The problem isn't the form factor, it's that it's guaranteed e-waste. Once it runs out of battery, that's it. I think the pebble guy said that it should last a few months with regular usage but like... What a waste of materials.
I'm curious how you feel about AirPods, for example. They also do not have replaceable batteries, and after a few years of regular use they become increasingly unusable for their intended purpose.
I have a different memory than you regarding the expected lifespan of the ring, which I think was 1-2 years with normal usage. I don't plan to get one, but it certainly hasn't soured me on the brand. There's pretty clear tradeoffs involved with putting replaceable or rechargeable batteries in such a small device.
Some people were very upset that iPhones didn't have replaceable batteries like Blackberries. But it would seem that pretty much everyone got over that. With even tinier devices like AirPods and smart rings, it would seem like even less of an e-waste issue. I say this as someone who has no plans to get one of these things, FWIW.
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.
I 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.
Yeah, it's the principle that gets me. "By the time it run out of power, there will be a new version" does nothing to make it better, either. That's like Planned Obsolescence 2.0.
I just don't think we should make stuff like this, and I definitely don't want to signal support for it on my wrist.
The older I get the more my mind shifts toward consume less, away from consume differently. The commenter above you is right that the math is complex and not a straightforward assessment. So the simple fix is to abstain.
