iPhone 7 apparently outlasts the Galaxy S7 when submerged in deep water

iPhone 7 apparently outlasts the Galaxy S7 when submerged in deep water
One of the very welcome enhancements that Apple has brought with the new iPhone 7 duo is the water resistance. Sure, they're not completely waterproof, and it's not something we haven't seen before. But as many will attest, once you've owned a handset that can be used in the bath without worry, it's a luxury that becomes a necessity. As we've explained before, the new iPhones' IP67 rating is, on paper, slightly less protective than the IP68 rating of many other devices like the Samsung Galaxy S7. However, a test on YouTube has shown that despite the numbers, the iPhone 7 can actually outlast its Samsung-made rival. 

The measured test by YouTuber EverythingApplePro shows the two devices submerged at different depths for set lengths of time. Incredibly, both models managed to survive at 5, 10, 15, 20 and 30ft for five minutes each without any kind of internal leakage. Finally, at 35 feet, the Galaxy S7 apparently succumbed, though the efforts of both will surely instil confidence in owners of either handset. 

It's certainly interesting that the iPhone's supposedly weaker defenses held firm where the Galaxy S7 couldn't hold. However, although the test seems legitimate, one has to acknowledge the fact that such an experiment could easily have been rigged. 

The takeaway here is that irrespective of whether your device is IP67 or IP68 — most handsets with an IP rating are one of the two — it's not completely infallible. That said, though not recommended, you could probably get away with deeper submersion for longer than the ratings suggest.  It pays to still proceed with caution, of course, particularly since water damage is generally not covered by standard manufacturer warranty regardless of IP rating. 

You can check out the iPhone 7 vs. Galaxy S7 submersion face-off below:


Related phones

iPhone 7
  • Display 4.7" 750 x 1334 pixels
  • Camera 12 MP / 7 MP front
  • Processor Apple A10 Fusion, Quad-core, 2340 MHz
  • Storage 256 GB
  • Battery 1960 mAh(14h 3G talk time)
Galaxy S7
  • Display 5.1" 1440 x 2560 pixels
  • Camera 12 MP / 5 MP front
  • Processor Qualcomm Snapdragon 820, Quad-core, 2200 MHz
  • Storage 32 GB + microSDXC
  • Battery 3000 mAh(28h 3G talk time)

FEATURED VIDEO

127 Comments

1. EC112987

Posts: 1214; Member since: Nov 10, 2014

Both had water damage at 30 feet...the iPhone would of died too if the test had been a bit longer. Both amazing!

21. Unordinary unregistered

But which died the fastest

24. EC112987

Posts: 1214; Member since: Nov 10, 2014

Doesn't really matter is my point...at 30 feet they shouldn't survive. You're already exceeding the recommended depth.

51. Finalflash

Posts: 4063; Member since: Jul 23, 2013

We've been over this already, no need to respond to this, its sacrificing too much for pretty much random chance for a

70. trojan_horse

Posts: 5868; Member since: May 06, 2016

Man, look at the name of that Youtuber's channel: EverythingApplePro. That name alone suggest iBias, no? So, I'm suprised to see the iPhone win that "drop test".

72. trojan_horse

Posts: 5868; Member since: May 06, 2016

I meant to say that "water test". Sorry for the mistyping... In fact, such test could easily be rigged.

98. ecmedic4

Posts: 520; Member since: May 02, 2013

I was waiting for the first "the test is rigged" comment. Of course if it had been the other way around and the you tubers name "everythingsamsungpro" then you wouldn't be calling bias or that the test is rigged. Grow up, they both lasted well beyond what they are rated for which is good for users of both phones. Stop being a troll.

106. trojan_horse

Posts: 5868; Member since: May 06, 2016

I said "such test COULD easily be rigged". I did not accuse this particular test to have been rigged. You're the one who needs to grow up, as you apparently lack reading comprehension.

96. JunitoNH

Posts: 1946; Member since: Feb 15, 2012

I was waiting to see how long before someone make such statement. Is no difference than Android Authority or Android Police reviewing iPhone or making comparisons, and yes they do.

26. 14545

Posts: 1835; Member since: Nov 22, 2011

Neither died faster than the other. It died at an INCREASED DEPTH, above and beyond what the manufacturer recommends it for. So shut up.

118. HugoBarraCyanogenmod

Posts: 1412; Member since: Jul 06, 2014

From the YouTuber "EverythingApplePro" Can't find a single integrity on this video

49. Beastmode1

Posts: 85; Member since: Feb 08, 2016

Thanks for not Beeing Retarded

2. Johnnokia

Posts: 1158; Member since: May 27, 2012

That is what I like from Apple. when they implement a feature, they do it the best.

3. AlikMalix unregistered

But... but... specs!? Apple said only ip67 vs samsungs ip68... Samsung sure should have outlasted. It's funny how some troll on older iPhones for "it's not water resistant" - My 6s and my wife's 6s both took a swim at some point - continued to work without drying or waiting. Confirmed by many YouTube videos.

7. AmashAziz

Posts: 2894; Member since: Jun 30, 2014

Yeah it's a proven fact that he 6s series was water resistant to some extent due to gaskets and rubber seals; just that apple did not advertize it.

25. 14545

Posts: 1835; Member since: Nov 22, 2011

Stop with the dumb comments. No, the samsung did exactly what it was advertised to do. IP68 means 30 minutes at a depth of 1.5 meters. It went to 30 ft before failing which is 25 ft FURTHER than what samsung claims it can do. Proving which one goes further is just stupid as long as it does what it is advertised to do. In fact, even doing double what the OEM suggests is commendable. Much less 5 times what the factory suggests. Now, none of these tests did it for the 30 minutes claimed, so even still it's fairly useless. This doesn't even account for manufacturing variability, which could be minimal, or could be a lot. We have no idea. Do it with 5 phones at 30 minutes at each depth and then we can talk about whose d.ck is bigger. Geez, both phones did a commendable job for what they are advertised, just leave it at that.

36. AmashAziz

Posts: 2894; Member since: Jun 30, 2014

How do you know all these tests are fake? That was a dumb statement.

40. 14545

Posts: 1835; Member since: Nov 22, 2011

What are you talking about? I never claimed anything was fake. I said it was fairly useless because the test didn't go on for as long as determined by the IP codes. Both phones did, what appears, what they were supposed to do. We don't know for a fact that either phone could have lasted undamaged for 30 minutes at each respective depth. We don't know how the adhesives they used breakdown in the presence of water. Dirty water at that. Just as a whole, the test was severely flawed, but it did show that both phones should at minimum, initially, hold up to their respective ratings. Which is all one can ask for.

61. Rocket

Posts: 636; Member since: Feb 24, 2014

haha yeah, idk why my brother's ip6 die immediately after taking a swing in the toilet, lol

81. AlikMalix unregistered

So did mos rod Samsung active models (which are officially supposed to be more water resistant)

90. Heisenberg

Posts: 367; Member since: Feb 11, 2015

Dude. Relax. Neither Samsung nor HTC advertised S6 or M8 has water resistant but they both survived water test.

23. twens

Posts: 1167; Member since: Feb 25, 2012

So one test from one device is enough for you to believe the iPhone has better water resistance? Smh

27. iFlasher

Posts: 30; Member since: Dec 09, 2014

Yes, is enough.

64. HomerS

Posts: 419; Member since: Sep 19, 2014

39. AlikMalix unregistered

It's enough for you guys when Samsung wins. But I agree, they should have at least 3 devices of each model and take median, worst of three or best of three. But since you and I cannot afford to even test it like this guy - we have to take what we can get. But like I said, Samsung wins some drop test - you guys clamoring to that test like it's fact, when Apple wins a test - "you can't take this test seriously".

43. 14545

Posts: 1835; Member since: Nov 22, 2011

Who is "you guys"? I haven't "clamored" to any test. The physics of a drop test are always skewed given that a rock to the display at any height could/would likely damage the glass rendering it unusable. So just because something happens to survive from 2-5 feet means nothing. Especially when it is not a controlled, repeatable test. Also, I could very easily afford this "test", I just chose not to waste 4k in such a frivolous manner.

53. ZEUS.the.thunder.god

Posts: 1093; Member since: Oct 05, 2011

bro I usually like your comments but even I don`t understand what do you really mean by "You guys"? If you think every Android fan is a troll then I`m disappointed. I`m an Android fan and I know you`re an Apple fan but that`s an individual`s choice. I know there are a lot of people here who often bash Apple for no good reason but I think you`re better than this.

67. AlikMalix unregistered

No, when I say "you guys" or "people like you", I really mean the usual suspects of Apple haters. Sometimes I have to reply to someone's post, just to make my point, it doesn't necessarily mean that I'm talking to them (I know it's confusing, but I wish there was another way). Anyways, kudos for Standing up and clarifying yourself. Basically if you're not a troll or hater - my comment does not apply to you.

69. willard12 unregistered

"You guys" also claimed for 2 years that you didn't need water resistance. Now, you're excited with a test.

74. trojan_horse

Posts: 5868; Member since: May 06, 2016

Right, willard! The same thing happened with phablets and stylus. Anything in the competition which isn't yet in the iPhone is useless to "those guys", untill Apple implements it.

Latest Stories

This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. You can order presentation-ready copies for distribution to your colleagues, clients or customers at https://www.parsintl.com/phonearena or use the Reprints & Permissions tool that appears at the bottom of each web page. Visit https://www.parsintl.com/ for samples and additional information.