Apple Fined…Again, and how Manufacturers use Dynamic Operation to Pass Tests
08-12-2020 | By Robin Mitchell
Once again, Apple is facing a fresh fine for falsely reporting their iPhone water-resistance capabilities. How has Apple presented a false narrative to customers, how often do manufacturers take advantage of laboratory conditions, and why should engineers exercise caution in such environments?
Why has Apple been fined in Italy for its water-resistance claims?
Recently, the competition authority in Italy issued a 10 million euro fine to Apple for misleading customers regarding the water-resistance capabilities of some iPhones. According to Apple, their iPhone products can resist water damage down to a depth of 3 meters for as long as 30 minutes, but customers of the iPhone have not regularly observed this. Furthermore, according to the competition authority, Apple has also misled customers with regards to product guarantees as the iPhone is not protected against liquid damage.
However, the case against Apple is not entirely clear. While Apple products may not be delivering what they promised (with regards to water-resistance), they do have clear evidence and data to support their claim. But, where does this data come from, and is it really representative of the capability of a product?
As it turns out, the water-resistant capabilities of the iPhone, 3 meters down for 30 minutes, only applies in ideal conditions found in a laboratory. While the exact conditions are not known, this could be something as trivial as carefully placing the phone at the bottom of a tank, slowly submerge in water, and leaving the device untouched at a specific angle. In reality, such a device sinks rapidly to the bottom rotating in all different directions, which ensures that water finds its way into every part of the phone.
Is this the first time a company has taken advantage of laboratory conditions?
The practice of using laboratory conditions to make a product look better happens more than you would think, and some of these incidences have even brought massive backlash from regulators and customers alike for gross misuse of technology.
Dyson vs Bosch and Siemens
One incident of using ideal conditions comes from litigation filed by Dyson against Bosch and Siemens vacuum products. According to the two for mentioned companies, their vacuums were being energy rated as AAAA, while Dyson vacuums were nowhere near this. While all machines were being tested under the same laboratory conditions, Dyson alleged that the machines produced by Bosch and Siemens utilised special sensors to adjust the power consumption of their vacuums when under light load, and thus presenting themselves as being highly energy efficient.
As laboratory conditions are ideal with little dust, dirt, and wear, vacuums with smart energy monitoring systems can make themselves appear to be very energy efficient, which puts vacuums such as Dyson at a disadvantage (as their design is based on providing full suction power at all times). It could be argued that Dyson, who lost the case, should also opt for this technology, but such vacuums, when used in the real world may see an energy rating of around E to F.
Volkswagen – DieselGate
Of all engineering scandals to date, DieselGate is arguably in the top ten. To comply with environmental rules, automotive manufacturers have to ensure that their vehicles do not emit emissions that exceed stated levels. These regulations help to improve the quality of the air by reducing key compounds such as NO2, soot, and other volatile compounds that contribute to acid rain, smog, and general air pollution.
Between model years 2009 to 2015, diesel vehicles produced by Volkswagen all demonstrated low emissions under test, and Volkswagen advertised many of these vehicles as “Clean Diesel”. However, after years of investigation, it turned out that Volkswagen had installed a Defeat Device which would only enable emission controls during a laboratory test. When used in the real world, the vehicles could emit as much as 40 times more emissions, thus grossly violating emission rules.
The defeat device is oriented around the need to reduce levels of NO2 in the engine’s exhaust. At the same time, standard three-way catalytic converters work well for petrol engines. They are not as effective for diesel. Volkswagen initially intended to use a solution from Mercedes, but this was far too expensive and bulky. Therefore, Volkswagen decided to develop its own solution; the Lean NOx trap.
Volkswagen announced the Lean NOx Trap solution as a new clean solution for diesel engines, but the reality was that the solution did not work. As a result, Volkswagen incorporated firmware into the Engine Control Unit to switch to “Good Fuel Economy” when under test in a laboratory, and then switch back to provide increased performance when out on the road. This was not just known to a few engineers; over 30 people in management positions were aware of the practice, which suggests that the practice is more likely to be known by major staff.
Why should engineers be cautious of such loopholes?
Developing products that conform to regulations is not an easy task, and the high cost of testing in labs and facilities can be incredibly tough on small start-up projects. However, while we may not like the regulations, we have to abide by them, and for good reasons.
One example of a loophole that an engineer could exploit would be to vary the power used by a Wi-Fi module to have it pass EMC rules. During testing conditions, the Wi-Fi modules power is severely reduced to minimise EMI, but when used in the real world, the power is maximised to improve range and bandwidth. However, while this may produce test data that supports the products claim to be CE or FCC compliant, the truth is that it wouldn’t be. Should this be discovered by authorities, the manufacturer of the product can be held liable for the breach in regulation, the reputation of the engineers tarnished, and even a large-scale recall of products.
Seeing engineers try to cheat tests to get products onto the market not only shows a complete lack of respect for rules but compliant in producing inferior products for their customers. While Apple may not have broken any product regulations with their claim being water-resistance, it is at least disingenuous to use lab conditions to claim that a device can withstand some defined environment, especially when advertisements show the device underwater still functioning.
Read More
