Comment by rendx
2 months ago
Regulation (EU) 2023/1542 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 July 2023 concerning batteries and waste batteries
Article 11
Removability and replaceability of portable batteries and LMT batteries
1. Any natural or legal person that places on the market products incorporating portable batteries shall ensure that those batteries are readily removable and replaceable by the end-user at any time during the lifetime of the product. That obligation shall only apply to entire batteries and not to individual cells or other parts included in such batteries.
A portable battery shall be considered readily removable by the end-user where it can be removed from a product with the use of commercially available tools, without requiring the use of specialised tools, unless provided free of charge with the product, proprietary tools, thermal energy, or solvents to disassemble the product.
Any natural or legal person that places on the market products incorporating portable batteries shall ensure that those products are accompanied with instructions and safety information on the use, removal and replacement of the batteries. Those instructions and that safety information shall be made available permanently online, on a publicly available website, in an easily understandable way for end-users.
[…]
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A...
(This is active law; there is however a grace period for products until 2027.)
There's an exception for "appliances specifically designed to operate primarily in an environment that is regularly subject to splashing water, water streams or water immersion, and that are intended to be washable or rinseable". This ring is described as water-resistant, so I wonder if it would be allowed?
I don't know if it counts as "primarily" operating in those conditions.
From my reading, the conditions seem to apply to the environment it primarily operates in, not the product itself. So the product primarily operates in the environment of the hand, and the hand is definitely "regularly subject to splashing water".
9 replies →
Not sure about you but I regularly wash my hands
16 replies →
"2. By way of derogation from paragraph 1, the following products incorporating portable batteries may be designed in such a way as to *make the battery removable and replaceable only by independent professionals*:
(a) appliances specifically designed to operate primarily in an environment that is regularly subject to splashing water, water streams or water immersion, and that are intended to be washable or rinseable;"
This still does NOT allow non-replaceable batteries. Also note "independent".
For something like a smart ring, a user-replacable battery is just totally impractical. Particularly if you want any sort of water resistance. The thing is just too damn small and will require special tools no matter what.
I don't think it's at all reasonable to expect such a product to have a user-replacable battery without doubling the cost. Sure it'd be nice, but the reality is sometimes it just isn't possible to accommodate.
The regulation is not some bureaucratic nonsense, it exists for a reason.
If its existence means the manufacturer has to do more work, and the cost might rise, that is considered worth it.
They can lobby to have the regulation changed, and regulations have changed in the past based on industry input, but saying "it's too hard" does not make the product suddenly legal.
We regularly get contacted by people in Europe who want to buy our product, but we haven't been providing support due to the cost of certs, and other regulatory needs (medical/wellness device).
We want to help people in the EU, but with laws like replaceable batteries, it's going to push us further and further away from being able to do that.
Our product is designed to be refurbished, but not user-replaceable.
At the same time, how many products do people give up on because of battery life, and is this a non-issue with future battery chemistries?
Do people replace their phones because the battery isn't good anymore, or is it more likely they've broken the screen, cameras, etc to the point where it doesn't make sense to replace those anymore? Or they just want the newest thing?
> Do people replace their phones because the battery isn't good anymore, or is it more likely they've broken the screen, cameras, etc to the point where it doesn't make sense to replace those anymore? Or they just want the newest thing?
This is why repairability isn't restricted to just the battery. And buying the newest thing every year is kinda frowned upon here in the EU now. I'm sure some people still do it but most people aren't flashing their new phone around anymore. And phones have become boring anyway. The latest Samsung S25 is mostly the same as the S23, exact same form factor, cameras. Just a bit faster and a bit more memory.
But the government sets a baseline here to stimulate sustainability. I really agree with it, this planet has to be usable for a lot longer. And economic growth isn't everything.
We have to move away from consumerism for the sake of it and I think we're making good inroads here in the EU. Not to mention it means there's more money left over for important stuff like doing things with friends.
> And buying the newest thing every year is kinda frowned upon here in the EU now.
Is there any evidence that Europeans aren’t buying new phones at the same rate that they used to?
5 replies →
> We want to help people in the EU, but with laws like replaceable batteries, it's going to push us further and further away from being able to do that.
We want to help people, but only if and when it’s profitable for us to do so on terms we decide for you.
> A market doesnt want our products, we wont provide those products to that market.
The terms seem at least, largely influenced by the laws euros seem happy with. Regulation has a cost.
7 replies →
> We want to help people, but only if and when it’s profitable for us
If s/he is running a company and not a charity, this is responsible, understandable, and predictable.
2 replies →
This is, I believe, the definition of a free market choice
4 replies →
Uh... yeah. It's called a business.
So it's 2025 and we're building more disposable electronics? I'm sorry but I think the EU is not the problem here.
That's an unfair representation of the situation. There's nothing about this device that implies "disposable". The EU is definitely the problem here. I think the problem is the EU loves legislating entrepreneurial creativity into the dirt.
2 replies →
Speaking personally, I've never broken/damaged a phone. Since the Pixel 1 started requiring removal of the screen in order to swap the battery, 100% of my phone replacements have been because the battery isn't good anymore. (Granted, I would've gotten a new phone eventually regardless, when the old one stopped receiving security updates.)
Currently trying to stretch a Pixel 7 until 2027.
> (Granted, I would've gotten a new phone eventually regardless, when the old one stopped receiving security updates.)
And that's why the EU also mandate a 5-years software support period (and I wish it was even more).
> Do people replace their phones because the battery isn't good anymore
Pretty much exclusively? The last 4-5 iPhone purchases in my family have all been due to dying batteries (plus a couple of off-brand battery replacements by local cellphone techs).
Nothing else on iPhones really ever breaks, provided you keep some sort of case on it. The only non-battery failure I've ever had was a corroded lightning port (on a iPhone that was regularly used in a salt-chlorine swimming pool). And of course a couple of replacements due to critical banking apps that have drop support for old iOS versions...
And what did you do with them? Throw them away? I bought and used an iPhone 11 for a year last year, and it came with a perfectly functional, replaced battery.
People on HN have such a blind spot around old, used phones which thrive in secondary marketplaces. You'd think iPhones are filling dumpsters with the rhetoric here but they actually hold their value remarkably well, which means they have a much longer useful life. A replaceable battery is different from a user-replaceable battery. The former is a sustainability concern, the latter is just a feature.
1 reply →
BTW this also works the other way: I find myself to avoid US products more and more because they tend to come with inbuilt obsolescence, or, for digital products, with dark patterns preventing subscription cancelling.
> Our product is designed to be refurbished, but not user-replaceable.
Why?
I'm not who you asked that question, but I'd guess it's because it requires "proprietary tools, thermal energy, or solvents to disassemble the product."
It'd be hard to design/manufacture a device that reliably remains waterproof after a typical not-specially-skilled owner opens it up to replace a battery. It's really common to hear of people damaging watches due to water ingress after battery replacements, getting seals or orings seated just right isn't something every user is going to be able to do.
I can imagine some medical devices have similar sealing requirements, perhaps even more robust sealing methods since they might need to be exposed to regular disinfection grade cleaning with chemicals harsher then just water. I could easily understand why a company may design a medical device that its heat-glued together for sealing purposes in a way that can only reasonably be done (and redone) at the factory.
I killed an original Pebble when I Dremelled it open to replace the battery, and failed to hot glue seal it well enough and it got wet inside.
Having said that - I dislike this design choice for the Index 01. I can see myself becoming reliant on this right before they sell out to Garmin or whoever and tell all their customers to FOAD again. Trust is very hard to win back.
1 reply →
Design inherently involves trade-offs. Size, weight, cost, water resistance, etc.
> Do people replace their phones because the battery isn't good anymore
Yes. I'm not bothered about the latest thing, and every phone I've replaced has been because of two things: the battery has degraded until it's unacceptable, or it no longer gets OS updates.
Regs aside; I'd more likely be a buyer if you offered a discount on replacements when customer returns "years" old expired ring.
> We regularly get contacted by people in Europe who want to buy our product, but we haven't been providing support due to the cost of certs, and other regulatory needs (medical/wellness device).
I understand your point but being safe is not an option
> Do people replace their phones because the battery isn't good anymore
I just had to change the battery of my phone, and I wish that it would have been just a swap to do. Actually because it wasn't, I add to buy a temporary phone the time I needed to have the parts and the tools
I’m playing my tiny violin right now for your pain.
It’s so tragic that people can’t buy your product that will end up in a landfill.
Maybe we don’t have to focus society so much on buying products? What a wild concept.
Yeah, reading this part:
> We want to help people in the EU, but with laws like replaceable batteries, it's going to push us further and further away from being able to do that.
All I could think of was "Wow, the regulation works better than expected".
It's incredible the other side think of themselves as "We want to help people in this environment we don't understand, but receiving pushback" and yet they don't want to adjust, no, it's the environment that is wrong, even if it's built up by people.
I may not be a typical user, but I've run my last few iphones and macbooks until the battery gave up the ghost. I haven't really needed more features or raw horsepower for quite some time, so the battery ends up being the limit I hit.
iPhones and MacBooks can be serviced to replace the battery.
My iPhones typically get a fresh battery around the 3-year mark, or whenever the battery health dips below 80%, and do a second tour of duty with someone in the family. In all cases so far, the OS goes out of support and apps stop working before the second battery degrades.
I use Android, but this is me, too. I keep it until the battery goes bad or until it breaks.
1 reply →
fwiw, Al dente on macOS will help your battery live longer
I guess Core use the same excuse to only provide 30 day warranty, using a loophole to avoid the annoyance of having to provide a proper warranty?
My personal experience: Electric toothbrush and razor. I especially hate the razors, you can replace the head, they could last a lifetime, but the battery is practically dead after two years. Toothbrushes are improving, the last one has 3 years of service and still work ok.
I'm using an Oral-B electric toothbrush from 2009. The (non-replaceable) battery needs to be charged about every 3-5 days now, which is not a problem because it sits in its charging stand every night.
My wife bought some cheap electric toothbrush that runs on AA batteries, which can be rechargeable and have a lifespan independent of the gadget.
Its going to be interesting to see what will happen with Airpods and the like…
Apple will proudly announce that they've invented the replaceable battery.
Unapologetically plastic. or replaceable. Their marketing department will work hard to sell it as revolutionary.
I don't think it will be possible to make wireless earbuds or a ring with replaceable batteries without seriously compromising the ergonomics of fitting onto or into the human body.
I have a pair of earbuds designed to be as diminutive for sleeping comfortably and I have no idea how you would do that with a replaceable battery even if Airpod sized devices can be done.
The Fairbuds proved that it's possible.
Counterexample: hearing aids.
1 reply →
What are those sleeping earbuds?
My main concern here is that i live in an area that regularly get's below -20° and my electronic devices are regularly dying around me. And while I try to keep my hands warm-ish, they do get cold sometimes, and it would suck if a non replaceable battery died on me early because of this.
> at any time during the lifetime of the product
Eric said that the lifetime of the product is 'up to years'. Presumably because that's the limitation imposed by a disposable battery.
I wonder if the circular reasoning would fly in the EU.
How do other smart-ring companies deal with this?
wireless charging at the expense of size/bulk
But the rechargeable batteries are still not user replaceable, right?
This makes me wonder about things like air pods. Do they replaceable batteries? Does Apple plan to make them so?
Good thing that there are plenty of markets outside of EU
Cynical thinking ahead.
What has been long considered one of the most wealthy markets is a country descending into a billionaire controlled kleptocracy. And they're pissing off every other country in the world with tariff blackmail and punishment (or extra judicial executions) for any country that fails to bend the knee and fawn obsequiously enough to their leader.
One of the most populous markets is a country that manufactures approximately 100% of all consumer electronics, and will have a hundred versions of this available for 10% of Pebble's price on AliExpress as soon as it shows any signs of gaining market traction anywhere (quite likely stolen or "3rd shift" ones from Pebble's own outsourced production line).
India, who these days has more than enough local skill and experienced ex-H1B tech people to create this from scratch at home (and at least some with a deep resentment over how they were treated by US tech companies while they were there)?
One of the no longer EU markets is suffering post Brexit austerity and isn't likely to be buying a heap if tech toys - even if their fucked up new importing goods paperwork doesn't make it impossible to get your product into the country.
There goes about 40% of the planet's population.
That leaves, what? Manufacture locally and try surviving by selling to the US market at prices driven by US labor costs which'd make the product prohibitively expensive globally? South East Asia, who're likely to buy the Samsung copy over one from a US company? Russia, who (at least for now) is under trade sanctions for a US based company like Pebble? So perhaps Canada (until their southern neighbour make good on their threat to try and make them the 51st state)? South Africa? Australia and New Zealand?
You’re 100% correct companies can’t survive by being a niche market choice. The options are complete global market saturation or failure.
/unjerk out of all the potential mindsets to inherit from the US, the “corporate maximalist” frame of reference is one of the dumbest we have to offer
While I sympathize with the intent of the law, this is a great example of why it's dumb. There's no possible way you could make that ring, in a reasonably ring-sized form factor, with today's manufacturing processes in such a way that an end user could replace it.
If this law pushes back against the idea that it's ok to make endless tech products which are essentially future rubbish as soon as you buy them, then I think that's a good thing. Perhaps products like this just shouldn't exist until we have better ways of dealing with the remains.
The problem is that it makes it impossible to have a version 0 to iterate on until a whole lot of other industries have advanced. Imagine the situation of in-ear hearing aids: they shouldn't be allowed to exist until they're perfect, unless we're happy telling deaf people they have to wear much larger than necessary devices and advertise their disability.
I'm glad we're reducing e-waste. I'm not thrilled about the idea of saying you can't make a thing until 100% of the bugs are worked out, meaning you can't have a beta version for research and fundraising, meaning, you can't conjure the perfect version into existence.
6 replies →
If the battery lasts for two years its exceeding the useful life of many other products already, some of which of have higher environment cost for manufacturing and disposal.
The law has chosen poor proxies for lifespan and impact.
7 replies →
Who gets to choose what products are future rubbish?
Even if you think this product is a waste of resources, why is THIS waste of resources something we should stop, but not other, bigger wastes? Should we outlaw flying somewhere when you could take a train? The fuel spent on a short flight wastes way more resources and damages the environment much more than this smart ring does. If we are willing to ban this piece of tech because it is a waste, couldn't the same arguments be made about a short range flight?
3 replies →
Yep. There's some strong "How dare they interfere with Thneed production!" energy.
If their official sizing kit 3D models are accurate(better be!), there's exact amount of space for an SR721W watch/hearing aid silver oxide coin cell. And these are not even the tiniest of standardized replaceable batteries.
1: https://imgur.com/a/yupC9lN
You're too generous. I feel like the entire production run of this ring could be equivalent to a single discarded washing machine. This law is hamfisted.
Perhaps the ring need not exist.
Maybe it's the ring that is dumb?
Wow, sucks to bE yoU!
As a European, I actually fully support this regulation!
Me too, i hate that I would have to throw out a fully functioning device if the battery dies.
12 replies →