Hacker News Reader

Comment by rendx | Hacker News Reader

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.)

View on HN

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".

I hate to say it, but none of this matters. This product is going to fail anyway.

It’s a niche within a niche within a niche. It’s designed to do solve a problem that only one person has.

You have to:

- want to make voice memos (how many people do that?)

- find your watch insufficient for that purpose

- find your phone insufficient for that purpose

- be willing to wear a ring on a specific finger (this isn’t practical on most of your fingers because it’s hard to press the button)

- commit to custom sized jewelry

I hate to be the person to break it to you, but you're in the wrong subthread and none of what you wrote matters, the context is specifically about the regulation. There is a bunch of other subthreads where people moan about that this doesn't have any actual market.

I’m fully aware that the context is about the regulation.

But this thread is like pointing out that the cybertruck doesn’t meet EU regulations. It doesn’t matter because the truck is a sales disaster in its most potent market and will probably be discontinued.

Ok, so the discussion isn't interesting to you because you think another thing will make the second thing irrelevant. But obviously discussing the second thing has value, regardless of your personal opinion, so why don't you just stay out of the topic instead of trying to change it to something else?

> so why don't you just stay out of the topic instead of trying to change it to something else?

“Because this thread is currently higher up the page than the threads talking about what they want to talk about, so they'll get less attention” would be my guess.

Damn, you got me. How much money do I owe you in damages?

Now you’ve started the meta-topic of my change in topic. This is illegal because your royal decree said that topics can’t change or evolve at all.

I propose we change the subject to how you’re the king of this website and you alone determine the topic of discussion. Would that be okay with you, Dear Leader?

This issue of replaceable battery is not only irrelevant because the product is going to fail, it’s irrelevant because it clearly complies with EU law. If it doesn’t you have to explain how the Apple Watch is legal in Europe with a battery that Apple themselves don’t replace in their stores, opting instead to users an entirely new watch.

> irrelevant because it clearly complies with EU law

Why is that so clear? Multiple other comments in this submission will point you to the exact parts from coming regulations that it doesn't seem to comply with at all, if I recall correctly it'll start being enforced in 2027. So if Apple wants to continue selling their watches in Europe, they'll have to follow that too, and since they've been aware of it for quite some time already, I'm sure they already have plans and actions in motion for doing just that.

Edit: The "other comments" is literally the root comment of this comment chain..... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46209779

Yeah someone pointed out that the regulations don’t apply to anything that is regularly washed or immersed in water.

Not sure about you but I regularly wash my hands

What about an iPhone. Can you change the battery without specialized tools?

From 2027 onwards the answer will need to be yes, as a result of these standards.

And this time the whole world can thank the EU, Apple is definitely not going to create a special iPhone hardware just for us.

Or curse the EU, if the compromises necessary to make the battery replaceable result in a less robust product.

If you don't care about e-waste and repairability, of course.

If the phone is less waterproof or otherwise breaks more frequently, it could result in more e-waste.

Except they do. Theres country specific variations of the iPhone, with Hong Kong being the special region that got dual sim.

Or Apple will throw a hissy fit¹, stop selling them directly here, but get the sales anyway as people will buy them elsewhere and import to sell on the grey market.

--------

[1] Though last time they did that, disabling existing features in response to the app stores decision, they backed down PDQ, so maybe that threat would have no weight.

Not sure about you, but my hands are primarily dry and only occasionally get wet.

Having to take a ring off whenever you wash your hands would be very inconvenient. At least in the spirit of the law this should qualify

I mean, that's what I do with my ring...

Cool.

Exactly. But I feel that “the design of that ring isn’t compliant” followed by “I don’t get my hands wet unexpectedly” is just the kind of claim you’d find on HN.

These are the same insufferable, out of touch people who expect a fresh pair of plastic gloves be put on for every sandwich the guy makes them at the deli, and are simultaneously outraged when their straw isn’t compostable.

Dry-ish, it'll always be somewhat moist from sweat and natural oils and stuff. Which is why most jewelry is low or nonreactive.

"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?

> Our product is designed to be refurbished, but not user-replaceable.

Why?

Design inherently involves trade-offs. Size, weight, cost, water resistance, etc.

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.

> 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.

This product is perfect for that case, though: you have to decide to buy another one each time the battery runs down, which aligns seller incentives with the user/purchaser. The danger cases are mainly when the seller gets up front money and then has to provide something indefinitely.

> 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.

This is, I believe, the definition of a free market choice

And this is why regulation exists, QED lol

Yes, a free market isn't the answer to everything. It will never optimise for sustainability unless this is a conscious consumer choice factor. It's way too important to leave it to that though. Hence regulation.

Just change the underlying economic incentives - but nobody is even barely there yet, except maybe the EU. Doughnut Economics, when are you going to save us (& the planet)?

Fair enough, and I agree that regulation is often needed, but we cannot, in general, expect it to have only the consequences explicitly sought.

> 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.

Yes, and that's exactly why we need regulations, and can't leave it to the market!

Of course, but that makes "help" a weasel word. They want to be able to sell their product, that they possibly strongly feel will help the buyers.

> 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.

e-waste also have a cost.

And regulations are here to make businesses internalize this cost instead of letting society as a whole pay it out.

Sometimes the cost is that there is no viable product.

And that is perfectly fine!

That's not what a lot of proponents of these laws argue. They often state that if a company is making something unavailable in the EU due to one of the laws that the company is throwing a fit or being spiteful.

And it's also probably true, especially for $MEGACORP. But in general the concept of this kind of laws, as others mentioned, it's to make companies internalize the whole cost of their product impact on the environment. It is GOOD if it drives the price up. At some point people will find it too expensive and they will simply not buy it because it's not worth the cost.

Yes its perfectly fine, thats my point. They arent spiting the EU, they are just responding to the legislation by not entering that market. If EU voters are unhappy they can take it up with their government.

Yes, indeed! But I don’t think Daenney gets it.

Uh... yeah. It's called a business.

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.

I use Android, but this is me, too. I keep it until the battery goes bad or until it breaks.

In my last two phones I had to replace the battery 2 and 4 years in. One because it swelled, the other because it couldn't hold charge. Both cases I got a few extra years of usage from the phone. I'm in the EU, and I support this sort of regulation.

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.

fwiw, Al dente on macOS will help your battery live longer

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.

Not having a replacable battery - a part that wears predictably and is critical to operation - makes this device disposable.

There's more important things than "entrepreneurial creativity". Not everything that can make sense as a business plan makes sense for the world.

We can survive without rings that allow us to mutter voice notes into our fists while walking around.

It does not have a rechargeable battery. I could even understand non replaceable in this form factor.

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?

> 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?

Some sources say so, e.g. "Declining Replacement Cycles Among Consumers" on https://www.marketdataforecast.com/market-reports/europe-sma...

And https://www.unibocconi.it/en/news/disposable-smartphones-tri... has replacement cycles in Italy going up.

Anecdotally, 2023/24 all media in Germany was full of ads for shops trading refurb phones. Most of those talked lower prices, but some mentioned sustainability.

The first article does not look to be informative; it values the EU smartphone market at around 465 million USD, which is impossibly low. If you assume a smartphone is valued at $1,000, a market of that size would only amount to 465,000 devices sold; this is around 0.01% of the EU’s population.

The second article links to a paper which appears to be more informative (though it has not been peer reviewed):

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5117319

Notably:

> For example, in the United States, the average expected life span (replacement cycle length) of consumer and enterprise smartphones was 2.67 and 2.54 years, respectively, in 2023, while in the UK almost 30% of surveyed consumers use their smartphone up to two years and 41% up to 4 years.

and

> Furthermore, evidence shows that European, American and Chinese consumers have reduced the replacement rate of their smartphones, increasing their average life cycle (see Figure 1). These data suggest that consumer preferences are changing, and new opportunities arise for companies who want to find new profitable ways to meet the needs of their customers.

It is standard to list market size data in units of $1,000; i.e. that report is 465 billion USD.

Those numbers would be more realistic, amounting to around a thousand dollars spent per each EU citizen per year; this seems a little high if replacement rates are hovering around 3 years on average, but not impossible like the other figure.

What I don’t understand is why it would be written “USD 448.87 million.” This convention is common in accounting and finance as well, but they usually make an indication of it in a column header.

> Is there any evidence that Europeans aren’t buying new phones at the same rate that they used to?

I bet it is the case, not because it is frowned upon, but because tpeople have less money, the prices of phone increased a lot and the increase of performance and usefulness is plateauing.

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).

Regs aside; I'd more likely be a buyer if you offered a discount on replacements when customer returns "years" old expired ring.

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.

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.

> 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.

> 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

> 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.

> And what did you do with them? Throw them away?

The ones that aged out of running needed software are still sitting in a cabinet somewhere. A couple of the others were killed off when their battery pack swelled, and another didn't survive a local tech's efforts to replace the battery...

With batteries that could be replaced without delaminating the whole device, (and ideally, an open boot loader), I'd be able to make use of most of them.

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.

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.

Counterexample: hearing aids.

Now use rechargeable batteries that are not user replaceable

The Fairbuds proved that it's possible.

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.

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

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.

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.

> 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

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.

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.

"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...

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?

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.

You may find this a useful read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_fallacy

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...

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.

Not when millions of people buy it

It's still a tiny amount of waste for those millions of people amortized over its lifespan.

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

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.

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.

Maybe it's the ring that is dumb?

Perhaps the ring need not exist.

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.

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

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.

I understand that sentiment but I think its arbitrary. People buy lots of products that don't have a useful life exceeding two years. For example, every pet toy ever sold. Some will have higher impact for manufacturing and disposal than this ring.

1. Arbitrary it may be. You have to start somewhere. In that sense, anything we do is “arbitrary“. Straw man. (see also: ban of plastic straws)

2. I would expect pet toys to be regulated as well and to contain less environmental toxins and hard to recycle elements than batteries, so I doubt the claim about impact per item sold.

There is an endless stream of cheap battery powered pet toys flowing out of China with far more plastic, circuit boards etc than this watch.

As long as their batteries are replaceable, that’s fine, and if not, they will not be legally allowed to be sold in Europe. What point is it that you’re trying to make?

What difference does it make if you can replace the batteries in a toy the animal loses interest in within 20 minutes?

Then don't buy it? I'm not buying these toys, and why would I?

So people should make their own choices about the products they buy? Glad we agree. This thread is about a law that prevents it.

> So people should make their own choices about the products they buy? A little, yeah. Buy and don't use: your problem. Buy and can't use because I can't change the battery: subject to regulation. We can't stop anyone from making dumb monetary decisions, but we can stop products not being repairable.

And an endless stream of devices in the form of toys running full software stacks which never receive updates. Great, some products are as shitty. Perhaps we oppose those as well?

Good idea, and actually partly implemented as well in the EU. Security updates must be provided for a certain period of time for a certain class of devices, which is the reason why mobiles now receive updates for many years.

This is exactly the problem they're trying to tackle. Repairability goes further than just batteries.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com