← Back to context

Comment by kstrauser

15 hours ago

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.

25 comments

kstrauser

Reply
lemming  14 hours ago

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.

  • kstrauser  14 hours ago

    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.

    • i_cannot_hack  13 hours ago

      If you want more freedom to design medical devices for people where there is an actual need, it would easily be done by expanding the exception for medical devices that already exists in the law.

      If you think people to be able to sell unsustainable and mostly superfluous electronics because any improvements there might eventually trickle down to hearing aids, your argument is basically "we should accept the millions of tonnes of unnecessary e-waste in order to get slighly smaller hearing aids", which think many reasonable people would disagree with.

  • cortesoft  13 hours ago

    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?

  • jeremyjh  13 hours ago

    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.

    • Fnoord  7 hours ago

      Products are supposed to last two years at the very least in EU (local laws may be more strict, but not less). If your product dies before that time, the customer will cite warranty, and there you go. This device is likely one of the many 'designed to last a little bit more than two years', with the emphasis on 'little bit'. It appears to be a perfect example of planned obsolescence.

numpad0  3 hours ago

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

montag  5 hours ago

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.