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

51–60 of 126 posts

Re: Phoebus Cartel

#51

Post by LameRubberDucky »

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"?

Some electronic components, switches, plugs, relays, lamps, usually have a listed number of cycles they can withstand before failure. Back when I worked in the industry, some of these values were surprisingly low.

Re: Phoebus Cartel

#52

Post by macspoofing »

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.

>"Planned obsolescence" and "value engineering" have almost the same effect for the customers though.

No it doesn't.

We live in a world where if you want a quality drill, you can spend a few hundred bucks and get a quality drill that will last you a long time. You can also spend $20 for a cheap Black&Decker that will be good enough to do very minor things around the house. You're suggesting that we implement laws to make the latter illegal. Are you sure you want that? What if you don't want to pay for a quality drill, because the chepo-plastic one is more than enough for what you need, and you'd rather spend the money you save on something you value more than a drill.

Re: Phoebus Cartel

#53

Post by JohnJamesRambo »

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…

I’m sure they were doing it for the greater good of the consumer...

Re: Phoebus Cartel

#54

Post by raverbashing »

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…

You must be getting the absolute worse brand of LED lamp to have PWM flicker or using a crap dimer (or alternatively, have vision way beyond 60fps)

I have none of those problems with LED lamps that certainly didn't cost $125 (more like between 5x and 10x cheaper) and none of them buzz

Re: Phoebus Cartel

#55

Post by r00fus »

snagglegaggle wrote: post #28
stevehawk wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> There's just nothing to buy better.

So despite rational acting buyers, if the supply-side conspires (or monopolizes) to reduce options, buyers will continue to buy the overpriced item (and possibly increase prices due to the demand/price curve sweet spot).

Perhaps instead of mocking rational-actor theory we should also model conspiring-actor model where possible.

Re: Phoebus Cartel

#56

Post by mrguyorama »

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…

Ah yes, how good for the consumer it is to collude to increase prices and offer zero competition.

Re: Phoebus Cartel

#57

Post by mc3 »

Jamwinner wrote: post #50
nicoburns wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Getting used to not having what we had before is going to be the theme of this century, with environmental change. I have LEDs at home, no idea what spec, but honestly they are more than good enough. Prefer them to candles, or darkness.

Re: Phoebus Cartel

#58

Post by zepto »

at-fates-hands wrote: post #41
donclark wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 texti…

Apple is a bad example.

The fixed battery increase the overall durability and reduces materials over a design where there was a compartment that could be opened.

Apple does battery replacements inexpensively relative to the cost of the device, and they supply batteries to 3rd party repair shops.

They have also explicitly declared their intent to increase useful life of their devices as much as possible.

The mantra that their devices are intended to be disposable itself becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy because it leads to the exact behavior of consumers prematurely replacing devices rather than simply having the batteries replaced.

Re: Phoebus Cartel

#59

Post by bensonn »

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.

The incandescent light bulb ban is one of those things that can still get me fired up a decade later.

The idea that LEDs are now cheap, or cheaper seems like a tough argument. 4 packs of Phillips 40 or 60 watts used to be sold at the dollar store. $.25 cents per bulb. Or any hardware store had them for $1.19. Home depot currently has LED bulbs for 1.25 per bulb, 5x the price, IF you buy in bulk. 1.75 (7x the price) per bulb if you don't buy in bulk. If you aren't middle class or above $10 is a decent chunk of money. $10 is deciding between dinner or light, not both. The ban was indirectly a regressive tax that hurts the poor. Maybe if you spend money to buy in bulk then 2 years down the road you will be financially better off than if you bought incandescent bulbs. The poor don't have that option and the rich won't notice the pennies in savings.

The inefficiencies by heat loss doesn't make sense either unless you live in a very hot climate. Even in the PNW which is fairly mild, 9 months out of the year you the heat is on anyway. If the other 3 months are bright and sunny you probably don't have that many lights on.

I used to keep a light on in my well house to keep it just above freezing during winter. Had I not bought hundreds of incandescent light bulbs and stockpiled them I would have had to run a heater. The point here- a nation wide ban is overkill.

Conspiracy theory- I bet light bulb manufactures loved this ban, they probably even lobbied in support of it. Consumers have to pay 7x the price, sweet!

At least the ban solved the climate crisis.

Re: Phoebus Cartel

#60

Post by TomMckenny »

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…

> human brightness perception

In how many uses cases is anything other than perceived brightness relevant?

Increased costs to provide something the consumer doesn't want is exactly the kind of thing competition is likely to reduce.

The market doesn't always work but it's also very hard to determine what is wrong and how to fix it. If market equilibrium leads to destroying the ozone, it's easy. But if the market means fewer lumens per dollar (or even per joule), that is less obviously bad.

Post reply on HN