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.

▲

lemming 16 hours ago | parent | next [-]

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 15 hours ago | parent | next [-]

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.

▲

numpad0 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

"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...

▲

wing-_-nuts 15 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

That's hyperbole and I think you know it. I'm pretty sure they explicitly exclude medical devices.

▲

kstrauser 15 hours ago | parent [-]

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.

	▲	ddoeth 5 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Hearing aids have had replaceable batteries since they were invented basically. I still remember my grandma 20 years ago fiddling with the small batteries, so that really is not a problem.
	▲	DrammBA 11 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		> Edit: It's easy to downvote. I cited the relevant law. If I'm wrong, cite other law that explains why. > Please don't comment about the voting on comments. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

▲

i_cannot_hack 15 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

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.

▲

jeremyjh 14 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

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.

▲

jfindper 14 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Yes, other things cause e-waste. Sometimes worse.

That's not a good justification for more e-waste.

▲

charcircuit 12 hours ago | parent [-]

It's a ring. It's a tiny amount of waste.

▲

archietheturtle 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

So is plastic straws and we know what happened with those.

	▲	charcircuit 5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		The problem with plastic straws was properly disposing them. For a piece of jewelry I doubt many people would throw it away on the side of the road. A ring that last for years is different than a disposal product that people may use for a couple of minutes.

▲

aosaigh 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Not when millions of people buy it

	▲	charcircuit 5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		It's still a tiny amount of waste for those millions of people amortized over its lifespan.

▲

Fnoord 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

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.

▲

GolfPopper 15 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Yep. There's some strong "How dare they interfere with Thneed production!" energy.

▲

cortesoft 14 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

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?

	▲	abdullahkhalids 11 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		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...
	▲	maest 14 hours ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		You may find this a useful read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_fallacy
	▲	mxkopy 14 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		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.

▲

numpad0 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

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 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

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.

▲

hamdingers 12 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Perhaps the ring need not exist.

▲

kentiko 15 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Maybe it's the ring that is dumb?