Ok, fair enough questions.
But, cant I just use their directions, the "dumbed down version" and it will still give good results? What difference does it matter if it is not to exact specifications?
You can, but you (as in any consumer) could end up wasting a lot of product (ask esoxlucius about that) , or one could end up under-dosing, where in the case of chloramine, could result in ammonia spikes after each water change. Not so good for someone that has higher pH values, or warmer than normal water temp, etc.
I personally would not consider that "good results", for the masses and was my argument to Seachem years ago when they started moving in this direction.
As far as increasing ignorance, the following was direct from the CEO, when we conversed about this 3 yrs ago.
Me -
> I understand why the labels have been changed, I simply don't agree with the new numbers being used on the new labels. It doesn't matter how anyone spins it, the numbers don't lie. The old instructions made perfect sense, for anyone that could add 1+1 and divide by 2. Nothing in the formula has changed, and nothing in the actual data being used in the past has changed. My point is that in Seachems attempt to dumb things down for the average consumer, IMO they have missed the mark in regards to the "average" consumers residual disinfectant level typically found in ones tap water.
CEO -
> for anyone that could add 1+1 and divide by 2
This is truly the crux of the matter. Yes, as a chemist I agree, the old labels are “better” in the sense they provide the maximum amount of detailed information so the consumer can figure out exactly what they need to use. The problem is whether I like it or not that encompasses maybe 5% of the consumers buying this product. The other 95%, sadly, cannot add 1+1 and divide by 2. This is not hyperbole (sadly)… what you or I take for granted as being dead simple easy math is simply not the case for most.