Increasing the lifespan of a bulb makes it worse in every other way
14 hours ago
- The common story about lightbulb manufacturers colluding in 1925 to standardize lifespans at 1,000 hours is true, but the assumption that longer-lasting bulbs are inherently better is wrong.
- Longer lifespan comes at the cost of lower efficiency and poorer color quality because the filament must run at a lower temperature to avoid melting.
- The 120-year-old 'centennial bulb' is often cited as proof of long-life design, but it is extremely dim and inefficient, drawing only 4 watts and producing poor light.
- Modern incandescent bulbs still last between 500 and 2,500 hours, similar to the cartel's standard, because the trade-off between lifespan and performance is fundamental.
- Manufacturers eventually developed fluorescent and LED technologies to achieve both good performance and long life, rather than simply making bulbs last longer.
- The Phoebus cartel did engage in anti-consumer practices like price fixing, but the lifespan standard was partly a response to consumer preference for longer-lasting bulbs, which would have led to worse products.
- The moral is that reality is complex; not all planned obsolescence is bad, and seemingly obvious conclusions about product design often overlook underlying trade-offs.