Comment by 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.
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.
"Invisible In-the-Canal" hearing aids are battery replaceable. That argument just won't fly.
1: https://assets-ae.rt.demant.com/-/media/project/retail/audik...
That's hyperbole and I think you know it. I'm pretty sure they explicitly exclude medical devices.
It's not hyperbole at all.
Fortunately, your link basically says it doesn't apply to something you wear on your hands or arms:
> 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;
But the only mention of "medical" comes right after it, and doesn't include hearing aids, future smart glasses, etc.:
> (b) professional medical imaging and radiotherapy devices, as defined in Article 2, point (1), of Regulation (EU) 2017/745, and in vitro diagnostic medical devices, as defined in Article 2, point (2), of Regulation (EU) 2017/746.
So ironically, the law allows disposable "junk devices" people are complaining about here, but doesn't allow factory-only serviceable hearing aids. How 'bout that? We can buy our smart rings and throw them away, but hearing aids will have to remain giant hunks of heavy plastic, or at least the models purchasable by average people who can't fly out of the EU to buy the good ones.
Edit: It's easy to downvote. I cited the relevant law. If I'm wrong, cite other law that explains why.
2 replies →
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.
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?
There are already several existing and proposed bans on short haul flights when train routes exist. [1, 2]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short-haul_flight_ban
[2] https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexledsom/2024/03/18/spain-sho...
You may find this a useful read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_fallacy
Sure, thanks for bringing it up. Short-range flights should have a higher higher threshold for permitted use in service of the environment.
Please, ask more questions.
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.
Yes, other things cause e-waste. Sometimes worse.
That's not a good justification for more e-waste.
It's a ring. It's a tiny amount of waste.
4 replies →
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.
Yep. There's some strong "How dare they interfere with Thneed production!" energy.