Measuring the life of a filter in months is low value because life depends on how much water passes though it, how contaminated the water is, and what with. All unknown!
The simple counter identified by Robert is slightly better than replace after elapsed time because it sort of measures the volume of water filtered. Much used filters are counted down faster than a little used ones. Crudely! The counter knows nothing else about the water.
Water filters are dubious in themselves. Most Western countries deliver potable water straight from the tap, and it can be drunk fearlessly. I’ve heard some people shower in it too! Filters appeal partly to people who don’t trust the water system, and partly to those who can taste the difference or believe they can.
I live in a limestone area where tapwater contains minerals, chiefly Calcium. It alters taste and feel compated with soft water, and doesn’t go well with some teas. (Yorkshire Tea is good in Somerset.) Medical evidence suggests Hard-water is good for us, and super-pure water damages kidneys. Chlorine can sometimes be tasted in tapwater, and if so, the right kind of filter should help.
But beware, in a double blind test, most people can’t tell the difference between tap water and filtered tap water. Suggests most filtering is a waste of time and money; they are a placebo. However, a proportion of double blind testers can tell the difference, and maybe you’re one of them. And then, placebo benefit being psychological rather than real is no reason to ignore it; if filtering keeps one happy, then go for it. (Curiously a proportion of people in trials continue to believe in placebo medications, even after being told they’re neutral.)
All a bit of a con, but there are reasons for choosing to buy bottled water and filters.
Dave