101
Does anyone actually take into account "IP Rating"/"Water Resistance" when they buy phones? (sh.itjust.works)
submitted 1 year ago by to c/asklemmy@lemmy.world
90 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 1 point 1 year ago* (2 children)

This is a bit obtuse for the sake of pedantry.

I mean, is it possible that you could build a device resistant to submersion but not splashing? Maybe?

But this isn't "a device", this is a phone. The problems with water ingress are very specific. You have a couple of speakers, a few microphones, a sim card slot and a USB port, plus the seams for the screen and backplate. If you secured those well enough for the immersion tests they're going to be splash-resistant. If you have a way in which you can somehow have a phone screen adhesive survive being underwater for several minutes but not falling rain or being placed under a tap/hose please do share, because I can't think of one. The scenario where your speaker seals are good enough for being fully submerged but get water damaged by shooting high pressure water directly into them is so niche it's probably not worth it to further confuse people by having two different IP ratings listed.

Plus... you know, don't be shooting water hoses directly up your phone's holes regardless? I don't see why you would in the first place, but... just don't? It's not gonna happen by accident, so it doesn't need to happen at all.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Yes and no.

    Taking advantage of the very real waterproofing of the phones I have owned (past and present), I will just wash the damn thing off under the kitchen tap if it gets dirty, which I have with one of my previous phones done with a high-pressure restaurant-sink-style spray nozzle (I was making beer, and boiling the wort kicks a lot of sticky crap into the air).

    That phone was fine afterward, and continued to work for several years after.

    Also at a more basic level, it is (at least in theory) an assurance that they actually tested the damn thing, and didn't just slap a largely meaningless (and as already noted, "bigger number better") rating on the thing, as is largely the style of our times because consumer protection is dead and regulations are meaningless.

    This is exactly the kind of should be done properly, or just not at all. Test it and rate it for the people who do care, or STFU, put the unqualified but perfectly reasonable label of "water resistant" on it, and the bulk of people who indeed do not care (or will be confused) will be no worse off than they are now.

    Anything else is just annoying.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    Yeah, ok, so... don't wash your phone with a spray nozzle regardless, is going to be my advice. Wet tissue? Sure. Under the tap with light soap? If desperate. Just... don't hose your phone down, what are you doing.

    But let's be clear, IP ratings are certifications. You can still be water resistant under the conditions of the test and not have the certification for it.

    It makes perfect sense for... you know, people not using water jets on their electronics, to get just the certification that covers most real use cases (in this case the one that covers rain, accidental pool falls and the occasional toilet dunk) and communicate that. It doesn't mean your phone won't survive a bartop spray nozzle wash (which, again, you shouldn't be doing) or even that it wouldn't have gotten the IPx5/6 cert if the manufacturer had gone through the process, but it's extra cost that will only muddle how you communicate with your user.

    Are people not clear that IPx5/6 and IPx7/8 aren't on a linear scale? They are not. That's on the IEC's poor formatting of the ratings. Are manufacturers leaning on the implicit user assumption that the higher number just means more protection? Sure.

    Is it relevant/annoying/effectively problematic in real use? Not unless you're using a waterjet cutter to rinse ketchup off your phone. Which, again, don't do that, that's not a good thing to do.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent