4 ms·
The ring doesn't just have irreplaceable batteries, it cannot be charged. You get it charged and once it's empty, it's obsolete. The more you use it, the faster
by sho_hn 10mo ago
The ring doesn't just have irreplaceable batteries, it cannot be charged. You get it charged and once it's empty, it's obsolete. The more you use it, the faster this happens, and the usage they advertised was very much not using it very regularly at that.
I'm not tilting at the "the battery cannot be removed!" windmill. This is a whole new low. It's consumable consumer electronics.
The only thing that will prevent this from becoming a cautionary tale for the ages, a Juicero of e-waste, is its lack of cultural relevance.
- apparent 10mo agoI get that, but if the question is about e-waste volume, don't we have to compare the amount of e-waste that results from tossing a non-rechargeable ring after it's depleted versus making all of the rings larger and creating chargers for them? It's like the argument about reusable grocery bags: they can have a smaller carbon footprint than disposable ones, but only if you use them like 120 times (most people don't come close). How big would the charger be, how much bigger would the ring be, and how many charge cycles would it have to undergo in order for the e-waste math to be favorable? And does that solve the issue, or will people still be complaining that it's not a replaceable battery? I guess I just tend to give a little more benefit of the doubt to the creator, who has presumably thought about these things and at any rate is making a niche product that is physically very small. It seems like this could only reach a reasonable volume of waste if it were mass-market or much larger per-unit.