Is the Apple Watch Waterproof? Splash, Shower, Swimming Tests [Video]

Is the Apple Watch Waterproof? Splash, Shower, Swimming Tests [Video]

Posted by · 21 comments · Add Comment
ykh - April 25, 2015 at 2:42am
It might actually interest you all to know that "waterproof" is really a term that can have several meanings. in case of the Apple Watch, it is rated at IPX7 (see IEC standard 60529) which means that while it hasn't been certified for any kind of dust protection, it is actually certified to be submerged up to one metre (1000 mm) under water without any damage. most other digital watches (e.g: Suunto, G-Shock, etc. ) are usually rated at IPX8 or higher. taking it any further than one metre would be a risk and in the case of swimming, there's also the risk of Chlorine ruining the watch and it's bands; or if you have a leather band, water, even from washing your hands will ruin it after some time. Liquipel is always a good way to go though. Of course one does wonder how this compares against the sometimes seemingly completely waterproof casings (up to 300-400 m) of luxury Swiss watches Apple is trying to compete with here. but personally I think IPX7 is a good rating for a day-to-day watch.
PaladinLV - April 25, 2015 at 7:58am
It's water resistant up to 1 meter NOT water proof. All the semantics in the world won't change it.
PHUKAI - April 25, 2015 at 1:05pm
So basically waterproof phone cases or even putting a phone in a bag to protect from water won't help! Good thought on that.
ykh - April 25, 2015 at 3:42pm
in these cases, waterproof=water resistant because it means how much resistance the watch shows to water entering it and ruining the electronics. but in the case of mechanical watches you're right as resistance just means how much water pressure it can take before the casing breaks. the IEC does not rate mechanical watches on the same standards as electronic ones.
PHUKAI - April 25, 2015 at 12:29am
Who asked you? Of course it has been done before, but claiming that is like saying "oh we've seen touch screens on different devices other than phones". What are you trying to prove?
PHUKAI - April 25, 2015 at 4:22pm
Or the fact you're hovering over every innocent posts your trying to trash on just to prove your so-called worthiness like you're the one to say shit with your 5emen.
PaladinLV - April 24, 2015 at 11:42pm
NOTHING repeat NOTHING is waterproof! Water resistant yes and that resistance is measured in ATMs. If Apple does NOT inscribe on the back or front of the watch ??? ATM, it is NOT water resistant. Get it wet at your own risk.
PHUKAI - April 25, 2015 at 12:31am
That's why liquipel was made. It waterproofs your watch, headphones, almost any phone to choose from, and tablets. Believe me, my iPhone 6, EarPods, and recently bought Apple watch are invincible in pools now.
PaladinLV - April 25, 2015 at 8:03am
It makes them water resistant not PROOF. Eventually the makers of the product will realize that IF they are advertising water proof and they get sued like so many of the watch companies before them. Look at any luxury Swiss watch whether they are 10 ATMs or 1000 ATMs. They are all labeled Water Resistant.
ykh - April 25, 2015 at 3:47pm
You're right. there isn't anything that can be said to be completely waterproof but there are thresholds that anything is capable of withstanding. in the case of the apple watch, although it won't be crushed by the water until probably several hundred metres under water, the amount of water that enters the casing when submerged to one metre is low enough to be considered safe. I recommend once again that you see IEC standard 60529.
PaladinLV - April 26, 2015 at 4:24am
I'm not disagree with the rating nor what the rating means. You stated the meaning very clearly and accurately. Now my question again is WHERE in the IEC does it use the words WATERPROOF. Where does Apple use the words WATERPROOF. Where does ANY known maker of "luxury watches use the word WATERPROOF. They do not and for good reason. My argument is not with you but with the article. They are making unjustified statements and claims. That's why Cook makes millions and the writers of these mislabeled and misguided articles make bupkis. ;)
markasspam - April 24, 2015 at 5:38pm
Hmm, interesting? But does anyone wear this device on their right wrist?
scamster - April 24, 2015 at 11:14pm
maybe the devil's minions .... left handers.
PaladinLV - April 24, 2015 at 11:40pm
Most south paws wear it on the right!
Bleh - April 24, 2015 at 4:25pm
Where's TechRax's test?
scamster - April 24, 2015 at 4:09pm
quite informative but won't be bothering with their next video destroying the apple watch with a hammer.
Rawl - April 24, 2015 at 4:05pm
Great. Expect the same to come with the next iphone too.
Lolwut - April 24, 2015 at 4:13pm
There was a patent some time after the 6 and 6 plus, so it may happen!
PaladinLV - April 24, 2015 at 2:40pm
"Surprisingly, despite not being rated as waterproof" You writers really need to learn about an industry and terms you are talking about. NO WATCH proclaims to be "waterproof". They only claim, if applicable, water resistance down to a tested and certified ATM. By not claiming water resistance, the responsibility falls on the owner if watch is damaged by water and not the manufacturer.
S@mur@! - April 24, 2015 at 2:21pm
That begs the question, can liquipel make it any better?
odedo1 - April 24, 2015 at 2:08pm
Great.
Prev1 of 0Next