[sokoloff]

Agree that you shouldn’t swim with your phone, but Apple not covering liquid damage is a business decision that doesn’t tell me whether the glue and gaskets serve a valid waterproofing purpose.

As someone who has replaced several batteries, I take pains to make sure I put new glue/sticky gaskets back in place when I do it and I do that for waterproofing not to protect Apple’s business.

[simion314]

>Agree that you shouldn’t swim with your phone, but Apple not covering liquid damage is a business decision that doesn’t tell me whether the glue and gaskets serve a valid waterproofing purpose.

What will you define as "valid"?

Using logic I can only conclude that glue is not used or is not effective for water proofing OR there are as you called "other business decision" involved here.

Your alternative means that glue works but Apple uses the water detection stickers to refuse warranty in bad faith, the battery exploded because it was a bad batch => the water sticker is red, sorry no warranty for you!

Anyway the phones are not in reality water proof,so this excuse should not be used by fanbous, let Apple lawyers use it, they are actually paid for it and might even know the reason it is used.

[sokoloff]

Engineers use gaskets between two surfaces all the time in an attempt to prevent fluids from passing. Some of those gaskets will fail. Sometimes the failure is because the mating surfaces have been flexed in use. Sometimes it's because the device has been disassembled and reassembled. Sometimes there was too much pressure differential applied. Sometimes they're just defective. Yet, they are still serving the intended purpose of improving the resistance to water passing.

I don't see it as an indictment for Apple to put the pink stickers inside devices. I had a battery replacement warranty denied on my Macbook; said there was water intrusion. I was initially outraged until I recalled the time that I did actually get the laptop significantly wet (partially submerged) and quickly drained and dried it out and felt relief that "Oh, phew! It still works..." And it did still work and only several months later I noticed an unusual battery drain.

[Cederfjard]

Your logic isn't really valid. It could be that the glue is indeed effective in facilitating waterproofing and was put in place for that reason, however not to the extent that Apple wants to make any promises that it will survive being submerged.

I don't know what the truth is, I just disagree with your conclusion based on the logic you present.

[simion314]

Sure, I can't prove that glue is 0% effective, maybe monkey dung is better , you can't prove it either.

What I can prove is that "glue helps you swim with your iPhone is bullshit". In fact logic would tell us that glue is created for sticking things together, if you want water proofing you would use something designed for that purpose.

[sokoloff]

If you can prove that statement, please do so.

[simion314]

OK, Prop1: Glue is not effective (or 100% effective if you interpret this word as a scale)

I linked above an Apple link, and you can find examples where iPhones will get refused warranty because of water damage. This proves that GLUE is less then 1oo% effective.

q.e.d

Prop2 Monkey shit might be better then glue.

Since glue <100% and I used the word "might" then there is a chance that monkey shiot after a monkey eats a special food is better.

q.e.d.

My point is that is a terrible excuse if you demand me to prove that glue is exactly 0% effective, I don't have the lab to prove it but A[ple that has the lab decided not to offer you water proof warranty, so either you are happy with

1 glue , is not effective enough for Apple to offer a warranty

2 glue is effective enough but Apple has some sinister business reason to reject your warranty if their water sticker turns on.

[sokoloff]

OK, let's take a different tack here. Define an amount of money sufficient to buy 5 iPhones, pay for the time/effort to run the test, and leave some profit on top. You and I each put up that amount of money and we test 5 stock iPhones against 5 iPhones with the glue/gaskets removed in some water intrusion tests in a swimming pool and then disassemble them to inspect.

If the glue isn't effective (your premise), I'd expect the phones to behave broadly similarly and you win the bet.

If the glue is effective, I'd expect the 5 no-glue phones to experience more water intrusion and I win the bet.

How about $50K each, plus $5K each for phones, plus $5K each on top to be donated to the FSF? If there is no difference (or if the no-gasket phones outperform), you keep all 10 phones, my $50K, and are out $5K for phones and $5K to FSF. If the glued phones outperform, I keep the 10 phones, your $50K, and am out $5K for phones and $5K to FSF. Either way, the FSF gets $10K. (If you dislike the FSF, pick another remotely reasonable charity and if you win, both of us donate $5K to that charity.)

I'm sure we can find some tech YouTuber to help us film and broadcast the outcome publicly.

You in?

[AlmostAnyone]

Why do you limit this to Apple? Samsung and Sony will take extra care to apply the glue properly when fixing your phone, and they will replace your device if their glue fails to do its job.

Why are they doing it?

[pessimizer]

Whenever you create a premise that both A and ~A are are true, you can base any argument for anything on it. How can a glue be both effective at waterproofing and ineffective at waterproofing?

[sokoloff]

How can antibiotics work, yet people still die from infections? How can airbags work and yet people still die in car crashes? How can ABS work and yet…