For me, it's not that the battery life is shitty, and it's not that it's too expensive, and it's not that it isn't waterproof, and it's not that there's no killer apps alone that I won't buy one. It's because of all of these things. I'm going to take another look at the competition.
They are two very different tests, and IPX7 certification, though considered a higher level of protection, does not mean IPX6 was also passed. IPX7 is static while IPX6 is dynamic (which tests the item in a different way.) Also keep in mind these are lab tests and there's a big difference between passing a lab test and performance in use. The spec means it passed the spec. Real world experience shows what something that passes the spec can be expected to withstand. Apple doesn't' OK showering or swimming it because they know from tests that it's not a good idea.
Wrong. They are inclusive. I've speced IP casings. The pressure of an IPX6 is 100 kPa where the pressure of IPX7 is 110 kPa. Dynamic or static does not matter when the pressures are the same. The reason why IPX6 is easier to pass is because you can have drain holes, as explicitly stated in the spec, in a spray situation where you can't in immersion.
For me, it's not that the battery life is shitty, and it's not that it's too expensive, and it's not that it isn't waterproof, and it's not that there's no killer apps alone that I won't buy one. It's because of all of these things. I'm going to take another look at the competition.
Yeah, that 200 meter-rated $170 Seiko automatic diver's watch looks better now, doesn't it? And you don't even have to charge it every night!
Alas, I also was waiting to see if I could use it while swimming. I cycle, run trail and swim and wanted a device to measure all of those with constant heart rate.
No swim, no Apple Watch. I too look like a Garmin customer after all.
What kind of documentation could you actually need? I know that the metric system can be challenging for Americans but it's pretty fucking simple to convert 1 meter into inches or feet.
Now tell me, how many bathtubs in homes are deeper than 3.28 feet? I don't know of any and yet you're saying I'm "talking out my ass" and want some documentation that 1M is less deep than a bathtub. Seriously?!
I'm not challenging the metric system. I'mChallenging your sweeping misinterpretations of the Ingress Protection standards and ratings. A certification of IPX7 doesn't simulate, or test suitability for swimming. A single, simple, 1M immersion for 30 minutes is nothing like swimming nor is it meant to certify suitability for swimming use while swimming. Yet you act like it is. Show me anything that says the spec means it's suitable for swimming.
People are inevitably going to forget that their Apple watches are not that waterproof, and you're also going to see YouTube videos of people wearing it underwater and then complaining afterwards that their watches are defective.
I'm not challenging the metric system. I'mChallenging your sweeping misinterpretations of the Ingress Protection standards and ratings. A<span style="line-height:1.4em;"> certification of IPX7 doesn't simulate, or test suitability for swimming. A single, simple, 1M immersion for 30 </span> minutes<span style="line-height:1.4em;"> is nothing like swimming nor is it meant to certify suitability for swimming use while swimming. Yet you act like it is. Show me anything that says the spec means it's suitable for swimming.</span>
1) Considering you took the biggest issue with the bathtub first tell me why an IPX7 rating you wrote, "It sounds fascinating, especially the "standard baths.""
2) Note what I stated about that last item regarding swimming. Do you even know what the IP ratings are measured? If there isn't a higher IP rating it doesn't mean it hasn't past a higher IP rating. For an expansive watch, like ?Watch or ?Watch Edition I probably wouldn't consider using it for swimming unless it was rated for at least 5ATM, but for ?Watch Sport at under $400 I wouldn't have an issue with a rating of 1ATM. Now for a much cheaper watch I'd be fine with swimming with an IP67 or IPX7 rating. I have plenty of experience with that and it's never been a problem. Again, an IPX7 rating doesn't mean that it can only withstand 1M depth for no more than 30 minute, but rather that vendor is confident in all the devices they ship to advertise that much. When I swim laps I'm at the surface and I'm swimming in steady flowing pattern. I'm not doing cannonballs off the diving board and racing to the bottom to find pearls in oysters. And yet, despite all that I qualified my statement as to why I wouldn't risk swimming with any ?Watch.
People are inevitably going to forget that their Apple watches are not that waterproof, and you're also going to see YouTube videos of people wearing it underwater and then complaining afterwards that their watches are defective.
But will it bend? Those watch straps seem awful flimsy to me¡
Wrong. They are inclusive. I've speced IP casings. The pressure of an IPX6 is 100 kPa where the pressure of IPX7 is 110 kPa. Dynamic or static does not matter when the pressures are the same. The reason why IPX6 is easier to pass is because you can have drain holes, as explicitly stated in the spec, in a spray situation where you can't in immersion.
1.) Certification for IPX6 is not a prerequisite for a IPX7 certification.
2.) There is nothing preventing use of drain holes in items seeking IPX7 certification (although obviously the design chosen must pass the test.
3.) Where you are getting these pressure ratings? Liquid IP is not specified in in that way nor is the test procedure. [But yes, I realize typical atmospheric pressure is 100kPa and that pressure at 1m depth is about 110 kPa.]
1) Considering you took the biggest issue with the bathtub first tell me why an IPX7 rating you wrote, "It sounds fascinating, especially the "standard baths.""
:-) I misunderstood you as referring to a "standard bath" as if it was part of the spec. As if you were saying,"This item is now rated for 3 standard baths before failure." I was most riled up about your conclusion that you can swim with it because it's certified IPX7 that's a [bad] choice not a recommendation of the standard.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismY
2) Note what I stated about that last item regarding swimming. Do you even know what the IP ratings are measured? If there isn't a higher IP rating it doesn't mean it hasn't past a higher IP rating. For an expansive watch, like ?Watch or ?Watch Edition I probably wouldn't consider using it for swimming unless it was rated for at least 5ATM, but for ?Watch Sport at under $400 I wouldn't have an issue with a rating of 1ATM. Now for a much cheaper watch I'd be fine with swimming with an IP67 or IPX7 rating. I have plenty of experience with that and it's never been a problem. Again, an IPX7 rating doesn't mean that it can only withstand 1M depth for no more than 30 minute, but rather that vendor is confident in all the devices they ship to advertise that much. When I swim laps I'm at the surface and I'm swimming in steady flowing pattern. I'm not doing cannonballs off the diving board and racing to the bottom to find pearls in oysters. And yet, despite all that I qualified my statement as to why I wouldn't risk swimming with any ?Watch.
If it could reliably do better than IPX7, I'm sure Apple would be certify it that way. It would obviously be a desirable feature.
Where you are getting these pressure ratings? Liquid IP is not specified in in that way nor is the test procedure. [But yes, I realize typical atmospheric pressure is 100kPa and that pressure at 1m depth is 110 kPa.]
Isn't that how the testing is set up? You can't simply be willy nilly about how the jets for the IPX6 rating hit the device. As I recall they use 12.5 mm nozzles shot from all angles with a flow rate of 100 liters per minute at a pressure of 100 kilonewtons per meter squared from a distance of 3 meters for a duration of 3 minutes.
:-) I misunderstood you as referring to a "standard bath" as if it was part of the spec. As if you were saying,"This item is now rated for 3 standard baths before failure." I was most riled up about your conclusion that you can swim with it because it's certified IPX7.
Standard Bath rating? That would be funny. Reminds me of a failed joke of mine about SI's Breadbox Standard.
If it could reliably do better than IPX7, I'm sure Apple would be certify it that way. It would obviously be a desirable feature.
Not necessarily. There is a huge variance in how you define swimming. Even even if you can correctly relay that you mean swimming laps how many people might drop something (perhaps even their ?Watch) at the bottom of a large community pool, usually deep enough to dive) and then come up to find out their watch couldn't stand being more than, say, more than 5M or 10M deep. I bet they would take that to Apple.
The best thing for any large company, especially Apple, is to show caution here. For what I do in a pool I bet it would be fine, in terms of pressure hurting the device, but, again, I'm not sure about the microphone draining water, soap clogging the mic port, chlorine or salt water corroding some plastic or rubber component, etc. For a cheap device with an IPX& or IP67 rating you have very little to lose, but even a working ?Watch Sport that is slowly has a worsening mic for Siri will just become a PITA.
Regardless, I think there is a high probability that Apple mindshare will have people test the limits of their very first water resistance device. This is something I've never seen done with any other company with an IPX7 or IP67 rating so it'll be interesting.
1) Considering you took the biggest issue with the bathtub first tell me why an IPX7 rating you wrote, "It sounds fascinating, especially the "standard baths.""
2) Note what I stated about that last item regarding swimming. Do you even know what the IP ratings are measured? If there isn't a higher IP rating it doesn't mean it hasn't past a higher IP rating. For an expansive watch, like ?Watch or ?Watch Edition I probably wouldn't consider using it for swimming unless it was rated for at least 5ATM, but for ?Watch Sport at under $400 I wouldn't have an issue with a rating of 1ATM. Now for a much cheaper watch I'd be fine with swimming with an IP67 or IPX7 rating. I have plenty of experience with that and it's never been a problem. Again, an IPX7 rating doesn't mean that it can only withstand 1M depth for no more than 30 minute, but rather that vendor is confident in all the devices they ship to advertise that much. When I swim laps I'm at the surface and I'm swimming in steady flowing pattern. I'm not doing cannonballs off the diving board and racing to the bottom to find pearls in oysters. And yet, despite all that I qualified my statement as to why I wouldn't risk swimming with any ?Watch.
The issue is that it is probable that the watch with time becomes less able to withstand water and that a certain number will be off spec.
Swimming in water, what water? Is kind of vague. Swimming in warm ocean water, or in a very warm pool with chlorine is kind of a different thing. A spa, I wouldn't change any watch in there :-). Some of the jets are truly ridiculous; almost drill like.
If you add to that the difficulty estimating if someone actually went beyond the stated IP number, you can understand why Apple would be
conservative in stating its capability. If they didn't do this, they'd get a lot of people insisting the watch they used in a triathlon was broken while in the shower... Better be conservative an exceeding specs than the opposite, at least when you're the one covering repairs/replacements.
Just seeing the idiots try to warp the Iphone 6 you know that plenty will jump off a 10M tower with the watch and then insist it failed while under a light shower ;-).
Not necessarily. There is a huge variance in how you define swimming. Even even if you can correctly relay that you mean swimming laps how many people might drop something (perhaps even their ?Watch) at the bottom of a large community pool, usually deep enough to dive) and then come up to find out their watch couldn't stand being more than, say, more than 5M or 10M deep. I bet they would take that to Apple.
The best thing for any large company, especially Apple, is to show caution here. For what I do in a pool I bet it would be fine, in terms of pressure hurting the device, but, again, I'm not sure about the microphone draining water, soap clogging the mic port, chlorine or salt water corroding some plastic or rubber component, etc. For a cheap device with an IPX& or IP67 rating you have very little to lose, but even a working ?Watch Sport that is slowly has a worsening mic for Siri will just become a PITA.
Regardless, I think there is a high probability that Apple mindshare will have people test the limits of their very first water resistance device. This is something I've never seen done with any other company with an IPX7 or IP67 rating so it'll be interesting.
Swimming the butterfly would be hell on any watch. Myself, I don't really get swimming with a watch? How slow do those people swim? I do interval training in the pool. I go all out when I swim. For me, doing fast laps, a watch would be really annoying and the fact I often hit the wall pretty hard on turns, especially on the backstroke wouldn't be too good for it ;-).
I am embarrassed to say ... I've done the same thing.
I just want to know if I get to hug Christy Turlington if I buy one of these. If not, then Apple SUCKS!
If they sold a high quality carboard cut out of her (with the watch on of course :-) for $150 bucks, with a personalized video recording of her telling you,, by name, to buy the Apple Watch... I bet you'd buy that :-)... Apple, get on it.
Swimming the butterfly would be hell on any watch. Myself, I don't really get swimming with a watch? How slow do those people swim? I do interval training in the pool. I go all out when I swim. For me, doing fast laps, a watch would be really annoying and the fact I often hit the wall pretty hard on turns, especially on the backstroke wouldn't be too good for it ;-).
I mostly do a front crawl, and I do it in a nice easy fashion. My goal is to get the maximum effect from a stroke so I am more calculated as opposed to going for speed. My biggest concern with Apple Watch would be the mic hole not working right when it's filled with water.
Comments
If Tim did shower with his and it stops working, he can just go grab another off any Apple store shelf. or the company store.
What a brilliant argument¡ :rolleyes:
Nope.
They are two very different tests, and IPX7 certification, though considered a higher level of protection, does not mean IPX6 was also passed. IPX7 is static while IPX6 is dynamic (which tests the item in a different way.) Also keep in mind these are lab tests and there's a big difference between passing a lab test and performance in use. The spec means it passed the spec. Real world experience shows what something that passes the spec can be expected to withstand. Apple doesn't' OK showering or swimming it because they know from tests that it's not a good idea.
Wrong. They are inclusive. I've speced IP casings. The pressure of an IPX6 is 100 kPa where the pressure of IPX7 is 110 kPa. Dynamic or static does not matter when the pressures are the same. The reason why IPX6 is easier to pass is because you can have drain holes, as explicitly stated in the spec, in a spray situation where you can't in immersion.
For me, it's not that the battery life is shitty, and it's not that it's too expensive, and it's not that it isn't waterproof, and it's not that there's no killer apps alone that I won't buy one. It's because of all of these things. I'm going to take another look at the competition.
Yeah, that 200 meter-rated $170 Seiko automatic diver's watch looks better now, doesn't it? And you don't even have to charge it every night!
Nominated for Post of the Year.
No swim, no Apple Watch. I too look like a Garmin customer after all.
What kind of documentation could you actually need? I know that the metric system can be challenging for Americans but it's pretty fucking simple to convert 1 meter into inches or feet.
- http://lmgtfy.com/?q=how+many+feet+is+1+meter
Now tell me, how many bathtubs in homes are deeper than 3.28 feet? I don't know of any and yet you're saying I'm "talking out my ass" and want some documentation that 1M is less deep than a bathtub. Seriously?!I'm not challenging the metric system. I'mChallenging your sweeping misinterpretations of the Ingress Protection standards and ratings. A certification of IPX7 doesn't simulate, or test suitability for swimming. A single, simple, 1M immersion for 30 minutes is nothing like swimming nor is it meant to certify suitability for swimming use while swimming. Yet you act like it is. Show me anything that says the spec means it's suitable for swimming.
1) Considering you took the biggest issue with the bathtub first tell me why an IPX7 rating you wrote, "It sounds fascinating, especially the "standard baths.""
2) Note what I stated about that last item regarding swimming. Do you even know what the IP ratings are measured? If there isn't a higher IP rating it doesn't mean it hasn't past a higher IP rating. For an expansive watch, like ?Watch or ?Watch Edition I probably wouldn't consider using it for swimming unless it was rated for at least 5ATM, but for ?Watch Sport at under $400 I wouldn't have an issue with a rating of 1ATM. Now for a much cheaper watch I'd be fine with swimming with an IP67 or IPX7 rating. I have plenty of experience with that and it's never been a problem. Again, an IPX7 rating doesn't mean that it can only withstand 1M depth for no more than 30 minute, but rather that vendor is confident in all the devices they ship to advertise that much. When I swim laps I'm at the surface and I'm swimming in steady flowing pattern. I'm not doing cannonballs off the diving board and racing to the bottom to find pearls in oysters. And yet, despite all that I qualified my statement as to why I wouldn't risk swimming with any ?Watch.
But will it bend? Those watch straps seem awful flimsy to me¡
Wrong. They are inclusive. I've speced IP casings. The pressure of an IPX6 is 100 kPa where the pressure of IPX7 is 110 kPa. Dynamic or static does not matter when the pressures are the same. The reason why IPX6 is easier to pass is because you can have drain holes, as explicitly stated in the spec, in a spray situation where you can't in immersion.
1.) Certification for IPX6 is not a prerequisite for a IPX7 certification.
2.) There is nothing preventing use of drain holes in items seeking IPX7 certification (although obviously the design chosen must pass the test.
3.) Where you are getting these pressure ratings? Liquid IP is not specified in in that way nor is the test procedure. [But yes, I realize typical atmospheric pressure is 100kPa and that pressure at 1m depth is about 110 kPa.]
1) Considering you took the biggest issue with the bathtub first tell me why an IPX7 rating you wrote, "It sounds fascinating, especially the "standard baths.""
:-) I misunderstood you as referring to a "standard bath" as if it was part of the spec. As if you were saying,"This item is now rated for 3 standard baths before failure." I was most riled up about your conclusion that you can swim with it because it's certified IPX7 that's a [bad] choice not a recommendation of the standard.)
2) Note what I stated about that last item regarding swimming. Do you even know what the IP ratings are measured? If there isn't a higher IP rating it doesn't mean it hasn't past a higher IP rating. For an expansive watch, like ?Watch or ?Watch Edition I probably wouldn't consider using it for swimming unless it was rated for at least 5ATM, but for ?Watch Sport at under $400 I wouldn't have an issue with a rating of 1ATM. Now for a much cheaper watch I'd be fine with swimming with an IP67 or IPX7 rating. I have plenty of experience with that and it's never been a problem. Again, an IPX7 rating doesn't mean that it can only withstand 1M depth for no more than 30 minute, but rather that vendor is confident in all the devices they ship to advertise that much. When I swim laps I'm at the surface and I'm swimming in steady flowing pattern. I'm not doing cannonballs off the diving board and racing to the bottom to find pearls in oysters. And yet, despite all that I qualified my statement as to why I wouldn't risk swimming with any ?Watch.
If it could reliably do better than IPX7, I'm sure Apple would be certify it that way. It would obviously be a desirable feature.
Isn't that how the testing is set up? You can't simply be willy nilly about how the jets for the IPX6 rating hit the device. As I recall they use 12.5 mm nozzles shot from all angles with a flow rate of 100 liters per minute at a pressure of 100 kilonewtons per meter squared from a distance of 3 meters for a duration of 3 minutes.
Standard Bath rating?
Not necessarily. There is a huge variance in how you define swimming. Even even if you can correctly relay that you mean swimming laps how many people might drop something (perhaps even their ?Watch) at the bottom of a large community pool, usually deep enough to dive) and then come up to find out their watch couldn't stand being more than, say, more than 5M or 10M deep. I bet they would take that to Apple.
The best thing for any large company, especially Apple, is to show caution here. For what I do in a pool I bet it would be fine, in terms of pressure hurting the device, but, again, I'm not sure about the microphone draining water, soap clogging the mic port, chlorine or salt water corroding some plastic or rubber component, etc. For a cheap device with an IPX& or IP67 rating you have very little to lose, but even a working ?Watch Sport that is slowly has a worsening mic for Siri will just become a PITA.
Regardless, I think there is a high probability that Apple mindshare will have people test the limits of their very first water resistance device. This is something I've never seen done with any other company with an IPX7 or IP67 rating so it'll be interesting.
1) Considering you took the biggest issue with the bathtub first tell me why an IPX7 rating you wrote, "It sounds fascinating, especially the "standard baths.""
2) Note what I stated about that last item regarding swimming. Do you even know what the IP ratings are measured? If there isn't a higher IP rating it doesn't mean it hasn't past a higher IP rating. For an expansive watch, like ?Watch or ?Watch Edition I probably wouldn't consider using it for swimming unless it was rated for at least 5ATM, but for ?Watch Sport at under $400 I wouldn't have an issue with a rating of 1ATM. Now for a much cheaper watch I'd be fine with swimming with an IP67 or IPX7 rating. I have plenty of experience with that and it's never been a problem. Again, an IPX7 rating doesn't mean that it can only withstand 1M depth for no more than 30 minute, but rather that vendor is confident in all the devices they ship to advertise that much. When I swim laps I'm at the surface and I'm swimming in steady flowing pattern. I'm not doing cannonballs off the diving board and racing to the bottom to find pearls in oysters. And yet, despite all that I qualified my statement as to why I wouldn't risk swimming with any ?Watch.
The issue is that it is probable that the watch with time becomes less able to withstand water and that a certain number will be off spec.
Swimming in water, what water? Is kind of vague. Swimming in warm ocean water, or in a very warm pool with chlorine is kind of a different thing. A spa, I wouldn't change any watch in there :-). Some of the jets are truly ridiculous; almost drill like.
If you add to that the difficulty estimating if someone actually went beyond the stated IP number, you can understand why Apple would be
conservative in stating its capability. If they didn't do this, they'd get a lot of people insisting the watch they used in a triathlon was broken while in the shower... Better be conservative an exceeding specs than the opposite, at least when you're the one covering repairs/replacements.
Just seeing the idiots try to warp the Iphone 6 you know that plenty will jump off a 10M tower with the watch and then insist it failed while under a light shower ;-).
Standard Bath rating?
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breadbox (I assume it's common enough but perhaps it's more regional)
Not necessarily. There is a huge variance in how you define swimming. Even even if you can correctly relay that you mean swimming laps how many people might drop something (perhaps even their ?Watch) at the bottom of a large community pool, usually deep enough to dive) and then come up to find out their watch couldn't stand being more than, say, more than 5M or 10M deep. I bet they would take that to Apple.The best thing for any large company, especially Apple, is to show caution here. For what I do in a pool I bet it would be fine, in terms of pressure hurting the device, but, again, I'm not sure about the microphone draining water, soap clogging the mic port, chlorine or salt water corroding some plastic or rubber component, etc. For a cheap device with an IPX& or IP67 rating you have very little to lose, but even a working ?Watch Sport that is slowly has a worsening mic for Siri will just become a PITA.
Regardless, I think there is a high probability that Apple mindshare will have people test the limits of their very first water resistance device. This is something I've never seen done with any other company with an IPX7 or IP67 rating so it'll be interesting.
Swimming the butterfly would be hell on any watch. Myself, I don't really get swimming with a watch? How slow do those people swim? I do interval training in the pool. I go all out when I swim. For me, doing fast laps, a watch would be really annoying and the fact I often hit the wall pretty hard on turns, especially on the backstroke wouldn't be too good for it ;-).
Unless you fall into the water hazard ;-)
Hey, it happened to me once when I was trying to play a bad lie.
I am embarrassed to say ... I've done the same thing.
I just want to know if I get to hug Christy Turlington if I buy one of these. If not, then Apple SUCKS!
I am embarrassed to say ... I've done the same thing.
I just want to know if I get to hug Christy Turlington if I buy one of these. If not, then Apple SUCKS!
If they sold a high quality carboard cut out of her (with the watch on of course :-) for $150 bucks, with a personalized video recording of her telling you,, by name, to buy the Apple Watch... I bet you'd buy that :-)... Apple, get on it.
That was my initial point about it possibly be fine, but not something Apple could reasonably advertise.
I mostly do a front crawl, and I do it in a nice easy fashion. My goal is to get the maximum effect from a stroke so I am more calculated as opposed to going for speed. My biggest concern with Apple Watch would be the mic hole not working right when it's filled with water.