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

31–40 of 126 posts

Re: Phoebus Cartel

#31

Post by donclark »

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.

If there is such a thing as planned obsolescence of a product, why do we not require it to be listed on the packaging and/or specs? Why not also include hefty fines for products that do not have this information listed cleary (like nutritional info), listed incorrectly, or simply fail on avg before the "POdate"?

Re: Phoebus Cartel

#32

Post by kps »

LargoLasskhyfv wrote: post #10
the-dude wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Use these: [1] https://duckduckgo.com/?q=led+filament&t=ffsb&ia=web

Most ‘filament’ LED bulbs are driverless and flicker horribly.

Re: Phoebus Cartel

#33

Post by the-dude »

uhhhhhhh wrote: post #29
the-dude wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'll refer to my sibling comment : https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21597651

Thank you.

Re: Phoebus Cartel

#35

Post by ellius »

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…

Lack of perfect information is a well-known failure mode of standard economic models. It may be true that people value their inherently scarce time more than they value the improved light bulb buying decision they could make by obtaining more information, but that doesn't mean consumers don't value better light bulbs. It just means there's an inefficiency due to the cost to the average consumer of learning about light bulbs (or whatever product).

Re: Phoebus Cartel

#36

Post by spqr0a1 »

Light bulbs are a bad example of the dangers of cartels. Incandescent filaments are much more efficient at higher temperature but burn out quicker. In the common case, savings from reduced electricity cost more than offset the increased replacement rate for bulbs in accessible fixtures.

Short-lived bulbs were good for the customers. In a market with perfect information people would have chosen them on their own. Unfortunately of 3 categories of information needed for an informed decision (lifetime, power usage, and light output) purchasers only had a good measure of how often they replaced bulbs. Usage patterns are too complex for improvements in a single bulb to be obvious on a power bill, and human brightness perception is roughly logarithmic so it’s not visually obvious how much brighter different bulbs are.

Whether it was motivated by greed or not, the Phoebus cartel is an example of big business successfully advocating for the interests of the general public in the presence of information asymmetry.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incandescent_light_bulb#Light_...

Re: Phoebus Cartel

#37

Post by baybal2 »

big_chungus wrote: post #27
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…

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…

If you see flicker, then you bought an LED lamp with a wrong kind of driver. You can dim LEDs to zero without any visible flicker if the circuit is designed properly

Re: Phoebus Cartel

#38

Post by ergothus »

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…

> it removes the need to create products that last a long time.

I think the difference here is intent and effort.

If you're trying for "cheap" (as the manufacturer), you won't care how well it works and don't try for anything more than the minimum necessary in terms of lifespan or quality.

If you're trying for planned obsolesce, you will deliberately make it worse. That's the "planned" part. In this case, the cartel not only tested for lifespan, but FINED members that improved it.

There have always been manufacturers that shoot for "cheap", and while people will call them on it, it's a different story from those that deliberately sabotage the product in terms of functionality.

Re: Phoebus Cartel

#39

Post by jasoneckert »

I just explained this Wikipedia article to the person next to me.

They replied "Wow - I would have thought that a light bulb cartel would have had a much brighter future..."

Re: Phoebus Cartel

#40

Post by valley-green »

Same thing is happening with cell phones. Member companies are Google and Apple and they have defeated every challenger, including Blackberry and Windows. Nobody can stand up to the smartphone cartel.
Post reply on HN