Well you're right, I'm done here, because apparently nobody is able to come up with reasonable answers to my questions. All I see here is various people blindly defending whatever Apple did (or didn't do, for that matter) and, at the same time, doubting industry standards and competing products at any cost and without any proper arguments. But I'm the troll here.
Turbo is correct in that you aren't reading and responding to what others have suggested. We may not have any of the answers but we have politely addressed your remarks with our opinion. Some of the responses to you are quite logical and don't seem biased.
Paxman is on target...why do YOU think Apple has done what it has? And let's go from there since you don't seem to like any of the responses from others.
If you aren't willing to discuss both sides then yes, you're the troll here. Bye.
Okay here's a dumb question that has been on my mind (and certainly not just my mind) ever since the iPhone 7 announcement - what prevented Apple from implementing water resistance a year or even two ago? I'm dead serious about this question - was there any design element or anything specific that made it impossible for iPhone 6 or 6S? As elementary as this question is, I haven't seen or heard any rational explanation so far. Personally I could live without this feature, but I don't see why Apple is making such a big deal out of it now that Samsung or Sony have been using it for years (not to mention that the new iPhone still has only IP67 rating and not IP68). And I can't believe Apple was just too lazy to implement it.
Because they were obviously focused on other things? Also, the 6s is fairly water resistant, though they don't broadcast it. Samsung's failed tests btw, so ...
See, this is the problem. I'm looking for a rational explanation and this is what I get. Well guess what, other companies are focusing on many other things as well, yet they still deliver and aren't afraid to even set the trend. Apple has all the money and talent to develop and implement pretty much whatever they want, so saying they had different priorities is a pretty lame excuse. And if that's the case then they should have simply rolled out this feature silently instead of making it look like they just invented something nobody else has. Don't get me wrong, I'm still a strong Apple supporter and own more Apple products than any other brand combined, but if there's any indication Apple is becoming somewhat clueless about where to go next with the iPhone, it must be this year's iPhone 7 event. And this iPhone 7 ad just make matters that much worse imho.
You aren't looking for a rational explanation. You're trolling. If you were looking for a rational explanation. You'd add up the facts that have already been presented here to you, along with a bit of common sense, and you'd understand why water resistance hasn't been claimed until now.
1. Samsung's phones, which claim an even higher ability to resist water damage, failed at providing even the water resistance now claimed by Apple. This should suggest to you that a phone with a headphone jack, charging port, movable Home button, and other buttons and mute/vibrate switch is not easy to make water resistant.
2. Apple's iPhone 6S survived, in many tests (you need only access to YouTube) a 30-second full immersion in a bowl of water. So Apple had previously taken steps toward water resistance, but acted conservatively in not claiming so in the previous generation.
3. In what manner was Apple, claiming water resistance as 1 of 10 enhancements to iPhone 7 "making it look like they just invented something nobody else has."
4. How is Apple NOT setting trends with
a) the first 64-bit smartphone (or had you forgotten),
b) the first, and best functioning, fingerprint sensor on a globally shipping smartphone. Someone else did one prior, but it didn't work well and wasn't widely shipped, and that makes ALL the difference,
c) the whole concept of vertical hardware/software/services integration, which makes iPhone perform better and use less power per unit of computing performance. That's something important to environmentally aware Apple, but apparently not to other companies, who are happy to just shove a bigger battery in their devices, and then try to charge that bigger battery fast, resulting in a global recall.
I could go on...
Sorry but your long post lacks any substance. So you're claiming iPhone7 is more waterproof than what Apple's competition has been offering for years and is even ranked higher in terms of the waterproof rankings. Well, if that's what you believe in, then I guess the waterproof rankings must be all wrong and you're the expert. Your remaining points only digress from the original topic and you try to explain to me where Apple was first. Sure, I'm well aware of all those, but that's completely unrelated to what we're discussing here. You still haven't answered why Apple wasn't able to implement this technology years ago and why they're only talking so much about waterproofing their new iPhone now and even releasing ads about it. What I'm trying to understand is if there were any limitations preventing them from doing so (although I can't imagine what would it be) or they simply ignored the industry trends for so long.
You're done here. You've offered nothing, made no sense, and shown that you do not respond to logic or common sense. Bye.
Well you're right, I'm done here, because apparently nobody is able to come up with reasonable answers to my questions. All I see here is various people blindly defending whatever Apple did (or didn't do, for that matter) and, at the same time, doubting industry standards and competing products at any cost and without any proper arguments. But I'm the troll here. Well fine then, let's all celebrate Apple for re-inventing waterproof smartphones and selling it as one of their major "new" features. Because you know, it's ok that advertising waterproof smartphones was a thing in 2014 and maybe 2015, Apple can still make it a novelty in 2016, right? Like I said, looking forward to their revolutionary wireless charging next year. Oh and revolutionary OLED screens as well, while we're at it. Some of you guys just don't seem to get the point I guess.
I don't need to see revolutionary new products from Apple every year. All I need is a reliable platform and Apple is still the only one I know. I'm fine with what Apple is today, I don't need the iPhone to become the next Xperia or Galaxy. But what I really don't like is when Apple plays catch up (nothing wrong with that) AND tries to turn it into their competitive advantage. That way I feel they're simply fooling their own customers. That's why I was trying to understand if there was any particular reason why they didn't implement this earlier. But I get it now, there's simply no reason.
The reason you're pretending to be looking for is as obvious as it could be. Why would Apple spend the many manhours of engineering resources to seal off the stupid audio jack or the mechanical Home/ID button when they knew they were getting rid of them in 2016?
Your question is (typically) blind to the technology you're quibbling about. You entitled nagging nitpickers need to get out and do some real work in the world, get your hands dirty, change your oil or something, learn cause and effect.
Well you're right, I'm done here, because apparently nobody is able to come up with reasonable answers to my questions. All I see here is various people blindly defending whatever Apple did (or didn't do, for that matter) and, at the same time, doubting industry standards and competing products at any cost and without any proper arguments. But I'm the troll here. Well fine then, let's all celebrate Apple for re-inventing waterproof smartphones and selling it as one of their major "new" features. Because you know, it's ok that advertising waterproof smartphones was a thing in 2014 and maybe 2015, Apple can still make it a novelty in 2016, right? Like I said, looking forward to their revolutionary wireless charging next year. Oh and revolutionary OLED screens as well, while we're at it. Some of you guys just don't seem to get the point I guess.
I don't need to see revolutionary new products from Apple every year. All I need is a reliable platform and Apple is still the only one I know. I'm fine with what Apple is today, I don't need the iPhone to become the next Xperia or Galaxy. But what I really don't like is when Apple plays catch up (nothing wrong with that) AND tries to turn it into their competitive advantage. That way I feel they're simply fooling their own customers. That's why I was trying to understand if there was any particular reason why they didn't implement this earlier. But I get it now, there's simply no reason.
1)You were given many answers to your question, but you're claiming you received no reasonable ones.
2) The only other answer I didn't see mentioned is that an IP code is a guarantee by the company as a maximum exposure feature. Do to Apple's mindshare, they have considerably more attention on them for any one thing—see all the BS -gate that come up regarding Apple and how few come up with any other CE company despite much more severe and frequent problems.
A no-name company could say their phones are waterproof—not just water resistant with an IPx7 rating after passing that test—and they may get some customers who will jump on that claim, and if this person takes it too deep and it fails the company's bean counters would have figured out a cost-benefit analysis to probably say that was worth the risk of replacing a few devices. It's not like a company no one cares about will make headline news because their phone couldn't withstand the pressure of 10M before the surface.
Same goes for the Apple Watch Series 2 with 50M depth. Do you really think that at 50.5 meters it's going to fail? They're simply putting the maximum level of guarantee on the device that has the minimum amount of risk. Maybe their numbers come out to <0.001% will fail at 50M, or maybe they know that's the percentage at 10M, but figure very few will go swimming, and even fewer will go more than a few meters below the surface, with the ones that will go further than a free-dive needing that maximum depth cutoff.
I'm loving the masculine dark filmic look of Apple now. The white and rose and gold with flowy fish graphics meant to I assume appeal to china and fashionistas didn't do much for me
that word, fashionista...ugh. i wouldn't make apple marketing assumptions if i were you.
Okay here's a dumb question that has been on my mind (and certainly not just my mind) ever since the iPhone 7 announcement - what prevented Apple from implementing water resistance a year or even two ago? I'm dead serious about this question - was there any design element or anything specific that made it impossible for iPhone 6 or 6S? As elementary as this question is, I haven't seen or heard any rational explanation so far. Personally I could live without this feature, but I don't see why Apple is making such a big deal out of it now that Samsung or Sony have been using it for years (not to mention that the new iPhone still has only IP67 rating and not IP68). And I can't believe Apple was just too lazy to implement it.
Heard about (leaving of) the headphone jack?
Heard about Sony and Samsung having waterproof phones WITH the headphone jack still present?
i didn't hear about them having a haptic engine or very thin shell. you're trying to compare apples to oranges... each phone is very different inside. and imo iphone has more stuff.
Okay here's a dumb question that has been on my mind (and certainly not just my mind) ever since the iPhone 7 announcement - what prevented Apple from implementing water resistance a year or even two ago? I'm dead serious about this question - was there any design element or anything specific that made it impossible for iPhone 6 or 6S? As elementary as this question is, I haven't seen or heard any rational explanation so far. Personally I could live without this feature, but I don't see why Apple is making such a big deal out of it now that Samsung or Sony have been using it for years (not to mention that the new iPhone still has only IP67 rating and not IP68). And I can't believe Apple was just too lazy to implement it.
Because they were obviously focused on other things? Also, the 6s is fairly water resistant, though they don't broadcast it. Samsung's failed tests btw, so ...
See, this is the problem. I'm looking for a rational explanation and this is what I get. Well guess what, other companies are focusing on many other things as well, yet they still deliver and aren't afraid to even set the trend. Apple has all the money and talent to develop and implement pretty much whatever they want, so saying they had different priorities is a pretty lame excuse. And if that's the case then they should have simply rolled out this feature silently instead of making it look like they just invented something nobody else has. Don't get me wrong, I'm still a strong Apple supporter and own more Apple products than any other brand combined, but if there's any indication Apple is becoming somewhat clueless about where to go next with the iPhone, it must be this year's iPhone 7 event. And this iPhone 7 ad just make matters that much worse imho.
please cite where apple claims to have invented water resistance, or STFO.
See, this is the problem. I'm looking for a rational explanation and this is what I get. Well guess what, other companies are focusing on many other things as well, yet they still deliver and aren't afraid to even set the trend. Apple has all the money and talent to develop and implement pretty much whatever they want, so saying they had different priorities is a pretty lame excuse. And if that's the case then they should have simply rolled out this feature silently instead of making it look like they just invented something nobody else has. Don't get me wrong, I'm still a strong Apple supporter and own more Apple products than any other brand combined, but if there's any indication Apple is becoming somewhat clueless about where to go next with the iPhone, it must be this year's iPhone 7 event. And this iPhone 7 ad just make matters that much worse imho.
You might also ask why the first one wasn't. Much more important, why wasn't the first Apple Watch? I guess it's a refinement from year to year working in that direction. The downside of this will be that I probably won't ever self repair an iPhone again. I don't think it'll be water resistant after having opened up...
But that's not the point. Sure, we may ask why Apple wasn't first to introduce waterproof technology, but that's for a separate discussion. What I'm saying is that Apple is now proudly advertising how they have just made a waterproof phone and in my opinion that's what's discrediting them. Maybe they assume their own users are not even aware of what the competition has to offer, but if this is their main selling point now, then Apple makes it look like there isn't much the new iPhone has to offer, which isn't true of course.
You're trolling. It's obvious when you suggest that water resistance is Apple's main selling point. There were 10 points, counted down as such, in their intro event. And you can be sure more of those points will show up in subsequent advertisements. So it's disingenuous to suggest, after a single intro advertisement, that Apple is using water resistance as its main selling point.
And just out of curiosity - which one of Phil Schiller's 10 points do you expect to be advertised next? Stereo speakers? New colors? I can see the AirPods as the only other significant selling point, but that's not even an iPhone 7 feature per say.
airpods weren't one of the 10 items, smarty.
but please, tell us again what a dyed in the wool apple fan you are. no troll here, no siree!
Okay here's a dumb question that has been on my mind (and certainly not just my mind) ever since the iPhone 7 announcement - what prevented Apple from implementing water resistance a year or even two ago? I'm dead serious about this question - was there any design element or anything specific that made it impossible for iPhone 6 or 6S? As elementary as this question is, I haven't seen or heard any rational explanation so far. Personally I could live without this feature, but I don't see why Apple is making such a big deal out of it now that Samsung or Sony have been using it for years (not to mention that the new iPhone still has only IP67 rating and not IP68). And I can't believe Apple was just too lazy to implement it.
Because they were obviously focused on other things? Also, the 6s is fairly water resistant, though they don't broadcast it. Samsung's failed tests btw, so ...
See, this is the problem. I'm looking for a rational explanation and this is what I get. Well guess what, other companies are focusing on many other things as well, yet they still deliver and aren't afraid to even set the trend. Apple has all the money and talent to develop and implement pretty much whatever they want, so saying they had different priorities is a pretty lame excuse. And if that's the case then they should have simply rolled out this feature silently instead of making it look like they just invented something nobody else has. Don't get me wrong, I'm still a strong Apple supporter and own more Apple products than any other brand combined, but if there's any indication Apple is becoming somewhat clueless about where to go next with the iPhone, it must be this year's iPhone 7 event. And this iPhone 7 ad just make matters that much worse imho.
please cite where apple claims to have invented water resistance, or STFO.
There was a YouTube video where some dudebro losers were mocking Apples keynote for claiming to have invented Bluetooth, waterproofing and pretty much everything at the event. It was sad.
Okay here's a dumb question that has been on my mind (and certainly not just my mind) ever since the iPhone 7 announcement - what prevented Apple from implementing water resistance a year or even two ago? I'm dead serious about this question - was there any design element or anything specific that made it impossible for iPhone 6 or 6S? As elementary as this question is, I haven't seen or heard any rational explanation so far. Personally I could live without this feature, but I don't see why Apple is making such a big deal out of it now that Samsung or Sony have been using it for years (not to mention that the new iPhone still has only IP67 rating and not IP68). And I can't believe Apple was just too lazy to implement it.
They kind of already did, the 6s seeemingly could stay in water 30 seconds.
That's like wondering why they didn't implement water resistance in the Apple Watch when people have been swimming with it a whole 18 months. Apple didn't claim it was water resistant when it seemingly was. Apple often under market things they're not entirely satisfied with.
When Apple introduces Water resistance, it truly is WATER RESISTANT, it's not just some kind of marketing gobblegook like Samsung's claims.
You are god damn funny with you "too lazy to implement", a hoot. If it were Samsung, they would have declared the 6s water resistant and would not give a shit if it was actually true in 12 months once they got all your money.
The masculine id in me is screaming 'gimme, gimme, gimme'. While my super-ego asks for at least some information...
In the Internet Age, giving info in a publicity is useless and boring. These are teaser ads for the main features. If you want specs, you can then google them, on your Iphone ;-).
Comments
Paxman is on target...why do YOU think Apple has done what it has? And let's go from there since you don't seem to like any of the responses from others.
If you aren't willing to discuss both sides then yes, you're the troll here. Bye.
I mean the artistry is fine. But it's kinda dumb and Motorola-y don't you think?
Its like WTF??
Your question is (typically) blind to the technology you're quibbling about. You entitled nagging nitpickers need to get out and do some real work in the world, get your hands dirty, change your oil or something, learn cause and effect.
2) The only other answer I didn't see mentioned is that an IP code is a guarantee by the company as a maximum exposure feature. Do to Apple's mindshare, they have considerably more attention on them for any one thing—see all the BS -gate that come up regarding Apple and how few come up with any other CE company despite much more severe and frequent problems.
A no-name company could say their phones are waterproof—not just water resistant with an IPx7 rating after passing that test—and they may get some customers who will jump on that claim, and if this person takes it too deep and it fails the company's bean counters would have figured out a cost-benefit analysis to probably say that was worth the risk of replacing a few devices. It's not like a company no one cares about will make headline news because their phone couldn't withstand the pressure of 10M before the surface.
Same goes for the Apple Watch Series 2 with 50M depth. Do you really think that at 50.5 meters it's going to fail? They're simply putting the maximum level of guarantee on the device that has the minimum amount of risk. Maybe their numbers come out to <0.001% will fail at 50M, or maybe they know that's the percentage at 10M, but figure very few will go swimming, and even fewer will go more than a few meters below the surface, with the ones that will go further than a free-dive needing that maximum depth cutoff.
i didn't hear about them having a haptic engine or very thin shell. you're trying to compare apples to oranges... each phone is very different inside. and imo iphone has more stuff.
please cite where apple claims to have invented water resistance, or STFO.
but please, tell us again what a dyed in the wool apple fan you are. no troll here, no siree!
That's like wondering why they didn't implement water resistance in the Apple Watch when people have been swimming with it a whole 18 months.
Apple didn't claim it was water resistant when it seemingly was.
Apple often under market things they're not entirely satisfied with.
When Apple introduces Water resistance, it truly is WATER RESISTANT, it's not just some kind of marketing gobblegook like Samsung's claims.
You are god damn funny with you "too lazy to implement", a hoot.
If it were Samsung, they would have declared the 6s water resistant and would not give a shit if it was actually true in 12 months once they got all your money.
These are teaser ads for the main features.
If you want specs, you can then google them, on your Iphone ;-).