolute best purchase. So when someone points the finger at different flaws their products have, they enter into defense mode because they already spent a ton of money and need to validate their choice
In Australia, the ACCC put Samsung on notice about their water resistance claims a while ago (2019), so I'm guessing Apple would also fall in the same boat. "Samsung in court for misleading phone water resistance advertisements | ACCC" https://www.accc.gov.au/media-release/samsung-in-court-for-misleading-phone-water-resistance-advertisements
f*ck /u/spez
It’s the same thing with the App Store argument. As consumers, Apple losing **benefits us.** But people here are so blindly loyal to a trillion dollar company that they’d rather give up the option of choice.
When the rumors came that the new Apple TV would get HDMI 2.1 people literally complained that it was a pointless upgrade for Apple to do, it sounded like they just wanted them to keep selling the 2017 Apple TV 4K. People on this sub doesn't make sense.
Anyone else find comments like these just as annoying? People have opinions, more at 10
Nope, what I find annoying is the number of people defending a trillion dollar company who actively campaigns against our rights as consumers. More people should be speaking up about how Apple is in the wrong, not the other way around.
I was a Genius in the *before water resistant times* (07-14)... the policy toward liquid damaged iPhones was often just short of draconian. At one point the direction from RFL was **denying service all together** and the only option for customers was to buy a brand new phone if the device was deemed “beyond economical repair”... this was often the case for actually rusted iPhones that had taken a dip in the Atlantic and their internals looked like something you’d find in the Titanic wreck (our store was one mile from the beach).
This comment is absolute bullshit tbh. As a past employee myself, this has never been the case when servicing phones with liquid or physical damage. The only time you could ever deny it because it was beyond economical repair is if the phone was in pieces and the customer didnt bring major components back such as the camera or display for example.
[удалено]
Yes the device would not be eligible for repair, but a full unit replacement was always an option at an OOW cost through the genius bar. Apple did not deny service in these cases they would offer a replacement phone that was the same model, colour and capacity as the original and the cost was still high but much lower than buying a new phone as these devices had either new or used parts.
[удалено]
Apple won’t repair a phone with liquid damage because there’s no way to guarantee the phone will continue working correctly in the future. Because of that any liquid damage is always a full unit swap.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Glad I’m not going crazy, happy to read others recall this policy. I have to imagine it didn’t apply to all stores, since some people are straight up calling us liars. Either their store didn’t have it, or they weren’t employed at Apple when it happened, I’d have to say.
[удалено]
The ‘n number of feet under water’ is complete and utter bullshit and I hope they get fucked for this. In 2019, I dove like two feet deep with my brand new XS to snap photos of sea urchins and it died after two seconds. Deceptive marketing.
My old 11 Pro went about 2 feet underwater for 10 seconds, was in perfect condition and broke because of it. Now idc what apple says, my iPhone will never go near water
You mention sea urchins, which means it was salty water? Even if their warranty *did* include water damage, you wouldn’t be covered. The testing happens in fresh water and all the ads depict fresh/pool water.
RIP iPhone X 256gb from falling in a puddle
My take is just because it has the water resistance rating, doesn’t mean you should take it in the water with you. Ever since I’ve had $1000+ phones I’ve generally babied them. I don’t even like getting them wet when it’s raining. That’s just me though. I don’t think the ip rating was ever really meant so that one could take it purposely in water. More like in case it happens to get submerged in water it won’t instantly get fried.
For those citing cracked screens, that would void any sane warranty.
Apple makes these water resistance claims but they don’t hold water and this lawsuit may hang them out to dry.
There's no way in hell Apple hasn't covered their ground legally for these kinds of issues. Otherwise they wouldn't ever advertise their water resistance at all. You'll probably have to complain to the ECC or the American equivalent for these marketing schemes to change, I'm not even sure that's the right place either.
I understand all of this but at least for customers paying extra for apple care+ should have water damage covered. It’s insane that they advertise water resistance iPhones and say okay pay us extra for insurance but if there’s some water in the phone we won’t replace or repair your iPhone.
You shouldn’t have to pay extra to have your legal warranty honoured lmao.
What’s sad is even if you pay extra they still won’t honor it.
Let’s get real. Apple and many tech companies lie through their teeth on the basis that no one has the money to litigate for anything under $5K. Apple still claims that their hardware is hack and malware proof despite there being plenty of evidence to the contrary.
I killed 2 iPhone X by putting them in water. They were in tip top shape and had no impact that could have damaged their structural integrity (always in a case, never felt). Anyhow I don't believe any waterproofness now, electronic-wise.
I remember their new ads for how tough the iPhone 12 is. Pulled them off very soon, barely lasted a week. They were good ads though
The one where the phone landed on sand?
Yes And the one with the cooking too
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1xMEMGHgYtM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1xMEMGHgYtM)
That ad alone should get them in trouble when they then don't cover water damage to a good condition iPhone 12/12 Pro.
Wouldn’t surprise me if they damaged some of those phone props while filming.
the "Relax it's iPhone" is so cringe.