How do you maintain waterproofness without glue? Not just water resistance - I mean actually having the device survive having it in pocket and swimming with it.
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.
>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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Your experiment is invalid, I did not proven that glue is 0% effective , so I already gave yout he claim that glue might be say 55 effective and maybe monkey shit is 6% and some water repelling fats could be 50% effective.
It is Apple fans that ppretend that glue is used for water proofing while Apple claims the phone is not water proof. So this fanboys need to prove the woprld and to Apple that glue purpose is to let you swim with your phone.
The experiment will prove that you can swim but only in that exact same conditions, temperature, water salt content , humidity in air.
Why are you invested in this to contradict Apple documentation ?
search this link for "swiming" https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT207043 , seems there is damage in many cases, maybe is not imediate so guys like you that change their phones often d not see the consequences.
So, if I won the bet, we would only conclude that under those specific conditions that your claim wasn't upheld? In other words, under those conditions, the glue wasn't bullshit with respect to swimming, but is under most other conditions?
You have no idea how often I change phones, but the fact that I'm well-experienced with changing batteries on family phones that I own may give you some hints as to the frequency thereof. (I use an XS Max from 2018.)
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.
I never seen Samsung fanboys inventing fantastic stories to defend their brand. Where with Apple I seen tons, remember the issue with the keyboards ? I seen here an HN people accusing users that they are slobs, or trolls and that the keyboard is perfect, one fanboys was creating a fantasy where Apple had a giant lab with mechanical robot hands typing on a keyboard simulating real world usage and there is no way Apple did a mistake. (where are you naive Apple fanboy that things robotic people are typing on hundreds of keyboards so Apple can release perfect stuff???)
When Samsung or Google phones have issue I never see such fantasies beeing created to defend a giant company that has payed people to do that.
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?
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…
I don't care about Apple. I use phones that are rated waterproof - because I am going to swim with it.
I even successfully applied warranty few times (Sony and Samsung) when a phone got fucked this way, since the glue wasn't applied properly. New phone for me, yay.
That argument would make sense if there were repairable flagship phones, which there really aren't at the moment.
Unregulated free markets are widely accepted to be a bad idea. E-waste is a serious problem that the free market can't solve on its own. Regulation is necessary.
It could also be evidence that your preferences are not shared by the rest of the market.
I believe the PinePhone prioritizes repairability but it's obviously not as popular as the iPhone.
> Unregulated free markets are widely accepted to be a bad idea. E-waste is a serious problem that the free market can't solve on its own. Regulation is necessary.
Why is e-waste a serious problem (as opposed to other types of waste)? Couldn't this problem be solved by improving e-waste disposal processes?
The fact that democracies are starting to push for right to repair suggests to me that this preference is becoming much more prevalent. I think most people would be happy to save a ton of money being able to repair instead of replace expensive electronics.
Improved? Yes. Solved? Not really. Recycling is not a perfect process by any stretch. Producing less E-waste is just as important because global consumption of the resources that go into it is currently very unsustainable. E-waste management right now is not just unideal, it's more or less a joke. In 2021 less than 20% of E-waste in Europe was being collected and recycled. Recycling is hard. It requires changes at almost all levels of society. Designing repairable electronics on the other hand is essentially a solved problem that the industry has done less and less due to cost. Because the free market ultimately is best at optimising for lowering cost, and not other things like sustainability, safety, and so on. That's where regulations and taxes come in.
Most people I know have a drawer full of working phones they don't like anymore. I really don't think the majority of people are looking for repairability as much as you think.
First of all that's just anecdotal. Second I'm not convinced that's an effect of preferences as much as it is an effect of planned obsolescence making these devices useless in practice due to lack of software updates and upgradability.
And third, if we're sharing anecdotes, i also talk to a lot of people who ended up switching phones due to a dead jack or USB port, and have drawers full of fully functioning phones except for a single, cheap, broken component.
There's no need for glue to ensure water resistance. With a repairable(easily opened, non-soldered parts) phone it would be much easier to repair water damage anyway if you accidentally dropped it into water or something. Most people have no need for keeping their device on them while swimming.
Could you give some examples of these things, please? All waterproof hardware I have ever owned (phones, cameras, flashlights, watches, etc) doesn't have user-replaceable batteries. In all cases the batteries need to be replaced by a specialized shop and the waterproofness is tested afterwards in a special machine - and it's not always a success and the job needs to be redone.
Note that there is a significant difference between "water resistance" and "waterproofness".
Samsung Galaxy Xcover6 Pro was released in July and has a removable battery, headphone jack, and has the same IP rating as the S9
A few companies have business/military phones that still have most of the features people were used to. They are a little bigger, but you don't need a case.
Hmm, nice but that's really a very different kind of device. I don't want anything so bulky - this is like double the thickness of the S9. I'm not using any case, no need - the Gorilla glass is more than enough to survive repeated falls on the road when I was getting out of a car.
Rugged 2-way radios, not just waterproof, but designed to float and to turn on the lights when dropped into water. Perfectly replaceable battery pack, interchangeable with the regular NiMH batteries. All it takes is literally rubber inserts that you need to pop off to access the screws.
That's an exaggeration. They are no bigger than any other phone in a rugged case. If anything a bit smaller really since the "rugged case" is integrated into the phone. I have my work iPhone in an otterbox and its far bulkier than that.
I use my Samsung S9 without any case since the Gorilla glass is more than sufficient for me. It had its fair share of falls on the road when I was getting out of a car - still looks almost new. It even slid down from the top of a roof into the gutter when I was fixing an antenna there - few minor scratches on the back, nothing more.
My Yaesu FT65R is IP54 and FT5DR is IPX7. The Olympus OM1 is IP53 (only camera I can think of with an actual IP rating) and Pelican makes IPX7 flashlights. All of which have easily replaceable batteries.
I see it all the time in radios. I'm a ham so I own a few and any radio with an IPX rating more than being in the same zip code as water will be both waterproof and have removeable batteries.
Who said any of these 'generally successful methods' were simple?
Losing weight is - in principle - a matter of eating less and exercising more. If it's so simple, why are people looking for new/other strategies?
The author of this piece is also the author of a book on how to raise children. There are oodles of these sorts of books, with all sorts of different and conflicting advice.
Do you think the author's children are not successful? According to her Wikipedia entry, they are: CEO of YouTube, Professor of Pediatrics and researcher, and co-founder of 23andMe.
I have not read her book to tell what she defines as successful.
Google Books preview says she regards "success" as something akin to "passion". 'I think it's time we define "success" as "passion".' (p74)
She uses it in the context of a career, of a child soloist at Carnegie hall, "personal success", "all walks of life", "at Stanford" and "citizen of the world."
Looks like pretty standard upper-income white-collar class American aspirations.
I still regard it as like a diet book - there's a bunch of these things, and lots of different audiences.
Still, certainly having the money to get an M.A. at Paris-Sorbonne University, be married to a Stanford physics professor (and sometimes department chair), and to live and raise children in Palo Alto .... probably didn't hurt.
> Do you think the author's children are not successful?
I believe the definition of success should be questioned.
> standard upper-income white-collar class American aspirations
There's no particular reason to privilege this point of view. The three people I named in my first comment on this post did not meet this standard, but I'd much rather emulate their accomplishments than be the fastest rat in the race.
Human babies are born significantly earlier in their development due to birth canal width VS head size. Without this limitation, they'd be born after 2 years or even more.
Gene expression is dependent on incredible amount of variables. It'd be a cosmic level of coincidence to have two clones express the same way. That never happens even in single-cell organisms, much less something as complex as fish or human.
I wouldn't say so. To get the appropriate doctor to check my brother's broken arm and shoulder sooner than in more than a month (he needed surgery within 3 weeks max to avoid permanent damage) we had to employ personal contacts and gifts. I live in EU and this happened this summer.
