Increasing the lifespan of a bulb makes it worse in every other way • Hacker News Board

Re: Increasing the lifespan of a bulb makes it worse in every other way

#121

Post by pie_flavor » Sat, Aug 01, 2026, 1:13 PM UTC

somenameforme wrote: post #112

cge wrote: post #63

While the author mentions that they are not trying to defend the Phoebus cartel, I think they may inadvertently be somewhat misleading in their explanation. What they are saying is, from an engineering standpoint, true. But my understanding of the argument against the Phoebus cartel is that it was using legitimate engineering points as the official justification for profiteering business collusion: that the points we…

The article is complete and utter nonsense, probably intentionally so because it's the type that will drive engagement. The reason planned obsolescence is insidiously effective is precisely because the typical consumer does not take reasonable account of product longevity. You can easily say 'yeah I like how bright [or whatever else] this bulb is' but lifespans are scarcely taken into account. If they were then massi…

If you put numbers on a package, the consumer will choose the bigger numbers. Taking some statistic out of context like "the typical consumer does not take reasonable account of product longevity" doesn't make sense when the only two things a lightbulb can do better are 'be brighter' and 'last longer', and both are prominently displayed on the package. The typical consumer does not pick coffee makers based on longevity because the coffee makers don't put longevity on the package, they put the number of feature buttons, and then the consumer chooses based on that instead of inferring or researching a longevity, and the actual takeaway is that consumers are bad at inference. And on this you call the article's extensive description of how lightbulbs work and how lifespan trades off with efficacy 'complete and utter nonsense'?

The video game system analysis is junk too. No, Sony and Microsoft are not in a cartel, you can tell by how they're in vicious competition with each other and Sony's winning. Assuming similar moves made at similar times is obvious proof of collusion is assuming that one party's move was just picked out of a hat, rather than market incentives prompting this move and applying equally to both companies causing both to come to the same conclusions for the same reasons. The actual reason the level of subsidization dropped, which you can find by googling for five seconds, is because they switched from bespoke hardware stacks to standard PC components, which were cheaper. No, you do not make the stupid financial move of making your hardware stack even more expensive just because your competitor made theirs more efficient.

Re: Increasing the lifespan of a bulb makes it worse in every other way

#122

Post by herbst » Sat, Aug 01, 2026, 1:14 PM UTC

freediddy wrote: post #4

I've never had LED lights last anywhere near the purported 5-7 year timeframe. The worst ones are the small decorative ones with the tinier screw part that my house seems to have an inordinate number of. Those last maybe 6 months and then they start getting dimmer and then all the lights in the circuit get worse at once. I like LED lights immensely but the idea they last even 2 years is a lie in my opinion.

I bought a bunch of bulps when I moved to my house about 7 years ago. Some are on like 90% of the time since.

I haven't had a single one go bad so far.

Cheap WiZ bulps

Re: Increasing the lifespan of a bulb makes it worse in every other way

#123

Post by roomey » Sat, Aug 01, 2026, 1:17 PM UTC

freediddy wrote: post #4

I've never had LED lights last anywhere near the purported 5-7 year timeframe. The worst ones are the small decorative ones with the tinier screw part that my house seems to have an inordinate number of. Those last maybe 6 months and then they start getting dimmer and then all the lights in the circuit get worse at once. I like LED lights immensely but the idea they last even 2 years is a lie in my opinion.

I had that dimming issue in my house... And got the gas boiler serviced cause it had a problem with the ignitor, and all the dimming stopped.

Now the house is ancient, so I'm guessing there was some sort of short happening that was causing this.

Re: Increasing the lifespan of a bulb makes it worse in every other way

#124

Post by NooneAtAll3 » Sat, Aug 01, 2026, 1:26 PM UTC

guerrilla wrote: post #116

NooneAtAll3 wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't understand why having the driver converting AC to DC inside the LED spots is the default. because LED bulbs are drop-in replacement for incandescent bulbs. AC is pre-installed stand-alone LEDs don't have converters, be it singular or be it strips

They said for new houses.

he*

Re: Increasing the lifespan of a bulb makes it worse in every other way

#125

Post by psd1 » Sat, Aug 01, 2026, 1:28 PM UTC

cameronh90 wrote: post #93

wolfgangK wrote: post #36

BTW, I don't understand why having the driver converting AC to DC inside the LED spots is the default. For a new house, it seems to make sense to me to have at least one external driver for a ceiling of spots, if not one per floor (not one for the whole house because pf the drop in voltage). But 24V led spots seem much less common and I cannot find many reviews. Any idea why it's not more common ? It seems efficiency…

In the UK having separate drivers is, or used to be, the most common set up. I never had good luck with it. Big problems with compatibility, failing drivers, especially with dimmers, plus weird electrical problems like residual glow.

The most common setup for installations by lighting designers, sure. I suspect the vast majority of home led lighting is in lightbulb form, from people replacing incandescents.

Re: Increasing the lifespan of a bulb makes it worse in every other way

#126

Post by pier25 » Sat, Aug 01, 2026, 1:36 PM UTC

freediddy wrote: post #4

I've never had LED lights last anywhere near the purported 5-7 year timeframe. The worst ones are the small decorative ones with the tinier screw part that my house seems to have an inordinate number of. Those last maybe 6 months and then they start getting dimmer and then all the lights in the circuit get worse at once. I like LED lights immensely but the idea they last even 2 years is a lie in my opinion.

Some of the first LED bulbs we bought are still running after more than 10 years. I don't remember the brand but they were expensive at the time.

Re: Increasing the lifespan of a bulb makes it worse in every other way

#127

Post by somenameforme » Sat, Aug 01, 2026, 1:36 PM UTC

pie_flavor wrote: post #121

somenameforme wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The article is complete and utter nonsense, probably intentionally so because it's the type that will drive engagement. The reason planned obsolescence is insidiously effective is precisely because the typical consumer does not take reasonable account of product longevity. You can easily say 'yeah I like how bright [or whatever else] this bulb is' but lifespans are scarcely taken into account. If they were then massi…

If you put numbers on a package, the consumer will choose the bigger numbers. Taking some statistic out of context like "the typical consumer does not take reasonable account of product longevity" doesn't make sense when the only two things a lightbulb can do better are 'be brighter' and 'last longer', and both are prominently displayed on the package. The typical consumer does not pick coffee makers based on longevi…

The level of subsidization has nothing to do with hardware customization. You can have subsidized retail hardware or customized hardware sold at cost. They both went from high end heavily subsidized hardware to mid-range minimally subsidized hardware at the exact same time. Colluding in this way means they both dramatically increase their profit margins, and obviously does not preclude competition in other aspects.

Though they are also overtly colluding in other areas. For instance console exclusives used to be a major selling point, but they greatly empower studios to the consoles manufacturers detriment. The PS1 and PS2 had around 500 exclusive titles each. By the PS3 we're down to 174, 49 for the PS4 and now we're down to 26 in the PS5 era. Microsoft trends similarly and it was a strategic decision, to the point that they made a big announcement recently about returning to exclusives. As if the idea of having a competitive edge is some novel or revolutionary concept.

Re: Increasing the lifespan of a bulb makes it worse in every other way

#128

Post by somenameforme » Sat, Aug 01, 2026, 1:41 PM UTC

mathgeek wrote: post #115

somenameforme wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The article is complete and utter nonsense, probably intentionally so because it's the type that will drive engagement. The reason planned obsolescence is insidiously effective is precisely because the typical consumer does not take reasonable account of product longevity. You can easily say 'yeah I like how bright [or whatever else] this bulb is' but lifespans are scarcely taken into account. If they were then massi…

Regarding the PS3 specifically, that was the breaking point for subsidizing because it ended up being famously and heavily used for compute clusters. We see the same effects today where any chip useful for high end gaming is also useful for AI.

While true I expect this likely paid for itself many times over in indirect advertising. People using PS3's as supercomputing clusters was phenomenal advertising for the PS3 that was a generally mediocre system for gaming. It seems that Sony was betting everything on dev's bending over backwards to maximize the system's highly unique hardware and leaving ports to other systems working as second rate citizens, but instead the exact opposite happened. The PS3 did poorly, but I think it would have done much more poorly if not for things like the compute cluster 'marketing.'

Their mistake wasn't the subsidization but launching with extremely esoteric hardware.

Re: Increasing the lifespan of a bulb makes it worse in every other way

#129

Post by somenameforme » Sat, Aug 01, 2026, 1:46 PM UTC

mathgeek wrote: post #113

somenameforme wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The article is complete and utter nonsense, probably intentionally so because it's the type that will drive engagement. The reason planned obsolescence is insidiously effective is precisely because the typical consumer does not take reasonable account of product longevity. You can easily say 'yeah I like how bright [or whatever else] this bulb is' but lifespans are scarcely taken into account. If they were then massi…

> a typical example being the $20 coffee makers which you'll end up paying way more for than a decent one due to the fact they just constantly break. I chuckled a bit realizing that you probably meant a decent coffee maker to cost far less than what I think a “decent” one does. Took me a moment to shake “you could buy a $20 machine every couple years for decades before you break even.”

Yeah a genuinely nice machine is going to set you back plenty, but is built to last forever and can be easily repaired to achieve that. On the other hand a French Press costs like $10, lasts forever, and makes an amazing cup of coffee. But the $20 coffee machines are basically just a scam, but one that works because people just don't appropriately weight longevity.

Re: Increasing the lifespan of a bulb makes it worse in every other way

#130

Post by wvh » Sat, Aug 01, 2026, 1:50 PM UTC

PinkSheep wrote: post #66

hagbard_c wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Maybe you're just buying cheap poor quality bulbs? If only that were true. Osram is a well-renowned brand so you'd think their - rather pricey - 'high-wattage' (10W) bulbs meant for outside lights here on the farm would last longer than about a year, all in different armatures, all with plenty of cooling (they're mainly used in autumn/winter/spring when it tends to be rather chilly here in Sweden). You'd think chea…

> Osram Pay attention to the European efficiency rating for LEDs. Anything above B is practically "Dubai LED" class. The common Osram isn't doing good in this category, their LEDs I have seen in retail are rated like E-F. To reiterate: the article fell short on the point of LED efficiency. LEDs are semiconductors, do you know when the CPU is at peak efficiency? Before it hits the exponential voltage/frequency curve.…

We need a powerful non-profit / semi-governmental organisation that regularly tests all these things and tells it like it is. Something like Stiftung Warentest in Germany.

People can make up their own mind about going for cheaper electronics or aiming for longevity, but at least we would have a clearer picture of who is contributing to that pile of electric waste and we could make more informed decisions.