Apple describes the Apple Watch as “splash and water resistant but not waterproof.” However, where is the line between the two crossed?
Further than you might think, according to research from some early Apple Watch owners who were eager to take their new wearable for a dip.
Within hours of receiving their new device, they ran it through a series of tests to see if they could find the limits of the Apple Watch when it comes to getting wet.
For those who are worried about damaging their long-awaited timepiece, the results will likely come as a relief. Despite showering wearing the device, submerging it in a bucket of water, and even taking it for a prolonged swim, the Watch shows no signs of damage.
These are early tests, of course, and no doubt if Apple was able to guarantee its new device as waterproof it certainly would. The official water resistance rating of the Apple Watch is IPX-7, which means that it should be protected for 30 minutes at a depth of 1 meter.
That may still be true, but this test does at least illustrate that you don’t need to get too concerned about, say, washing dishes with your new wearable!
Source: FoneFox
8 responses to “Apple Watch is more waterproof than you might think”
Awesome. So, don’t habitually submerge the thing. But if you absent-mindlessly take a shower in it or get tossed into a pool it won’t be the end of the world :)
No, you’re an idiot. This and every other site that has reported that rating is correct. Took me all of 2 minutes to find it: http:// en. wikipedia. org/ wiki/ IP_Code
You call me an idiot and cite other blogs and Wikipedia! You’re a joke. I cited a primary source. Why don’t you do a little more work like an adult would and find a real source… (The link i posted has broken I will post the correct one tonight)
Your comments disappearing fits cause you’re completely ignorant to the facts, especially if you think Wikipedia isn’t a legitimate source. Go back to your cave, little troll.
Give the website a day to approve the link (blogs like this have to approve links). Yes, I consider wikipedia to be the least legitimate source. But don’t worry about just me. It’s all of academia that considers wikipedia to be a terrible source. If you lack the patience to wait for the link to be approved by the admins google IEC standard 60529. It’s the fifth link down titled QUALITY TEST CERTIFICATE. This would be from a company that actually preforms these tests. Also considered a primary source.
Who is the troll here? I am going to go with you. That or somehow my comments hurt your feelings? Sorry about that mate, but grow up. Calling people idiots and claiming people are ignorant because that is your only response = a five year old throwing a tantrum who has nothing to actually contribute to the conversation.
Now if you were to find a legitimate source agreeing with you I would be more than happy to say, “Hey, maybe companies are performing these test in a number of different ways…” Wouldn’t that be interesting.
Considering Wikipedia has legitimate citations, you’re still the ignorant troll here. I’m pretty sure all these bloggers who do this whole internet thing for a living no more about researching this than you do. Get back to your cave, moron. No one cares what you have to say because you’re a complete idiot who needs to take his own advice.
Actually a fairly large amount of the time wikipedia does not have legitimate citations.
Why don’t you check those citations on the wikipedia page you posted. None of them actually say what you are saying.
Just because someone gets paid to do something doesn’t mean they have any idea what they are doing. You seem like a very gullible person.
What advice of my own would I need to be taking? Are you just throwing out common phrases now and saying things that you think sound cool?
Again, obvious someone has gotten their feelings hurt. Sorry champ.
…..said the guy who can do nothing but ignore facts.
Nope, nothing you’ve said holds any weight. Enjoy your dream world, moron. No one here in the real world cares what you say.