I live in Eindhoven, home town of Philips, one of the members of this cartel. Philips is extremely loved here. They're the reason this city is a city at all, they're the reason we're a prosperous region with of lots of innovation (mostly hardware though, so not very HN-fashionable). We now have apartment buildings named after their founders ("Gerard", "Anton", etc), lunchrooms ("Meneer Frits"), the local football stadium & club are named after them, and so on. Statues. Statues! Not of a Great Leader back in some totalitarian past, but of CEOs! Imagine putting an enormous bronze Elon Musk at the SF Caltrain station square. That's Eindhoven. We love us our Philips.
They 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.
The reason they are loved is the major social impact Philips had on the Eindhoven region, mostly positive. You could walk up to Mr Frits during carnival, ask for a job for your husband and he could start the next week, ask any older Eindhovenaar about it. They were considered to be a great company to work for: they took care of houses (one of the Eindhoven suburbs is called Philips town as it was literally built by them for their employees), and the bylaws made maximum employment a top priority (heck, it’s still mentioned in the latest CAO). The local football club was founded by Philips for their employees, the first player in the field was a 4-year-old Mr. Frits.
From the perspective of Eindhoven, they sure were a net gain. For the rest of the world, they sure are in a lot of cartels. But the tens of thousands of people working for Philips-related companies won’t care (ASML, NXP, Signify, Etos, FEI, TP Vision, are just some examples of the Philips legacy that is still felt all across the Eindhoven region)l
You basically described what's wrong with caputalism in general. And I agree. Everybody shits their pants when there is a statue erected for the big leader but somehow noon really seems to care about the impact of big Corp to the same effect which is EXTREMELY troubling
Light 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. Unfortunately of 3 categories of information needed for an informed decision (lifetime, power usage, and light output) purchasers only had a good measure of how often they replaced bulbs. Usage patterns are too complex for improvements in a single bulb to be obvious on a power bill, and human brightness perception is roughly logarithmic so it’s not visually obvious how much brighter different bulbs are.
Whether it was motivated by greed or not, the Phoebus cartel is an example of big business successfully advocating for the interests of the general public in the presence of information asymmetry.
> Their lightbulbs were of a higher quality, more efficient, and brighter burning than other bulbs. They also cost a lot more. Indeed, all evidence points to the cartel’s being motivated by profits and increased sales, not by what was best for the consumer.
It would have been straightforward for them to manufacture higher voltage, less brighter lamps with a longer lifespan. They didn't.
In how many uses cases is anything other than perceived brightness relevant?
Increased costs to provide something the consumer doesn't want is exactly the kind of thing competition is likely to reduce.
The market doesn't always work but it's also very hard to determine what is wrong and how to fix it. If market equilibrium leads to destroying the ozone, it's easy. But if the market means fewer lumens per dollar (or even per joule), that is less obviously bad.
> Unfortunately of 3 categories of information needed for an informed decision (lifetime, power usage, and light output) purchasers only had a good measure of how often they replaced bulbs.
I may be dating myself, but I have never in my entire life seen a light bulb sold without the wattage displayed front and center. It is by far a more accessible metric than when it dies, by which time I have long forgotten where in time immemorial I bought that particular bulb.
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.
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 "cheaper" rather than "better".
To some degree you can get products with longer lifespans, if you look at commercial/industrial models. Sometimes you have to sacrifice fancy features though.
I think the reason consumer products mostly suck is that manufacturers have been hiding inflation by cheapening construction. Occasionally it's for weight savings, but I think keeping prices lower is the main reason. People don't realize they're getting vastly inferior products to the one they or their parents had a generation ago, until it's too late.
If there is such a thing as planned obsolescence of a product, why do we not require it to be listed on the packaging and/or specs? Why not also include hefty fines for products that do not have this information listed cleary (like nutritional info), listed incorrectly, or simply fail on avg before the "POdate"?
Another possibility is that unplanned obsolescence is part and parcel of chasing bigger margins, and the companies with the biggest margin win out organically.
>I would argue that the current economic system does not plan for maximum longevity of products.
Of course not. And you don't want that. If you want quality, you can get quality but you'll have to pay for it. Are you willing to pay $500 for a quality drill, when a cheapo $40 drill is all you need? What's wrong with that?
Here is the section in Gravity's Rainbow which tells the tale of Byron the Lightbulb (the longest-burning lightbulb) and his troubles with the Phoebus Cartel:
https://www.tildedave.com/byron.html
In a book full of strange meandering asides, this was among the most memorable.
I'm hoping someone clever here has read a book about the cartel and can answer this question: The wiki page doesn't go into too much detail, but is there any evidence the primary goal of the cartel was primarily intended to increase energy efficiency, or was it really pure unadulterated greed?
Honestly, were it for the sake of efficiency, I wouldn't mind it. Though the metric of lifetime in hours rather than lumen/watt makes my approval borderline rather than whole-hearted.
The first citation on the page[1] mentions researcher Markus Krajewski who reviewed Phoebus records and concluded "It was the explicit aim of the cartel to reduce the life span of the lamps in order to increase sales [...] Economics, not physics."
Cursory searches of Markus Krajewski yield an IEEE Spectrum article[2] with further references to his work:
> The 2010 documentary The Light Bulb Conspiracy explores the Phoebus cartel as an early example of planned obsolescence and includes interviews with Markus Krajewski. For more on the cartel and planned obsolescence, see the author’s "Fehler-Planungen. Zur Geschichte und Theorie der industriellen Obsoleszenz," in Technikgeschichte, vol. 81, No. 1, p. 91–114, 2014, and "Vom Krieg des Lichtes zur Geschichte von Glühlampenkartellen," in Das Glühbirnenbuch, edited by Peter Berz, Helmut Höge, and Krajewski (Braumüller Verlag, 2011).
This is truly a "The Sun"-tier comment. So many things are wrong. The EU did not mandate halogen bulbs, it phased out incandescent bulbs, with many exceptions for situations and use-cases where alternatives are inadequate. You can (and should) buy LEDs which are many times more efficient and cheaper (per hour of life) that incandescent bulbs. Finally, halogen bulbs are not only not "mandated" but actually in the processed of being phased out as well.
I had about 12 halogen recessed lights in my house. I replaced them with LED retrofit recessed lights and so far over three years none of them have failed. The LEDs are brighter and more power efficient. I think I paid for their cost over one year due to power savings and not even considering that I would be replacing one halogen bulb every month or two.
LED's also have an inferior light quality to incandescent. The color rendering index of the average LED is usualy 70-80, usually with horrible green spikes.
Incandescent lights are blackbody radiators and have a CRI of 100. So the quality of light and color rendering is equivalent to daylight.
Bums me out to hear that they're being phased-out in some places.
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) per bulb if you don't buy in bulk. If you aren't middle class or above $10 is a decent chunk of money. $10 is deciding between dinner or light, not both. The ban was indirectly a regressive tax that hurts the poor. Maybe if you spend money to buy in bulk then 2 years down the road you will be financially better off than if you bought incandescent bulbs. The poor don't have that option and the rich won't notice the pennies in savings.
The inefficiencies by heat loss doesn't make sense either unless you live in a very hot climate. Even in the PNW which is fairly mild, 9 months out of the year you the heat is on anyway. If the other 3 months are bright and sunny you probably don't have that many lights on.
I used to keep a light on in my well house to keep it just above freezing during winter. Had I not bought hundreds of incandescent light bulbs and stockpiled them I would have had to run a heater. The point here- a nation wide ban is overkill.
Conspiracy theory- I bet light bulb manufactures loved this ban, they probably even lobbied in support of it. Consumers have to pay 7x the price, sweet!
Halogens burn out quickly, I think it's because they run too hot. I had a bunch of them in my previous apartment, and had to replace a bulb every few months or so. There were even dark marks on the ceiling from the heat.
The worst thing about the Phoebus Cartel is that for something that lasted just a few years (and didn't really work), it is constantly cited as the quintessential example of 'planned obsolescence' and therefore one of the evils of capitalism. 'Planned obsolescence' itself, is an overstated and overrated concept that is frequently conflated with common practices like making a product cheaper through the use of lower-quality materials.
"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.
[+] [-] skrebbel|6 years ago|reply
They 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.
[+] [-] markus92|6 years ago|reply
From the perspective of Eindhoven, they sure were a net gain. For the rest of the world, they sure are in a lot of cartels. But the tens of thousands of people working for Philips-related companies won’t care (ASML, NXP, Signify, Etos, FEI, TP Vision, are just some examples of the Philips legacy that is still felt all across the Eindhoven region)l
[+] [-] fogetti|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pergadad|6 years ago|reply
And to be fair some Philips products are decent.
[+] [-] spqr0a1|6 years ago|reply
Short-lived bulbs were good for the customers. In a market with perfect information people would have chosen them on their own. Unfortunately of 3 categories of information needed for an informed decision (lifetime, power usage, and light output) purchasers only had a good measure of how often they replaced bulbs. Usage patterns are too complex for improvements in a single bulb to be obvious on a power bill, and human brightness perception is roughly logarithmic so it’s not visually obvious how much brighter different bulbs are.
Whether it was motivated by greed or not, the Phoebus cartel is an example of big business successfully advocating for the interests of the general public in the presence of information asymmetry.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incandescent_light_bulb#Light_...
[+] [-] jcfrei|6 years ago|reply
> Their lightbulbs were of a higher quality, more efficient, and brighter burning than other bulbs. They also cost a lot more. Indeed, all evidence points to the cartel’s being motivated by profits and increased sales, not by what was best for the consumer.
It would have been straightforward for them to manufacture higher voltage, less brighter lamps with a longer lifespan. They didn't.
[+] [-] TomMckenny|6 years ago|reply
In how many uses cases is anything other than perceived brightness relevant?
Increased costs to provide something the consumer doesn't want is exactly the kind of thing competition is likely to reduce.
The market doesn't always work but it's also very hard to determine what is wrong and how to fix it. If market equilibrium leads to destroying the ozone, it's easy. But if the market means fewer lumens per dollar (or even per joule), that is less obviously bad.
[+] [-] nothrabannosir|6 years ago|reply
I may be dating myself, but I have never in my entire life seen a light bulb sold without the wattage displayed front and center. It is by far a more accessible metric than when it dies, by which time I have long forgotten where in time immemorial I bought that particular bulb.
[+] [-] readams|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mrguyorama|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] VectorLock|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] JohnJamesRambo|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] acd|6 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] stevehawk|6 years ago|reply
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 "cheaper" rather than "better".
[+] [-] harshreality|6 years ago|reply
I think the reason consumer products mostly suck is that manufacturers have been hiding inflation by cheapening construction. Occasionally it's for weight savings, but I think keeping prices lower is the main reason. People don't realize they're getting vastly inferior products to the one they or their parents had a generation ago, until it's too late.
[+] [-] donclark|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pixelbash|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] artsyca|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] macspoofing|6 years ago|reply
Of course not. And you don't want that. If you want quality, you can get quality but you'll have to pay for it. Are you willing to pay $500 for a quality drill, when a cheapo $40 drill is all you need? What's wrong with that?
[+] [-] jamesakirk|6 years ago|reply
In a book full of strange meandering asides, this was among the most memorable.
[+] [-] mjaniczek|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] voldacar|6 years ago|reply
He writes like a madman
[+] [-] TooCleverByHalf|6 years ago|reply
https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2019/03/27/707388981/epis...
[+] [-] jasoneckert|6 years ago|reply
They replied "Wow - I would have thought that a light bulb cartel would have had a much brighter future..."
[+] [-] kylek|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nhyun|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ddoran|6 years ago|reply
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17606748
[+] [-] jml7c5|6 years ago|reply
Honestly, were it for the sake of efficiency, I wouldn't mind it. Though the metric of lifetime in hours rather than lumen/watt makes my approval borderline rather than whole-hearted.
[+] [-] bad-joke|6 years ago|reply
Cursory searches of Markus Krajewski yield an IEEE Spectrum article[2] with further references to his work:
> The 2010 documentary The Light Bulb Conspiracy explores the Phoebus cartel as an early example of planned obsolescence and includes interviews with Markus Krajewski. For more on the cartel and planned obsolescence, see the author’s "Fehler-Planungen. Zur Geschichte und Theorie der industriellen Obsoleszenz," in Technikgeschichte, vol. 81, No. 1, p. 91–114, 2014, and "Vom Krieg des Lichtes zur Geschichte von Glühlampenkartellen," in Das Glühbirnenbuch, edited by Peter Berz, Helmut Höge, and Krajewski (Braumüller Verlag, 2011).
Hope this helps!
[1]https://outline.com/JYvASt [2]https://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-history/dawn-of-electronics/t...
[+] [-] tomc1985|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] valley-green|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] Gusen|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] the-dude|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] andrepd|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] phaemon|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pkaye|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] l33tbro|6 years ago|reply
Incandescent lights are blackbody radiators and have a CRI of 100. So the quality of light and color rendering is equivalent to daylight.
Bums me out to hear that they're being phased-out in some places.
[+] [-] bensonn|6 years ago|reply
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) per bulb if you don't buy in bulk. If you aren't middle class or above $10 is a decent chunk of money. $10 is deciding between dinner or light, not both. The ban was indirectly a regressive tax that hurts the poor. Maybe if you spend money to buy in bulk then 2 years down the road you will be financially better off than if you bought incandescent bulbs. The poor don't have that option and the rich won't notice the pennies in savings.
The inefficiencies by heat loss doesn't make sense either unless you live in a very hot climate. Even in the PNW which is fairly mild, 9 months out of the year you the heat is on anyway. If the other 3 months are bright and sunny you probably don't have that many lights on.
I used to keep a light on in my well house to keep it just above freezing during winter. Had I not bought hundreds of incandescent light bulbs and stockpiled them I would have had to run a heater. The point here- a nation wide ban is overkill.
Conspiracy theory- I bet light bulb manufactures loved this ban, they probably even lobbied in support of it. Consumers have to pay 7x the price, sweet!
At least the ban solved the climate crisis.
[+] [-] solotronics|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dsego|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] macspoofing|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fsh|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gsich|6 years ago|reply