in

iFixit: The Samsung Galaxy Ring is $400 of ‘disposable tech’

Neptune CT scan showing the inside of the Samsung Galaxy Ring

iFixit

While Frodo could toss the One Ring into the fires of Mount Doom to get rid of it, you’ll have no such easy out with smart fitness rings such as Samsung’s new Galaxy Ring<!–>. After a couple of years of regular use, that $400 investment, along with other smart fitness rings – such as the Oura–> — will end up contributing to the growing e-waste problem.

Also: The best smart rings of 2024: Expert tested and reviewed

This is the conclusion reached by repair specialistsiFixit, who got their hands on the Galaxy Ring. 

“The Galaxy Ring—and all smart rings like it—comes with a huge string attached,” writes iFixit in a blog post. “It’s 100% disposable, just like the AirPod-style Buds3 that Samsung just released. The culprit? The lithium ion batteries.”

The problem is the battery, and how they have a finite lifespan. Usually that’s about 400 recharge cycles, and after that the batteries are finished.

And if you can’t replace it, then it’s the end of the line for the gadget, and it’s tossed onto the e-waste pile.

iFixit

And that pile is growing, and growing fast.

According to the UN’s Global E-Waste Monitor 2024, some 62 million tons of e-waste was generated in 2022, an 82% increase from 2010. By 2030, this is predicted to increase by another 32% to 82 million tons. 

Think recycling is the answer? The UN reports that e-waste is growing at a rate five times faster than it can be recycled.

Also: This subscription-free smart ring I tested gives Oura a run for its money

And disposable gadgets such as smart rings and earbuds are adding to the problem.

iFixit is damning about this sort of tech.

“There’s nothing wrong with simple but there is something wrong with unrepairable. Just like the Galaxy Buds3, the Galaxy Ring is a disposable tech accessory that isn’t designed to last more than two years.”

And the bottom line is simple: “We can’t recommend buying disposable tech like this.”


Source: Robotics - zdnet.com