Why are iPhones advertised as water proof/resistant but apple wont back up that claim by their warranty?

That's nice but it isn't the way water resistant standards, which began for watches, work. Read the warranty for most water resistant watches. The testing is done with temperature controlled water and the device is gently lowered to the depth stated and remains there. There is no water pressure, drop, etc. involved. So it is possible that you could drop your iPhone from the side of the pool and exceed the standard. Same thing with a stream of water hitting it.

Given that the IEC 60529 standard, which defines the IP rating system and test procedures, is a 207 page document, I hardly see the rating systems as a “yes” or “no” system. Like most international testing standards, it is always a qualified yes or no system. The testing for consumer products, for the same IP rating, is different than required for commercial equipment.

For consumer electronics, it is also not a permanent feature - it degrades over time, as specifically mentioned by every smart phone and tablet manufacturer who uses IP ratings.

Any comparison to watches is inappropriate, since dive watches are not tested to any IP standard. They are tested against water ingress to a set pressure standard in a hyperbaric chamber. That’s why their ratings are in sea water depth or more formally in atmospheres of pressure (so a watch rated for 300ft depth withstood 9 atm in testing). It’s a much more rigorous and testing specific standard than the IP rating standard. Expensive dive watches are often each individually pressure tested at the factory, not labeled as such based on previous tested samples (like consumer electronics are).

Water resistant is not waterproof.

Apple has never said their devices are water proof.

https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT207043

There is no false advertising.

Water and other liquid damage to iPhone or iPod isn't covered by warranty - Apple Support

You can send Apple a stern letter using this feedback link - Product Feedback - Apple

Vinzclorth wrote:

true, but ip68 is water resistant for 30 min in up to 2 meters! Fact.

False. That's a testing parameter under controlled laboratory conditions.

It's not false advertising, it's a lack of understanding of what the rating means on your part.

Michael just explained how diver's watches are rated as compared to electronics in the post above yours. Other watches do use a similar rating, such as dress watches, and none of them are covered in the warranty for water damage.

Vinzclorth wrote:

I wonder if Samsung has in their warranty that their batteries are covered for cell phones when they choose to burst into flames or if they explode...I’m willing to bet it doesn’t but they sure are covering the phones? Might be a bit more extreme of an example do to possible personnel injuries sustained but you get my point. It is a manufacturing defect that those batteries failed just like the water resistant rating that is falling short on a lot more than just my phone.

Samsung does not say in their warranty that exploding batteries are not covered by warranty. And, that was a manufacturer's defect. The batteries were made incorrectly. Apple, on the other hand, explicitly states that liquid damage is not covered and there is nothing defective in the manufacturing. Just because you chose not to understand what has been explained to you about water resistance ratings, doesn't make it a defect.

Good example: watches!

As a diver I trust my diver's-watch; it's essential for survival. It's certified up to 200m (like most diver-watches). And I have to get it checked by the manufacturer at least once per year. So far so good.

BUT nobody tells me only to use it in warm water around the Florida Keys or in cold water in a mid-european lake.

Vinzclorth wrote:

I bet if I was a wealthy person who could afford to say purchase 100 or even 1000 brand new iPhone XS Max and pay to have them independently tested to prove or disprove the IP68 rating shortcoming. I am willing to bet this would be fixed rather quickly because it would fail to meet standards that were advertised whether it’s covered or not by the warranty. Because it would fall under false advertising, misrepresentation and/or fraud and legal actions would most definitely be taken at that point. I wonder if it would ever make it to court or if the iphone would be replaced and the advertising would be changed by appIe? I guess we will never know since I am just a poor veteran.

Now you've moved into tinfoil hat territory. It's funny but obviously absurd.

Nothing anyone does here can change the situation as it currently exists. If you have a problem with the way Apple does things, take it up with Apple. Start with the Contact Support link in the upper right of every page of these forums.

Ok, let's stop the discussion here. It doesn't lead to a reasonable end.

Me, I would prefer that Apple tells the customer to handle the iDevices with care instead to give them ambiguous information. The result is that the customer spends lots of money and afterwards he/ she is very upset.

Some customers do but many buy AppleCare + and there are still people who read their warranties (which in my case includes my Ebel, Rado, and Tag Heuer watches). On the one diver's watch I ever owned I also read the warranty and read that I had to do periodic service on the Watch to maintain the water resistance rating and warranty. That includes customers should read the warranty on their Samsung, LG, HTC, etc. iPhones.

The battery issue on the Galaxy was a manufacturers defect and is not related to the water/dust resistance on their devices. There warranty explicitly covered this in the warranty period and eventually it was a safety recall. Poor analogy.