I'm afraid I have to disagree with Angelo (that watch lume is not necessary). Lume is, after all, just paint. For lack of that paint, your watch becomes unreadable in dim light. So now you're supposed to plan ahead and, in any situation you might be in dim light or darkness, wear a different watch. Or be sure to carry a cell phone to check the time (when, often, I choose to carry mine in a messenger bag, so that digging it out takes far more time than glancing at my wrist.) None of this is the end of the world, but it's a lot of price to pay, in terms of inconvenience, for the absence of a penny's worth of paint.
Second, although I do not like diver's watches (my favorite is an utterly simple military style Citizen Eco-Drive, much simpler and smaller than a diver's watch) I gather the attraction is supposed to be their ruggedness and utility under any condition you could conceivably face. As in "I can count on this watch in any conditions that wouldn't kill me." A watch that is useless when you step into a darkened bedroom for your slippers fails that theme. Hoo boy, does it ever.
Third, unlike the Range Rover which is big, heavy, inefficient, and clumsy, a watch with lume has no disadvantages compared to one without. If you need it, you will definitely know the difference. If you don't need it, its presence makes no difference at all. It's a win-no way to lose situation. So why not have the lume?
The purpose of a watch is to be there when you need it so you can look at it and know what time it is. The artsy-fartsy jewelry designer wing of the watch company only has one serious engineering constraint on them; whatever else they do, they MUST keep enough contrast between the watch dial and the hands so that you can read what time it is. Yet they refuse to do it, because they think (say) silver hands on a silver dial look cool. If that's not sacrificing all function just for style, I don't know what is. Until they decide it's stylish just to leave the hands off altogether, of course.