"but prolonged exposure %u2014 such as swimming %u2014 would be harmful."
It's not just a matter of the length of exposure but the amount of pressure the device is subjected to while in the presence of water. IPX7 doesn't mean you can really take it 3 feet underwater. It means it was tested under lab conditions to withstand that level of submersion - without any movement or shock - for 30 minutes. The mere act of waving your hand back and forth underwater would subject the watch to pressures far beyond what it would experience if it were just standing still in a tank of water in a lab.
A watch that could be safely taken swimming would need an IPX rating for a depth 30 feet or more.
Water resistance is a very misleading topic for anyone unfamiliar with the details.
I rarely take my watch off at all no matter what I'm doing, and that includes scuba diving. True water resistance would substantially elevate the utility of the Apple Watch as it could extend your iPhone's capabilities to places where you would never think to take your iPhone (beach, swimming pool, boating, snorkeling, etc.) It would dramatically extend the horizons of what we consider "mobile."
PX7 doesn't mean you can really take it 3 feet underwater.
That's exactly what it means, which you even state in your next comment, "It means it was tested under lab conditions to withstand that level of submersion." You're saying the same thing there. In no way does the 1M submersion test imply that you can anything to without 1M of water.
Furthermore, that test is only an indicator of what the vendor is willing to support and in no way states what it can't do. Not supporting swimming may not be because it can't take the pressure of swimming, but because swimming is usually in salt or chlorine water, which the IP ratings don't test.
Finally, what vendor, especially with Apple's mindshare, would say it's suitable for swimming just to have some asset with the Milanese or leather loop lose theirs int he water. Are even the plastic straps after to resist all force from stores without becoming unclasped? The safe bet is to simply never say they can be used whilst swimming until such time as you 1) have bands made specifically for swimming, and 2) have HW and SW that can benefit swimmers.
No, it isn't. Please refrain from making such black and white pronouncements about a topic with which you are clearly unfamiliar.
There's a huge difference between testing a device under strict, laboratory conditions for a predetermined period of time and using said device in real world conditions - especially when it comes to water resistance. A device is supposed to be tested BEYOND its intended operational environment. A watch that's rated/tested for 30 minutes of submersion at a depth of 1 meter may not maintain its water resistance when submerged at that depth for longer periods of time or when subjected to additional pressures caused by movement at that depth or by impact with other objects.
Watches meant for scuba diving are generally rated/tested for water resistance to 200-300 meters, far beneath the depth that 95% of its users will ever reach. The level of water resistance generally considered safe for swimming is 10 meters. For snorkeling, 100 meters.
No, it isn't. Please refrain from making such black and white pronouncements about a topic with which you are clearly unfamiliar.
There's a huge difference between testing a device under strict, laboratory conditions for a predetermined period of time and using said device in real world conditions - especially when it comes to water resistance. A device is supposed to be tested BEYOND its intended operational environment. <span style="line-height:22.399999618530273px;">A watch that's rated/tested for 30 minutes of submersion at a </span>
depth of<span style="line-height:22.399999618530273px;"> 1 meter may not maintain its water resistance when submerged at that depth for longer periods of time or when subjected to additional pressures caused by movement at that depth or by impact with other objects.</span>
Watches meant for scuba diving are generally rated/tested for water resistance to 200-300 meters, far beneath the depth that 95% of its users will ever reach. The level of water resistance generally considered safe for swimming is 10 meters. For snorkeling, 100 meters.
You are wrong. The IP rating is exactly what it purports.
You are wrong. The IP rating is exactly what it purports.
I've practiced recreational scuba diving and underwater photography since I was 13 (six weeks of training & certification, not today's half-day resort scuba courses), and I've had a considerable amount of experience with numerous products with varying levels of claimed water resistance. I've done a significant amount of research into this area over the years in my quest for various products.
What knowledge, training, experience, or reference materials can you cite to back up your position, other than a simple-minded, literal interpretation of what is intended to be a technical specification?
How can it take that but have issues with the shower?
Easy: a shower adds directional pressure from the water jets. Further soap etc. decreases the water's surface tension, allowing water to more easily penetrate seals, and cleaning product residues might chemically degrade seals over time.
A splash of rain water or some some splashes from washing the hands are a different type of exposure.
I've practiced recreational scuba diving and underwater photography since I was 13 (six weeks of training & certification, not today's half-day resort scuba courses), and I've had a considerable amount of experience with numerous products with varying levels of claimed water resistance. I've done a significant amount of research into this area over the years in my quest for various products.
What knowledge, training, experience, or reference materials can you cite to back up your position, other than a simple-minded, literal interpretation of what is intended to be a technical specification?
And that states exactly what is tested (just a I've been saying), which makes your comment, "IPX7 doesn't mean you can really take it 3 feet underwater," wrong.
You have absolutely no defense here. The IPX7 and IP67 rating means its been tested to withstand submersion for 30 minutes under 1M of water. That means it can go under 3 feet of water.
I think you're over thinking it since thhe IP rating means exactly what it says, which you both don't seem to understand, yet you previously stated you do understand it when you wrote, "It means it was tested under lab conditions to withstand that level of submersion."
I suppose the question why would assume anything other than a lab condition? Your argument is the same as saying, "That 10 hour video playback for Mac is only under lab conditions because if I decide to max out the processors until the battery dies it's only going to last a couple hours." Yeah! Who would assume anything else.
Finally, not having a better cerification doesn't mean it can't withstand anything else than what is stated in the rating. The rating ONLY indicates what the vendor is willing to stand behind. For example, It's possible a watch with an IP67 rating can be submerged 2M for 24 hours without issue. What is doesn't mean is that it will break at 1.1M or 31 minutes submerged.
a shower adds directional pressure from the water jets.
Sure, but that doesn't tell us anything about the pressure that would be experienced in various positions in the shower. What is the pressure from the typical shower if, say, you were to be washing your hair and your watch got right by the shower head? If it more than the pressure from a 1M depth? (Note the kilonewtons for that depth has already been discussed)
Apple should of tried harder with the water resistance - on the Sport versions in particular. They could be losing a lot of potential customers because of this. Especially considering how pricey most of the Apple Watch variations are, and the market their competing in...a little disappointing and arrogant on Apple's part.
Water proof smart watches have existed for many years now. Apple is so late in the game with this they could have easily incorporated this, pretty much every major company besides Del Monte Foods has a smart watch out.
Did you seriously vomit out that line? You do realize that Apple was "late in the game" to every single market that they currently dominate, right? You do realize what a mind-numbing and frankly brain-dead argument that is in 2015, right? Your statement of "easily incorporated" is such horse-shit, and you know that, since you haven't bothered to provide a shred of evidence or justification for it. "Late to the game"? I seriously don't get people like you. That moronic statement in regards to Apple got tired a decade ago. Now, I don't even know what to call it. If you pulled your head out of your ass you'd realize that Apple's goal is not, and never has been, to be the first to shit out a product to the marketplace. Nor should it be, as that's a pretty pathetic, laughable, and useless goal.
I wonder if that microphone hole excludes it from getting an IP67 rating. I'd think preventing dust ingress would be pretty simple to acheive if you can prevebt water molecules from entering with 110Kn on the device.
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.
I have to wonder ... why inductive charging if not trying to obtain a higher certification?
The whole point seems to be to seal that sucker up with as few exposed openings as possible. If Apple is saying it's not designed to be immersed, there could just as easily be a sealed port with contacts on the bottom that sit on a maglock dimple, which would surely charge the watch faster. I have a tracking collar for my dog that has exactly this. snaps onto a charger. And it is designed to be submerged in water when my dog swims.
So I don't really understand this. A $100 plastic dog tracking collar with GPS, a cellular radio, a rechargeable battery, and fitness tracker, which lasts up to 1 week on a charge, is waterproof when the ?Watch is not.
I fully expect the 2G Apple watch to be water-resistant up to 20 meters at least. And thinner. ;-)
P.S. I think putting a speaker on the watch is kind of silly, given the power constraints of the 1G. It seems like a 5 year old boy's wish fulfillment. For Cook to market it as a significant feature for making phone calls, when the use of it will deplete the battery faster than any other activity, seems equally irresponsible. The watch really does so many amazing things, did they really have to compromise water resistance (assuming this is a contributor) for something that could have waited for 2G, or even 3G?
I went through three wrist-worn iPod nano's by accidentally wearing them in the shower. If that issue is now off the table that's a huge positive for the Apple Watch. And pay no attention to those whining that not being able to swim with it is a deal breaker. Besides, chances are good they're paid by the competition to come on here and bitch and moan.
Actually, no. I am a longstanding Apple fan, supporter, and user who trains for triathlons with my iPhone in a LifeProof case and was hoping for an Apple Watch that could keep up with my iPhone.
I wonder if that microphone hole excludes it from getting an IP67 rating. I'd think preventing dust ingress would be pretty simple to acheive if you can prevebt water molecules from entering with 110Kn on the device.
Depending on depth rating, a simple goretex membrane will allow speakers and microphones to work while maintaining water resistance. Alternately, the cone of the speaker can be hermetically sealed, along with a flexibly sealed resonance port. It's already been done. I own waterproof ear buds and they work fine, while being waterproof.
Depending on depth rating, a simple goretex membrane will allow speakers and microphones to work while maintaining water resistance. Alternately, the cone of the speaker can be hermetically sealed, along with a flexibly sealed resonance port. It's already been done. I own waterproof ear buds and they work fine, while being waterproof.
I have water resistant headphones for my water resistant iPod Shuffle case. It works well enough for what it is but I wonder about a microphone's ability compared to speakers. Those headphones cost considerably more than standard in-ear phones but sound worse (not that I'm complaining, I'm very happy to have headphones at work while swimming.)
Did you seriously vomit out that line? You do realize that Apple was "late in the game" to every single market that they currently dominate, right? You do realize what a mind-numbing and frankly brain-dead argument that is in 2015, right? Your statement of "easily incorporated" is such horse-shit, and you know that, since you haven't bothered to provide a shred of evidence or justification for it. "Late to the game"? I seriously don't get people like you. That moronic statement in regards to Apple got tired a decade ago. Now, I don't even know what to call it. If you pulled your head out of your ass you'd realize that Apple's goal is not, and never has been, to be the first to shit out a product to the marketplace. Nor should it be, as that's a pretty pathetic, laughable, and useless goal.
Ha! You're funny dude. I needed a good laugh this morning.
Though I feel guilty for laughing, you obviously have deep rooted mental instability.
Comments
It's not just a matter of the length of exposure but the amount of pressure the device is subjected to while in the presence of water. IPX7 doesn't mean you can really take it 3 feet underwater. It means it was tested under lab conditions to withstand that level of submersion - without any movement or shock - for 30 minutes. The mere act of waving your hand back and forth underwater would subject the watch to pressures far beyond what it would experience if it were just standing still in a tank of water in a lab.
A watch that could be safely taken swimming would need an IPX rating for a depth 30 feet or more.
Water resistance is a very misleading topic for anyone unfamiliar with the details.
You swim with watch every day?
I rarely take my watch off at all no matter what I'm doing, and that includes scuba diving. True water resistance would substantially elevate the utility of the Apple Watch as it could extend your iPhone's capabilities to places where you would never think to take your iPhone (beach, swimming pool, boating, snorkeling, etc.) It would dramatically extend the horizons of what we consider "mobile."
That's exactly what it means, which you even state in your next comment, "It means it was tested under lab conditions to withstand that level of submersion." You're saying the same thing there. In no way does the 1M submersion test imply that you can anything to without 1M of water.
Furthermore, that test is only an indicator of what the vendor is willing to support and in no way states what it can't do. Not supporting swimming may not be because it can't take the pressure of swimming, but because swimming is usually in salt or chlorine water, which the IP ratings don't test.
Finally, what vendor, especially with Apple's mindshare, would say it's suitable for swimming just to have some asset with the Milanese or leather loop lose theirs int he water. Are even the plastic straps after to resist all force from stores without becoming unclasped? The safe bet is to simply never say they can be used whilst swimming until such time as you 1) have bands made specifically for swimming, and 2) have HW and SW that can benefit swimmers.
That's exactly what it means
No, it isn't. Please refrain from making such black and white pronouncements about a topic with which you are clearly unfamiliar.
There's a huge difference between testing a device under strict, laboratory conditions for a predetermined period of time and using said device in real world conditions - especially when it comes to water resistance. A device is supposed to be tested BEYOND its intended operational environment. A watch that's rated/tested for 30 minutes of submersion at a depth of 1 meter may not maintain its water resistance when submerged at that depth for longer periods of time or when subjected to additional pressures caused by movement at that depth or by impact with other objects.
Watches meant for scuba diving are generally rated/tested for water resistance to 200-300 meters, far beneath the depth that 95% of its users will ever reach. The level of water resistance generally considered safe for swimming is 10 meters. For snorkeling, 100 meters.
You are wrong. The IP rating is exactly what it purports.
You are wrong. The IP rating is exactly what it purports.
I've practiced recreational scuba diving and underwater photography since I was 13 (six weeks of training & certification, not today's half-day resort scuba courses), and I've had a considerable amount of experience with numerous products with varying levels of claimed water resistance. I've done a significant amount of research into this area over the years in my quest for various products.
What knowledge, training, experience, or reference materials can you cite to back up your position, other than a simple-minded, literal interpretation of what is intended to be a technical specification?
Water resistance classification
Easy: a shower adds directional pressure from the water jets. Further soap etc. decreases the water's surface tension, allowing water to more easily penetrate seals, and cleaning product residues might chemically degrade seals over time.
A splash of rain water or some some splashes from washing the hands are a different type of exposure.
And that states exactly what is tested (just a I've been saying), which makes your comment, "IPX7 doesn't mean you can really take it 3 feet underwater," wrong.
You have absolutely no defense here. The IPX7 and IP67 rating means its been tested to withstand submersion for 30 minutes under 1M of water. That means it can go under 3 feet of water.
I think you're over thinking it since thhe IP rating means exactly what it says, which you both don't seem to understand, yet you previously stated you do understand it when you wrote, "It means it was tested under lab conditions to withstand that level of submersion."
I suppose the question why would assume anything other than a lab condition? Your argument is the same as saying, "That 10 hour video playback for Mac is only under lab conditions because if I decide to max out the processors until the battery dies it's only going to last a couple hours." Yeah! Who would assume anything else.
Finally, not having a better cerification doesn't mean it can't withstand anything else than what is stated in the rating. The rating ONLY indicates what the vendor is willing to stand behind. For example, It's possible a watch with an IP67 rating can be submerged 2M for 24 hours without issue. What is doesn't mean is that it will break at 1.1M or 31 minutes submerged.
Sure, but that doesn't tell us anything about the pressure that would be experienced in various positions in the shower. What is the pressure from the typical shower if, say, you were to be washing your hair and your watch got right by the shower head? If it more than the pressure from a 1M depth? (Note the kilonewtons for that depth has already been discussed)
Apple should of tried harder with the water resistance - on the Sport versions in particular. They could be losing a lot of potential customers because of this. Especially considering how pricey most of the Apple Watch variations are, and the market their competing in...a little disappointing and arrogant on Apple's part.
Water proof smart watches have existed for many years now. Apple is so late in the game with this they could have easily incorporated this, pretty much every major company besides Del Monte Foods has a smart watch out.
Did you seriously vomit out that line? You do realize that Apple was "late in the game" to every single market that they currently dominate, right? You do realize what a mind-numbing and frankly brain-dead argument that is in 2015, right? Your statement of "easily incorporated" is such horse-shit, and you know that, since you haven't bothered to provide a shred of evidence or justification for it. "Late to the game"? I seriously don't get people like you. That moronic statement in regards to Apple got tired a decade ago. Now, I don't even know what to call it. If you pulled your head out of your ass you'd realize that Apple's goal is not, and never has been, to be the first to shit out a product to the marketplace. Nor should it be, as that's a pretty pathetic, laughable, and useless goal.
There are always people looking for a reason not to buy something, no matter how insignificant, misunderstood or just plain made-up the problem is.
Because people whose needs differ from what Apple provides are somehow inferior. /s
He said "for me", which presumes he was talking about himself, and no one else. He wasn't saying that no one should buy it, only that he wouldn't.
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.
I have to wonder ... why inductive charging if not trying to obtain a higher certification?
The whole point seems to be to seal that sucker up with as few exposed openings as possible. If Apple is saying it's not designed to be immersed, there could just as easily be a sealed port with contacts on the bottom that sit on a maglock dimple, which would surely charge the watch faster. I have a tracking collar for my dog that has exactly this. snaps onto a charger. And it is designed to be submerged in water when my dog swims.
So I don't really understand this. A $100 plastic dog tracking collar with GPS, a cellular radio, a rechargeable battery, and fitness tracker, which lasts up to 1 week on a charge, is waterproof when the ?Watch is not.
I fully expect the 2G Apple watch to be water-resistant up to 20 meters at least. And thinner. ;-)
P.S. I think putting a speaker on the watch is kind of silly, given the power constraints of the 1G. It seems like a 5 year old boy's wish fulfillment. For Cook to market it as a significant feature for making phone calls, when the use of it will deplete the battery faster than any other activity, seems equally irresponsible. The watch really does so many amazing things, did they really have to compromise water resistance (assuming this is a contributor) for something that could have waited for 2G, or even 3G?
Actually, no. I am a longstanding Apple fan, supporter, and user who trains for triathlons with my iPhone in a LifeProof case and was hoping for an Apple Watch that could keep up with my iPhone.
I have water resistant headphones for my water resistant iPod Shuffle case. It works well enough for what it is but I wonder about a microphone's ability compared to speakers. Those headphones cost considerably more than standard in-ear phones but sound worse (not that I'm complaining, I'm very happy to have headphones at work while swimming.)
Who the hell needs to wear their watch in the shower?
Waiting for an important call? Don't want to miss it while showering.
Or vendors may come up with touchless iWatch activated, temperature controlled, and timed shower head. How cool is that.
Ha! You're funny dude. I needed a good laugh this morning.
Though I feel guilty for laughing, you obviously have deep rooted mental instability.