I can attest to this..
I have my Applewatch on all the time.. This includes swiming, shower, windsurfing, bikram yoga , jacuzzi...etc.
The only thing i avoid is diving deeper than 4-5 feet .
Sport model? Stainless?
I put mine on prior to getting in the shower every day, Sport model. The only annoying thing is trying to dry it off enough to control TuneIn Radio, the screen does not work well with any standing water on the surface.
Meanwhile the c|net article referenced in this post was in March of this year. Not a mention of the Consumer Reports test anywhere on the c|net website so far. Or buried so deep no one will ver find it. Coincidence?
I'm not sure what you're doing or if you misread.
This Apple Insider article is reporting on an article by Consumer Reports. And additionally references an older article from CNET which reports on a waterproof test from another company.
2) Cnet's article from March. Which is linked above in the article.
It seems like you wanted to find Consumer Reports' article by searching within Cnet? Because that's not it. I found Consumer Reports' article by searching google.
Meanwhile the c|net article referenced in this post was in March of this year. Not a mention of the Consumer Reports test anywhere on the c|net website so far. Or buried so deep no one will ver find it. Coincidence?
I'm not sure what you're doing or if you misread.
This Apple Insider article is reporting on an article by Consumer Reports. And additionally references an older article from CNET which reports on a waterproof test from another company.
2) Cnet's article from March. Which is linked above in the article.
It seems like you wanted to find Consumer Reports' article by searching within Cnet? Because that's not it. I found Consumer Reports' article by searching google.
No. What I am saying is the Consumer Reports article nowhere to be found on c|net and that that is intentional on c|net's part. If this were a negative article about Apple it would already be plastered all over c|net's front page. The Consumer Reports article may get mentioned on c|net but it will probably be buried somewhere.
I'm proposing evidence for what many already know. Only Apple gets the negative press.
'So what if Samsungs aren't actually waterproof … Here's an article I fished out of the interbowl, showing how an iPhone is easily destroyed by a nuke with a paltry one megaton yield. You Apple fans should consider that before raging on about Samsungs being damaged by water!'
'So what if Samsungs aren't actually waterproof … Here's an article I fished out of the interbowl, showing how an iPhone is easily destroyed by a nuke with a paltry one megaton yield. You Apple fans should consider that before raging on about Samsungs being damaged by water!'
Paging Cnocbui, paging Cnocbui…
Actually, it's not destroyed, its just bent, the screen still works though ;-), the colors are a bit off due to radiation and all that.
The only difference is that everyone knows that Android phones are shit to begin with, that fandroids have zero expectations of Apple-level quality in those mobile devices, so hence no one really cares.
Yet Android and especially Samsung devices continue to sell by the million. There are Lots of people who think that iPhones are shit (I don't).
For many purchasers, the cost is the thing. How much does the phone cost me? What is my monthly plan? I don't know anyone who gets their phone with then mobile phone plan. It used to be the other way round but now be it Apple, Android or WindowsPhone, most people by the phone and then select their carrier or simply put the SIM from the old phone into the new one and get on with life. Changing carriers and taking your number with you is also easy. This is not the USA so YMMV.
I don’t understand the purpose of this article. If you haven’t just fallen off the turnip truck you know that Samsung gets a pass on this sort of stuff. In fact all the Android OEMs get passes on this stuff. It’s sort of, “Oh well, what else is new.” Apple is the only tech company that gets hogtied, dragged to the public square, and locked in a pillory where the tech media and haters get to hurl insults and epithets.
Nothing to see here. Move along. So what.
At the least it's just a good FYI to the Apple community, so does serve some purpose.
No surprise at all here. Small thing, but not really. When companies and/or people are honest, it's incredibly easy to assimilate that and take it for granted. In fact, it's easy to take advantage/leverage honest behavior. Accordingly, when we consider Apple's honesty as a company, it's easy to forget just how honest it is and how rare that is in this world.
Shipping stuff that works, even if it lags behind a competitor's flashy half-baked features, is honesty. Admitting when you make a mistake is honesty. Not announcing products until they are truly ready is honesty. Publicly taking clear, rationaled moral/ethical positions on controversial issues, such as privacy, even when it can hit your bottom line, is honesty.
In the end, people will come to the most honest company. It's good Karma. It's the higher ground. I appreciate doing business with an honest company. I'd rather. Call me crazy, but I believe that as the issues/exposures of personal privacy, browsing privacy, purchase privacy, location and social affiliations evolve through the next 20 years, Apple's honesty - the long game - will prove invaluable. No matter how much money and power you may accumulate, your value as a company or human being really comes down to whether or not you can be trusted. I hope Apple maintains this quality.
Apple is the gold standard and you can tell they put a lot of effort into making things work the first time, no question about that. And that's why they sit at the top earning most of the profits.
But I'd have to disagree that it's not 100% due to honestly when companies release products that seem half baked. The reason why I also buy Samsung phones is because they release things early. Kind of like when you walk into an R&D lab and see all the cool things being built, sometimes you want to play with it. Similar to how an early adopter for a startup is willing to deal with a less than perfect product to be one of the first.
I haven't seen anyone comment on this, so I'll give it a shot.
This Apple Insider article is reporting on a article from Consumer Reports. Consumer Reports released an article where they said two Galaxy S7 Active phones failed waterproof tests, and they said Galaxy S7 and S7 Edge were also tested but those passed. The Cnet article reported on some other company that tested S7 and S7 Edge and they failed. They didn't test S7 Active.
So this Apple Insider article mentioned S7 Active's failed test, but didn't mention the S7 and S7 Edge passed tests from Consumer Reports. Kind of convenient that they left that out while also pointing to the failed tests at Cnet.
It's mixed results. Yet everyone's saying that there's a scandal and S7 is horse crap and they're lying. But again, S7 and S7 Edge passed the tests by Consumer Reports, soooooo you can't really conclude Galaxy S7 sucks and they're lying and etc etc. The models that passed here actually failed there, and the one that failed here wasn't tested over there. Mixed results.
I love Apple by the way, iPhones MacBooks and Apple TV since 2009, and have never owned an android device and I actually have a negative opinion on them; before anyone starts saying I'm some android fan. Just being pragmatic.
Because this is now(-ish) and Samsung’s Korean -- which is to say psychopathic people in psychopathic times -- one must wonder whether the tests that established that Samsung met the standards hadn’t used rigged devices while stupid Consumer used phones they bought theirselves like any normal consumer would. The alternative is that Consumer obtained -- randomly -- only defective devices. I know where I'd place my money.
I looked for a similar page on the FTC's website but didnt locate what I thought was a specific enough site for reporting false advertising there; perhaps someone else will and can post it in a later comment.
Because this is now(-ish) and Samsung’s Korean -- which is to say psychopathic people in psychopathic times -- one must wonder whether the tests that established that Samsung met the standards hadn’t used rigged devices while stupid Consumer used phones they bought theirselves like any normal consumer would. The alternative is that Consumer obtained -- randomly -- only defective devices. I know where I'd place my money.
Anyway, it seems the S7 range has water issues, especially the Active line which isn't actually water proof. Look at this guy, tested the S7 edge 4 months ago and experienced speaker issues. Although people say the speakers recover after drying, I feel that shouldn't be the case and should work when removed from water.
'So what if Samsungs aren't actually waterproof … Here's an article I fished out of the interbowl, showing how an iPhone is easily destroyed by a nuke with a paltry one megaton yield. You Apple fans should consider that before raging on about Samsungs being damaged by water!'
Paging Cnocbui, paging Cnocbui…
Actually, it's not destroyed, its just bent, the screen still works though ;-), the colors are a bit off due to radiation and all that.
The TouchID sensor didn't work after the test either, although that may have been due to the reviewer's fingers being horribly burned. Waiting on confirmation from a second test for that one.
Not entirely sure what goes into calculating these numbers, but does anyone know offhand why there's such a big difference between the 6S and 6S+ for water resistance?
Comments
This Apple Insider article is reporting on an article by Consumer Reports. And additionally references an older article from CNET which reports on a waterproof test from another company.
So two things:
1) Consumer Report Article from July 8:
http://www.consumerreports.org/smartphones/samsung-galaxy-s7-active-fails-consumer-reports-water-resistance-test/
2) Cnet's article from March. Which is linked above in the article.
It seems like you wanted to find Consumer Reports' article by searching within Cnet? Because that's not it. I found Consumer Reports' article by searching google.
I'm proposing evidence for what many already know. Only Apple gets the negative press.
'So what if Samsungs aren't actually waterproof … Here's an article I fished out of the interbowl, showing how an iPhone is easily destroyed by a nuke with a paltry one megaton yield. You Apple fans should consider that before raging on about Samsungs being damaged by water!'
Paging Cnocbui, paging Cnocbui…
There are Lots of people who think that iPhones are shit (I don't).
For many purchasers, the cost is the thing. How much does the phone cost me? What is my monthly plan?
I don't know anyone who gets their phone with then mobile phone plan. It used to be the other way round but now be it Apple, Android or WindowsPhone, most people by the phone and then select their carrier or simply put the SIM from the old phone into the new one and get on with life. Changing carriers and taking your number with you is also easy. This is not the USA so YMMV.
"Watergate"
Lol, there is no TouchID on AppleWatch.
You are confused sir.
At the least it's just a good FYI to the Apple community, so does serve some purpose.
Apple is the gold standard and you can tell they put a lot of effort into making things work the first time, no question about that. And that's why they sit at the top earning most of the profits.
But I'd have to disagree that it's not 100% due to honestly when companies release products that seem half baked. The reason why I also buy Samsung phones is because they release things early. Kind of like when you walk into an R&D lab and see all the cool things being built, sometimes you want to play with it. Similar to how an early adopter for a startup is willing to deal with a less than perfect product to be one of the first.
This Apple Insider article is reporting on a article from Consumer Reports.
Consumer Reports released an article where they said two Galaxy S7 Active phones failed waterproof tests, and they said Galaxy S7 and S7 Edge were also tested but those passed.
The Cnet article reported on some other company that tested S7 and S7 Edge and they failed. They didn't test S7 Active.
So it's mixed results. In essence:
Consumer Reports (July):
S7 = Pass
S7 Edge = Pass
S7 Active = Fail
Cnet (March):
S7 = Fail
S7 Edge = Fail
S7 Active = n/a
So this Apple Insider article mentioned S7 Active's failed test, but didn't mention the S7 and S7 Edge passed tests from Consumer Reports. Kind of convenient that they left that out while also pointing to the failed tests at Cnet.
It's mixed results. Yet everyone's saying that there's a scandal and S7 is horse crap and they're lying. But again, S7 and S7 Edge passed the tests by Consumer Reports, soooooo you can't really conclude Galaxy S7 sucks and they're lying and etc etc. The models that passed here actually failed there, and the one that failed here wasn't tested over there. Mixed results.
I love Apple by the way, iPhones MacBooks and Apple TV since 2009, and have never owned an android device and I actually have a negative opinion on them; before anyone starts saying I'm some android fan. Just being pragmatic.
https://www.bbb.org/council/ad-truth/report/
I looked for a similar page on the FTC's website but didnt locate what I thought was a specific enough site for reporting false advertising there; perhaps someone else will and can post it in a later comment.
Anyway, it seems the S7 range has water issues, especially the Active line which isn't actually water proof.
Look at this guy, tested the S7 edge 4 months ago and experienced speaker issues. Although people say the speakers recover after drying, I feel that shouldn't be the case and should work when removed from water.
youtube.com/watch?v=IJUxi0ktDzw
The TouchID sensor didn't work after the test either, although that may have been due to the reviewer's fingers being horribly burned. Waiting on confirmation from a second test for that one.
Not entirely sure what goes into calculating these numbers, but does anyone know offhand why there's such a big difference between the 6S and 6S+ for water resistance?