
Bringing solar light bulbs to the world - thedoctor
http://www.cnn.com/2011/TECH/innovation/08/14/solar.light.bulbs/index.html
======
dstein
I don't get why the developing world needs to be the first market. They could
sell to the camping and boating market first, make millions, and expand
worldwide later.

~~~
prawn
Sell to both. I'd put them up in my backyard before parties, etc.

~~~
simonsarris
Havent they sold backyard solar lights at Walmart, Target, etc for several
years now?

[http://www.target.com/Solar-Lights-Coach-Style-
Pack/dp/B002Z...](http://www.target.com/Solar-Lights-Coach-Style-
Pack/dp/B002ZDZQCM/ref=sc_pd_gwvub_2_title)

~~~
prawn
Was thinking about something more like those he was showing - individual,
hang-up globes. Anything non-ugly (like those Target ones) is expensive.

------
michaelchisari
There's a common misconception in this article that non-profit means non-
revenue. A non-profit organization can still charge for goods and services.
The difference between a non-profit and a for-profit, is that a non-profit
must invest all surplus revenue directly back into the company.

~~~
kellishaver
I agree, obviously most nonprofits need to have a revenue model, because
donations can't sustain you 100%. However I think the general point they were
trying to make was that the model followed by many large nonprofits does more
to treat the symptoms than solve the problem.

I do a lot of nonprofit work and I've become pretty disillusioned with many
large organizations-I feel they tend simply give hand-outs rather than helping
communities to become sustainable and self-sufficient and actually addressing
the issues. Add to that the costs of overhead and management, etc. and I
really feel like the most significant changes are going to come from the small
groups motivated by their passion for helping and unburdened by the task of
maintaining a large corporate revenue model. The change these groups affect
might not be as far-reaching, but think their impact is greater.

~~~
michaelchisari
I agree that the for-profit corporate model is better than the charity model,
but only because the charity model has been so awful.

I think a non-profit revenue-based organization would probably be the best for
what this guy is trying to do. You get the benefit of being sustainable
without requiring donations, but you don't come off as someone profiting off
the backs of the poor.

------
mmastrac
For another, much older, take on this check out "Light Up The World". One of
my old professors has been working on this since the 90's, with the same goal
of driving the Kerosene lamps out of existence.

I'm curious if there's much in the way of new technology in these lamps, at
least enough to justify a patent.

EDIT: Link: <http://www.lutw.org/>

~~~
noonespecial
It's a patent on a hardware device. Its a whole different animal. Unlike
software, they couldn't just patent "solar light that charges during they day"
they could only patent their _particular_ solar charging light.

If someone were to disassemble their light and make molds of the parts and
just start cranking out copies, they could stop them. It never even crosses
their minds that they might try to use the patent to rent-seek everyone else
on earth who wires together a solar cell, a battery and a light source. Ya,
it's that different.

