Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Planned obsolescence" and "value engineering" have almost the same effect for the customers though. Products are designed to just barely survive the EU's two year mandatory warranty period.
They may have similar effects, but their intent is very different, which means who gets blamed is very different. "Planned obsolescence" means evil, greedy corporations. "Value engineering" means consumers want "cheaper" not "better", which means we are the evil, greedy ones. But I'm not greedy, so it must be the corporations!
Phoebus Cartel
91–100 of 126 posts
Re: Phoebus Cartel
#92Light 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
#93Light 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…
Ah yes, how good for the consumer it is to collude to increase prices and offer zero competition.
The price-fixing aspects, not so much, lol.
Re: Phoebus Cartel
#94Re: Phoebus Cartel
#95Light 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…
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.
Re: Phoebus Cartel
#96RIP https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centennial_Light
RIP? It's not burned out yet: http://www.centennialbulb.org/photos.htm
Re: Phoebus Cartel
#97Related 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…
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 my mind.
Re: Phoebus Cartel
#98Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
50W × $0.10/kWh = $0.005/h
$2 / ($0.005/h) = 400h
Re: Phoebus Cartel
#99They were crooks. The amount of cartels Philips has been in is staggering. They've been working to screw over their customers since the very beginning. Look it up, any infamous technology cartel from the 20th century you can find, big chance Philips was on it. When cartels went out of vogue they lobbied for regulation with pretty much the same effect - Philips will do anything, legal or not, to keep their margins up.
I really don't understand how easily people whitewash this shit.
Re: Phoebus Cartel
#100Earlier 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…
This is the case. People will buy el cheapo LED bulbs even now rather than well known brands. And those el cheapo bulbs have low quality electronics that fail quickly.
I really don't have an issue with paying for quality but there's just no reasonable way for me as a consumer to judge quality. I could go by reviews but those are often low quality or astroturfed so it's not really reliable either. Not to mention the cost of spending time to figure all this shit out.
I'm currently looking to buy a printer with no real budget limit, but I'd obviously rather not pay for features I won't use, but if $100 gets me $100 more worth of quality that's not a problem. It has been a horrible waste of time trying to figure out so far. I've already (pretty much) narrowed it down to a single brand. Partially to limit the scope of my quest and partially because I'm using the brand as a proxy for quality. My last printer was the same brand and it had, over a more than 5 year period I think two paper jams and no nozzle clogs or weird malfunctions.
Even given all that it's impossible to narrow it down further. Presumably the $300 printer is better than the $50 one, but there's no real way to figure that out from the information the manufacturer provides. A large factor is cartridge price since over the lifetime of a printer that can easily quadruple the total amount of money spent. Of course figuring out how much ink each type of cartridge holds is basically impossible. The manufacturer provides "pages per cartridge set" stats for each printer, but that info isn't on the page of the cartridges so that requires me to manually cross-reference cartridges to which printers they go with. All of this of course assuming that the page count they provide isn't just a straight up lie. And that's just for one attribute of the printer! what about paper capacity or number of feed trays or color quality for photo prints or wifi connectivity or or or or
I'm basically at the point where writing a web scraper is less effort than doing all this by hand. None of this is worth the time spent if you go by my hourly rate. How is my mother ever supposed to buy a nice printer if an IT professional like me can't even begin to figure it out?
Traditionally the solution to this problem was sales people, but these days it seems salespeople are more inclined to sell you something expensive that you don't need than they are to actually help you find what you DO need. Customer satisfaction doesn't show up on the balance sheet and isn't a key performance indicator either so why bother to optimize for it? If your first sales step is to figure out someones budget and the next step is to try and stretch it I'm distrusting enough to notice immediately. My mother isn't and would come home with a lighter wallet and a very expensive printer she doesn't need with no guarantee it won't be a maintenance nightmare either.
I should be the favorite kind of customer for any store. I don't mind spending more for quality. I make a point of being loyal to stores and brands that treat me well. If you can sell me something I'm happy to own you've got yourself a return customer. But I guess most stores just aren't looking for that.
In any case my next steps will be to contact the manufacturer and visit stores to ask them directly which printer I should get. I fully expect to get fleecing attempts for the most part but who knows, perhaps I'll find a new favorite store.