The reality is that with the way devices are designed to be IP rated and as compact as possible, your only option is these fancy PSA adhesives.

There is a direct disagreement between what a consumer wants in their device and making it easy to repair, especially since most people don't expect to repair the device they are buying.

Uhh are we all kind of forgetting the Samsung S5?

A phone with ip67 rating, a microsd card slot, headphone jack and removable battery?

Yea I am calling nonsense on this being an engineering limitation.

I have an xCover FieldPro from Samsung because it is one of two devices they make that are waterproof with a removable battery. It is marketed as a device for first responders and is built with field use in mind. It even comes with a spare battery.

I decided after my S4 Active battery died and I broke the screen trying to replace it that I wouldn't buy a phone without a removable battery. Not easy to find anymore. I did have to sacrifice Qi charging. But the xCover phones have pogo pin charging docks that suited my nightstand charging needs.

I've got a Samsung Xcover pro. It has an easily removable back plate and a replaceable battery and is IP-68 rated. My old Casio was in the same vein. Maybe you couldn't get it quite as thin, but they did away with the easily removable battery long before they started trying to waterproof it.

The S5 was thinner than the contemporary iPhone and within 1mm of the 13 Pro Max

Like 50 years of wrist watches kinda calls BS on that. Mass produced, low cost, waterproof devices with easily removable batteries used to be the norm. We as a species certainly haven't forgotten how to do that, these adhesives are far from necessary.

They exist not for IP rating, but to make the device appear to not have any screws. Both for aesthetic reasons and to keep people out reasons.

An Omega Seamaster weighs anywhere between 100 and 200 grams, depending on the model. Extrapolating that to the size of a phone, you'd have to lug around a 1kg brick. Now, I'm not a fan of the trend of thinness and lightness above all, I'd prefer a slightly beefier phone but one that weighs a kilo is ridiculous.

Why do you go immediately for an Omega Seamaster? There are a thousand other waterproof watches out there with removable batteries that don't weigh near as much as a dive watch. It's rated for 300 meters. I don't think anyone is expecting a phone to be thin and light and waterproof under 300 meters of water.

Because it's well known enough. 200g is the heavier end, sure, but 100g seems pretty light for a wristwatch anyway. The Seiko 5 is one of the lightest watches at about 70 grams, and that thing is tiny. That's to say, the Seamaster isn't really much more heavier than others, unless you're going for some mickey mouse watches.

The adhesive makes the phone waterproof.

I recently replaced my gf's iPhone screen and all I really needed was a hairdryer to heat up the adhesive, a suction cup to pull it off, and a screwdriver. I guess with these tools it'd be safer, but it worked well regardless.

> The adhesive makes the phone waterproof.

So would a rubber o-ring.

Given a relatively high and sufficiently uniform clamping pressure on the entire o-ring. Which then requires high-stiffness parts (bulky, heavy, high material usage) or a lot of fasteners (take up space, potentially add to the oh-so-hated bezel width depending on how they have to be implemented).

Actually, no, this is not necessary for 1atm water resistance. See: the Samsung Galaxy S5 that was made out of ABS plastic, and had an easily removable battery with 0 fasteners. It was IP67 rated.

O-rings are known to fail.

O-rings are the standard seal technology in waterproof watches, and also in scuba diving equipment where lives literally depend on them. They are actually extraordinarily reliable.

But at the same time, a diver is trained to look for leaks as part of their pre-divw checklist, and oring replacements are fairly common. On my last liveaboard, the crew replaced probably good 1-2 dozen tank orings over the course of a week. One of my LP hose orings had frayed as well and needed to be replaced.

It might be the standard, but it's not exactly the best experience either.

The o-rings that require regular attention are the ones that handle high-pressure air. Run-of-the-mill waterproofing o-rings, like the ones used to seal dive watches and dive computers, are fire-and-forget. And yes, dive watches and dive computer have beefier housings than iPhones, but iPhones don't need to be waterproof to 150m.

(I am a certified scuba diver.)

Dive computers with replaceable batteries 100% have user-serviceable o-rings that need lubing and eventual replacement. My Shearwater came with both grease and 2 replacement o-rings.

HP hoses and o-rings also can and do fail, and, once again, divers are trained to look for signs like the rubber bubbling. There is also not really a difference between the o-rings used in HP and LP hoses and equipment outside the size, and I gave examples of LP hoses failing.

These all require regular maintenance and replacement, and, once again, divers are trained and should be checking their equipment regularly.

But that's all beside the point, which is that your claim is that "[o-rings] are extraordinarily reliable". Except they are not, they require replacing all the time. They may be industry standard, but they are fall from infallible.

Scuba equipment is most often used in saltwater and is subjected to increased pressure while underwater. The conditions scuba equipment is subjected to vs what waterproof cell phones are rated for are very different.

> need lubing and eventual replacement

Yes. Every couple of years. After being subjected to a lot of pressure cycling.

If you do nothing but take it into the shower or a swimming pool the o-rings will last longer than the batteries.

Chlorine isn't friendly to o-rings, but I'm not sure where someone would put their phone while in a pool anyways. Mine comes in the tub with me for soaks for sure though.

Do o-rings have a dramatically high failure rate that I don't know about? It can dry rot or otherwise break down, but as a seal on the back of a phone, I've found them 100% reliable.

I assume they're referring to the Challenger explosion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_Challenger_disas...), although it's a pretty poor comparison.

Adhesives are also known to fail. They almost certainly have a higher failure rate even.