• Hugucinogens@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Water resistant: By being negligibly more expensive to properly engineer and build

    Fully Waterproof: By being a fair bit more expensive to properly engineer and build

    In both cases, the cost is reasonably tiny, compared to the markup of the price on the actual cost

      • AArun@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        1 year ago

        With gasket. We’ve been sealing most things for centuries without using a glue-in option. Usually because things need to be serviced.

        • rmuk@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          Exactly this.

          My first waterproof smartphone was a Motorola Defy+ from, I think, 2011. Dustproff, submersible, hardened. I put it through it’s paces, too, it got absolutely battered and I regularly filmed underwater with it.

          The battery was removable behind a panel on the back that could be opened with a single sliding clip. It took far longer for the phone to boot up than it did to actually swap the battery and no tools were needed.

      • Baketime@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        It’s something that’s already been done in many devices. Many old devices too. What do you think the issue will be?

      • shiinto@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Gaskets, yes. See any wrist watch (except smartwatch) serviced or battery replaced. Very sensitive things that claim water resistance.