Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Great Lightbulb Conspiracy (2014)

spectrum.ieee.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 90 posts

Re: The Great Lightbulb Conspiracy (2014)

#11

Post by Retra »

kevenwang0531 wrote: post #7

The counter-argument to our fear of planned obsolescence here is the ridiculous speed of technological improvement in LEDs relative to incandescent lighting. LED's cost per lumen falls by a factor of 10 every decade (see Haitz's Law), while a user's actual lighting needs may never exceed 800 lumens for an standard A19 bulb. Any attempt to form a cartel in this market would be swiftly defeated by ever-falling unit eco…

"Consumers for the most part" do not regularly renovate their houses. Most of them are renters. And paying someone else to change your lightbulbs doesn't protect you from having to get them changed.

Re: The Great Lightbulb Conspiracy (2014)

#12

Post by Stratoscope »

kevenwang0531 wrote: post #7

The counter-argument to our fear of planned obsolescence here is the ridiculous speed of technological improvement in LEDs relative to incandescent lighting. LED's cost per lumen falls by a factor of 10 every decade (see Haitz's Law), while a user's actual lighting needs may never exceed 800 lumens for an standard A19 bulb. Any attempt to form a cartel in this market would be swiftly defeated by ever-falling unit eco…

So instead of a private cartel regulating light bulb lifespan and fining manufacturers whose bulbs last more or less than that time, you want the government to do the same?

Re: The Great Lightbulb Conspiracy (2014)

#13

Post by bcoates »

Planned obsolescence would be changing the base on the lamp every few years so that people would have to buy new fixtures when they can't buy replacement bulbs anymore. Author is not using that term correctly.

The actually interesting story is about the market failure where customers have no choice but to prefer the thing they can measure (bulb life vs cost) over the more important thing they can't measure (electricity cost over life of bulb).

Re: The Great Lightbulb Conspiracy (2014)

#14

Post by ars »

> Of course, given the collective ingenuity of the cartel’s engineers and scientists, it should have been possible to design a lightbulb that was both bright and long-lived.

And not energy efficient.

The article lightly touches on it, but the physical reality is that the better the electrical efficiency the less time the bulb lasts.

It's a tradeoff that has not changed in 100 years.

So yes, the cartel did mandate 1,000 hours - but they also saved untold amounts of electricity over then next 100 years.

Re: The Great Lightbulb Conspiracy (2014)

#15

Post by whoopdedo »

bcoates wrote: post #13

Planned obsolescence would be changing the base on the lamp every few years so that people would have to buy new fixtures when they can't buy replacement bulbs anymore. Author is not using that term correctly. The actually interesting story is about the market failure where customers have no choice but to prefer the thing they can measure (bulb life vs cost) over the more important thing they can't measure (electrici…

> Planned obsolescence would be changing the base on the lamp every few years so that people would have to buy new fixtures when they can't buy replacement bulbs anymore.

Have you bought a light fixture recently? That sounds like the new state of affairs. Aided by government regulations that require new lamps not be able to accept older "inefficient" bulbs, there's been an explosion in the variety of sockets.

I've converted every lamp in my apartment to LED except for one, because it uses a GU24 base that is very difficult to find in anything other than CFL.

Re: The Great Lightbulb Conspiracy (2014)

#16

Post by Dylan16807 »

Stratoscope wrote: post #12
kevenwang0531 wrote: post #7

The counter-argument to our fear of planned obsolescence here is the ridiculous speed of technological improvement in LEDs relative to incandescent lighting. LED's cost per lumen falls by a factor of 10 every decade (see Haitz's Law), while a user's actual lighting needs may never exceed 800 lumens for an standard A19 bulb. Any attempt to form a cartel in this market would be swiftly defeated by ever-falling unit eco…

So instead of a private cartel regulating light bulb lifespan and fining manufacturers whose bulbs last more or less than that time, you want the government to do the same?

There is a pretty big difference between a mandatory lifetime and a minimum lifetime.

As far as I know, minimum fitness-for-purpose standards are pretty good for the consumer.

Re: The Great Lightbulb Conspiracy (2014)

#20

Post by wtallis »

Spooky23 wrote: post #9
kevenwang0531 wrote: post #7

The counter-argument to our fear of planned obsolescence here is the ridiculous speed of technological improvement in LEDs relative to incandescent lighting. LED's cost per lumen falls by a factor of 10 every decade (see Haitz's Law), while a user's actual lighting needs may never exceed 800 lumens for an standard A19 bulb. Any attempt to form a cartel in this market would be swiftly defeated by ever-falling unit eco…

LEDs suck less, and are much better than garbage CFL, but are still more expensive and less versatile than the old bulbs, particularly when you need a bright bulb.

Fortunately, you only need a bright bulb for flashlights and for fixtures that are intended for incandescent bulbs. For general interior lighting, a large array/string of relatively dim LEDs is usually fine.
Post reply on HN