I hope Apple changes how they market the iphone or changes the warranty regarding this.
Last year my iphone got splashed next to a pool. The camera started fogging up on the inside and nothing I did could get rid of the moisture (fog would come back after slightly heating camera area). I took to an Apple store and they wouldn't replace it for free (I had Applecare plus). The water sensors were NOT triggered. I ended up doing a hot swap and mailed in my phone and they credited the full amount of the replacement charge. My experience at the store was a waste of my time and it shouldn't have been so difficult/complicated.
I've seen people film with their iphones underwater because they assume it is waterproof per Apple's marketing. It's not unreasonable to make such an assumption.
TLDR: iPhone had water in camera area. Apple store rejected my warranty replacement request. I filled out online form and had phone replaced for free. Apple should change their marketing or warranty to align with each other.
Why were you upset? The Apple Store employees correctly said that water damage is not normally covered under the warranty, But they acknowledged that your case may be an exception so they provided You with a new phone and had to contact Apple, which agreed and reimburse you. It seems like Apple did the right thing here.
A friend dropped his iPhone 12 in a mop bucket and he immediately took it out but it was too late. It sucks but what can one do 🤷🏻♂️
My iPhone 12 Mini came out of the pocket on my SUP’s seat and went into the sea. About an hour later the tide went out and a crab fisher found it. I got it back and it’s been fine ever since.
It’s funny how something can work for some but not for someone else. But that’s electronics
Sometimes there are manufacturing defects. Those defects could cause a phone to be susceptible to water ingress when used in accordance with Apple's advertising. These defects are what the warranty is legally supposed to protect against - so that in case if something really does "work for some but not for someone else", Apple is obliged to rectify the problem.
No, the standard only shows water resistance. It is up to the consumer to show that there was a defect.
A friend dropped his iPhone 12 in a mop bucket and he immediately took it out but it was too late. It sucks but what can one do 🤷🏻♂️
My iPhone 12 Mini came out of the pocket on my SUP’s seat and went into the sea. About an hour later the tide went out and a crab fisher found it. I got it back and it’s been fine ever since.
It’s funny how something can work for some but not for someone else. But that’s electronics
Sometimes there are manufacturing defects. Those defects could cause a phone to be susceptible to water ingress when used in accordance with Apple's advertising. These defects are what the warranty is legally supposed to protect against - so that in case if something really does "work for some but not for someone else", Apple is obliged to rectify the problem.
No, the standard only shows water resistance. It is up to the consumer to show that there was a defect.
Actually it’s dust and water resistance, to which Apple advertises compliance. As I have said ad nauseam, Apple advertising IP67 then effectively saying “don’t quote us on that” is false advertising. The defect can be proven with water ingress. Easy.
The phone is water resistant and sometimes, possibly, it may survive contact with water.
When water damages it, it's not covered.
When water doesn't damage it, it's still under warranty.
I know it's silly, but basically Apple is saying it might survive water exposure, but it's not under warranty when it doesn't survive.
The warranty agreement isn’t worth the paper it’s written on. The law is precedent. Advertising something as IP67 (which is a defined standard, 1m submersion for 30 mins), with the phone getting wet in Apple’s own ads; and then saying “actually we don’t warrant using it in the way we are in our ads, nor do we guarantee the IP rating it’s sold with” is laughable. That’s like Ford advertising a car with 5 doors and saying we don’t warrant the doors if you use them.
1) How does one verify that a device that has water damage wasn't submerged for more than 30 minutes and/or deeper than 1 meter? Does Apple simply have to repair any damaged device due to water?
2) Apple also makes their devices to withstand a certain level of impact, which has notably gotten better over the years, especially with improved GorillaGlass®, but does that mean the warranty should also cover any physical damage to the device?
The logic for the limited warranty is probably something along the lines of "The design was tested for IP##, if there is water ingress under those conditions you must have damaged the seals".
That is a flawed argument. By that standard, zero warranty claims could ever exist because there would never be a manufacturing defect; every problem is user-created, which is obviously false. A defect in the seal could have existed from the factory, and allow water ingress when used in the conditions it's advertised with. To exclude that is no different to excluding camera problems due to using it in the sun too much, when advertising the phone being used to take photos in the sun.
My iPhone 13 Pro had dust in the lens, despite being sealed. You're saying that shouldn't have been covered because I must have somehow done something to get dust in the lens?
Either way in the UK, or the EU, and I would imagine Canada, Apple would have not a leg to stand on. You can't advertise the use of something then claim that using it that way might damage the product and that they won't cover it. That's just ridiculous, and it's fraudulent advertising.
The warranty for Samsung Galaxy phones works the same way. Exposure to water isn't considered normal use under the warranty. In other words, it's not a product that is specifically made to operate in water.
AFAIK, all phone manufacturers that advertise water resistance have a warrantee that excludes water damage.
Counter intuitive perhaps, but it is the way it has always been.
To be fair, AppleCare+ (unlike the standard warrantee) does have a clause that states repairs will not exceed $79 for water damage.
Adding an exclusion doesn't mean it's legal. It has yet to be tested in court.
Guess what - Sony (the first OEM to get their phones IP rated) falsely advertised as their Xperia Z phones as water-proof about a decade ago. And learnt the lesson the hard way in the form of lawsuits when they refused to entertain warranty claims on their phones with water damage. They gave a lesson on how to handle the legal text around IP ratings and what is covered under warranty and what is not covered etc to other OEMs. I am sure Apple would have covered their bases with this one and I don't think Apple would be in trouble over this lawsuit.
This is different to Sony's claim of waterproof. Apple never advertised as waterproof, but they did advertise that the iPhone has an IP67/68, rating which as I said is an actual standard- higher than the Sony's IP56. To advertise anything with a feature to which people quite reasonably would believe the product should have, and then try and claim otherwise in some fine print you don't even have to review before buying the phone is not going to fly.
Interestingly the iPhone getting wet ads have actually been pulled from YT, which is odd as Apple doesn't usually pull old ads.
An iPhone flew out of the Boeing plane and landed in a field without issue. If Apple noted that would that mean that any and all physical damage to an Apple device should be covered simply because an iPhone didn't break in one instant that was good PR for Apple?
What about stories about their Satellite SOS service on their iPhone of A-Fib detection on the Watch swing a life? If one person is saved from it does that mean they should be held liable for everyone who wasn't saved?
I don’t have time to this myself, but I suspect some enlightenment could be derived by comparing the fine print on this subject for the Apple Watch and the iPhone, if someone wants to do it.
The phone claims a level of water resistance. The watch is actually sold as something you can use while swimming. I suspect the difference in warranty language would shed light on what the phone’s warranty limitations are all about.
Apple's Watch warranty, even for the Apple Watch Ultra, will not cover water damage. But what about AppleCare+? That covers damage due to "unexpected and unintentional events" which includes accidental contact with liquids, after paying a deductible. Willfully wearing it in wet conditions may not be covered, so you wouldn't mention you intentionally went swimming with it. https://discussions.apple.com/thread/254258623?sortBy=ran
You know the phrase "talk the talk, but not walk the walk"?
Just because it's stated in Apple warranty that water damage is not covered, even for their devices with high water resistance IP rating, it doesn't mean that Apple will not cover any of their devices for water damage, at all.
Apple stating that water damage is not covered (in their warranty), is Apple way of protecting themselves. Otherwise, they would have to replace devices that were in a steam room for over an hour or used when scuba diving (except for the Ultra Apple Watch) or were already damaged when they got wet or strapped to the propeller of a motor boat. (for us old timers that remember the Timex commercial about a Timex taking a licking and keep on ticking.) Any good lawyer would be able to show that water damage is water damage, regardless of what led to water ending up inside the device or the condition of the device when it got wet.
On nearly all forums that are discussing Apple non-coverage for water damage on their devices with very high IP rating, there are Apple users that chimes in to claim that Apple had replaced their water damaged Apple device (even when out of warranty). How can that be if Apple will not cover their devices for water damage (as claimed by many here.)? All it takes is one Apple user to have their water damaged Apple device replaced by Apple, to disprove any claim by people here, that Apple warranty will not cover water damage devices. Even though they are advertised with high IP rating and for use around and in water.
In fact, it seems that there are more Apple users that got their water damaged device (specially their Apple Watch) replaced by Apple, than there are Apple users where Apple did not replace their water damaged device (even when still under warranty). But the ones that didn't get Apple to replace their water damaged device makes more noise about it and gets more attention.
But because of the way their warranty is worded, it's Apple that gets to determine if the water damage was caused by own fault (a factory defect) or the fault of the user. And more than likely, Apple will replace the water damaged device if they determined it was their fault. And in reality, Apple is not covering the water damage but the factory defect that led to the water damage. If one want to put a negative spin on Apple because their warranty do not cover water damage on their devices with high IP rating and advertised for use around and in water, then one should be complaining about the fact that Apple is not following the guidelines on their own warranty, by actually replacing water damaged devices (even when out of warranty), most likely more often than not.
If one were to add up all the Apple users that got their water damaged device replaced by Apple and those that didn't, it wouldn't even amount to a hill of beans when compared to how many tens of millions of iPhones and Apple Watches are sold every year. The fact that water damage was once by far the leading cause of mobile device (of all brands) replacement, shows that the higher water resistance IP rating of newer devices (of all brands) is not bogus or misleading. And I bet just as many users accidentally get their devices wet as before. The leading cause for mobile device replacement is now from drops. And that can be attributed to the clam shell design no longer being the most popular, thinner designs and larger screens.
Even the one person here that claimed to had actually damaged their iPhone with water, got Apple to replace it. So people claiming that Apple will not cover any of their devices for water damage, just based on what their warranty states ..... are all wet.
A friend dropped his iPhone 12 in a mop bucket and he immediately took it out but it was too late. It sucks but what can one do 🤷🏻♂️
My iPhone 12 Mini came out of the pocket on my SUP’s seat and went into the sea. About an hour later the tide went out and a crab fisher found it. I got it back and it’s been fine ever since.
It’s funny how something can work for some but not for someone else. But that’s electronics
Sometimes there are manufacturing defects. Those defects could cause a phone to be susceptible to water ingress when used in accordance with Apple's advertising. These defects are what the warranty is legally supposed to protect against - so that in case if something really does "work for some but not for someone else", Apple is obliged to rectify the problem.
No, the standard only shows water resistance. It is up to the consumer to show that there was a defect.
Actually it’s dust and water resistance, to which Apple advertises compliance. As I have said ad nauseam, Apple advertising IP67 then effectively saying “don’t quote us on that” is false advertising. The defect can be proven with water ingress. Easy.
And as you are completely unable to comprehend, there’s a difference between Showing IP 67 compliance and warranty all water damage. Someone has Helpfully posted above a page on Apple’s website that explains how water resistance can be affected by damage. Likewise, the IP67 Standard specifies resistance to water ingress under certain conditions, not all conditions. Just because there’s been water in grass doesn’t mean there’s a defect which is precisely why the defect needs to be proven not assumed.
The logic for the limited warranty is probably something along the lines of "The design was tested for IP##, if there is water ingress under those conditions you must have damaged the seals".
That is a flawed argument. By that standard, zero warranty claims could ever exist because there would never be a manufacturing defect; every problem is user-created, which is obviously false. A defect in the seal could have existed from the factory, and allow water ingress when used in the conditions it's advertised with. To exclude that is no different to excluding camera problems due to using it in the sun too much, when advertising the phone being used to take photos in the sun.
My iPhone 13 Pro had dust in the lens, despite being sealed. You're saying that shouldn't have been covered because I must have somehow done something to get dust in the lens?
Either way in the UK, or the EU, and I would imagine Canada, Apple would have not a leg to stand on. You can't advertise the use of something then claim that using it that way might damage the product and that they won't cover it. That's just ridiculous, and it's fraudulent advertising.
The warranty for Samsung Galaxy phones works the same way. Exposure to water isn't considered normal use under the warranty. In other words, it's not a product that is specifically made to operate in water.
AFAIK, all phone manufacturers that advertise water resistance have a warrantee that excludes water damage.
Counter intuitive perhaps, but it is the way it has always been.
To be fair, AppleCare+ (unlike the standard warrantee) does have a clause that states repairs will not exceed $79 for water damage.
Adding an exclusion doesn't mean it's legal. It has yet to be tested in court.
Guess what - Sony (the first OEM to get their phones IP rated) falsely advertised as their Xperia Z phones as water-proof about a decade ago. And learnt the lesson the hard way in the form of lawsuits when they refused to entertain warranty claims on their phones with water damage. They gave a lesson on how to handle the legal text around IP ratings and what is covered under warranty and what is not covered etc to other OEMs. I am sure Apple would have covered their bases with this one and I don't think Apple would be in trouble over this lawsuit.
This is different to Sony's claim of waterproof. Apple never advertised as waterproof, but they did advertise that the iPhone has an IP67/68, rating which as I said is an actual standard- higher than the Sony's IP56. To advertise anything with a feature to which people quite reasonably would believe the product should have, and then try and claim otherwise in some fine print you don't even have to review before buying the phone is not going to fly.
Interestingly the iPhone getting wet ads have actually been pulled from YT, which is odd as Apple doesn't usually pull old ads.
You're kidding right? You can't be that clueless. Apple pull old ads ALL the time. When the products in the ads are no longer available, Apple will pull those ads. One don't see old Apple ads for the Apple iPhone 12, or the Apple Watch Series 5 or any Intel Macs. Why would you think that Apple would still advertise a product that has been discontinued? Rumor has it that the latest "casualty" will be the iPhone 13. Which is rumored to be discontinued when Apple introduce the new iPhone 16 next week. So those iPhone 13 ads will be pulled soon, if not already.
Unless you're talking about Apple ads that some You Tuber is showing for nostalgic reasons. Like the 1984 ad or iPod ads or Mac/PC ads. Those ads are not Apple advertising their products on YouTube.
I don’t have time to this myself, but I suspect some enlightenment could be derived by comparing the fine print on this subject for the Apple Watch and the iPhone, if someone wants to do it.
The phone claims a level of water resistance. The watch is actually sold as something you can use while swimming. I suspect the difference in warranty language would shed light on what the phone’s warranty limitations are all about.
Apple's Watch warranty, even for the Apple Watch Ultra, will not cover water damage. But what about AppleCare+? That covers damage due to "unexpected and unintentional events" which includes accidental contact with liquids, after paying a deductible. Willfully wearing it in wet conditions may not be covered, so you wouldn't mention you intentionally went swimming with it. https://discussions.apple.com/thread/254258623?sortBy=ran
You know the phrase "talk the talk, but not walk the walk"?
Just because it's stated in Apple warranty that water damage is not covered, even for their devices with high water resistance IP rating, it doesn't mean that Apple will not cover any of their devices for water damage, at all.
We're agreeing, right? As long as you're willing to push the issue, preferably in person at an Apple Store if one is within a couple of hours drive time, you may get a replacement despite Apple specifically saying it is not a warranty event.
In fairness Samsung and Garmin do the same thing with no coverage for water damage. Perhaps that's why their respective marketing departments try to one up each other with promoting examples of using them in situations they don't warranty. They want to appear more durable than the competition. If Apple says go swimming, "it's an iPhone", but Samsung doesn't show a happy swimmer wearing their Galaxy watch, then that proves the Apple Watch is more water-resistant, even if the on-paper specs might be the same, right?
Gotta love grandiose marketing.
Of course some buyers reading their warranty and seeing no coverage for water damage may not even try, saving Apple the cost of considering replacement to begin with. So I understand the reasoning behind the lawsuit, even if the likelihood of winning is low, along with why some of us here think Apple or Samsung or Garmin can't warranty it anyway.
So wouldn't it be better if Apple would avoid telling us to go swimming with it, and instead simply promote the water resistance and what that generally means, along with caution to avoid contact with water? Put that wrning details in the footnotes if they want to minimize it, but at least let buyers know they are doing so at their own risk. That would have avoided a lawsuit altogether.
Is up-front honesty something you would disagree with? Sounds more consumer-friendly, doesn't it, even if the marketing department doesn't like it?
there’s a difference between Showing IP 67 compliance and warranty all water damage. Someone has Helpfully posted above a page on Apple’s website that explains how water resistance can be affected by damage.
there’s a difference between Showing IP 67 compliance and warranty all water damage. Someone has Helpfully posted above a page on Apple’s website that explains how water resistance can be affected by damage.
According to the link you posted, “Samsung Australia’s ads promoting its Galaxy phones featured people using their phones in pools and sea water, despite the fact that this could ultimately result in significant damage to the phone."
Where is the evidence that the iPhone is not actually not rated as IP67? Again, you're failing to understand that water resistance does not equate to being waterproof, and that the rating has very specific testing limitations, like depth (aka pressure) and duration. Again I'll ask if you think that if Apple says their display is now twice as impact resistance than it was previously that if you think that equates to being able to smash it with a hammer without it breaking or if simply advertising that something is better doesn't mean that it's impenetrable? Maybe it would help you if you remove Apple from the equation and just think of this rationally in a general sense.
there’s a difference between Showing IP 67 compliance and warranty all water damage. Someone has Helpfully posted above a page on Apple’s website that explains how water resistance can be affected by damage.
According to the link you posted, “Samsung Australia’s ads promoting its Galaxy phones featured people using their phones in pools and sea water, despite the fact that this could ultimately result in significant damage to the phone."
Where is the evidence that the iPhone is not actually not rated as IP67?
??? In reading that link, the issue wasn't the spec. Samsung has IP67 rated smartphones and smartwatches just as Apple does. They aren't lying about it.
there’s a difference between Showing IP 67 compliance and warranty all water damage. Someone has Helpfully posted above a page on Apple’s website that explains how water resistance can be affected by damage.
According to the link you posted, “Samsung Australia’s ads promoting its Galaxy phones featured people using their phones in pools and sea water, despite the fact that this could ultimately result in significant damage to the phone."
Where is the evidence that the iPhone is not actually not rated as IP67?
??? In reading that link, the issue wasn't the spec. Samsung has IP67 rated smart watches just as Apple does. They aren't lying about it.
Actually, the issue seemed to be that water exposure would cause corrosion so even though it may have been IP67 rated, using it in the manner indicated would potentially render the phone inoperable.
"Samsung Australia has acknowledged that if the Galaxy phones were submerged in pool or sea water there was a material prospect the charging port would become corroded and stop working if the phone was charged while still wet."
edit: one could argue that the fact that the phone corroded was a failure to meet the IP standard, but since the standard technically applies only to the exposure, not charging after exposure it’s more of a design defect than a failure to meet the standard.
there’s a difference between Showing IP 67 compliance and warranty all water damage. Someone has Helpfully posted above a page on Apple’s website that explains how water resistance can be affected by damage.
According to the link you posted, “Samsung Australia’s ads promoting its Galaxy phones featured people using their phones in pools and sea water, despite the fact that this could ultimately result in significant damage to the phone."
Where is the evidence that the iPhone is not actually not rated as IP67?
??? In reading that link, the issue wasn't the spec. Samsung has IP67 rated smart watches just as Apple does. They aren't lying about it.
Actually, the issue seemed to be that water exposure would cause corrosion so even though it may have been IP67 rated, using it in the manner indicated would potentially render the phone inoperable.
"Samsung Australia has acknowledged that if the Galaxy phones were submerged in pool or sea water there was a material prospect the charging port would become corroded and stop working if the phone was charged while still wet."
edit: one could argue that the fact that the phone corroded was a failure to meet the IP standard, but since the standard technically applies only to the exposure, not charging after exposure it’s more of a design defect than a failure to meet the standard.
there’s a difference between Showing IP 67 compliance and warranty all water damage. Someone has Helpfully posted above a page on Apple’s website that explains how water resistance can be affected by damage.
According to the link you posted, “Samsung Australia’s ads promoting its Galaxy phones featured people using their phones in pools and sea water, despite the fact that this could ultimately result in significant damage to the phone."
Where is the evidence that the iPhone is not actually not rated as IP67?
??? In reading that link, the issue wasn't the spec. Samsung has IP67 rated smart watches just as Apple does. They aren't lying about it.
Actually, the issue seemed to be that water exposure would cause corrosion so even though it may have been IP67 rated, using it in the manner indicated would potentially render the phone inoperable.
"Samsung Australia has acknowledged that if the Galaxy phones were submerged in pool or sea water there was a material prospect the charging port would become corroded and stop working if the phone was charged while still wet."
edit: one could argue that the fact that the phone corroded was a failure to meet the IP standard, but since the standard technically applies only to the exposure, not charging after exposure it’s more of a design defect than a failure to meet the standard.
As someone who gets their iPhone wet a lot, I know that Apple is very cautious about when it will allow the charging port to operate again if it's wet or damp. If my iPhone battery has been low (or even dead) this can seem like an annoying precaution, but I've never lost an iPhone to unwanted corrosion or water damage even after years of use and several, nondestructive drops. I wonder how well Samsung monitors their devices with SW to make sure the connection port won't create a short if wet.
there’s a difference between Showing IP 67 compliance and warranty all water damage. Someone has Helpfully posted above a page on Apple’s website that explains how water resistance can be affected by damage.
According to the link you posted, “Samsung Australia’s ads promoting its Galaxy phones featured people using their phones in pools and sea water, despite the fact that this could ultimately result in significant damage to the phone."
Where is the evidence that the iPhone is not actually not rated as IP67?
??? In reading that link, the issue wasn't the spec. Samsung has IP67 rated smart watches just as Apple does. They aren't lying about it.
Actually, the issue seemed to be that water exposure would cause corrosion so even though it may have been IP67 rated, using it in the manner indicated would potentially render the phone inoperable.
"Samsung Australia has acknowledged that if the Galaxy phones were submerged in pool or sea water there was a material prospect the charging port would become corroded and stop working if the phone was charged while still wet."
edit: one could argue that the fact that the phone corroded was a failure to meet the IP standard, but since the standard technically applies only to the exposure, not charging after exposure it’s more of a design defect than a failure to meet the standard.
After a re-read I essentially agree with you. 😀
Sorry. Agreeing is a potentially catastrophic violation of internet protocols. The last time it happened it nearly broke the internet. We just can't let that happen again so I'm going to have to change my answer!
I don’t have time to this myself, but I suspect some enlightenment could be derived by comparing the fine print on this subject for the Apple Watch and the iPhone, if someone wants to do it.
The phone claims a level of water resistance. The watch is actually sold as something you can use while swimming. I suspect the difference in warranty language would shed light on what the phone’s warranty limitations are all about.
Apple's Watch warranty, even for the Apple Watch Ultra, will not cover water damage. But what about AppleCare+? That covers damage due to "unexpected and unintentional events" which includes accidental contact with liquids, after paying a deductible. Willfully wearing it in wet conditions may not be covered, so you wouldn't mention you intentionally went swimming with it. https://discussions.apple.com/thread/254258623?sortBy=ran
You know the phrase "talk the talk, but not walk the walk"?
Just because it's stated in Apple warranty that water damage is not covered, even for their devices with high water resistance IP rating, it doesn't mean that Apple will not cover any of their devices for water damage, at all.
We're agreeing, right? As long as you're willing to push the issue, preferably in person at an Apple Store if one is within a couple of hours drive time, you may get a replacement despite Apple specifically saying it is not a warranty event.
In fairness Samsung and Garmin do the same thing with no coverage for water damage. Perhaps that's why their respective marketing departments try to one up each other with promoting examples of using them in situations they don't warranty. They want to appear more durable than the competition. If Apple says go swimming, "it's an iPhone", but Samsung doesn't show a happy swimmer wearing their Galaxy watch, then that proves the Apple Watch is more water-resistant, even if the on-paper specs might be the same, right?
Gotta love grandiose marketing.
Of course some buyers reading their warranty and seeing no coverage for water damage may not even try, saving Apple the cost of considering replacement to begin with. So I understand the reasoning behind the lawsuit, even if the likelihood of winning is low, along with why some of us here think Apple or Samsung or Garmin can't warranty it anyway.
So wouldn't it be better if Apple would avoid telling us to go swimming with it, and instead simply promote the water resistance and what that generally means, along with caution to avoid contact with water? Put that wrning details in the footnotes if they want to minimize it, but at least let buyers know they are doing so at their own risk. That would have avoided a lawsuit altogether.
Is up-front honesty something you would disagree with? Sounds more consumer-friendly, doesn't it, even if the marketing department doesn't like it?
Many of the Apple users that chimed in to claim that Apple had replaced their water damaged, said that they no problem getting their still under warranty device replaced by Apple. Some say that it's better to do it online and others say to go to an Apple Store. The person here that got their water damaged iPhone replaced, got it replace online, after getting a run around at an Apple Store. So ones mileage will vary. But at least with Apple, one have at least two chances of get a water damaged Apple device replaced. Hell, I have read that if you're near 2 or 3 Apple Stores, you can try all 3 stores to get a replacement and even though the first 2 stores denied the replacement, the 3rd one might replace it. Can Samsung phone owners bring their water damaged Galaxy to any "Samsung Store" to get it replaced under warranty for factory defect?
It seems that most users aren't even aware of the water damage clause in their Apple device warranty and are truly surprised when told about it when they brought their water damaged device to an Apple Store. Even if the Apple device users were aware of their device warranty not covering water damage, if the user knows that they did not do anything that exceeded the IP68 rating to cause the water damage, they will (and should) still put up a fight to get it replaced, if the device is still under warranty.
Apple warranty states that they will not cover water damage but the warranty will cover any factory defects that might had led to the water damage. Which is probably the main reason why Apple have replaced water damaged devices, despite what their warranty states. Think about it, if you know your $800 (and above) iPhone was not subject anything above the IP68 rating and the iPhone been in a case since day 1, never been dropped and only 3 months old, then it must have been a factory defect then led to the water damage. And Apple will mostly find or admit a defect, if it shows no sign of abuse and replace the iPhone. Apple is not flipping a coin or rolling dices, to determine the water damaged devices that they replace.
No electronic production lines produce defective free products, 100% of the time. Most would not be able to to afford such a product as the cost of quality control to find 100% of the defective ones, would be enormous. Therefore, there is a percentage of products sold with defects, that companies are willing accept, as the cost to find the last few percentages of defective products before they are sold, exceed what it would cost to replace them (after they are sold). And that percentage usually hovers around 2% to 5%. Therefore, Apple knows that 2% to 5% of the all devices they sold, had some form of factory defect that their quality control did not detect. So Apple is more than willing to replace the devices they sold that had a factory defect. So long as the replacement rate do not greatly exceed their expected and accepted defect rate.
This is why IMO, this lawsuit will be tossed. The plaintiff would have to prove that Apple adhered to their .... any water damage device are not covered under the standard warranty (not Apple Care), 100% of the time. This would be Apple admitting that they never sold a device with a defective water seal (or any other factory defects that might compromise the seal.) . And the lawyers would pounce on that. But Apple can show that they do replace water damaged device under their standard warranty, on many occasions and maybe up to 2% of the all the devices sold. Which would line up if Apple was willing to accept that 2% of the devices they sold, might had had a factory defect when sold. Now this is different than a design flaw that caused the water seal to fail, after several months of normal use.
This is no different than auto makers warranty not covering parts that wear under normal use, like brake pads. But if the front brake pads of your 3 month old auto wore down to metal after 10,000 miles and scored the rotors, due to faulty calipers, the auto maker will replace the defective calipers, along with the damaged rotors and install new brake pads, even if the brake pads were not covered under warranty.
If someone brought a water damaged iPhone to an Apple Store and Apple discovered a factory defect in the seal, they are not going to replace the seal under warranty and tell the person the water damage is not covered under warranty. Then Apple would be in big trouble. But it seems that some here actually thinks that's what Apple would do just because of what's stated in their warranty.
BTW- The Apple Watch since Series 2 also have an ISO rating of 22810:2010. Not sure if Samsung watches have the same rating. So it's not just the IP rating that might make the Apple Watch more water resistance than the Samsung watch with the same IP rating.
>Most Apple Watches (Series 2 or later) have an ISO water-resistance rating of 22810:2010, meaning they’re safe up to 50 meters underwater.
The Ultra and Ultra 2
are even more rugged, and they both carry a water-resistance rating of
100 meters. So if you want to take a dip with your Apple Watch, go for
it. There are even several swimming options to choose from in the
Workout app.<
iPhones do not have this same ISO rating and I don't ever recall Apple saying that you could swim with your iPhone.
I don’t have time to this myself, but I suspect some enlightenment could be derived by comparing the fine print on this subject for the Apple Watch and the iPhone, if someone wants to do it.
The phone claims a level of water resistance. The watch is actually sold as something you can use while swimming. I suspect the difference in warranty language would shed light on what the phone’s warranty limitations are all about.
Apple's Watch warranty, even for the Apple Watch Ultra, will not cover water damage. But what about AppleCare+? That covers damage due to "unexpected and unintentional events" which includes accidental contact with liquids, after paying a deductible. Willfully wearing it in wet conditions may not be covered, so you wouldn't mention you intentionally went swimming with it. https://discussions.apple.com/thread/254258623?sortBy=ran
You know the phrase "talk the talk, but not walk the walk"?
Just because it's stated in Apple warranty that water damage is not covered, even for their devices with high water resistance IP rating, it doesn't mean that Apple will not cover any of their devices for water damage, at all.
We're agreeing, right? As long as you're willing to push the issue, preferably in person at an Apple Store if one is within a couple of hours drive time, you may get a replacement despite Apple specifically saying it is not a warranty event.
In fairness Samsung and Garmin do the same thing with no coverage for water damage. Perhaps that's why their respective marketing departments try to one up each other with promoting examples of using them in situations they don't warranty. They want to appear more durable than the competition. If Apple says go swimming, "it's an iPhone", but Samsung doesn't show a happy swimmer wearing their Galaxy watch, then that proves the Apple Watch is more water-resistant, even if the on-paper specs might be the same, right?
Gotta love grandiose marketing.
Of course some buyers reading their warranty and seeing no coverage for water damage may not even try, saving Apple the cost of considering replacement to begin with. So I understand the reasoning behind the lawsuit, even if the likelihood of winning is low, along with why some of us here think Apple or Samsung or Garmin can't warranty it anyway.
So wouldn't it be better if Apple would avoid telling us to go swimming with it, and instead simply promote the water resistance and what that generally means, along with caution to avoid contact with water? Put that wrning details in the footnotes if they want to minimize it, but at least let buyers know they are doing so at their own risk. That would have avoided a lawsuit altogether.
Is up-front honesty something you would disagree with? Sounds more consumer-friendly, doesn't it, even if the marketing department doesn't like it?
BTW- The Apple Watch since Series 2 also have an ISO rating of 22810:2010. Not sure if Samsung watches have the same rating. So it's not just the IP rating that might make the Apple Watch more water resistance than the Samsung watch with the same IP rating.
>Most Apple Watches (Series 2 or later) have an ISO water-resistance rating of 22810:2010, meaning they’re safe up to 50 meters underwater.
The Ultra and Ultra 2
are even more rugged, and they both carry a water-resistance rating of
100 meters. So if you want to take a dip with your Apple Watch, go for
it. There are even several swimming options to choose from in the
Workout app.<
iPhones do not have this same ISO rating and I don't ever recall Apple saying that you could swim with your iPhone.
Yes, Garmin, Samsung, and in probably a surprise for you Google too (Pixel Watch) sell smartwatches with an ISO rating of 22810:2010. But since you took the time to note the ISO specification, it shouldn't be a surprise.
Since 2010, any watch marked as water-resistant, regardless of brand, must meet the ISO 22810:2010 standard.
AppleCare+ will cover water damage to your iPhone, but of course with a service fee depending on what model you have. Anecdotally, I upgrade every other year and I have been hanging/propping up my iPhones (Since the 7 Plus) in the bathroom or shower to listen to podcasts, wiping the condensation off after and going about my day almost daily and never had an issue with mine. I've dropped a couple of phones completely into water, pulled them out and dried them without issue. And lastly, it was my last iPhone (13 Pro) I intentionally took underwater to take pictures and video in the ocean, rinsed with fresh water immediately after, dried and no problems for another year after. Maybe I just got super lucky on the sealing job of the phones I've been getting, but none of them have cause me a visit to the Apple Store yet for water damage thankfully.
Comments
2) Apple also makes their devices to withstand a certain level of impact, which has notably gotten better over the years, especially with improved GorillaGlass®, but does that mean the warranty should also cover any physical damage to the device?
What about stories about their Satellite SOS service on their iPhone of A-Fib detection on the Watch swing a life? If one person is saved from it does that mean they should be held liable for everyone who wasn't saved?
In fairness Samsung and Garmin do the same thing with no coverage for water damage. Perhaps that's why their respective marketing departments try to one up each other with promoting examples of using them in situations they don't warranty. They want to appear more durable than the competition. If Apple says go swimming, "it's an iPhone", but Samsung doesn't show a happy swimmer wearing their Galaxy watch, then that proves the Apple Watch is more water-resistant, even if the on-paper specs might be the same, right?
Gotta love grandiose marketing.
Of course some buyers reading their warranty and seeing no coverage for water damage may not even try, saving Apple the cost of considering replacement to begin with. So I understand the reasoning behind the lawsuit, even if the likelihood of winning is low, along with why some of us here think Apple or Samsung or Garmin can't warranty it anyway.
So wouldn't it be better if Apple would avoid telling us to go swimming with it, and instead simply promote the water resistance and what that generally means, along with caution to avoid contact with water? Put that wrning details in the footnotes if they want to minimize it, but at least let buyers know they are doing so at their own risk.
That would have avoided a lawsuit altogether.
Is up-front honesty something you would disagree with? Sounds more consumer-friendly, doesn't it, even if the marketing department doesn't like it?
Where is the evidence that the iPhone is not actually not rated as IP67? Again, you're failing to understand that water resistance does not equate to being waterproof, and that the rating has very specific testing limitations, like depth (aka pressure) and duration. Again I'll ask if you think that if Apple says their display is now twice as impact resistance than it was previously that if you think that equates to being able to smash it with a hammer without it breaking or if simply advertising that something is better doesn't mean that it's impenetrable? Maybe it would help you if you remove Apple from the equation and just think of this rationally in a general sense.
In reading that link, the issue wasn't the spec. Samsung has IP67 rated smartphones and smartwatches just as Apple does. They aren't lying about it.
"Samsung Australia has acknowledged that if the Galaxy phones were submerged in pool or sea water there was a material prospect the charging port would become corroded and stop working if the phone was charged while still wet."
edit: one could argue that the fact that the phone corroded was a failure to meet the IP standard, but since the standard technically applies only to the exposure, not charging after exposure it’s more of a design defect than a failure to meet the standard.
The Ultra and Ultra 2 are even more rugged, and they both carry a water-resistance rating of 100 meters. So if you want to take a dip with your Apple Watch, go for it. There are even several swimming options to choose from in the Workout app.<
iPhones do not have this same ISO rating and I don't ever recall Apple saying that you could swim with your iPhone.
Yes, Garmin, Samsung, and in probably a surprise for you Google too (Pixel Watch) sell smartwatches with an ISO rating of 22810:2010. But since you took the time to note the ISO specification, it shouldn't be a surprise.
Since 2010, any watch marked as water-resistant, regardless of brand, must meet the ISO 22810:2010 standard.