Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Incandescent bulbs are labeled and classified by their electricity consumption. It's literally in the product description: 40W bulb, 60W bulb, 100W bulb, etc.
Phoebus Cartel
101–110 of 126 posts
Re: Phoebus Cartel
#102Earlier 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…
> people, despite saying otherwise, are not actually interested in spending more money for a better product Hmmm, cheapest Mac laptop $999. Cheapest Windows Laptop $199. Sure PC sales are higher than Mac but isn't that at least one example of people want better over cheaper since plenty of people choose the more expensive (better?) product? I don't think it's the only example it was just the first one that popped in…
Re: Phoebus Cartel
#103Light 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…
> 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. I may be dating myself, but I have never in my entire life seen a light bulb sold without the wattage displayed front and center. It is by far a more accessible metric than when it dies, by which time I have long forgotten where i…
Re: Phoebus Cartel
#104Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Incandescent bulbs are labeled and classified by their electricity consumption. It's literally in the product description: 40W bulb, 60W bulb, 100W bulb, etc.
Re: Phoebus Cartel
#105I live in Eindhoven, home town of Philips, one of the members of this cartel. Philips is extremely loved here. They're the reason this city is a city at all, they're the reason we're a prosperous region with of lots of innovation (mostly hardware though, so not very HN-fashionable). We now have apartment buildings named after their founders ("Gerard", "Anton", etc), lunchrooms ("Meneer Frits"), the local football sta…
And to be fair some Philips products are decent.
Re: Phoebus Cartel
#106Earlier quoted context omitted.
>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...
Article says removed.
Re: Phoebus Cartel
#107The 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…
Android updates are another good example.
Re: Phoebus Cartel
#108I live in Eindhoven, home town of Philips, one of the members of this cartel. Philips is extremely loved here. They're the reason this city is a city at all, they're the reason we're a prosperous region with of lots of innovation (mostly hardware though, so not very HN-fashionable). We now have apartment buildings named after their founders ("Gerard", "Anton", etc), lunchrooms ("Meneer Frits"), the local football sta…
They're crooks, but they are our crooks! And to be fair some Philips products are decent.
Plus, unless you're referring to medical equipment, it's probably just brand licensing. Philips hardly produces any consumer electronics anymore (incl lights).
Re: Phoebus Cartel
#109Related 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…
When I try to purchase a widget, I can see two products: one in expensive looking packaging, and one where someone just put in some text on Word. One of them costs $25 and the other costs $2.50. It's entirely possible than the $25 will last twenty times as long as the $2.50 product and use a quarter of the energy, so that the resulting cost may even be in favor of the $25 widget.
But I can't make that judgement. It's impossible. To me, it looks the same as if the expensive one has just spent $2.50/product extra on marketing budget so they can pocket an extra $20.
I would spend a little extra for better quality that lasts longer and saves me on my energy bill. But the producers are not subject to me; they hide their information and spend on things (like CEO severance pay) that are not in my interest.
So when I go to the shop, I make the wrong decision every time, because I have no capacity to make the right decision. The product is kept from me; I can either purchase and discover if it perhaps sucks, or not purchase. Those are my choices. I don't have a real choice.
Re: Phoebus Cartel
#110Earlier quoted context omitted.
>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.
There's every other kind of trickery in the shops to prevent you from being able to assess the relative value of two products, to render those price comparisons redundant (like the fact that the two products are listed, one $/100 g and the other listed $/kg).
I've just moved to Germany, and here it's almost impossible to buy the thing you want — they always seem to subpackage it into segments so that you have to use more than you want and therefore come back. I thought the marketplace was hostile in Australia sheesh.
(But, 750 megalitres is significantly more than 750 litres.)