I still can't get over the 5 seconds. Most of us are lunging after them when they fall....did you press down on it with a yard stick and flush it before you fished it out?
Where's the law that states that?
No such law but it's false advertising in my book. Apple touts the water resistance as a major feature so refusing to cover a defective unit that doesn't live up to the IP67 rating due to a manufacturing defect is wrong.
What defective unit? You guys keep talking about defective units not covered?
How do you know or prove its defective or the customer didn't push it too much and abused his device?
You can't. That's why they cannot warranty something like that. Water resistance is not complete water proof coverage.
If you don't like it then don't buy it or try to sue and see how far you'd get
But, it's where I do my best tweets.Moral of the story. Do not take your phone to the toilet.
We're talking strictly about the OP's case. It was dropped without much impact and got submerged for only 5 seconds.
They also have no way of proving that the Apple Watch was taken outside the scope of the IPX7 rating, yet they regularly swap out water-damaged AWs under the standard warranty.
A small watch that's sealed very well and a cellphone with multiple openings for water to enter and short out electronic components is not the same thing. It's more apples to oranges comparison and that's why Apple cannot provide the same terms as the watch.
Negative. It's rated against water ingress to 1 meter for 30 minutes, the exact same test as the Apple Watch. Otherwise it would have failed the test in the first place.
No such law but it's false advertising in my book. Apple touts the water resistance as a major feature so refusing to cover a defective unit that doesn't live up to the IP67 rating due to a manufacturing defect is wrong.
Assuming that the op is giving us the whole true story...
A small watch that's sealed very well and a cellphone with multiple openings for water to enter and short out electronic components is not the same thing. It's more apples to oranges comparison and that's why Apple cannot provide the same terms as the watch.
...
I personally think it is a manufacturing defect and that is possible with any iPhine that comes off the line.
Shouldn't Apple be testing these iPhones before selling them? Very bad QC
By doing water immersion test on millions of iPhones to ensure that the seal is intact?
No. Testing using a statistical sample size.
This is something they should be doing and would be surprised if they weren't.
Even if they did that, it doesn't eliminate random manufacturing defects. We got quite a few Apple Watch with a random manufacturing defect that led to water ingress.
Assuming that the op is giving us the whole true story...QUOTE]
THIS THIS AND THIIIIISSSSSS ^^^^^^
Let's assume the OP was being truthful. Ok. Now let's assume they aren't. Ok.
Now prove it.
Can't, can you? And that folks, is why Apple cannot warranty water damage. They can't prove what the truth is. They can't prove the precise amount of abuse either way, so to prevent a LOT of fraud (and let's face it, Apple is well aware of fraud after dealing with AC+ the last few years) they decided to CLEARLY state that they will not cover water damage under warranty.
Is it rotten of them to run ads on TV about how great it is to bike in the rain with your iPhone? Sure is! But as for why they can't warranty it? Well that's fairly obvious, rotten or not.
I've been in Portugal for the last 2 weeks and I've swam every day with my iPhone 7, in my hand and in my shorts pocket. I went down various slides filming with the phone into 5 foot of water and dived into 11 foot of water and it handled it all well.
Got many great pics & videos of my kids enjoying the pool.
In what way?Nope. Fraud is running an ad with a guy riding his bike in the rain with his phone.
It is clear false advertising if they are not willing to cover the device under warranty using it under conditions THEY state are safe.In what way?
Certainly if that's the case given those conditions.It is clear false advertising if they are not willing to cover the device under warranty using it under conditions THEY state are safe.