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

61–70 of 126 posts

Re: Phoebus Cartel

#61

Post by 0xffff2 »

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…

> Sometimes you have to sacrifice fancy features though.

Often times I see this as a bonus these days. My refrigerator does not need to be "smart" for example.

Re: Phoebus Cartel

#62

Post by tomrod »

rollerboi wrote: post #47
harshreality wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 temperatu…

The analogy is apt, but one must remember in the original frog experiment the frog's brain had been surgically altered.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_frog#Experiments_and...

Re: Phoebus Cartel

#63

Post by kevlawrence »

rollerboi wrote: post #47
harshreality wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 temperatu…

To your point, I noticed that chocolate milk cartons have decreased from 1L to 750ML, yet they kept the same price. Further, the 750ML option was not offered before, and the 1L option is not offered now, which adds to the deception.

Re: Phoebus Cartel

#64

Post by jfim »

zepto wrote: post #58
at-fates-hands wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 th…

> 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 in expensively relative to the cost of the device, and they supply batteries to 3rd party repair shops.

How long does such a replacement take, and why would someone need to leave their phone in the hands of a third party in the first place?

Back when most phones had replaceable batteries, it was just a matter of ordering a battery online and plopping it in. The extra materials needed for a battery door or lid are negligible (and significantly less toxic to manufacture than PCBs and electronics) compared to throwing away the phone outright.

Re: Phoebus Cartel

#65

Post by NullPrefix »

bensonn wrote: post #59
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) p…

60 Watt incandescent can be replaced by under 10 Watt LED. Assuming 50 Watt savings.

Assuming $0.10 kW/h (California is $0.16 ??). 1 hour of LED burn time saves 50W / 1000 * 0.10 kW/h = $0.005

Assuming LED bulb costs $2, assuming incandescent bulb is free. $2 / $0.005 = 400 hours until break even.

Re: Phoebus Cartel

#66

Post by NullPrefix »

nicoburns wrote: post #43
big_chungus wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Smart bulbs often aren't any better than cheap ones.

But they can have telemetry.

Re: Phoebus Cartel

#67

Post by VectorLock »

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…

An argument that the Phoebus Cartel was actually working in the interests of the general public? I'm impressed.

Re: Phoebus Cartel

#68

Post by Majromax »

raverbashing wrote: post #54
big_chungus wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

> You must be getting the absolute worse brand of LED lamp to have PWM flicker or using a crap dimer

Related: is there any good source of reviews for LED bulbs that go into flicker (I seem to notice 120Hz flicker) and CRI? My local hardware store stocks a relatively paltry selection of bulbs (all built to cost), and I'm reluctant to experiment with the medium-size orders necessary to make shipping worthwhile.

Re: Phoebus Cartel

#69

Post by papreclip »

bensonn wrote: post #59
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) p…

LED bulbs are much, much more expensive, don't live up to their advertised lifetime in my experience, cause problems when used with dimmers, produce more problematic waste...

Most importantly, the light is of vastly inferior quality. You will never match the beautiful spectrum of incandescent light with LED or fluorescent.

A few decades down the line we will be reflecting on how the LED cartel took us all to the cleaners

Re: Phoebus Cartel

#70

Post by nicoburns »

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.

They also consume considerably less energy, run cooler, and last longer. A single 100W lightbulb consumes more energy than running my entire computer. What we want hasn't got much to do with it. Continuing to use inefficient devices will result in a planet that no longer functions. Nobody wants that.
Post reply on HN