AppleCare will replace the watch twice for accidental damage over two years. Factory defects will also get replaced, without AppleCare incidents. Sounds like he didn't purchase AppleCare, and was rude when he interacted with the Apple Store. They have a lot of flexibility to resolve issues when they believe the case calls for it, just as they can impose the fine print whenever the customer goes ballistic.
That's not much of a speculation. It's obvious that he didn't have Apple Care because if he had, there wouldn't have been a story! I don't know what evidence you are using to determine that the customer was rude. Maybe he was, maybe he wasn't - but there's noting in the story to indicate one way or another. He may have started our very polite until he found out that they weren't going to honor their warranty!
But as far as stories go, this one leaves a lot to be desired. They don't explain why Apple refused to cover it under warranty or any detail as to how the damage occurred or what escalations the customer attempted before going to court - or what defenses Apple presented in court (or if they even showed up!). I wouldn't be surprised if Apple just ignored the summons and had a guilty verdict entered in their absence.
I think those speculating a factory defect are wrong based on the small evidence that was reported. He won the case because he proved a sort of false advertising with regards to the impact resistant claim. So, I'm guessing that the customer must have claimed that something struck it or that it struck something - else why would the fact that Apple advertised "impact resistant" come into play at all? And again - if the case wasn't about an impact of some sort, why would this case result in Apple removing that particular claim from its advertising...?
I fell victim to the Sport's fragility. I like to swim - but Apple Watch isn't waterproof, so I take it off and put it in the locker. One day, when I lifted my gym bag out of the locker, the watch, lying beneath, got dragged out with the bag. It fell 3-4 feet to the tiled floor. Because of the weight distribution, it fell right onto its screen (unlike most cheap sport watches, the Apple Watch has no protruding bezel to protect the glass at all) and the glass got a million cracks.
Pitty. It is actually waterproof, at least enough for normal swimming (although Apple advises against it). You should have just left it on. I've been swimming with mine ever since I got it in the summer. I've put literally dozens of miles on it in the pool and in the ocean without any issue. As long as you are swimming on the surface (not at the bottom of the pool), then you will be fine.
Bad advice! I hope nobody listens to you and damages their watches! I'm glad to hear that your particular Apple Watch doesn't suffer any damage from being submerged - but it's way irresponsible for you to be telling other owners to go ahead. Tolerances may be very good but they are not exact between watches - and just because yours keeps out the water, it doesn't mean they all will...! Some batches may have a microscopic gap that allows the water in. Apple wouldn't need to call it a defect because they don't advertise it to be waterproof.
Do not go swimming with your Apple Watch on unless you have Apple Care and don't mind risking a replacement incident. It's NOT advertised to be waterproof and Apple will not honor warranty claims for water damage that occurred while swimming! You *may* be fine wearing it in the water - but you may not. Know the risk you are taking and think twice before you believe product claims posted by a new forum member with only 2 posts! I wouldn't put it past a troll to post something like that in an attempt to see how many Apple users he can trick into destroying their watches!!!
AppleCare will replace the watch twice for accidental damage over two years. Factory defects will also get replaced, without AppleCare incidents. Sounds like he didn't purchase AppleCare, and was rude when he interacted with the Apple Store. They have a lot of flexibility to resolve issues when they believe the case calls for it, just as they can impose the fine print whenever the customer goes ballistic.
That's not much of a speculation. It's obvious that he didn't have Apple Care because if he had, there wouldn't have been a story! I don't know what evidence you are using to determine that the customer was rude. Maybe he was, maybe he wasn't - but there's noting in the story to indicate one way or another. He may have started our very polite until he found out that they weren't going to honor their warranty!
But as far as stories go, this one leaves a lot to be desired. They don't explain why Apple refused to cover it under warranty or any detail as to how the damage occurred or what escalations the customer attempted before going to court - or what defenses Apple presented in court (or if they even showed up!). I wouldn't be surprised if Apple just ignored the summons and had a guilty verdict entered in their absence.
I think those speculating a factory defect are wrong based on the small evidence that was reported. He won the case because he proved a sort of false advertising with regards to the impact resistant claim. So, I'm guessing that the customer must have claimed that something struck it or that it struck something - else why would the fact that Apple advertised "impact resistant" come into play at all? And again - if the case wasn't about an impact of some sort, why would this case result in Apple removing that particular claim from its advertising...?
Pitty. It is actually waterproof, at least enough for normal swimming (although Apple advises against it). You should have just left it on. I've been swimming with mine ever since I got it in the summer. I've put literally dozens of miles on it in the pool and in the ocean without any issue. As long as you are swimming on the surface (not at the bottom of the pool), then you will be fine.
Bad advice! I hope nobody listens to you and damages their watches! I'm glad to hear that your particular Apple Watch doesn't suffer any damage from being submerged - but it's way irresponsible for you to be telling other owners to go ahead. Tolerances may be very good but they are not exact between watches - and just because yours keeps out the water, it doesn't mean they all will...! Some batches may have a microscopic gap that allows the water in. Apple wouldn't need to call it a defect because they don't advertise it to be waterproof.
Do not go swimming with your Apple Watch on unless you have Apple Care and don't mind risking a replacement incident. It's NOT advertised to be waterproof and Apple will not honor warranty claims for water damage that occurred while swimming! You *may* be fine wearing it in the water - but you may not. Know the risk you are taking and think twice before you believe product claims posted by a new forum member with only 2 posts! I wouldn't put it past a troll to post something like that in an attempt to see how many Apple users he can trick into destroying their watches!!!
Tell me, how exactly will Apple determine if the water damage was because by submerging it while swimming, and merely getting caught in a heavy downpour? If it's a factory defect, then the water ingress will be covered under warranty. If it's not a manufacturing defect, how will Apple know the difference?
The reason Apple can refuse to replace a water damaged iPhone is because they should not be exposed to water at all. Apple very clearly has said the Watch has a rating of IPX7 which means it can withstand at least submersion for 30 minutes in up to 3 meters of water. Given that, how could Apple ever refuse to cover a water damaged watch? The simple answer is, they can't.
Bad advice! I hope nobody listens to you and damages their watches! I'm glad to hear that your particular Apple Watch doesn't suffer any damage from being submerged - but it's way irresponsible for you to be telling other owners to go ahead. Tolerances may be very good but they are not exact between watches - and just because yours keeps out the water, it doesn't mean they all will...! Some batches may have a microscopic gap that allows the water in. Apple wouldn't need to call it a defect because they don't advertise it to be waterproof.
Do not go swimming with your Apple Watch on unless you have Apple Care and don't mind risking a replacement incident. It's NOT advertised to be waterproof and Apple will not honor warranty claims for water damage that occurred while swimming! You *may* be fine wearing it in the water - but you may not. Know the risk you are taking and think twice before you believe product claims posted by a new forum member with only 2 posts! I wouldn't put it past a troll to post something like that in an attempt to see how many Apple users he can trick into destroying their watches!!!
Tell me, how exactly will Apple determine if the water damage was because by submerging it while swimming, and merely getting caught in a heavy downpour? If it's a factory defect, then the water ingress will be covered under warranty. If it's not a manufacturing defect, how will Apple know the difference?
The reason Apple can refuse to replace a water damaged iPhone is because they should not be exposed to water at all. Apple very clearly has said the Watch has a rating of IPX7 which means it can withstand at least submersion for 30 minutes in up to 3 meters of water. Given that, how could Apple ever refuse to cover a water damaged watch? The simple answer is, they can't.
Sure. Point taken. I sometimes forget how easy it is for people to lie and how accepted it is to do so to a merchant. If you went swimming with it or dropped it in a toilet and then you claim that you didn't in order to obtain free repair or replace service, you are technically committing fraud. Just because you will never get caught and never get prosecuted, or just because "everybody else does it" doesn't make it "okay" in my book. For me, it doesn't matter if anyone else would ever know I had lied about how the damage occurred, I would know that I committed fraud and that's reason enough for me to be honest. It always amazes me how many people think it's okay to lie about stuff like this and on resumès. It's so common these days that merchants/employers just automatically assume that everybody is lying which often puts those of us who tell the truth at an unfair disadvantage. Sad, really.
But Mac_128 is correct. They would never be able to tell for certain how your water damage occurred and they would most likely honor your claim if you are comfortable lying about how it happened.
Tell me, how exactly will Apple determine if the water damage was because by submerging it while swimming, and merely getting caught in a heavy downpour? If it's a factory defect, then the water ingress will be covered under warranty. If it's not a manufacturing defect, how will Apple know the difference?
The reason Apple can refuse to replace a water damaged iPhone is because they should not be exposed to water at all. Apple very clearly has said the Watch has a rating of IPX7 which means it can withstand at least submersion for 30 minutes in up to 3 meters of water. Given that, how could Apple ever refuse to cover a water damaged watch? The simple answer is, they can't.
Sure. Point taken. I sometimes forget how easy it is for people to lie and how accepted it is to do so to a merchant. If you went swimming with it or dropped it in a toilet and then you claim that you didn't in order to obtain free repair or replace service, you are technically committing fraud. Just because you will never get caught and never get prosecuted, or just because "everybody else does it" doesn't make it "okay" in my book. For me, it doesn't matter if anyone else would ever know I had lied about how the damage occurred, I would know that I committed fraud and that's reason enough for me to be honest. It always amazes me how many people think it's okay to lie about stuff like this and on resumès. It's so common these days that merchants/employers just automatically assume that everybody is lying which often puts those of us who tell the truth at an unfair disadvantage. Sad, really.
But Mac_128 is correct. They would never be able to tell for certain how your water damage occurred and they would most likely honor your claim if you are comfortable lying about how it happened.
Apple has rated the watch IPX7 -- submerged under 3 meters of water for 30 minutes. As far as I know, they do not specifically state anywhere that the watch warranty will be void if a customer swims in it. They may not recommend it, on their webpage, but they don't say explicitly not to do it. They really can't have it both ways, i.e. an IPX certification, and explicitly stating it's OK for a customer to wear in the rain, or washing their hands when that exposure could easily exceed the exposure they don't recommend. Not to mention Apple recommended that customers with a sticky crown turn and press it while running water over it from a faucet! It's a mixed message at best. Time Cook even stated he wears his watch in the shower. Is swimming covered by IPX7? As long as the exposure doesn't exceed 30 minutes below 3 meters, I'd say so. At a minimum, falling into a pool at party, and the swimming required to get out would be covered. And as for dropping it in the toilet; that is 100% covered by the IPX7 rating. If my Watch failed because of that kind of water exposure, I would demand they replace it. What someone tells Apple is their own business. I would be up front with them myself. But my point is how would Apple know the difference between exceeding the IPX7 rating -- which is the published warranty threshold -- and a manufacturing defect? They can't, so it's moot -- lie or truth.
Sounds like he didn't purchase AppleCare, and was rude when he interacted with the Apple Store.
bit of a stretch to assume that, no? the article above doesn't even contain the entire story or even a source link. On UK news sites there's a bit more detail like he called apple, and didn't visit a store. He was also complimentary of the watch, stating he enjoyed what use he did get out of it and would buy another. It also doesn't say on this site that apple changed the description of the sport watch following this trial:
Gareth, 32, from Aberystwyth, said: “I bought my wife Rachel the regular Apple Watch, but I went for the Sport version because I am prone to knocking things about a bit and it said it was impact resistant.
The "impact resistant" claim has been removed from the apple store website now.
Comments
But as far as stories go, this one leaves a lot to be desired. They don't explain why Apple refused to cover it under warranty or any detail as to how the damage occurred or what escalations the customer attempted before going to court - or what defenses Apple presented in court (or if they even showed up!). I wouldn't be surprised if Apple just ignored the summons and had a guilty verdict entered in their absence.
I think those speculating a factory defect are wrong based on the small evidence that was reported. He won the case because he proved a sort of false advertising with regards to the impact resistant claim.
So, I'm guessing that the customer must have claimed that something struck it or that it struck something - else why would the fact that Apple advertised "impact resistant" come into play at all? And again - if the case wasn't about an impact of some sort, why would this case result in Apple removing that particular claim from its advertising...?
Bad advice! I hope nobody listens to you and damages their watches! I'm glad to hear that your particular Apple Watch doesn't suffer any damage from being submerged - but it's way irresponsible for you to be telling other owners to go ahead. Tolerances may be very good but they are not exact between watches - and just because yours keeps out the water, it doesn't mean they all will...! Some batches may have a microscopic gap that allows the water in. Apple wouldn't need to call it a defect because they don't advertise it to be waterproof.
Do not go swimming with your Apple Watch on unless you have Apple Care and don't mind risking a replacement incident. It's NOT advertised to be waterproof and Apple will not honor warranty claims for water damage that occurred while swimming! You *may* be fine wearing it in the water - but you may not. Know the risk you are taking and think twice before you believe product claims posted by a new forum member with only 2 posts! I wouldn't put it past a troll to post something like that in an attempt to see how many Apple users he can trick into destroying their watches!!!
The reason Apple can refuse to replace a water damaged iPhone is because they should not be exposed to water at all. Apple very clearly has said the Watch has a rating of IPX7 which means it can withstand at least submersion for 30 minutes in up to 3 meters of water. Given that, how could Apple ever refuse to cover a water damaged watch? The simple answer is, they can't.
But Mac_128 is correct. They would never be able to tell for certain how your water damage occurred and they would most likely honor your claim if you are comfortable lying about how it happened.
Gareth, 32, from Aberystwyth, said: “I bought my wife Rachel the regular Apple Watch, but I went for the Sport version because I am prone to knocking things about a bit and it said it was impact resistant.