Which is currently the case as they've stated in their disclaimer that "Liquid damage (is) not covered under warranty."
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.
Do not get your iPhone 7 wet
- Thread starter jorsuss
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Which is currently the case as they've stated in their disclaimer that "Liquid damage (is) not covered under warranty."
So this is wrong, and has been wrong this entire thread... Dropping a phone in a toilet is much more impact and much less water than everyone here has been discussing. It is extremely likely the impact provided an avenue for the water to enter. Dropping a phone from 2+ feet into a toilet is about the same as dropping the phone from the same height onto an empty toilet - deadly for the phone. Dropping a phone into a pool is much less impactful (pun intended) because the water will absorb a ton of the impact. Ever seen a toy or coin dropped into a pool while you're submerged? It enters the water and goes fast, then slows down 2 or 3 feet deep.
TL;DR at home, drop a penny into a toilet from ONE foot away. You will guaranteed hear the penny hit, forcefully, the porcelain. That's what the phone did.
Samsung won't cover water damage either. Probably because no way of proving the device was used within "specs". Sounds like this is a one off situation given this:
Everyone seems to be a lawyer here lately
Just because they advertise some water resistance they think companies have to cover all water damage and if you throw a tantrum they will have to replace it for free. Not.
Try the same with Samsung.
See how far you get
Just because they advertise some water resistance they think companies have to cover all water damage and if you throw a tantrum they will have to replace it for free. Not.
Try the same with Samsung.
See how far you get
So far it's what's in a commercial and what's in the fine print. We'd have to see what's actually in practice and base it on that basically.
Everyone seems to be a lawyer here lately
Just because they advertise some water resistance they think companies have to cover all water damage and if you throw a tantrum they will have to replace it for free. Not.
Try the same with Samsung.
See how far you get
Here you go... here's what Samsung would do.
http://www.consumerreports.org/smar...ne-in-response-to-consumer-reports-dunk-test/
And I actually am a member of the bar.
How do they know it was dropped in a toilet, as in how can that be proved? From a loss mitigation standpoint if you were successful in exchanging your device for this reason, every Joe out there would drop their phone in a toilet for a replacement.
So what does it mean from a potential false advertising perspective if the damage comes from rain or falling into the pool or something else that they advertised it with? Doesn't quite seem like they can advertise that it can do those things and then basically deny that for those that run into problems with those types of things.
And you still will not get anywhere against Apple or their policy not to cover any liquid damage.
No. I'm personally not looking to change or challenge their policy. But you never know what would happen if it was litigated. I can see a jury going either way and definitely a potential for liability if challenged.
But anyways. You asked what Samsung would do and they stepped up. So if Apple has the same issue with their water proofing I would hope they would do the same.
Last edited:
I'm pretty sure they will stand their ground if challenged.
You give an inch and people will ask for a mile.
Understood. Hopefully things will get sorted out before any class action crops up. I'm not typically a fan of those as usually it's only the attys that profit in those cases.
This can all be solved though. Don't advertise it as water resistant. Even if it is, knowing that it could potentially fail and knowing they don't cover it under warranty. Don't give it a public rating, don't have commercials of people falling in a pool or riding their bike through a massive thunderstorm. Problem solved.
Bingo. They petty much did that with the first generation of Apple Watch, so they can do that with the iPhone too. But if they are going to actually advertise it all as a feature in hopes of appealing to people to get the device because of it (otherwise why advertise it like that) then clearly then turning around and saying that that feature doesn't really actually work if it fails for someone doesn't quite follow.
Yes. Agreed. So they may just chose to fix or swap phones on a case by case basis. Similar to the 6+ bending issue. That way people who legitimately deserve a replacement will get one and those that abuse it don't. But you never know how a company will react because they have so many factors to take into account when making these decisions.
Anyways I'll treat my phone as previous versions and keeping it out of water as much as I can.
It's not a fair comparison .The removal of the headphone jack results in 1 less inlet for water to enter the device . Remove the jack on the Galaxy and it would probably win this
I don't disagree with you at all. I'm just rationalizing from an economists point of view.
This worked on me and is one major reason why I went from the 6s+ to the 7. Now I have a device that has IP67 water resistance, but I'm afraid to use it in a setting where it may get wet as it won't be covered by warranty if something does go wrong with it. I think what it comes down to is that I can't prove to Apple where the point of failure was. Apple would never know if I dropped the device causing an issue with a seal, or if I used it outside of the IP67 limitations. I guess it's one of those things where, yes it does have water resistance, but don't come to us if you use it in water and it fails. Sadly the advertisement worked for me, but I don't think I'll be going out of my way to get the device wet any time soon which makes this device no better for me than my previous device in this regard.
This is not an accurate comparison because this is about the Samsung Galaxy S7 Active which is a different more rugged series than the regular S7 and S7 Edge. Since its being marketed as a more rugged phone, I believe there is no exclusion on Water Damage on the Active series vs the regular S series.
http://www.androidcentral.com/samsung-stands-behind-galaxy-s7-active-ip68-rating
Well they said it was water resistant, I tested it out, and it is.
What's a good forum video host, i'll upload some vids.
Sound vs. impact force doesn't align in all cases. Metal on porcelain, even a very light impact, makes a disproportionate sound (to most peoples perception). Angle of impact and other variables makes it difficult to actually determine the true force. Still, this should not have compromised the seal.
[doublepost=1476801320][/doublepost]
Then why make it a major new advertising strategy? Perception.
[doublepost=1476801515][/doublepost]
Assumption much?
A small number will avail themselves however most will follow along with the warranty stipulations.
Another case of a few will do it so ensure we punish all.
IP67 describes water resistance, not impact against porcelain resistance. 3-4 inches of water is not going to slow down the phone sufficiently enough to prevent impact from breaking the watertight seal of the phone.