IP53 rating a bit dissapointing

[dsignori]

If you have a $1,000 phone I would hope that you would know how to use a weather app

If I pay $1000 for a phone, I shouldn't have to worry about needing a weather app IMO. If you don't have a pool, and are not around water a lot, it would be less important for you. All you'd have to worry about then is accidental spills, and weather. Still nice to have peace of mind though (you know, for $1000).

 

[Kayza]

If I pay $1000 for a phone, I shouldn't have to worry about needing a weather app IMO. If you don't have a pool, and are not around water a lot, it would be less important for you. All you'd have to worry about then is accidental spills, and weather. Still nice to have peace of mind though (you know, for $1000).

Exactly.

 

[Cant Miss]

If I pay $1000 for a phone, I shouldn't have to worry about...

A lot can reasonably follow this like "it breaking when I drop it". I'm over asphalt and concrete far more often than water.

But we want thin phones with edge to edge glass, good speakers/mics, headphone jacks, SD card slots, even removable battery and high degree of reparability, etc.

That makes it tough to drop/water proof them. I know some OEMs try using various methods, but if their success at this is what they would have us believe, they'd be guaranteed (which they are not).

So should all phones be drop and water proof? In an ideal world yes, but we don't live there, and there are real design compromises that must be made to implement this that not all of us are willing to accept, especially if there are no guarantees.

Fortunately, if you really need this kind of optimization, there are phones that provide it. Unfortunately, none of them have an unadulterated instance of Android.

 

[aokusman]

I just can't imagine running through a significant rain shower with my phone in my hand. Don't ya'll put away the phone when it rains?

I have never had to use my phone in the rain or even being in the rain.

 

[dsignori]

...
So should all phones be drop and water proof? In an ideal world yes, ...

No one said "all phones should be". Take a look at what you quoted from my post - "for $1000, .." Bottom line for me is: At this price point water resistance is one of the table steaks. If the phone were $400, it would be harder to argue this. Other OEMs do it fine. Sony does it, Samsung, Apple, etc..

I can understand that it is not important to everyone. I get that. It does happen to be important to me though, and I just feel that here late in 2016 for $1000 it should be there. I understand those who would disagree...

 

[Cant Miss]

I understand those who would disagree...

To be clear, I don't necessarily disagree. Would I be happier if it was rated waterproof... yes. Would I treat it any differently if it was... no. I have yet to dunk a phone and probably never will.

Have I dropped one on concrete? Yup, a couple of times... which is why I have Project Fi protection (which also covers water ingress).

I don't associate price with any given feature set. I simply evaluate the device on it's own merits without expectations of what other devices are about. I can get a Subaru with all wheel drive for under 16k. Does that mean my 23k Ford pickup should include it as well? It doesn't... and I'm OK with that.

 

[dsignori]

I don't associate price with any given feature set.

While I can understand your overall point, for me, as a generalized way of assessing value, having certain "table steaks type" features present is part of how I assess value. Of course how much each feature is of value depends on the individual of course. I never really drop my phone to use your example. I do however have a pool, go to the beach a lot, am around my kids who tend to spill things, etc .. So each of us evaluates value differently.

It's fine to disagree with the value of this one feature, even though you're claiming that you are not disagreeing I ordered the phone anyway, because overall I still think it will be the best replacement for my Note 7, for me.

 

[Cant Miss]

I ordered the phone anyway

Me too! (c;

 

[fabiooli]

I think it's better than nothing, but I will be insecure with the phone close to water as it had no IP rating.

 

[y2whisper]

Might be my biggest disappointment for this device but definitely not a deal breaker as I'm coming from a 6P so I'm yet to own a water resistant device to where i feel like im giving up a feature.

 

[shady195]

This thread should be renamed to "First world problems"

 

[Damu357]

I really don't see what the big deal is, didn't seem like a problem before the S7 got its rating, most people don't take their electronics near water anyway, just my opinion.

 

[LookArpTheStars]

Agreed, the closest my phone is ever gonna get to water is probably rainwater, and the IP rating for Pixel covers that so.. it's totally understandable if people use their phones differently and some would want it to be able to be submerged, but it's just not something I'll actually care.

 

[shady195]

I wonder what people did before phones got ip67 ratings?

Based on Sony's smartphone sales in the US over the years, I'm pretty sure no one was flocking for those awesome waterproof phones that everyone seems to have a need for all of the sudden and keep bringing up in this thread. Pretty sure if the IP rating was the deciding factor for as many people as you guys in here seem to think, Sony would be a major player.

 

[dsignori]

This thread should be renamed to "First world problems"

You make a good point . Though I suspect about 75% of the threads around here could also be labelled as such

 

[MrSlippery519]

I wonder what people did before phones got ip67 ratings?

Based on Sony's smartphone sales in the US over the years, I'm pretty sure no one was flocking for those awesome waterproof phones that everyone seems to have a need for all of the sudden and keep bringing up in this thread. Pretty sure if the IP rating was the deciding factor for as many people as you guys in here seem to think, Sony would be a major player.

Well said...certainly having a higher IP rating would be nice but it is hardly a deal breaker either way.

Also remember likely the main reason for the IP53 rating is because HTC has not come out with anything higher to date. I am sure we will see the HTC M11 and the Pixel 2 at least IP65

 

[Kayza]

A lot can reasonably follow this like "it breaking when I drop it". I'm over asphalt and concrete far more often than water.

Water resistance is not about being over water, but the highly normal events of being in the rain or at a table with liquids. It's also easier to reduce the chance of your phone breaking, by using a good case, than protecting from water - despite the pictures of phones in baggies, it just doesn't work too well. Also, most people can use their phone most of the time without dropping it, so even being over asphalt or other hard surfaces doesn't mean you can't use the phone. On the other hand, if a phone is not water resistant, you cannot use the phone in the rain.

But we want thin phones with edge to edge glass, good speakers/mics, headphone jacks, SD card slots, even removable battery and high degree of reparability, etc.

I'm an outlier, I suppose. I really don't care about how "gorgeous" the phone is, since I always put mine into an Otterbox (the double one). Yes, even my S6 - I tried to go without a case for about a week, then saw the scratches, and decided that the $35 was cheap insurance. And, the Pixel doesn't have an SD slot, either.