Apple's 'iPhone 8' to gain tougher IP68 water and dust resistance - report

Posted:
in iPhone
When it launches later this year, Apple is reportedly planning to make the water and dust resistance of the "iPhone 8" even better than the iPhone 7, upgrading it to an IP68 rating.




The change should allow the device to stay submerged at 1.5 meters (4.92 feet) for 30 minutes, The Korea Herald said, citing several sources. The iPhone 7 and most other smartphone carry an IP67 rating, which limits them to 1 meter (3.28 feet) for the same duration.

While a small difference, the only shipping phone with an IP68 rating is the Samsung Galaxy S7, which launched in early 2016. If they're water-resistant at all, smartphones typically share the iPhone 7's IP67 status.

Samsung is allegedly considering water resisance for many more phones, even its low-end J series. LG should soon have protected phones as well in the form of the mid-tier XCalibur and the flagship G6. The XCalibur, at least, will be an IP68 device.

Both Apple and Samsung are said to be using waterproof tapes instead of adhesives, since it makes repairs simpler.




Apple has had some form of water resistance in iPhones since the 6s, but the iPhone 7 was the first device to be officially certified.

The "iPhone 8" is expected to break from recent Apple designs and return to a "glass sandwich" construction, with a glass back and a stainless steel band around the middle. The centerpiece of the hardware should be a curved, Samsung-built OLED display, though it may also have features like wireless charging and a screen-integrated home button.
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 32
    calicali Posts: 3,494member
    Why doesn't the article mention Samsung lied about their waterproof rating?
    lkruppanton zuykovmike1StrangeDaysThe_Martini_Catboltsfan17macseekerlostkiwipatchythepiratewatto_cobra
  • Reply 2 of 32
    am8449am8449 Posts: 392member
    I'm glad Apple is focusing on water resistance for the iPhone. One less thing to worry about when it comes to damaging the phone. Hopefully, the next SE or whatever they call the next version of their smallest iPhone will get the same water resistant treatment too.
    lostkiwiwatto_cobra
  • Reply 3 of 32
    cali said:
    Why doesn't the article mention Samsung lied about their waterproof rating?
    Yes even Consumer Reports stated the iPhone 7 was better than Samsungs IP68 even though the iPhone has a lower rating. Samsung always lying and cheating.
    anton zuykovmacseekerlostkiwipatchythepiratestanthemanwatto_cobra
  • Reply 4 of 32
    brucemcbrucemc Posts: 1,541member
    But...I thought...based on what many said...that Apple deliberately made their products susceptible to damage so they could make more money through repairs?

    Is it possible those people were wrong?  Can't be, so I can only conclude that this rumour is bogus.
    leavingthebiggstanthemanwatto_cobra[Deleted User]
  • Reply 5 of 32
    Will Apple still void warranty for water damage?
  • Reply 6 of 32
    lkrupplkrupp Posts: 10,557member
    Will Apple still void warranty for water damage?
    Yes, absolutely. No change there. If you water damage your phone it means you exceeded the advertised water resistance specs unless you can PROVE the device was defective. So if you drop your phone in a lake that is 50 feet deep and recover it two hours later the warranty does not apply.
    patchythepiratewatto_cobra
  • Reply 7 of 32
    lkrupplkrupp Posts: 10,557member
    brucemc said:
    But...I thought...based on what many said...that Apple deliberately made their products susceptible to damage so they could make more money through repairs?

    Is it possible those people were wrong?  Can't be, so I can only conclude that this rumour is bogus.
    The world is full of crazy nut jobs who live in their own mental cocoons. These are the ones who claim Apple paid off Consumer Reports, pulls apps out shear jealousy, that Apple is irrelevant and always has been, etc. They also claim the moon landings didn’t happen, vaccines cause autism, Hitler is still alive, aliens live among us (okay, that one might be true considering some of the commenters on AI), and other such “facts.”
    StrangeDaysbrucemcleavingthebiggwatto_cobra
  • Reply 8 of 32
    lkrupplkrupp Posts: 10,557member
    Just keep in mind that, generally speaking, the more water resistant you make something the fewer holes (ports) it has to have to achieve that water resistance. In my opinion Apple is heading for a completely sealed device with no ports, no physical buttons, and completely wireless. 
    edited January 2017 stanthemanGeorgeBMac
  • Reply 9 of 32
    SoliSoli Posts: 10,035member
    cali said:
    Why doesn't the article mention Samsung lied about their waterproof rating?
    Did they lie, or did they change their IP code in order to better protect themselves?

    jmey267 said:
    cali said:
    Why doesn't the article mention Samsung lied about their waterproof rating?
    Yes even Consumer Reports stated the iPhone 7 was better than Samsungs IP68 even though the iPhone has a lower rating. Samsung always lying and cheating.
    The iPhone doing better doesn't inherently mean Samsung lied, and it certainly doesn't mean that Apple's IP code rating is too low. You have to consider what the rating means.


    Even with an IP67 rating if you take an iPhone in to be repaired for an issue that wasn't caused by water damage they may turn you away because your liquid indicators have been triggered as water damage isn't covered by the warranty. It's IPx7 rating states that it can survive the pressure of water at a 1M depth for 30 minutes, but Apple has no idea if it feel in the sink or the bottom of a diving pool. It's IPx7 rating also doesn't mean that it can only survive at up to that depth. The IPx8 rating is poorly stated and means nothing without the vendor specifically stating what depth and timeframe it's been tested.

    Because of Apple's position in the market and mindshare, they're going to under-promise and over-deliver when it's to their financial benefit. 
    staticx57gatorguywatto_cobra[Deleted User]
  • Reply 10 of 32
    SoliSoli Posts: 10,035member
    Will Apple still void warranty for water damage?
    Yes.
  • Reply 11 of 32
    I am so stoked for this phone!  I have got tons of blurry shots because I had to jump out of the way of a wave.  The iPhone 8, the Mac Pro, the new iMac and the new iPads all have to be out, tho, before I decide what I am gonna get.  No more imagining what the tradeoffs are!
  • Reply 12 of 32
    fallenjtfallenjt Posts: 4,054member
    This makes sense for these fools talking on the phone in the pool.
  • Reply 13 of 32
    I believe this article is incorrect.  Please double-check, but as I understand the ratings,  IP 68 only means that it exceeds the 1.0 m depth rating of the IP 67 (with the 6 being the dust rating and the highest level).  With IP 8 ratings like Samsung used, it is up to the manufacturer to certify and state the depth it is certified for.  Because Samsung chose 1.5 meters folks are mistakenly believing the standard is 1.5 meter when it can be any depth beyond 1 meter.  That's why the Apple Watch is also IP 68 but it is water resistant to a much greater depth than 1. 5 meters. 

    Samsung chose a relatively meaningless extra half meter simply to be able to convince folks into believing the phone was water resistant to a greater degree than a phone with a IP 67 rating when the iPhone 7 may actually have been water resistant to a greater depth, but Apple chose not to certify it beyond 1 meter.  I am guessing that if this rumor is true, Apple decided to counter this BS by applying a IP 68 rating because they know their phone is already water resistant to some depth beyond 1 meter.  

    Again, double check, but I think you've misunderstood the difference between IP 7 and IP 8.  Also, I believe the dust rating, i.e., the "6" is already the highest and certifies the product is completely dust proof and thus Apple can't get a higher dust rating as your article and headline implies.
    edited January 2017 stompyStrangeDaysleavingthebigg[Deleted User]
  • Reply 14 of 32
    MplsPMplsP Posts: 3,925member
    I wouldn't expect Apple to cover water damage. Water resistance ratings are just that, water resistance, not water proof. Apple (or anyone else, for that matter) has no way of knowing if you dropped your phone in a puddle or took it diving 50m down. For that matter, maybe you did an iFixit and cracker the case, damaging the factory water proofing. 


    I saw a couple reports of the iPhone 7 speakers getting damaged (or at least not sounding the same) after being immersed. Has anyone else seen those, and any idea if it was widespread or isolated?
  • Reply 15 of 32
    foggyhillfoggyhill Posts: 4,767member
    The S7 failed its own water test which the Iphone 7 exceeded it so not sure what the hell this thing is even talking about, except that Samsung lies and lies about their capacity.
    lostkiwileavingthebiggStrangeDayswatto_cobra
  • Reply 16 of 32
    foggyhillfoggyhill Posts: 4,767member
    Soli said:
    cali said:
    Why doesn't the article mention Samsung lied about their waterproof rating?
    Did they lie, or did they change their IP code in order to better protect themselves?

    jmey267 said:
    cali said:
    Why doesn't the article mention Samsung lied about their waterproof rating?
    Yes even Consumer Reports stated the iPhone 7 was better than Samsungs IP68 even though the iPhone has a lower rating. Samsung always lying and cheating.
    The iPhone doing better doesn't inherently mean Samsung lied, and it certainly doesn't mean that Apple's IP code rating is too low. You have to consider what the rating means.


    Even with an IP67 rating if you take an iPhone in to be repaired for an issue that wasn't caused by water damage they may turn you away because your liquid indicators have been triggered as water damage isn't covered by the warranty. It's IPx7 rating states that it can survive the pressure of water at a 1M depth for 30 minutes, but Apple has no idea if it feel in the sink or the bottom of a diving pool. It's IPx7 rating also doesn't mean that it can only survive at up to that depth. The IPx8 rating is poorly stated and means nothing without the vendor specifically stating what depth and timeframe it's been tested.

    Because of Apple's position in the market and mindshare, they're going to under-promise and over-deliver when it's to their financial benefit. 
    It has at a minimum to not fail at the minimum rating (unless there is a manufacturing defect), so yeah, think Samsung lied just to sell phones.
    Considering there is no warranty for water damages and it would be hard to prove for a random person they didn't take it deeper, it's an easy lie to get away with.

    Apple has a tendency to way way understate water protection; many swam with the first Apple Watch despite it not being rated for such a thing.
    patchythepiratewatto_cobra
  • Reply 17 of 32
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,510member
    There's a misunderstanding of what IP68 means. IP68. Is a self regulated rating. What that means is that the manufacturer is allowed to make up what rating they want, and then to declare that the device meets that rating, as there will be no established testing procedures in place for that custom rating. The manufacturer is required to declare the testing methodology they used, but isn't required to prove the meeting of that "standard".

    this will give all of the ratings, and a short explanation of what they mean.

    http://www.dsmt.com/resources/ip-rating-chart/
    watto_cobraSpamSandwich
  • Reply 18 of 32
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,510member
    There is really no such thing as a waterproof product,  no matter what any manufacturer states. In fact, the US government doesn't even allow a company to state their product is waterproof under most circumstances.

    so watches are rated to be water resistant down to a certain number of meters, or pressure levels.

    back when I was diving, I had an Omega Oceanmaster dive Watch rated to 1,200 meters. But even that wasn't certified to be waterproof, and if you did get water inside, unless it could be proven that the sealing was actually defective, you paid for the (expensive) repair, even under warrantee.

    i strongly dislike writers, or even posters, referring to something as waterproof. Unless it's a solid block of something that water doesn't corrode, it ain't waterproof!
    gatorguyStrangeDayswatto_cobraSpamSandwich
  • Reply 19 of 32
    foggyhillfoggyhill Posts: 4,767member
    melgross said:
    There is really no such thing as a waterproof product,  no matter what any manufacturer states. In fact, the US government doesn't even allow a company to state their product is waterproof under most circumstances.

    so watches are rated to be water resistant down to a certain number of meters, or pressure levels.

    back when I was diving, I had an Omega Oceanmaster dive Watch rated to 1,200 meters. But even that wasn't certified to be waterproof, and if you did get water inside, unless it could be proven that the sealing was actually defective, you paid for the (expensive) repair, even under warrantee.

    i strongly dislike writers, or even posters, referring to something as waterproof. Unless it's a solid block of something that water doesn't corrode, it ain't waterproof!
    Well, there is also the fact that even if they could say it's manufactured to be waterproof when you receive it, it would likely degrade at an unknown rate due to use. So, they could only really certify something waterproof for the first time you actually use it in an absolute sense even if engineered like a tank (unless dropping it in the Mariana Trench ;-).

    If you overengineer a product for its condition of actual use, even this gradual slippage in performance means that it would likely be 99.9% of devices for a year that do not fail while used regularly in water. A few though could degrade a bit faster due to variance in manufacturing and use and fail even within those environmental parameters.
  • Reply 20 of 32
    Soli said:
    cali said:
    Why doesn't the article mention Samsung lied about their waterproof rating?
    Did they lie, or did they change their IP code in order to better protect themselves?

    jmey267 said:
    cali said:
    Why doesn't the article mention Samsung lied about their waterproof rating?
    Yes even Consumer Reports stated the iPhone 7 was better than Samsungs IP68 even though the iPhone has a lower rating. Samsung always lying and cheating.
    The iPhone doing better doesn't inherently mean Samsung lied, and it certainly doesn't mean that Apple's IP code rating is too low. You have to consider what the rating means.


    Even with an IP67 rating if you take an iPhone in to be repaired for an issue that wasn't caused by water damage they may turn you away because your liquid indicators have been triggered as water damage isn't covered by the warranty. It's IPx7 rating states that it can survive the pressure of water at a 1M depth for 30 minutes, but Apple has no idea if it feel in the sink or the bottom of a diving pool. It's IPx7 rating also doesn't mean that it can only survive at up to that depth. The IPx8 rating is poorly stated and means nothing without the vendor specifically stating what depth and timeframe it's been tested.

    Because of Apple's position in the market and mindshare, they're going to under-promise and over-deliver when it's to their financial benefit. 


    There's more to it than the actual test. For example, let's say two companies are testing water resistance of their phones. To make numbering simple, let's say a device has to score over 50 to attain an IP68 rating and over 40 to get an IP67 rating. Company A and B both test 100 phones and get results from 55-75. Since all 100 devices were over 50 Company B proclaims them to be sufficiently water resistant to get the IP68 rating.

    However, company A is concerned about wear & tear having an effect on water resistance. So they simulate one year of use and retest those same 100 phones. Now the scores have dropped and range from 45-60. Many pass the required score of 50 to get IP68, but some don't. Company A decides to play it safe and assigns an IP67 rating.

    Which of these companies do you think is Apple and which is Samsung?
    StrangeDayswatto_cobra
Sign In or Register to comment.