Reviewers try to destroy Apple Watch in the shower and swimming pool, ultimately fail

Posted:
in Apple Watch edited April 2015
As the first wave of Apple Watch deliveries hits doorsteps around the world, some consumers have begun to put Apple's durability claims to the test --?including the Watch's IPX7 water resistance rating -- and found the devices more resilient than previously believed.




An Apple Watch Sport survived a light spritzing, a heavy dousing, a shower, and ultimately a 15-minute swim in a lap pool, according to a video from Australian website FoneFox. The group even left it to sit at the bottom of their 1.5-meter deep pool for 5 minutes with no ill effects.

"So, in total, we had it underwater for about 15 minutes and we just absolutely couldn't get it to stop working," the video says. "It's actually a lot more waterproof than we had originally anticipated."





Apple gave the Watch an IPX7 water resistance rating, which generally means the device could withstand immersion in water up to 1 meter for up to 30 minutes. Apple cautions users against such immersion, however.

Watch marketing materials say that users "can, for example, wear and use Apple Watch during exercise, in the rain, and while washing [their] hands, but submerging Apple Watch is not recommended."

Only the aluminum model has undergone testing thus far, though both the stainless steel and gold versions also carry IPX7 ratings.
«1345

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 81
    MacProMacPro Posts: 19,758member
    There should be laws against striking an ?Watch with a hammer!
  • Reply 2 of 81
    jungmarkjungmark Posts: 6,926member
    I wish I had money to waste like that. Fools.
  • Reply 3 of 81
    chickchick Posts: 35member
    Underpromise and overdeliver.
  • Reply 4 of 81
    Why do these guys seemed surprised? Apple's design and hardware QA teams would not claim a Edit: [S]waterproof [/S] water resistant IPX7 rating unless they actually tested it extensively under both controlled and real world situations. A good engineering principle is to design something with a lot of margin of safety so I would not be surprised if Apple tested for IPX8 but claim IPX7.
  • Reply 5 of 81
    emig647emig647 Posts: 2,455member
    I didn't expect this personally. I wonder if it can be said across all the devices made or if it was a fluke for their device.
  • Reply 6 of 81
    clemynxclemynx Posts: 1,552member
    Had it been Samsung, they would have publicized the Watch as being waterproof.
    Apple probably noticed that the waterproofing isn't perfect and want to see how many Watches are damaged by water and how in the first year.
  • Reply 7 of 81
    rp2011rp2011 Posts: 159member
    Could be that damage will happen if any moisture gets in and condensates. Maybe the water damage occurs over time.
  • Reply 8 of 81
    MarvinMarvin Posts: 15,360moderator
    emig647 wrote: »
    I didn't expect this personally. I wonder if it can be said across all the devices made or if it was a fluke for their device.

    I reckon they don't want to deal with water damage of any kind so this gives them an easy way to never deal with it, even if damage only happened in a small amount of cases. It's probably more likely to let water in when you press the buttons in. Would Apple gain much by saying it's waterproof? More people would then just start using it in the water, including the gold one. The people that are adventurous enough will use it in water anyway.
    jungmark wrote:
    I wish I had money to waste like that. Fools.

    It's only $350 and it didn't break. If it was an edition model being tested against an angle grinder then that would be wasting money. This guy might even get his watch free if he gets enough video views. But of course, only tragedy sells so maybe not. If he'd titled the video 'OMG it totally fails, ?Watch sucks and not waterproof! Ripoff!' then he'd probably get more views.
  • Reply 9 of 81
    john.bjohn.b Posts: 2,742member

    I'd still opt for the Applecare, but that's just me.

  • Reply 10 of 81
    konqerrorkonqerror Posts: 685member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by RalphMouth View Post



    A good engineering principle is to design something with a lot of margin of safety so I would not be surprised if Apple tested for IPX8 but claim IPX7.

     

    Also good engineering practice dictates they test the watch close to end of life (or warranty), with the seals worn out from time, turning the crown, and things like sand exposure.

  • Reply 11 of 81
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,407member
    ralphmouth wrote: »
    Why do these guys seemed surprised? Apple's design and hardware QA teams would not claim a waterproof IPX7 rating unless they actually tested it extensively under both controlled and real world situations. A good engineering principle is to design something with a lot of margin of safety so I would not be surprised if Apple tested for IPX8 but claim IPX7.

    "Water resistant", not waterproof. They are not making a claim that idiots who take their watch for a swim will be able to use on a future class-action lawsuit.
  • Reply 12 of 81
    brucemcbrucemc Posts: 1,541member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post





    "Water resistant", not waterproof. They are not making a claim that idiots who take their watch for a swim will be able to use on a future class-action lawsuit.

    Very good point.  Apple in general, and certainly since they became the world's most valuable publicly traded company, has the world's largest "sue me" target on them.  They have to be extremely cautious in their public statements, warranty terms, etc, to avoid lawsuits (which they will get a number of anyway, but chances of plaintiffs winning is much less).  Just look at what the morons have already done in less than a day...

  • Reply 13 of 81
    MacProMacPro Posts: 19,758member
    rp2011 wrote: »
    Could be that damage will happen if any moisture gets in and condensates. Maybe the water damage occurs over time.

    I think Apple have secretly added a Bose-Einstein barrier to stop that. ;)
  • Reply 14 of 81
    slurpyslurpy Posts: 5,384member

    Very impressive. As usual with these claims (ie. battery life, etc) Apple errs on the conservative side, and prefers to under promise and over deliver. I recall thousands of troll posts, both on this board and other places, shrieking in rage and mockery of how the Apple Watch is useless bc it will not be able to handle rain. Again, they show themselves to be the fools that they are. I still would not wear the watch while swimming, but it looks like it will be handle water in everyday situations with zero problem, considering it was submerged for 15min with no issue. 

  • Reply 15 of 81
    neilmneilm Posts: 989member
    I wonder if the watch has the same water damage telltales that the iPhone does?
  • Reply 16 of 81
    ecatsecats Posts: 272member

    If Apple said "water proof" then people will be throwing it in with their laundry, then come whining in store when water condensates inside the watch.

     

    The Galaxy s5 was advertised as "water proof", but that had so many conditions applied that it was misleading. E.g. not suitable for underwater photography and the waterproofing would not maintain after a drop. What they had in mind was casual splashes, because that's all it protected against.

     

    People's interpretation of the standards vary and few read what each standard means, as such the word "water proof" comes with some serious expectational baggage. It's better to undersell the capabilities to keep customers from torturing their expensive electronics. This isn't the first time Apple has undersold on durability. E.g. iPhone 6 is very water resistant despite never promising such.

     

    So, one can really take this as a blessing. You can have confidence knowing that your watch isn't going to drop dead if you accidentally shower with it, drop it in a basin or have some bad luck with a coffee.

  • Reply 17 of 81
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by emig647 View Post



    I didn't expect this personally. I wonder if it can be said across all the devices made or if it was a fluke for their device.

    Why would you expect such a 'fluke'? Do you think Apple's QA is likely to be different for different batches?

  • Reply 18 of 81
    satchmosatchmo Posts: 2,699member
    The question is, will they make their $350 back from millions of Youtube hits?
  • Reply 19 of 81
    wigbywigby Posts: 692member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

     

    Why would you expect such a 'fluke'? Do you think Apple's QA is likely to be different for different batches?




    I think it's more about the actual conditions. Different water temperatures, salt water, movement while under water, etc. all affect the amount of overall water resistance. We know it's not fully waterproof but now we know that most people can jump in a pool for minute and not have to freak out the second their Apple Watch touches water. After that fact, there is very little science going on here but I'm fine with that.

  • Reply 20 of 81
    inklinginkling Posts: 773member
    Bad title. "Drown" would be more appropriate than "Destroy." The latter suggests dropping or hitting not immersing.
Sign In or Register to comment.