Of course it had to be like that...
4 comments
Sort by
Welcome to my WatchCrunch profile.
Member since
Last active: 6 hrs ago
Still take this thing in the water...YMMV..👀🤏🏻🤌🏻😝
I'm sick of them trying to sneak in those two monsters on the left when all you want is the cute one on the right.
I don’t understand how watch brands haven’t been sued for false advertising or something over obviously misleadingly using units of length to convey water resistance. And unfortunately new, smaller brands are only perpetuating this cycle. And it is immensely easy to have everyone on the same page, by using plain language.
“Splash resistant”, “brief submersion only”, “water activities capable”, “diving capable”, “saturation diving capable”. Then just put all the technical jargon about its rating *in the real depth rating* in the manual. Done.
I don’t understand how watch brands haven’t been sued for false advertising or something over obviously misleadingly using units of length to convey water resistance. And unfortunately new, smaller brands are only perpetuating this cycle. And it is immensely easy to have everyone on the same page, by using plain language.
“Splash resistant”, “brief submersion only”, “water activities capable”, “diving capable”, “saturation diving capable”. Then just put all the technical jargon about its rating *in the real depth rating* in the manual. Done.
Exactly💯... Just like how 50 Meters Water Resistant mustn't be taken literally as the watch would survive under 50 Meters of water pressure, but should be considered suitable for only splashes and small rains.