Anyone who still thinks that lightbulbs are a good example of planned obsolescence needs to watch Technology Connections’ video about lightbulbs on YouTube. Planned obsolescence is definitely a thing, but lightbulbs are not an example of this, and this has been disproven time and time again.
And here is the relevant link to the specific video he did on lightbulbs and why they aren’t an example of planned obsolescence: https://youtu.be/zb7Bs98KmnY
The TL;DW is this: no matter what method you use, the process of converting electricity into visible light is going to generate heat. With old filament bulbs, they had to balance the intensity of the light with the rate at which the filament would burn. Those older bulbs that lasted ages gave off so little light that they weren’t practical because you would need several times as many lightbulbs. Turning up the amount of light meant the filament would not last as long, but you needed fewer of them. With newer models, we still have to play that balancing act, just with different electrical components, because making them brighter still means making them hotter and potentially frying the components inside.
I watched up to 16:04 like, and I have to admit what I saw was a technical talk about the differences of the bulbs. So it didn’t sound to me like a proof of his claims.
In 1924 top representatives from all the major light-bulb manufacturers of the time met in Geneva to found the Phoebus cartel, which created a supervisory body that would divide the worldwide incandescent light bulb market. … By early 1925, its lifespan became codified at 1 000 hours for a pear-shaped household bulb, which was a notable reduction from the 1 500 to 2 000 hours …
They limited it to that because, at the time, there was only one way to make a lightbulb and they wanted a consistent brightness. The easiest way to do that was to make a standard filament, and the easiest way to measure that was to test how long on average it lasted.
It is like saying a bread cartel was made by saying a loaf of bread has to be a standard weight and anyone selling a different weight was fined. Making an industry standard that is arguably for the benefit of the customer is not the same as planned obsolescence. Especially when you consider the fact that the 1000 standard wasn’t followed when they started making different kinds of lightbulbs that didn’t use filament.
Anyone who still thinks that lightbulbs are a good example of planned obsolescence needs to watch Technology Connections’ video about lightbulbs on YouTube. Planned obsolescence is definitely a thing, but lightbulbs are not an example of this, and this has been disproven time and time again.
Thank you for your input! Just to be sure, is it this one?
Btw when you say
what do you mean? Could you share a relevant link?
It is that channel, yes!
And here is the relevant link to the specific video he did on lightbulbs and why they aren’t an example of planned obsolescence: https://youtu.be/zb7Bs98KmnY
The TL;DW is this: no matter what method you use, the process of converting electricity into visible light is going to generate heat. With old filament bulbs, they had to balance the intensity of the light with the rate at which the filament would burn. Those older bulbs that lasted ages gave off so little light that they weren’t practical because you would need several times as many lightbulbs. Turning up the amount of light meant the filament would not last as long, but you needed fewer of them. With newer models, we still have to play that balancing act, just with different electrical components, because making them brighter still means making them hotter and potentially frying the components inside.
I watched up to 16:04 like, and I have to admit what I saw was a technical talk about the differences of the bulbs. So it didn’t sound to me like a proof of his claims.
So I looked around and found a Briefing from the EU [Planned obsolescence: Exploring the issue - 2016] and they also talk about it like it’s a thing:
Yeah Philips was also in there, this is well known in The Netherlands. They’d give out fines if a company made bulbs that would last longer.
They limited it to that because, at the time, there was only one way to make a lightbulb and they wanted a consistent brightness. The easiest way to do that was to make a standard filament, and the easiest way to measure that was to test how long on average it lasted.
It is like saying a bread cartel was made by saying a loaf of bread has to be a standard weight and anyone selling a different weight was fined. Making an industry standard that is arguably for the benefit of the customer is not the same as planned obsolescence. Especially when you consider the fact that the 1000 standard wasn’t followed when they started making different kinds of lightbulbs that didn’t use filament.