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

Phoebus Cartel

en.wikipedia.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 126 posts

Re: Phoebus Cartel

#21

Post by stevehawk »

fsh wrote: post #15
macspoofing wrote: post #5

The worst thing about the Phoebus Cartel is that for something that lasted just a few years (and didn't really work), it is constantly cited as the quintessential example of 'planned obsolescence' and therefore one of the evils of capitalism. 'Planned obsolescence' itself, is an overstated and overrated concept that is frequently conflated with common practices like making a product cheaper through the use of lower-q…

"Planned obsolescence" and "value engineering" have almost the same effect for the customers though. Products are designed to just barely survive the EU's two year mandatory warranty period.

They may have similar effects, but their intent is very different, which means who gets blamed is very different. "Planned obsolescence" means evil, greedy corporations. "Value engineering" means consumers want "cheaper" not "better", which means we are the evil, greedy ones. But I'm not greedy, so it must be the corporations!

Re: Phoebus Cartel

#22

Post by jacobush »

stevehawk wrote: post #18
acd wrote: post #14

Related https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_obsolescence I would argue that the current economic system does not plan for maximum longevity of products. Rather it can be more profitable for an manufacturer for planned obsolescence or simply make products which does not last that long. As long as they do not get caught that is.

The counter to this is that people, despite saying otherwise, are not actually interested in spending more money for a better product. Combine that with some markets that have relatively short life between product generations and it removes the need to create products that last a long time. It's more fun and easier to blame corporate greed, but it's rarely the case. More often than not it's just that people want "che…

That's not a counter at all, you are almost agreeing.

Re: Phoebus Cartel

#23

Post by phaemon »

the-dude wrote: post #8
phaemon wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The EU did not mandate that you use halogen bulbs.

Thanks for the comment, you are correct. It is one of the two viable replacements at the time of the incandescent ban : halogen or fluorescent. Now we have LED.

The EU is its members. Every EU country voted to phase out incandescent bulbs, so that includes yours. This was not something imposed on your country against its will.

Re: Phoebus Cartel

#24

Post by artsyca »

acd wrote: post #14

Related https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_obsolescence I would argue that the current economic system does not plan for maximum longevity of products. Rather it can be more profitable for an manufacturer for planned obsolescence or simply make products which does not last that long. As long as they do not get caught that is.

Absolutely going on by mistake or design with exports from certain manufacturing-rich countries

Re: Phoebus Cartel

#25

Post by bad-joke »

jml7c5 wrote: post #12

I'm hoping someone clever here has read a book about the cartel and can answer this question: The wiki page doesn't go into too much detail, but is there any evidence the primary goal of the cartel was primarily intended to increase energy efficiency, or was it really pure unadulterated greed? Honestly, were it for the sake of efficiency, I wouldn't mind it. Though the metric of lifetime in hours rather than lumen/wa…

The first citation on the page[1] mentions researcher Markus Krajewski who reviewed Phoebus records and concluded "It was the explicit aim of the cartel to reduce the life span of the lamps in order to increase sales [...] Economics, not physics."

Cursory searches of Markus Krajewski yield an IEEE Spectrum article[2] with further references to his work:

> The 2010 documentary The Light Bulb Conspiracy explores the Phoebus cartel as an early example of planned obsolescence and includes interviews with Markus Krajewski. For more on the cartel and planned obsolescence, see the author’s "Fehler-Planungen. Zur Geschichte und Theorie der industriellen Obsoleszenz," in Technikgeschichte, vol. 81, No. 1, p. 91–114, 2014, and "Vom Krieg des Lichtes zur Geschichte von Glühlampenkartellen," in Das Glühbirnenbuch, edited by Peter Berz, Helmut Höge, and Krajewski (Braumüller Verlag, 2011).

Hope this helps!

[1]https://outline.com/JYvASt [2]https://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-history/dawn-of-electronics/t...

Re: Phoebus Cartel

#26

Post by pixelbash »

acd wrote: post #14

Related https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_obsolescence I would argue that the current economic system does not plan for maximum longevity of products. Rather it can be more profitable for an manufacturer for planned obsolescence or simply make products which does not last that long. As long as they do not get caught that is.

Another possibility is that unplanned obsolescence is part and parcel of chasing bigger margins, and the companies with the biggest margin win out organically.

Re: Phoebus Cartel

#27

Post by big_chungus »

andrepd wrote: post #13
the-dude wrote: post #3

Today, another halogen lightbulb failed at my house. These are the very unreliable replacements for incandescent bulbs as mandated by the EU.

This is truly a "The Sun"-tier comment. So many things are wrong. The EU did not mandate halogen bulbs, it phased out incandescent bulbs, with many exceptions for situations and use-cases where alternatives are inadequate . You can (and should) buy LEDs which are many times more efficient and cheaper (per hour of life) that incandescent bulbs. Finally, halogen bulbs are not only not "mandated" but actually in the pro…

LEDs still have PWM flicker and buzzing problems. This is unpleasant, inhibits focus, and makes them inadequate for me in all cases. Perhaps the fancy "smart bulbs" aren't as bad, but I don't have $125 for a single light bulb. I also don't want to fiddle around with my lighting and by multiple $125 bulbs until one works. I just want to put in a bulb and be done. The only lighting which has successfully done that for me has been incandescent or halogen.

Re: Phoebus Cartel

#28

Post by snagglegaggle »

stevehawk wrote: post #18
acd wrote: post #14

Related https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_obsolescence I would argue that the current economic system does not plan for maximum longevity of products. Rather it can be more profitable for an manufacturer for planned obsolescence or simply make products which does not last that long. As long as they do not get caught that is.

The counter to this is that people, despite saying otherwise, are not actually interested in spending more money for a better product. Combine that with some markets that have relatively short life between product generations and it removes the need to create products that last a long time. It's more fun and easier to blame corporate greed, but it's rarely the case. More often than not it's just that people want "che…

While homo economicus is mocked for being nonexistent there is a reason that perfectly rational actors are used in economic models -- in general people are extremely rational, it is just their priorities are not what you expect them to be.

I'm sure you can find plenty of HNers whose friend groups express strong preferences to buying better. There's just nothing to buy better.

Re: Phoebus Cartel

#29

Post by uhhhhhhh »

the-dude wrote: post #17
andrepd wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is truly a "The Sun"-tier comment. So many things are wrong. The EU did not mandate halogen bulbs, it phased out incandescent bulbs, with many exceptions for situations and use-cases where alternatives are inadequate . You can (and should) buy LEDs which are many times more efficient and cheaper (per hour of life) that incandescent bulbs. Finally, halogen bulbs are not only not "mandated" but actually in the pro…

This is truly a comment with a sign-of-the-times : polarisation. "There is something wrong in your statement. You must be a deplorable." Thank you for participating in this forum.

The comparison was to the Sun, which implies uninformed and inaccurate.

Your projection of "deplorable" is all of your own making.

A sign of the times, people being unable to accept being told they are wrong.

Re: Phoebus Cartel

#30

Post by l33tbro »

the-dude wrote: post #3

Today, another halogen lightbulb failed at my house. These are the very unreliable replacements for incandescent bulbs as mandated by the EU.

LED's also have an inferior light quality to incandescent. The color rendering index of the average LED is usualy 70-80, usually with horrible green spikes.

Incandescent lights are blackbody radiators and have a CRI of 100. So the quality of light and color rendering is equivalent to daylight.

Bums me out to hear that they're being phased-out in some places.

Post reply on HN