I don't understand this one. Yes, I want the long-life lightbulb. No, that doesn't somehow make it worse in every other way. The point is so obvious, I couldn't follow the logic in this argument. Nobody is buying or selling 120 Watt short-life bulbs to brag about their tremendous brightness. Long Life (LL) bulbs are not some kind of marketing ploy. We buy them understanding that we're going to minimize the hidden costs of making light, i.e. changing that bulb.
Increasing the lifespan of a bulb makes it worse in every other way
141–150 of 202 posts
Re: Increasing the lifespan of a bulb makes it worse in every other way
#142Earlier quoted context omitted.
The macro point is that complex systems are complex and have competing priorities, so it’s facile to say “I don’t agree with the decision, therefore any reasoning that supported the decision must be 100% intentional malicious bullshit.” I’m old, I’ve had a varied career, I’ve been in small group meetings in startups and VCs and megacorps. I have never once heard the kind of “obviously this is an evil decision, but he…
I mean, we have evidence of things that have been said e.g. in Facebook's board meetings. So those things do exist.
Facebook is also kind of an outlier IMO.
There will be a scandal where Facebook is caught doing something, and then you get a bunch of people talking about "tech companies", or "Facebook and Google", and then you read the details ... and it was Facebook, with everyone going "well, the rest probably are too".
Re: Increasing the lifespan of a bulb makes it worse in every other way
#143Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
There are a lot of people for whom the choice is not “spend $20 every two years, or spend $200 today and never again” but instead “spend $20 today or just not have a working coffee maker”
cf Vimes' theory of boots[0] which is basically the same point.
Re: Increasing the lifespan of a bulb makes it worse in every other way
#144Earlier 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.…
There are some who took this view when LEDs were first mandated. Light bulbs were dirt cheap, yes they use more electricity but their waste stream is glass with a bit of metal.
Now we pay more for something that lasts a bit longer with more waste.
It's not "capitalism" if the government mandates a product.
What you are seeing is the typical enshitification that occurs when a product becomes mass produced and low cost to the customers becomes the primary driver.
Re: Increasing the lifespan of a bulb makes it worse in every other way
#145Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
I don't know if $20 coffee makers are really a scam. I've been using my $20 Mr. Coffee for like 5 years now without an issue, still makes coffee and more than likely will for a long time.
You might debate the quality of the coffee it makes, but I've long since learned I don't have the palate for it to matter.
Re: Increasing the lifespan of a bulb makes it worse in every other way
#146Tyrell: The light that burns twice as bright burns half as long, and you have burned so very very brightly, Roy - Bladerunner (1982) also, I enjoyed the last lines of the article: Also, to preempt the orange site, I'm not saying that planned obsolescence doesn't exist.
Unfortunately, Tyrell is incorrect. https://www.replacementlightbulbs.com/ohmslaw.html which gives the equation:
Life(actual) = Life(rated) x ( V(rated) / V(actual) ) ** 13
Hams have known about this for decades, where is it common to run 14V or 12V lamps on 6.3 volts for dial / panel illumination. I have a Drake 2-B receiver that uses this technique, and I have yet to replace the 2 bulbs that light up the frequency dial.
Re: Increasing the lifespan of a bulb makes it worse in every other way
#147[dead]
Re: Increasing the lifespan of a bulb makes it worse in every other way
#148I don't understand this one. Yes, I want the long-life lightbulb. No, that doesn't somehow make it worse in every other way. The point is so obvious, I couldn't follow the logic in this argument. Nobody is buying or selling 120 Watt short-life bulbs to brag about their tremendous brightness. Long Life (LL) bulbs are not some kind of marketing ploy. We buy them understanding that we're going to minimize the hidden cos…
[dead]
Re: Increasing the lifespan of a bulb makes it worse in every other way
#149I'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 all new Philip hue bulbs going on 7 or 8 years ago now and not a single one has gone bad. Maybe you're just buying cheap poor quality bulbs? A 100 out of 100 success rate after 8 years.
[dead]
Re: Increasing the lifespan of a bulb makes it worse in every other way
#150Earlier 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.…
These are 'A++' marked LED bulbs according to the old energy label standard which would be between C and D in the new label standard. They're supposed to last for '15 years' according to EC 1194/2012 [1] (2.7 hours/day, 15000 hours) and survive 100000 power-on/off cycles. In reality they last for about 1500-2000 hours in well-cooled fixtures.
The lamps I'm referring to have 4 wide (4mm) LED filaments in a normal-sized glass bulb. On the packaging they're marked 'Ledvance' [2]/made in China, i.e. they carry the Osram brand under licence.
In other words LED lamps can be made to last a long time but many are not, brand names and brand pricing notwithstanding. The form factor - E27 socket with glass bulb, fluorescent tube replacement, large heat sink mounted LED strip - does not play as much of a role as you'd think given that the lights with the 'best' cooling (LED strip mounted on a large heat sink) shows the highest failure rate while the 'traditional incandescent lamp' form factor with the electronics in the E27 base shows both the lowest as well as the second-highest failure rate here. It probably comes down to component quality, something which again does not seem to be related to brand name.
[1] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:...
[2] https://www.ledvance.com/00_Free_To_Use/asset-8344755_THE_AS...