
For 90 years, lightbulbs were designed to burn out. Now that's coming to LEDs - doener
http://boingboing.net/2016/07/15/for-90-years-lightbulbs-were.html
======
KiwiJohnno
The light bulb conspiracy is, frankly, a load of shit.

What was really happening is the consumers were choosing which lightbulbs to
buy primarily on their rated lifespan. So, because of this market pressure,
manufacturers naturally started developing lightbulbs with longer and longer
lifespan.

This is actually easy to do. Basically, the cooler the filament, the longer
the lifespan of the bulb. This also had the side effect of reducing light
output at a given wattage, so people also started buying higher-wattage
lightbulbs to compensate.

Basically there was a tradeoff between light bulb longevity, and efficiency.

The manufacturers realized that this trend would waste huge amounts of
electricity, and was unsustainable in the long term so they got together and
decided to all standardize on set design lifespan that they thought was about
the sweet-spot between lifespan, and efficiency.

This stopped everyone competing on lifespan, and instead shifted the focus of
the marketplace competition to cost, and efficiency, which the manufacturers
judged was more helpful to everyone.

In short, the "lightbulb conspiracy" was not an example of manufacturers
colluding to screw the consumer for their own benefit - the intent was
actually to help everyone in the long term, while sacrificing their own
individual short-term profits.

~~~
Retric
Bull. A few simple standards did not require the kind of detailed record
keeping that was taking place just a third party to test lifespan and common
nomenclature. Instead, bulb lifespan keep decreasing and profits rose.

Top loading washing machines like blenders, toasters, and many other household
items where more or less modern in form around 1960. My grand parents bought
one around 1960 which with very minimal care outlived my grandfather in 2010.

Yes, relatively speaking things got much lighter, cheaper, and somewhat more
efficient. However, when they often last less than 5 years it's often a poor
trade off. What's the expected lifespan of a home blender that's regularly
used these days? How about a TV, microwave...

~~~
jedrek
I think people have a massively idolized view of home appliances from the
1950s and 60s. Most men knew how to fix their appliances, because those
appliances regularly broke. My grandfather lived til his death with the
washing machine he bought in 1968, and it required him to fix _something_
about once a year.

To say they were somewhat less efficient than modern ones is an understatement
- I replaced a late 1960s, 3.5ft fridge in this flat when I moved it. The old
one would barely make ice. My new fridge is not only 7ft tall with a freezer
that hits -32C, it does so with the same power draw as the old one. It's not
perfect, I had to get it fixed once - the freezer coolant started leaking. But
that was a $60 fix, and otherwise, it's been going strong for almost 15 years.
It also cost $500 - which is similar to what it would have cost in 1970, with
the caveat that these numbers are not adjusted for inflation. That $500 in
1970 is equivalent to $2300 in 2002, when I bought it.

I have a washing machine of similar vintage, and I'd like to get a new one...
but I'm waiting for it to break. No luck. It's been going strong with a single
repair, and it only cost $220, or a little more than the Kenmore washer I
found in the 1970 Sears catalog for $190.

The truth is even if we accept that these goods are inferior, it's because we
as consumers made them that way. We'd rather buy 3 appliances over 30 years
than pay 3x as much up front, then hold on to it and service it for that time.

~~~
Retric
Refrigerators and arguably vacuums have actually improved quite a bit.
However, if you look at say a modern toaster for example they use these wide
but very thin heating elements made of Nichrome which are very easy to
physically destroy if you stick something in there to remove a piece of stuck
toast.

Sure, there are a few small advantages, but it does not save much energy or
upfront cost and makes them really easy to destroy. Which is rather good for
toaster manufactures and bad for US.

------
cs702
Some LED bulb manufacturers are now using code to force owners to use only
original-branded consumables, to prevent owners from getting service from
third parties, and to limit features to those that benefit the manufacturer,
at the owner's expense. Example: [http://boingboing.net/2015/12/14/philips-
pushes-lightbulb-fi...](http://boingboing.net/2015/12/14/philips-pushes-
lightbulb-firmw.html)

These LED bulbs are not really owned; they are "licensed."

~~~
DougMerritt
The current article also mentions this subject:

> It's been less than a year since Philips pushed out a firmware update that
> gave its light fixtures the ability to detect and reject non-Philips
> lightbulbs -- and thanks to laws like the DMCA, which have metastasized in
> the IoT era, it's a potential felony to alter your light fixture to override
> this behavior and force it to work with non-Philips bulbs.

------
nikolay
My grandfather had a light bulb that was pretty much eternal. He bought it
second-hand in the '40s and, in the '90s, it was still working! Not very
bright, maybe 30W equivalent, but it worked all the time in a 4-season
climate.

~~~
ars
That's not surprising, the lower the efficiency of the bulb the longer it
lasts. I bet the filament is very large, so each piece of it is not very hot.

------
tomcam
I have been using LED bulbs for several years now. I see no evidence they hold
up any longer than CFLs or incandescents. I have already returned 2 to Costco
and have a third in my car. They seem to burn out just like any commercial
bulbs. I am disappointed, but not at all surprised. Devoted capitalist though
I may be, I figured the 100,000 hour numbers were bunk.

~~~
ams6110
For that matter it's been my experience that CFLs do not last significantly
longer than incandescents, dispite claims all that matters to me is what I
experience.

I'm quite unhappy that I must now pay dollars for lightbulbs that don't last
longer and have worse asthetics than the $0.25 bulbs I used to buy.

