Okay I think I better understand your point but I think it’s just a logic error.
If I understand, you’re saying the inconsistency of waterproofing one part and not waterproofing others suggests insincerity of the stated waterproofing motivation for the battery.
There are two (related) things wrong with that reasoning:
1. It assumes that any kind of water protection must be holistic to be sincere. This rules out any notion of prioritized iteration. It’s like saying (sorry, car metaphor incoming) seatbelts aren’t a real safety measure because other parts of the car haven’t been revised for the same kinds of risks seatbelts prevent or mitigate.
2. The batteries we’re talking about are substantially more fire prone when exposed to water than the rest of the device. That alone justifies prioritizing water safety measures for the battery ahead of any other component.
If I understand, you’re saying the inconsistency of waterproofing one part and not waterproofing others suggests insincerity of the stated waterproofing motivation for the battery.
There are two (related) things wrong with that reasoning:
1. It assumes that any kind of water protection must be holistic to be sincere. This rules out any notion of prioritized iteration. It’s like saying (sorry, car metaphor incoming) seatbelts aren’t a real safety measure because other parts of the car haven’t been revised for the same kinds of risks seatbelts prevent or mitigate.
2. The batteries we’re talking about are substantially more fire prone when exposed to water than the rest of the device. That alone justifies prioritizing water safety measures for the battery ahead of any other component.