Earlier quoted context omitted.
Many LED lightbulbs make claims about their expected lifetime. Except these numbers are often a fantasy. The LED itself may last almost forever, but the capacitors commonly go bad in a year or so. I suspect that would be the reality with a lot of the proposed mandatory labeling for electronics, too.
I'm surprised so many people's experience of LED bulbs is short lifetime. Most of the LED bulbs I ever bought have lasted many, many years. I only had one type ever fail and those looked clearly inferior in build to all the other types. ("free" with some light fittings, not my choice). Took one of those apart, no capacitors in the design any more but dodgy wire connections that creep with the hot-cold on-off cycle in…
Electronics are built with death dates. Let’s not keep them a secret
321–330 of 353 posts
Re: Electronics are built with death dates. Let’s not keep them a secret
#322Earlier quoted context omitted.
"But that doesn't mean that a pre-existing information symmetry is necessary for an efficient market" The literal textbook prerequisite for efficient market is not just informatuon symmetry, its perfect information. You shoupd know that if you are making 'free market can do no wrong' arguments. Its like if all arguments about physics where made by 1st year university students that never moves beyond 'a hypothetical 1…
> The literal textbook prerequisite for efficient market is not just informatuon symmetry, its perfect information. Please point me to that textbook. Who says that free markets can do no wrong ever? (I'm mostly saying that some markets might have some problems, sure. But most of the time most real world regulation dreamt up by real world politicians and implemented by real world civil servants etc is unlikely to impr…
Re: Electronics are built with death dates. Let’s not keep them a secret
#323Earlier quoted context omitted.
Huh? What? What's the definition of 'efficient' you want to be using here?
"The efficient-market hypothesis is a hypothesis in financial economics that states that asset prices reflect all available information." from Wikipedia. There is a huge price spread on nearly-identical products because people don't have enough information to determine which of the various supposedly equivalent products available are more reliable, efficient, safe, etc. and this is reflected in people spending more t…
Information about a product is part of the whole package. It's ok that people pay extra for it.
You even get effects like what you describe in some of the most efficient markets. Eg aluminum that's traded on the exchanges often sells for a different price than over-the-counter deals. See https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2014-11-20/the-go...
That doesn't mean that the market for aluminum is not 'efficient'. It's just a bit weirder than a naive look at the physical properties of the ostensible good, aluminum, would let you to believe.
Basically your critique says 'there's this subset of physical properties that is the same for two products, but they sell for different prices; hence the market must be inefficient'. But products aren't always made up of their physical properties alone.
Eg suppose I have a business selling sheets of paper with the winning lottery numbers of five years in the future. This is a product with a lot of information asymmetry: you can only judge its quality five years after buying it. To make it more extreme, assume that my predictive powers aren't quite so awesome: I can't divine guaranteed winners, I merely manage to produce lottery numbers that are a thousand times more likely to win than your average number. Still a useful product, but even harder to judge by individual customers.
Now a competitor springs up who sells the same sheets of paper with numbers printed on them. It's just that my competitor's numbers are no better than chance.
The physical properties of the paper and ink are exactly the same. They even use the same font. A lab couldn't tell them apart.
Would you insist that both suppliers' products should sell for the same price?
Now assume that I don't even print my own sheets: I just buy them in bulk from the other supplier, but I only resell the sheets that have the increased chances.
Now the sheets really are identical, and the only difference is my reputation for quality.
I hold that an efficient market will have different prices for this ostensibly identical goods.
> If, in fact, a particular brand was consistently more reliable than others but priced at a premium then with perfect information everyone would know this and a new manufacturer could introduce a similarly-reliable product at a price point within the spread and everyone would buy that instead.
Yes, that strategy is available even with imperfect information. And we often see that in the market, see https://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/184207/was-the-jok... for an example from popular culture.
Re: Electronics are built with death dates. Let’s not keep them a secret
#324Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, and I am suggesting that regulation is lagging consumer sentiment (which is the driving force for both regulation and the market).
Well yeah, laws are supposed to generally follow the will of the people as much as possible without seriously harming minority groups. But without the regulation, the trust wouldn't be there, and people would use imported formula, and likely occasionally get contaminated stuff from fly by night vendors. Grocery stores would probably refuse to stock the poison in some cases, but there might be more subtle contaminatio…
But even more cases of companies going above and beyond the legal minimum, and customers who care will buy from those companies.
Eg it's perfectly legal to sell furniture with drawers that can catch and hurt the fingers of toddlers. But it's also perfectly possible to buy furniture that doesn't have this problem. (You can also buy kits to retrofit some of that protection.) Similarly for sharp corners on tables.
Are you suggesting that the wide availability of tables with sharp corners is a problem? That we need regulation to ban sharp corners on furniture?
Is the availability of tables that go beyond the legal minimum safety a problem for your world view?
Re: Electronics are built with death dates. Let’s not keep them a secret
#325Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thep problem with Market Extremists, is they they are so high on their own supply, they do not notice when they make statements that outright contradict the real world we live in. They live in a separate fantasy land, just like communists do. Fist falsifiable statement about e-waste policies - if it is so easy to read a company's e-waste policy, could you tell me which companies had policies that said "we will ship t…
Flashlights with replaceable batteries are readily available (and almost surely dominate the flashlight market). If that’s true, anyone buying a flashlight with a non-replaceable battery has genuinely determined it’s acceptable (to include irrelevant) for their use case. Every smartphone I’m aware of has had a replaceable battery and I’ve personally done replacements on about 2/3 of them. (I tend to buy 2 year old ph…
Now, can it be replaced? Yes. Is it intended to be within the skillset of the average consumer? Clearly not.
Re: Electronics are built with death dates. Let’s not keep them a secret
#326Earlier quoted context omitted.
id prefer they didn’t for now society has voted with their dollars to support my preferences
Why would you prefer they didn’t? How is producing tons and tons of e waste each year and having you spend an extra few hundreds every single year unnecessarily is something you’d prefer to keep on doing? And it’s not like the alternative would prevent you from doing it. You could still throw your phone away every couple of year and buy the new incarnation of you really wanted to still set your money on fire. It woul…
i prefer aesthetic over upgradability.
i’m sure it won’t surprise you but i buy a new iPhone nearly every year.
this isn’t meant to troll but to show you that people can care this much about how something looks and feels in their hands over some {insert ideal}
Re: Electronics are built with death dates. Let’s not keep them a secret
#327Earlier quoted context omitted.
My Thinkpad, depending on BIOS revision, will trickle charge from a 5V1A charger. Not great, but not horrible. I know Vaio used to advertise that as a feature.
That's a great feature. When I got a new HP laptop with USB-C charging a few years back, I hoped it would support that, too. It didn't. My current one doesn't, either.
Re: Electronics are built with death dates. Let’s not keep them a secret
#328Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why would you prefer they didn’t? How is producing tons and tons of e waste each year and having you spend an extra few hundreds every single year unnecessarily is something you’d prefer to keep on doing? And it’s not like the alternative would prevent you from doing it. You could still throw your phone away every couple of year and buy the new incarnation of you really wanted to still set your money on fire. It woul…
it would cost more or make the phone less well designed i prefer aesthetic over upgradability. i’m sure it won’t surprise you but i buy a new iPhone nearly every year. this isn’t meant to troll but to show you that people can care this much about how something looks and feels in their hands over some {insert ideal}
i literally cannot choose that. you're the one who gets what you want.
which is a market failure.
and is literally bad for the planet.
Re: Electronics are built with death dates. Let’s not keep them a secret
#329Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't understand. Bad brands aren't sticky in this situation, are there. (I don't know whether good brands are sticky here.) So there's no extra incentives for planned obsolescence, because the next purchase is more than likely to go to a competitor. Or what do you mean?
They’re saying all brands use planned obsolescence to force consumers to buy lightbulbs (from any brand) more often, increasing sales for the whole industry, not one specific brand. This is how the Phoebus Cartel worked for incandescent bulbs. Every brand was in on it, it wasn’t about improving market share for specific brands.
Re: Electronics are built with death dates. Let’s not keep them a secret
#330Earlier quoted context omitted.
Majority of people _say_ that they prefer removable batteries. But what people say and what they actually do are different things.
If you are going to accuse consumers of being inconsistent or dishonest, then what about the companies? What manufacturers think and what they want us to think are different things.