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

41–50 of 126 posts

Re: Phoebus Cartel

#41

Post by at-fates-hands »

donclark wrote: post #31
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"?

I just read an interview with Adam Minter who wrote a new book called, "Secondhand: Travels in the New Global Garage Sale" which addresses this.

He was talking about putting a "durability" tag on clothing and other items which point out how long they will last. For instance, for clothes, how many wash cycles can this shirt take? How long before the materials start to breakdown? This would be on all clothing and textile items and then you can let the consumer decide if they want the less expensive shirt that lasts 10 washing cycles, or the more expensive one that lasts 50 or 100 cycles.

He also talked about the paradox of the secondary smartphone market. Apple's products are a great example. The iPhone takes a bit of work to to even change the battery, so now the life of the phone is almost exclusively tied to the battery and how long it lasts. Most people just toss it when the battery goes bad and upgrade to the newest version.

For the people who can actually change the battery, it's created an entire secondhand market for their products. One that is incredibly useful to consumers and the techs who are able to keep the phone going once the battery dies. For Apple, it's almost an affront to their practice of voiding warranties if you open the phone up and actively discouraging the whole notion you should be able to repair your own phone instead of having to upgrade it once the battery is dead.

It was a really cool interview and Adam brought up a lot of other interesting things about our "disposable" culture.

Re: Phoebus Cartel

#43

Post by nicoburns »

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…

Smart bulbs often aren't any better than cheap ones. But there are people doing high quality ones (high CRI, and no flicker). These ones for example:

https://store.waveformlighting.com/collections/a19-bulbs/pro...

There are cheaper ones that are good too, but I can't remember the name.

Re: Phoebus Cartel

#44

Post by nicoburns »

l33tbro wrote: post #30
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.

It's not hard to find CRI 95 led bulbs. I have a couple that are CRI 97. They really do look like incandescents (or at least, much much closer than typical leds). The only issue I've had is that you only seem to be able to get them up to around 800 lumens.

Re: Phoebus Cartel

#45

Post by nicoburns »

gaius_baltar wrote: post #11
solotronics wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

why not use LED lights? at this point they are much cheaper and a magnitude more efficient compared with halogen

> why not use LED lights? OP didn't provide details, but sometimes LEDs are a no-go, e.g., RFI from the internal power source in lab environments.

That's the exception though. You could probably still use incandescents for that purpose (I believe the EU regulations have exceptions for this kind of thing). Most people can use LEDs just fine.

Re: Phoebus Cartel

#46

Post by harshreality »

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.

To some degree you can get products with longer lifespans, if you look at commercial/industrial models. Sometimes you have to sacrifice fancy features though.

I think the reason consumer products mostly suck is that manufacturers have been hiding inflation by cheapening construction. Occasionally it's for weight savings, but I think keeping prices lower is the main reason. People don't realize they're getting vastly inferior products to the one they or their parents had a generation ago, until it's too late.

Re: Phoebus Cartel

#47

Post by rollerboi »

harshreality wrote: post #46
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.

To some degree you can get products with longer lifespans, if you look at commercial/industrial models. Sometimes you have to sacrifice fancy features though. I think the reason consumer products mostly suck is that manufacturers have been hiding inflation by cheapening construction. Occasionally it's for weight savings, but I think keeping prices lower is the main reason. People don't realize they're getting vastly…

>hiding inflation by cheapening construction

So true. I've heard for years that the size of our cereal boxes/chip bags/candy bars are decreasing, ever so slightly, while the price remains the same.

Reminds me of that whole frog-in-a-pot thought experiment. If you toss a frog into a pot of boiling water, it jumps back out immediately. But if you put it in a pot of room-temperature water, and slowly raise the temperature, the frog gets acclimated slowly and doesn't notice that sooner or later, he's being boiled alive.

Re: Phoebus Cartel

#48

Post by pkaye »

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.

I had about 12 halogen recessed lights in my house. I replaced them with LED retrofit recessed lights and so far over three years none of them have failed. The LEDs are brighter and more power efficient. I think I paid for their cost over one year due to power savings and not even considering that I would be replacing one halogen bulb every month or two.

Re: Phoebus Cartel

#49

Post by readams »

spqr0a1 wrote: post #36

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. Unfo…

They could have printed electricity costs on the packages. Instead they artificially limited competition. That doesn't sound like they had anyone's interests but their own in mind.

Re: Phoebus Cartel

#50

Post by Jamwinner »

nicoburns wrote: post #44
l33tbro wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's not hard to find CRI 95 led bulbs. I have a couple that are CRI 97. They really do look like incandescents (or at least, much much closer than typical leds). The only issue I've had is that you only seem to be able to get them up to around 800 lumens.

You just clearly explained how they are inferior in multiple ways, even if carefully researched and mitigated for. Most people just want what worked, to keep working as well as it did.
Post reply on HN