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.
Apple watch series 2 - not waterproof up to 50m
- Thread starter frifra
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
And Macrumors still got it wrong.To help you understand theWatch carries an industry standard ISO 22810 ATM5 rating. There is nothing subjective and there is NO such thing as a waterproof rating. It is rated to the ATM5 standard.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_Resistant_mark
EDIT: From the Apple site (scroll to bottom).
http://www.apple.com/apple-watch-series-2/
Almost all news and review sites always get it wrong and throw around meaningless terms like it's water resistant and not waterproof or it was waterer resistant and now waterproof.
There is NO such rating as waterproof (your post title is wrong because there is NO such thing as waterproof) and it is NOT used in the industry (just the press). The device has an objective rating ATM5 for the
Watch and any thing else stated besides the official rating is subjective.
Well, I only used the quote from the video from macrumors. And as it seems they are not the only ones to have misunderstood it. Just because a minority knows what 50m water resistance stands for, you don't want to teach the other people in advance about it, before they do something to their watch?Almost all news and review sites always get it wrong and throw around meaningless terms like it's water resistant and not waterproof or it was waterer resistant and now waterproof.
There is NO such rating as waterproof (your post title is wrong because there is NO such thing as waterproof) and it is NOT used in the industry (just the press). The device has an objective rating ATM5 for the
Macrumors video:
"you can swim with it up to 50m deep"
My only problem with this thread is that, just like others like it, it's a semantics battle. What do you have to rpove by coming back repeatedly to say MR got it wrong?
The more frustrating thing about these water resistance ratings to me is that Apple can still refuse warranty repair/replacement due to water damage. At the end of the day I am still jus corssing my fingers that water doesn't damage my device. Granted, chances have been greatly reduced. But should there be an issue with a seal I will never know unless **** hits the fan.
The more frustrating thing about these water resistance ratings to me is that Apple can still refuse warranty repair/replacement due to water damage. At the end of the day I am still jus corssing my fingers that water doesn't damage my device. Granted, chances have been greatly reduced. But should there be an issue with a seal I will never know unless **** hits the fan.
No they can't nor have they on the original IPx7
Watch. Unless Apple can prove or you admit that you have exceeded the water ingress specification Apple will and must honor the warranty or remove the official rating.
That's not my understanding, but I am not here to argue. If this is a non-issue, great.No they can't nor have they on the original IPx7
Here is the Industry Standards Organization:
http://www.iso.org/iso/home/news_index/news_archive/news.htm?refid=Ref1367
Industry Standards Organization said:
Just get AC+ on it (or, as JayLenoChiniMac would undoubtedly chime in - anytime I mention AC+
- you can buy it on your gold/platinum card and get their additional coverage - but be careful to read the credit card T's and C's - many don't cover watches or jewellery - maybe call first to confirm and have a reference #).
I actually don't care who is wrong, I just don't want people wasting hundreds of dollars and then wrecking their watch cause they thought they could swim up to 50m deep with it.
@Julien
I did not state that the word "waterproof" in the title is any standard, but that is what is used colloquially.
Fair enough, it is just a pet peeve since I used to be in the industry.
NOT a problem since over 99.9% of the people 'swimming' at 50 meters (165') depth will be dead or could die of the bends upon or if resurfacing.
Last edited:
NOT a problem since over 99.9% of the people 'swimming' at 50 meters (165') depth will be dead or could die of the bends upon resurfacing.
I don't want to get this discussion too far off track but I disagree with you on this. As long as the diver or free diver is following proper safety procedures for diving to those depths 99.9% of them will not die.
Please provide some statistical proof that free divers make up ANYWHERE close to 0.1% of the population. That would be over 300,000 free divers just in the US.
Also I said 99.9% of PEOPLE, not free divers.
I'm pretty sure that free divers don't make up that percentage of the world population. But I knew a few free divers and I have seen them dive deeper than 50m and they aren't dead. It is highly unlikely that anyone will get "the bends," also known as Decompression Sickness, while free diving.
Perhaps you were joking and I took it too seriously. If so that is my mistake. As a professional, PADI certified Dive Master I take the safety aspect of the sport very seriously. Otherwise it's no fun. I also try to correct incorrect information when I can since there are so many misunderstandings about diving.
Perhaps you were joking and I took it too seriously. If so that is my mistake. As a professional, PADI certified Dive Master I take the safety aspect of the sport very seriously. Otherwise it's no fun. I also try to correct incorrect information when I can since there are so many misunderstandings about diving.
No I'm not joking and as a diver you should know the naivety of the statement "...people wasting hundreds of dollars and then wrecking their watch cause they thought they could swim up to 50m deep with it." as if people just swim to 50M depth on a day at the beach. I will even put it this way. Over 99% of PEOPLE (who buy the
Watch) would need a submarine to get to 50M and live. Experienced master divers (and free divers) don't make up a large percentage of the population.EDIT: Also as a master diver I know you have a 'divers' watch as part of your equipment and are NOT about to trust or use an
Watch on a dive.
Last edited:
Fair point. However, in my opinion the number of people who would buy an Watch then try to swim to a depth of 50m with it just because the box says it is water resistant to that depth is going to be pretty close to zero. There may be 1 or 2 contestants for a Darwin Award out there, but not many.
Watch then try to swim to a depth of 50m with it just because the box says it is water resistant to that depth is going to be pretty close to zero. There may be 1 or 2 contestants for a Darwin Award out there, but not many.
Why do you take everything here literally?No I'm not joking and as a diver you should know the (trying to find a non offensive term) of the statement "...people wasting hundreds of dollars and then wrecking their watch cause they thought they could swim up to 50m deep with it." as if people just swim to 50M depth on a day at the beach. I will even put it this way. Over 99% of PEOPLE (who buy the
Even if you just dive 4-5m deep and make quick movements the water pressure on the watch could be higher than the pressure in 40m (=5bar) (no movement). People think they will be fine, as they technically could go much much deeper.
Maybe we should delete the entire thread and just see what happens
.
Last edited:
You're just talking nonsense now.
Jump into a pool and tell me how quickly you can move around at 5m deep.
EDIT: Also as a master diver I know you have a 'divers' watch as part of your equipment and are NOT about to trust or use an
Well... no, of course not. It's not a dive computer. Why would I even have it on my person at all? My dive computer is a Suunto D6i, which is rated as water resistant to 150m.
EDIT: However it would not take much to turn the
Watch into a serviceable dive computer. Apple would need to bump the water resistance certification up to the next level: ISO 6425. Then install a pressure sensor. After that it would be up to the dive computer manufacturers to write DC apps. Or perhaps Apple could partner with DC makers and produce boutique Watches specifically for scuba diving and free diving.
Last edited:
http://www.casio-europe.com/euro/watch/technology/watertightness/
Further, here an article (sorry it is in German),
where they state that 3 bar are already experienced in 20m deep water contrary to the expectation of 2 bar at that depth.
And now consider someone jumping with his watch from a 10m/5m/3m board into a pool. But I guess nobody does this anyways as everbody knows what the apple watch is capable of.
Maybe Apple even goes the safe way making them 10 atm and claiming it's 5atm.
Last edited:
Complain? Maybe read my first post again.You're just determined to find a reason to complain about this, aren't you?
If you want to swim with the series 2
I don't care if the AW is water resistant at all, but a lot of people getting the wrong idea about it.
Greatly simplified version:
- Watch is safe to use under any normal water conditions (if you have to ask then it is easy, NOT normal is NA to you)
- Watch is ISO rated and therefore must be covered and in compliance with the industry standard
- Any water ingress will be 100% covered by Apple (as was the original IPx7 rated Watch) under warranty (unless caused by accidental damage)
Last edited:
I based my comment on your subsequent responses. You've mentioned multiple times that MR was wrong. All I'm saying is that we get it.
To be frank in unsure how many people yore protecting by pointing out they shouldn't go diving with their Watch, but good on you. Fight the good fight.
[doublepost=1473446787][/doublepost]
I understand the industry standard, but I do also appreciate the link. My contention is with the possibility of being told I abused the Watch. Apple has defined warranty services in other devices before illegitimately. And it took years to resolve. In fact, there is a thread here with picture evidence and all where Apple seems to be denying s claim due to outside tampering. OP claims to have used the Watch in the shower and the top third isn't working.
It's worth noting that there are plenty of positive outcome cases as well. St no point do I mean to imply there is a high probability of getting screwed due to water damage. I'm simply saying that I'm inherently at a greater risk of this happening by jumping in a pool with the Watch than simply not doing that.
Last edited: