Google Pixel
The Google Pixel phone is displayed during the presentation of new Google hardware in San Francisco, California, U.S. October 4, 2016. Reuters/Beck Diefenbach

The Pixel is currently enjoying great reviews and is already considered one of the best handsets out in the market today despite being a new player in the smartphone game. One notable critique about the Pixel, though, is Google’s inability to make the handset completely waterproof.

Although Google’s new smartphone has a certified immersion rating of IP-53, it doesn’t fully warrant the unit to be completely submerged underwater. The IP-53 rating only allows splashes and sprays from a maximum of 60 degrees high to come in contact with the handset, which basically means that the Pixel can still be used for calling while in the middle of a rain storm. Google admittedly proclaims the limitation in one of the phone’s early ads, calling it “splash-proof.”

Consumers take notice when something as premium as the Pixel takes a step back when it comes to features, especially since rival handsets like the iPhone 7 and the Samsung Galaxy S7 are fully submergible underwater. Those who wonder why Google did not make the Pixel completely waterproof might be surprised with the tech giant’s answer.

David Pierce of WIRED discussed details about his interaction with the Pixel phone makers over at Google via the Gadget Lab Podcast. When he popped the question on why the Pixel wasn’t ultimately made waterproof, Google simply said it “ran out of time.”

Google had initially planned to make the Pixel waterproof, but early this year they had to re-evaluate the phone’s development, which means they only had about nine months to finalise the smartphone until its launch. The period proved to be too short even for a tech giant like Google to fully strengthen the Pixel’s features, especially since the company still had to work with HTC.

Despite the fact that the Pixel’s development was rushed, the phone is still impressive overall and has garnered positive reviews from critics.