HN Theater @HNTheaterMonth

Most likely yes, as it is also done by many electronics companies.

It's called "planned obsolescence" [0].

There's a particular video from Veritasium [1] that comes to mind regarding this.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_obsolescence

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j5v8D-alAKE

We need to find a way to move on, once something is perfected. Because if we don't we kinda ruin what we have already perfected. It's called planned obsolescence and below are some resources on the same. It is widely used across industries for over a century and kinda plays a huge role in climate change.

Veritasium https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j5v8D-alAKE

DW (mostly about phone) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7aYJPonRJd8

⬐ philipwhiuk

Iterating design after success to make it worse isn't the same thing as planned obsolescence.

⬐ hulitu

> We need to find a way to move on, once something is perfected

The GUI/UI/UX on Android is so close to perfection like a zygote is close to a human being.

⬐ grishka

The problem lies deeper. There's only so much work that the humanity legitimately needs done, but the economy is built upon the assumption that everyone can get a job. So we end up creating jobs the society at large doesn't actually benefit from to make sure every person has to do some work to earn money to live. This includes ballooning IT companies about which you can't help but keep asking "where does enough work even come from to occupy all these people, in a product that's essentially finished".

I don't know how to even approach solving this.

⬐ hammyhavoc

The solution is both simultaneously simple, yet incredibly nuanced and socially complex: UBI.

⬐ grishka

And because universal basic income is so nuanced and socially complex, I feel like this problem is here to stay until we reach post-scarcity, if we ever do.

⬐ hammyhavoc

Exactly. That's without even considering a botched rollout of UBI causing inflation and inequality like we've never known before.

⬐ wildrhythms

Further reading - The Rise of Bullshit Jobs https://jacobin.com/2018/06/bullshit-jobs-david-graeber-work...

This is called planned obsolescence, and it's not just electronics. Practically every product nowadays are designed with a death date to perpetuate a repeating buying cycle from consumers. It's very real.

To learn more here's an interesting short video about it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j5v8D-alAKE

⬐ ornornor

I enjoyed the video, thanks

⬐ exodust

> This is called planned obsolescence

No kidding. It's only mentioned several times in the article.

I don't think you understand the extent of what's going on.

It's not that people are trying to make hardware last forever. It's that these devices are being deliberately designed to break down in a couple years. There are actual design decisions to force consumer behavior into purchasing new things every couple of years.

This doesn't just apply to things that follow moores law. Almost every product in existence nowadays is literally designed to break earlier then they usually do. Companies in certain cases actually spend more money creating a design that ensures that a product will break early so that consumers will buy a new thing within some years.

This includes cars, computers, phones, microwaves, lightbulbs. Etc.

Your personal need to buy a new car, new phone and new clothes is the result of market manipulation over the last 10 decades or so... morphing our culture from one where we kept tools around for years into one where we need to buy new things all the time. It was not like this at least 1 or 2 generations ago.

The result of this endless buying behavior is good for business and the economy but it has devastating effects on the environment and our resources.

Worth watching if you have 15 minutes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j5v8D-alAKE

The actual story of how companies colluded to make lightbulbs not last as long.

⬐ what-imright

Yes the lightbulb conspiracy and planned obsolescence. Here’s why that’s no longer a threat; it’s bad business. It’s a PR nightmare, and totally unnecessary. For instance my last (17 inch) MBP lasted a full decade including the battery without any service required. In fact it became a problem for me in that I was waiting for it to break so I could go by a new one. Apple learned that having products with planned obsolescence was bad for business and just stopped doing it. Other manufactures are still learning that, sure. But Apple simply ends updates to macOS for certain models and the user can decide if they want to keep running what they have, or update. Because what you’re really purchasing is software and updates, not the hardware. The hardware is just the packaging it is delivered in.

So what about those companies that still include planned obsolescence? You need to vote with your money. Simply don’t buy their product. If you do, if you’re fooled twice, that’s on you.

⬐ deltasevennine

>Apple learned that having products with planned obsolescence was bad for business and just stopped doing it.

This is False.

Apple is one of the companies that completely buys into planned obsolescence. They never stopped doing it. They still do it and they practically invented it for iphones and ipads.

If other phone companies are doing planned obsolescence then they most likely learned it from apple. Apple is one of the leaders of this concept.

>So what about those companies that still include planned obsolescence? You need to vote with your money. Simply don’t buy their product.

This doesn't account for how humans are irrational. Tons of irrational people buy shit without knowing their part of an irrational obsolescence cycle (aka you). For example, back in the day, apple shortened the lifetime of their phones by not allowing the battery to be replaced. Yet people still buy apple phones EVEN when OTHER companies offered phones with replaceable batteries.

Now the entire industry glues their batteries inside the phone. Apple is paving the way for planned obsolescence and irrational consumers buy in without ever realizing it. Consumers vote with their money the same way they voted for Trump.

>If you do, if you’re fooled twice, that’s on you.

If you buy apple products and you think they don't do planned obsolescence. Jokes on you.

⬐ what-imright

You cite no evidence. I have the opposite experience first hand. Phone manufactures have been copying Apple since the iPhone because they have no sense of innovation whatsoever. The batteries are cheaply replaceable, just not as easily. But your average Jo doesn't want to take a class in watchmaking to change a phone battery, he’ll work an extra shift and drop it at the Apple store. No people aren’t irrational in groups, they simply don’t want to preserve their products more than 5 years. They want to upgrade. Don’t care about supporting the used market. There’s no incentive. They get their money’s worth and move on. These are transient objects for humans passing through their years. A useful novelty, a pleasant experience, that’s all they want.

And not accepting a democratically elected official; again they voted for what was perceived to be in their interests. Trump incentivized. There was no mistake.

⬐ deltasevennine

>These are transient objects for humans passing through their years. A useful novelty, a pleasant experience, that’s all they want.

There is huge drive to position the products in this way. Consumers including you are manipulated to think this way for products that traditionally aren't thought of this way. It has become so ingrained that you can't tell the difference.

>You cite no evidence.

https://9to5mac.com/2021/03/01/apple-lawsuit-portugal-planne...

https://www.intego.com/mac-security-blog/apples-planned-obso...

https://appleinsider.com/articles/21/04/08/apple-to-pay-34m-...

https://nypost.com/2021/12/02/apple-may-soon-kill-off-older-...

https://www.idropnews.com/news/spanish-consumer-protection-g...

https://wccftech.com/apple-iphone-6-planned-obsolescence-thr...

https://www.makeuseof.com/apple-faces-750m-lawsuit-throttlin...

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/episode-244-apples-pla...

https://lawstreetmedia.com/news/tech/apple-receives-planned-...

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-42615378

https://www.icmrindia.org/casestudies/catalogue/Business%20E...

https://actions.sumofus.org/a/planned-obsolescence-is-why-ap...

https://dailytargum.com/article/2019/09/iphones-and-planned-...

https://durabilitymatters.com/planned-obsolescence/

https://www.shacknews.com/article/123046/apple-faces-new-law...

https://seekingalpha.com/article/4134160-apples-planned-obso...

https://dailycampus.com/2022/03/28/dull-and-new-the-truth-be...

https://www.vox.com/2017/12/22/16807056/apple-slow-iphone-ba...

https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN29U1BB

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/353685307_FROM_PLAN...

https://www.euroconsumers.org/activities/stop-planned-obsole...

https://www.howtogeek.com/681577/how-to-claim-your-cash-from...

https://undergradlawreview.blog.fordham.edu/consumer-protect...

https://www.europastar.com/news/1004088006-tech-trend-thursd...

https://thehustle.co/why-your-iphone-only-lasts-two-years-ma...

https://www.wallstreetmojo.com/planned-obsolescence/ (defines planned obsolescence. first example is apple)

https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Professionalism/Apple,_iPhone_...

If you would like more please let me know.

Also you know that video I sent you about the light bulbs? That was just the first part. The Video is about planned obsolescence in general and it talks about APPLE. Watch the whole thing.

> I have the opposite experience first hand.

Oh wow, Ok you win the debate.

⬐ what-imright

So what if it is true? Let’s take Apple’s flagship product the MacBook Pro @ $2500 USD. Now assuming a five year service that’s $500 a year, perfectly reasonable for a daily driver. What is that $1.35 per day. You want to benefit from this technology you’re going to need to compensate the people who design build and maintain it. They could easily charge an order of magnitude more to professionals.

I mean where did this fantasy come from that you’d benefit from hundreds of years of work for a couple thousand bucks? And that it would last forever and be maintained and updated by the manufacturer forevermore? What is this utopian dream you’ve dreamt up? Why don’t you take a pile of sand and a pool of oil and a lump of aluminum and go make your very own laptop? Oh right, you can’t do it without other people.

Veritasium has an awesome video on planned obsolescence here. [1] The problem in many cases isn't that it costs so much more to make products that last, but rather that making products that break is just way more profitable when you can effectively control the market to such a degree that you don't need to worry about some party pooper (1) coming in and making stuff that does genuinely last and (2) gaining significant marketshare.

The example of the light bulb cartel that had unquality assurance, spot testing, and a formal structure of fines and penalties for any members who made too long of lasting lightbulbs is just hilariously dystopic.

[1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j5v8D-alAKE

⬐ kodah

Profitable yes, but I think it's also part of our obsession with new, shiny hardware.

⬐ somenameforme

Incidentally what you're describing is precisely where the term of planned obsolescence [1] actually comes from!

In the early 20th century GM wanted to sell cars but the problem is that the market was already saturated with cars that were well functioning and built to last. And so they needed to develop a way to convince people to buy another thing that does effectively the same as some other thing they already own. And so instead of working on creating better cars, they worked on marketing, persuading people that round edges were better than square were better than round were better than square. Hey, look at this new color!

I quite like the quote referenced in Wiki, describing this all as "the systematic attempt of business to make us wasteful, debt-ridden, permanently discontented individuals."

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_obsolescence#History

⬐ derbOac

I've had this thought many times. Durable products are great but some become obsolete before they break, and a new purchase is made not because the old one isn't working, but because the new product is better (more efficient, more ergonomic, more functionality, more capacity, or whatever).

I guess all other things being equal, I'd still rather have something fully functional replaced because there's something new and preferable, than having to replace something that just breaks. But if the cost of the "lifetime" good is a lot more money due to its quality, than the replacement costs of the less durable good that you'd replace anyway due to improved function, it becomes harder to say. Even harder given uncertainty about all of the variables involved.

⬐ dx034

But I don't believe there's a fridge cartel. However, few customers spend more money to have a product with higher quality components that'd increase durability but not features. Using more expensive cables, valves, etc isn't really worth it for manufacturers unless customers are willing to pay extra.

But one of the major reasons is probably that products have become much more complex. A 30 year old fridge had few components that could break. Modern fridges are much more complex (because extra features sell well), thus more stuff that can break.

⬐ somenameforme

In modern times planned obsolescence is a normal part of business. The comments for the linked video [1] are awesome because it has so many people from different areas of industry (and academia) sharing anecdotes. So cartel? Probably not. Built to fail? Almost certainly. If we view things only through the lens of profit, then MTTF (mean time to fail) is just another curve to maximize against profit. If it's too short then your reputation will suffer and you'll lose money. If it's too long, then you're just leaving money on the table.

In our society the brilliant engineer is not the one who makes a thing that last for 50 years, but one that lasts for just long enough to avoid damaging your brand image, and also fails in a way that makes the consumer more incentivized to buy a new thing than try to repair their current one. The guy who came up with the idea of slowing old iPhones "to save battery life" is who the bonus+promotion is going to.

One of the biggest problems that has to be understood is that there is every incentive for money-driven governments to actively support planned obsolescence. Planned obsolescence drives factors that we believe are indicators of a strong economy, like GDP. If people were able to stop endlessly buying the same things over and over, the "economy" would take an absolutely massive hit. And with it there would also be declines in employment, tax revenue, and everything else. This is one of the many examples where the socially detrimental relationship between government and big business isn't just based around corruption.

Of course our system, for all its flaws, also has its benefits. Like the old Soviet joke goes, "It may be true that the Americans have the biggest skyscrapers, but we have the biggest transistors!"

[1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j5v8D-alAKE

This is a very good start.

If they did the same for screens, I wouldn't be surprised if the phone sales dropped to half or even less.

There is no way companies like Apple and Samsung will be OK with this. I expect big pushback from them.

If these steps go through, it will be interesting to see what other planned obsolescence [1] methods will these companies go for.

The one big tool Apple has is the full control of the software ecosystem. They can simply make newer apps unavailable for old phones for example. That will need to be tackled at some point.

[1] Veritasium video on planned obsolescence which is interesting: https://youtu.be/j5v8D-alAKE

⬐ aardvarkr

You’re picking on apple but they’re the best when it comes to this… I don’t know a single android phone that’s still usable after five years and still gets software updates. At a certain point the old hardware just can’t handle the new OS as new features get added. Planned obsolescence is certainly a thing but you’d be wise to lobby Samsung to add updates past two years before focusing your wrath on apple.

Edit: looks like Samsung bumped it up to 4 years of updates in 2019

⬐ ComradePhil

> they’re the best when it comes to this

When all other electronics companies always had user replaceable batteries, Apple was the company that decided to not do it. Because the regulatory bodies did nothing to fix this, other companies copied Apple because that was profitable for them. Apple is not only not the best, it is THE worst. In fact, it wouldn't have come to regulatory intervention if Apple had done the right thing in the first place.

> At a certain point the old hardware just can’t handle the new OS as new features get added

It doesn't necessarily need a "new OS". My fridge has the same OS it came with 8 years ago and it works fine, my raspberry pi 2 model b from 7 years ago works just as well as it did when I got it, with essentially the same OS. Even the first gen Raspberry Pis from 10 years ago work just as well. Most people don't necessarily need "new features". And if they do, they can make that choice and get a new device that does those features better.

> Samsung to add updates past two years before focusing your wrath on apple.

Samsung provides official updates for less time as Apple (4 vs roughly 7 years) but they provide an official way to unlock your bootloader and install other operating systems, so you can go with community supported ones. If phones themselves start lasting longer, there will be bigger demand for these operating systems and maybe even third party commercial ones which are easy to install, maybe with a subscription even.

BUT, just because Samsung does this NOW does not mean they will continue to do so. They have demonstrated that if some shitty company comes along and abuses their position for profits, Samsung is happy to copy the strategy.

I understand that this forum has people who work for Apple or some other company or have investments in them or have positioned themselves to benefit from their success... and have incentives to defend them for short term profits for themselves... and those ideas are also picked up by even those who have nothing to do with it... and I believe that is the biggest group of people. Which is why I think brining this out and discussing it is important.

Anyways, there are a lot of possibilities if we are to focus on quality long-term sustainable products. Just because the current market is filled with disposable short-term products designed to be replaced all the time, doesn't mean this is the only way.

⬐ toyg

Apple gets the stick because they effectively invented the model and pushed hard for it. Nokia-era batteries were replaceable, the the iPhone showed up and it all went to hell.

⬐ hn_throwaway_99

Exactly, and it wasn't just phones. It was pretty standard to be able to upgrade a ton of parts (memory, disk, boards) in a desktop PC until Apple taught the industry how to solder everything in place.

⬐ kaladin-jasnah

You can still upgrade a number of parts on desktop PCs (including the disks and memory). Do you mean laptops or am I unaware that desktop PCs could be upgraded even more in the past?

⬐ toyg

He probably meant laptops, but Apple does it even in their desktops these days.

⬐ hn_throwaway_99

To be clear, yes, on most PCs you can still upgrade RAM and disks, but on, for example, a Mac Mini you cannot, and other PC makers have been coming out with more "all-in-one" or "mini" designs that mimic Apple's lack of upgradability.

There are in fact LED bulbs that aren't overdriven to a deliberate and premature thermal death, but you can only buy them in Dubai: https://youtu.be/klaJqofCsu4

Lightbulbs have a long and very successful history of artificially driving lightbulb lifetimes down though a cartel system: https://youtu.be/j5v8D-alAKE

If you're building your own LED fixtures, you can probably underdrive the LEDs and run them at a radically cooler and slightly more efficient operating point, at a higher upfront cost: you need more LEDs for the same output.

⬐ rodmena

And the question is, should we follow the example for Software? I mean, look at FreeBSD! Wonderful OS, but a non-profitable model.

⬐ pksebben

Great video. Not too happy about the NordVPN shilling but hey look, free content.

I'm always wondering what we can do about this stuff. Especially in places where one couldn't easily find alternatives.

Planned obsolescence. Ford did exact same thing with their cars. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j5v8D-alAKE

Consumer grade products are deliberately designed to fail.

This is why: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j5v8D-alAKE&t=833s

If you're older, like really old, you can actually remember a time where products were of a much much higher durability before the industry figured out that low durability products were more profitable.

So in actuality some of the suggestions on that site aren't necessarily overkill as industrial products aren't deliberately engineered to fail.

⬐ kube-system

“Engineered to fail” and “planned obsolescence” are both pejorative rephrasings of “consumers prioritize price”

Engineering is an exercise in prioritization. If 90% of consumers buy the cheapest blender on the shelf, the blender made with the cheapest materials wins. Hobart still exists, and still makes good blenders. Consumers just started buying new designs that were more cost efficient.

If you look at the prices of mid twentieth century appliances in some old periodicals, and adjust for inflation, they’re about the price of commercial appliances today.

Before value-engineering, people didn’t have a kitchen full of appliances, they went without.

Value engineering is often criticized, but the plain truth is that it is primarily responsible for the high standards of living we enjoy today.

⬐ BeFlatXIII

Does the following scenario often happen with value engineering or is it just my mind playing tricks on me?

A product category exists at around $450–500 and there are plenty of household who do without. It gets value engineered down to a $100 product and sees mass adoption. However, 90% of the market for the original $500 product also chooses the half-broken $100 version, leading to the $500 quality moving upmarket (such that it now costs $1000) or disappearing altogether (or moving to a commercial appliance that is unfit for household use).

⬐ kube-system

For sure it does. But it’s also common for technologies to mature as they gain widespread use.

When I was a kid, something like a preset for popcorn, or a turntable, was an a feature you’d get on a very expensive microwave.

Many luxury features of yesteryear are now standard.

⬐ BeFlatXIII

I think that scenario may be why so many people have a hatred for value engineering: once cheaper becomes available, the market bifurcates into value-engineered wares for people who don’t care and the high-quality end becomes higher quality and three times the price it used to be. The choices of other customers deny you the continued availability of the optimal price+feature set for your needs & budget.

⬐ TeMPOraL

Yes, we hate value engineering because of this bifurcation (it's real, and I've been whining about it for a while too). But I see it somewhat differently than you described:

> value-engineered wares for people who don’t care

You say it like there is a choice involved here. There isn't. This is something that needs repeating - customers choose out of what's available on the market, not out of the space of all possible products. So all products that are hard to make and sell yourself are primarily vendor-driven.

If a market bifurcates like this, I can't announce my preference for the missing middle at all. The split may have happened against my preferences, or it may have happened before I cared, or it may have happened before I was even in the market for that product category. But once it happened, people who'd prefer something better than barely-fit-for-purpose can't get it.

> high-quality end becomes higher quality and three times the price it used to be

If it becomes higher quality. As you mentioned higher up, it frequently becomes different, as it's no longer targeting a large audience.

> The choices of other customers deny you the continued availability

Yes, but again, what choices? These things stick in a feedback loop, a self-fulfilling prophecy. And it doesn't take people choosing the lower-tier option. It takes a company choosing a somewhat lower quality this year than they did the last year, because if done gradually people won't be able to quickly tell (the very job of marketing is to confuse customers about this).

I hate "revealed preferences", I consider them mostly bullshit given the lack of actual choice - but if we want to frame the situation like this: the bifurcation doesn't require that most of the middle-tier consumers "actually prefer" the cheaper option over the middle one. A company will attempt this even if it meant losing middle-tier customers altogether, as long as they believe the expanding lower-tier customer base will make up for it.

What's even more maddening is the interplay with economies of scale - the middle-tier product could've gotten better and cheaper over time, if its broad customer base wasn't stolen by the low-quality option. So the households that couldn't afford the quality option yesterday, would be able to afford it tomorrow - and today would be making use of used ones, because there is such a thing as a market for used goods, which works best when items are durable. But companies often do try to sabotage it, too.

Also: the downwards quality spiral doesn't stop at a reasonable point, it stops at the lowest point where the customers can be duped en-masse, unless stopped by regulatory means either. I'll happily argue that, for most products, the lowest-priced options shouldn't exist in the first place, because they deliver negative value (after accounting for total use costs, with possible future replacement, which most people don't) and endless frustration. I see them as an environmental disaster.

⬐ kube-system

If the missing-middle is, in fact, a real consumer desire, then you’re identified a market failure that might be a good startup idea.

And I’m not saying this sarcastically, many wildly successful businesses have been built on finding untapped markets that established players have missed. There is always room for improvement. The question is whether that improvement is strong enough to change people’s buying decisions.

⬐ BeFlatXIII

Even if the missing middle is a real consumer demand, it may not be enough of a real demand to achieve the economics of scale to be profitable (or it is profitable but with 15% margin instead of 30% and the bean counters can’t stand that).

⬐ TeMPOraL

Exactly. There's a ratchet effect to this. Economies of scale mean it's easier to keep something going than it is to start it anew once it's gone.

⬐ gregmac

The ironic part of that is that often people will end up spending more on crappy stuff, as they end up buying several {thing} over the time period one more expensive one would have lasted. This is also an example of why it's expensive to be poor.

I did this with office chairs. I was buying a new mediocre chair every few years before finally buying a Herman Miller several years ago. It was expensive compared to anything else I'd owned, but (1) it's an order-of-magnitude better chair, and (2) I had probably spent about the same money on several crappier chairs over the prior decade. I am still sitting in this chair now, and it's still just as good as the day I bought it.

⬐ teddyh

A.k.a. “Vimes’ Boots”

⬐ kube-system

It depends on duty cycle.

If you’re often using a computer chair (as many of us do use in a commercial setting), you probably legitimately need a chair with a high duty cycle.

Meanwhile, I have a $7 toaster that’s 10 years old. I don’t make toast very often. Even if my toaster fails today, a low-end commercial toaster wouldn’t pay itself off over my lifetime.

Poor people also have alternatives. Much of the world doesn’t worry about the repair bills for their clothes dryer or their dishwasher, because they hang their clothes on a line and wash their dishes in a basin.

⬐ Sebb767

> “Engineered to fail” and “planned obsolescence” are both pejorative rephrasings of “consumers prioritize price”

No. Of course, a part of potential lifetime loss is due to price. Manufacturing a case in plastic instead of carbon fiber is simply far cheaper and most consumer will go for that. However, we see cheaped out components even in high-priced or prosumer gear, while the existence of this market already pretty much proves that price is not everything to every consumer. Additionally, there are many examples of behaviors that save no money or are actually more expensive, but help the bottom line by forcing people to buy new (see the Phoebus cartell [0] or the slowing down of older iPhones by Apple).

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoebus_cartel

⬐ kube-system

Yes, true planned obsolescence has happened. But it’s a lot less common than people think, and often prohibited by law.

Even the “slowing down of old iPhones” is an example of that. This was a bug fix for crashing due to current demand that exceeded the battery’s capability.

⬐ neonological

Most people aren't even aware of planned obsolescence. There's also very little data on how much of this actually happening as no company will admit to this practice. So really no one can make a statement on whether it's common or uncommon without a big data gathering effort.

The statement we can make that is very realistic is that companies are incentivised to do do "planned obsolescence" and because of this "planned obsolescence" has happened, is happening and will continue to happen in the future.

⬐ Grustaf

> “Engineered to fail” and “planned obsolescence” are both pejorative rephrasings of “consumers prioritize price”

Yes, and prioritizing price is short term and stupid. Prioritize total cost instead and buy high quality items, it's much cheaper in the long run.

Also, high standard of living is not about having your kitchen "full of appliances", it's about health, education and security.

⬐ kube-system

Value engineering is not a idea known only to kitchen appliances engineers. This was just the example at hand.

Many of the products and services that people buy to support their health, education, security, etc have been made more accessible by value engineering either directly, or in their supply chain.

⬐ Grustaf

Sure, but when is having lots of cheap stuff related to standard of living? I still maintain that access to healthy food, good education, healthcare and security are what determines standard of living, not the amount of stuff you have.

⬐ kube-system

The human activities that enable someone to have access to healthy food, good education, healthcare and security make use of value-engineered products.

⬐ neonological

There's no doubt "value engineering" occurs. Your claim is that early obsolescence is not planned but rather a side effect of value engineering.

There's nothing in the universe that stops a feature that meets a design goal of lowering value from also meeting the design goal of planned obsolescence. So it's 100 percent possible that a company still has two design goals: making a cheaper product and obsolescescing that product.

So if you claim that it's basically not happening. Tell me in what way is a company not incentivised to plan the early obsolescence of a product and what evidence do you have that this is basically not happening as a deliberate design decision?

Your evidence is only an example that a company can both meet the goal of obsolescence and lower value with a singular feature of cheaper materials. I have stated that this is not evidence because a company can still have the design goal of obsolescence while meeting that goal with a singular design feature intended to make the product cheaper as well. You need to counter this reasoning because it invalidated your evidence.

⬐ kube-system

The phrase "planned obsolescence" implies and is a claim of intent. The obsolescence wasn't "planned" if it was simply a side-effect of value engineering... it was simply consequential. There are some proven instances of obsolescence being planned, but this is by far an exception, not the norm.

The broad root claim above that "Consumer grade products are deliberately designed to fail." is the assertion with insufficient evidence. The video attached to that claim has a few valid examples, but a few examples over the past century is not indicative of the current state of the entire manufacturing industry... especially when there is a textbook engineering practice that does explain the same.

⬐ neonological

> The phrase "planned obsolescence" implies and is a claim of intent. The obsolescence wasn't "planned" if it was simply a side-effect of value engineering... it was simply consequential. There are some proven instances of obsolescence being planned, but this is by far an exception, not the norm.

You are missing the point. I am claiming that ONE feature can be built to meet TWO objectives. One for value engineering and the other for planned obsolescence. That would make NEITHER of the two objectives a side effect.

Example: Airplanes are painted with colored paint both to prevent the metal from degrading AND to give the plane a better aesthetic. ONE feature meeting TWO objectives.

>The broad root claim above that "Consumer grade products are deliberately designed to fail." is the assertion with insufficient evidence. The video attached to that claim has a few valid examples, but a few examples over the past century is not indicative of the current state of the entire manufacturing industry... especially when there is a textbook engineering practice that does explain the same.

My broad root claim is that the practice has happened, is happening and will happen.

My evidence for this is examples of this actually occurring. And real incentives for this practice to exist.

I made no claim about how widespread the practice is. That is more your claim. Your claim is basically saying that the amount of entities practicing planned obsolescence is so minuscule that it's basically negligible.

Your evidence for your claim is that value engineering exists in a text book. That's it. You know what else exists in certain text books? How crypto works. Does that make crypto frauds and scams negligible? No.

No doubt your claim is hard to prove, the burden of proof for you is astronomically harder than it is for my point. But then think about it... why do you hold strong opinions and stances on topics that are almost impossible to prove?

⬐ Grustaf

Really? It’s definitely not true for education, good education is essentially completely independent of technology, and it seems to me that healthy food at reasonable prices is more a question of mechanized agriculture and supply chains.

Healthcare, maybe I can see it, but not really. The proliferation of single use stuff in hospitals for example seems like a different thing than cheap bicycles and shoddy clothes that last a single season.

Maybe I misunderstood what value engineering is, but I don’t really see how the philosophy behind cheap consumer goods is very related to those things.

⬐ kube-system

> good education is essentially completely independent of technology

It can be, to a point, but most developed societies have schooling systems that use various types of supplies and equipment in the course of education. More affordable transportation, facilities, supplies, and equipment is generally good for students.

> Healthcare, maybe I can see it, but not really. The proliferation of single use stuff in hospitals for example seems like a different thing than cheap bicycles and shoddy clothes that last a single season.

Well, yes, those are very different things. But, cheap disposable medical supplies both lower barriers to access those things. Not only does this mean that someone who is low-income might be able to more easily access something like, say, an oral thermometer ... but it also means that things like equipment with a high infection risk can be disposed of instead of reused. Many hospitals, for instance, have started switching to disposable surgical tools, because that's now a possibility, and it decreases infection risk.

The bottom line is, cheap stuff enables more people to have more tools at hand to solve problems.

⬐ convolvatron

the shop vac pro i bought had a one-time current fuse soldered down (not replacable with a holder). over time all of these machines get a little friction in the fan assembly and blow this fuse.

yes, you could argue that making this fuse replaceable would add $0.05, but we all know that its not because 99% of the purchasers wont crack it open, figure out whats going on, and short the fuse.

you can argue that by keeping the volume up shop vac can lower prices. but i dont think you can argue that efficiency has been gained.

⬐ yarcob

If that fuse blows, does swapping it help? Wouldn't the blown fuse typically mean the fan bearings are broken and a new fuse would just blow soon again?

⬐ convolvatron

i my case I shorted it and have been using the vacuum for another 10 years. there was dust in the fan bearings, but i sluiced it out with mineral oil.

⬐ yarcob

Aren't you worried about the fan stalling and catching fire?

⬐ convolvatron

eh. even if it takes you a few seconds to wonder why its not spinning up they usually dont burn out right away. and if they do there is a little puff of smoke, nary even a pop.

⬐ kube-system

So, the end result of having a soldered fuse was exactly the same as a socketed one: it was successfully repaired. I don’t see the justification for the extra BOM item.

For the 99% of people who don’t attempt electrical repairs on their vacuums, that fuse socket would be sitting inside of a vacuum in a landfill.

Drive around any US suburb on trash night and pick up a couple of appliances. Most of them either still work 100% or have trivially fixable issues. People (US consumers especially) don’t fix stuff.

Don’t get me wrong, I love fixing things myself. I’ve probably saved $10,000 over the past 5 years by fixing things people were throwing away instead of buying. The ease with which this is possible to do demonstrates how few people attempt repairs themselves.

⬐ neonological

>So, the end result of having a soldered fuse was exactly the same as a socketed one: it was successfully repaired. I don’t see the justification for the extra BOM item.

You joking? You realize houses and cars have socketed fuses that can be replaced almost turnkey. This is a simple solution to build into the product a UI that let's the user know a socket was blown and allow the user to replace a fuse like replacing a AA battery. FUSES are designed to fail and be replaced. Making those FUSES inaccessible is ALSO a design choice because it's contradictory.

There was a point in time where every phone had a replaceable battery. You think that replaceable batteries disappeared because companies wanted to save costs? Sockets for batteries have been part of the design philosophy for consumer products for decades, the fact that these sockets are removed from phones is not a cost saving measure.

This issue is much more widespread than you think: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SrDEtSlqJC4

⬐ kube-system

My above point is was that cost is an example of an engineering tradeoff, not that it is the only engineering tradeoff.

Phone batteries are designed to be replaceable. They’re internal because of design considerations, not cost. In fact, nearly all cell phone batteries are secured with removable adhesive because they’re specifically intended to be replaceable.

Homes have circuit breakers (fuses haven’t been mainstream for a while) because the load is not predefined, and can be occasionally exceeded by the end user. This is not the case for a consumer appliance with a known load. An unexpectedly high load is an indication that another component has also failed. There’s some diagnosis that should be done when replacing a fuse on a system with an unexplained over current situation.

⬐ neonological

Your logic doesn't make sense for why socketed fuses even exist. So why do cars have socketed fuses then? Do cars have unexpected loads? Not nearly as much as houses. Cars have socketed fuses same as houses because fuses are designed to fail and be replaced. This is the logical intention of fuses.

Making something that is designed to fail and be replaced (fuses) inaccessible is a contradictory design philosophy... Unless this design philosophy is INTENDED to make the product fail. You place a component designed to fail inside a vac and make it inaccessible then that means you are designing the vac to fail.

Phone batteries are not designed to be replaceable this is a lie or pure stupidity. You realize that glue or adhesive is not designed to be removed right? It's designed to be permanent. Screws and socketed components are designed to be removed.

Additionally the iPhone isn't even designed to be opened. It's extremely hard to open that device and it's completely obvious the reason is because that device is designed to both fail in a certain time frame and only be serviceable by apple technicians. Here's how easy it is to "replace" a battery you claim was glued into the phone as a design decision to be "replaceable": https://youtu.be/gkCyl7kRGns

>My above point is was that cost is an example of an engineering tradeoff, not that it is the only engineering tradeoff

Who in the universe isn't aware that tradeoffs outside of cost don't exist? Kind of useless if the point is to obvious. How about you address my point in the fact that deliberate decisions were made to make products fail and that these failures are not design tradeoffs.

A thinner phone for an irreplaceable battery in the iPhone is not actually a tradeoff. In fact if you look inside the phone they very much could've screwed the battery in without increasing the thickness of the phone.

You realize that Steve Jobs once said the iPod was designed to only last a year?

⬐ kube-system

> Your logic doesn't make sense for why socketed fuses even exist. So why do cars have socketed fuses then?

1. Cars cost 600x what a shop vac does, so more people attempt to fix them.

2. Some fuses in cars are, in fact, not socketed. Particularly for the higher-current and more dangerous circuits where unexpected overloads are of a greater safety concern and are less likely to be due to fluke events. For instance, fusible links[0]. It would certainly be possible for automotive designers to design a socketed fuse in place of a fusible link, but the cost to do it would be 'high' relative to the frequency of failure, the risk, and the likelihood of user-serviceability. Again, an engineering trade-off.

[0]: https://m.roadkillcustoms.com/understanding-fusible-links/

> Do cars have unexpected loads?

Yes, every car I've ever been in has accessory circuits that a user could easily overload. And I have done so myself many times. Also, there are a lot of electrical parts on a vehicle with limited lifetime that are prone to mechanical failure: relays, bulbs, accessory actuators, etc. When these items fail, they can stall/short and cause an overcurrent condition.

You wouldn't throw away a $30k car because a bent pin on a $1 tail light bulb shorted out. You'd replace the $0.10 fuse and get another $1 tail light bulb. But, you'd probably throw away a $25 blender when the $18 motor laminations short out, because the failure would cost more to fix than the entire product is worth, especially if you're paying labor to fix it.

Fuses exist to fail when some other failure condition happens. Many failures on a car are economical to fix. A blender is totaled if nearly anything happens to it.

> Phone batteries are not designed to be replaceable this is a lie or pure stupidity. You realize that glue or adhesive is not designed to be removed right?

Mainstream phones (iPhone, Samsung, etc) are typically designed with adhesive that has removal tabs which deactivate the adhesive and allow someone to remove it cleanly. They could simply leave this feature out if they didn't want it to be replaceable, but they didn't. Their intentional adding of this feature is evidence that they do intend for the battery to be replaced. Example: https://guide-images.cdn.ifixit.com/igi/yAxAcOuZkVKD1xAY.hug...

> Additionally the iPhone isn't even designed to be opened. It's extremely hard to open that device and it's completely obvious the reason is because that device is designed to both fail in a certain time frame and only be serviceable by apple technicians.

It's hard to open as a result of the design/engineering trade off. Just because it's hard to open doesn't automatically imply that someone must have plotted to make it hard to open. It just means that end-user serviceability wasn't a high-priority design feature. It's hard to open simply because glue is a cheap way to make something thin, waterproof, and cheap to manufacture. If Apple really wanted to waterproof their device while intentionally make it unserviceable, the electronics industry has way better ways to do that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potting_(electronics)

> Who in the universe isn't aware that tradeoffs outside of cost don't exist? Kind of useless if the point is to obvious. How about you address my point in the fact that deliberate decisions were made to make products fail and that these failures are not design tradeoffs.

Your point is valid for instances of proven malice, but one should not assume malice where a valid alternative explanation exists.

⬐ neonological

1. People would like to fix vacs too. Cheaper doesn't mean everybody just replaces a vac every year.

2. Fusible links are designed that way for safety. The hood of a car is designed to be opened so that even a fusible link can be fixed.

3. When I asked: Do care have unexpected loads? I answered that question right after I asked it. The question was rhetorical.

I'd rather replace a fuse in a 25$ blender then buy a new one. But either way, you wouldn't throw away a $100 dollar vac or a $500 dollar iPhone just because a $0.10 fuse shorted out.

>Mainstream phones (iPhone, Samsung, etc) are typically designed with adhesive that has removal tabs which deactivate the adhesive and allow someone to remove it cleanly.

True. BUT these batteries are still extremely hard to remove as they are locked into the case. They were designed to be hard to remove so that apple service people can repair the few phones that statistically beat the warranty.

We both know that the iphone is basically designed with a battery that is so hard to remove that it can be basically classified as not removable by the average layman. Very different from the way all phones use to have removable batteries.

>It's hard to open as a result of the design/engineering trade off. Just because it's hard to open doesn't automatically imply that someone must have plotted to make it hard to open. It just means that end-user serviceability wasn't a high-priority design feature.

That's my point. How do you know it's a tradeoff? How do you know it's not a design decision? Basically Apple is incentivized to make the phone hard to open. Additionally all apple policies of "repairing" a phone basically make "repairing" the phone cost as much as buying a new one. With every policy surrounding the phone is positioned, it's more than likely that the decisions are deliberate.

>Your point is valid for instances of proven malice, but one should not assume malice where a valid alternative explanation exists.

My point is valid for instances of suspected malice. The motive exists. Do you trust someone trying to sell you a new crypto just because there's no evidence of malice and that an alternative explanation exists? No. It's stupid to believe there is no malice.

It is far wiser to assume malice exists wherever profitable incentive exists, such is the nature of business.

⬐ kube-system

The 1% of people who try to fix their shop vac are probably the same 1% who are comfortable using a soldering iron. Reducing part count is value engineering 101.

The number of consumers who buy a shop vac based on whether it has a socketed fuse is negligible. It’s simply a feature with zero commercial value. It’s all cost with zero benefit.

⬐ neonological

The cost is negligible, mere cents. A decision such as this is indeed done to deliberately shorten the life span.

⬐ kube-system

For one item maybe, but every item on a BOM for a mass manufactured product is (hopefully) multiplied by many thousands or millions of units.

If these types of features mattered to consumers, then one would expect we’d see success from the companies who prioritize it. These companies and products do exist, but they are niche.

⬐ neonological

These features do matter to consumers.

What consumer wouldn't want a vac that can be fixed easily by putting a new fuse in a socket? The issue is the consumer doesn't know about this possible fix. The Company Engineers this fact into the product AND into the marketing and into the warranty length. Common sense. A human is irrational and lacks knowledge, but a human made aware of his irrationality will usually choose the rational choice.

Companies are just taking advantage of a consumers lack of knowledge, awareness, and intelligence. If you were perfectly aware of two competing vacs and all the actual technical specifications of course the one with a replaceable fuse would be counted as a positive feature.

The problem is that companies that try to market the fuse as a feature will have a hard time communicating this fact to the consumer especially. Thus it is in the interest of every company to engineer shorter lifespans into their products as consumers can't see past 2 years at the point of sale.

Industrial products on the other hand are usually massed purchased and reliability is measured from an accounting perspective. This makes industrial owners more knowledgeable and able to make more rational choices as they have quantitative metrics that effect their profits during accounting time.

⬐ TeMPOraL

> It’s all cost with zero benefit.

Only because a good chunk of the true costs are externalized. If the vendor would have to pay for disposal of their product, suddenly that socketed fuse would become a cost-cutting measure.

⬐ kube-system

Yes, of course. Companies(/people) make choices based on the laws they are subject to.

⬐ neonological

Did you watch the video? It's not just about cheap materials. It's literal design decisions made for the express reason so that the product will fail.

The iphone not having a replaceable battery is a design decision, it doesn't make the phone cheaper.

You are taking two independent phenomenons and trying to group them together as if they are the same phenomenon. Yes making a product cheaper has the side effect of reducing its' lifetime but the video and what I'm talking about is DIRECT engineering decisions for the purpose of shortening lifetimes NOT making things cheaper.

You obviously didn't watch the video.

⬐ kube-system

I did watch it. (And I have watched it once before years ago.) Design is also an engineering constraint. All of these constraints are interconnected. None are wholly independent.

The “fashion” argument is particularly silly. Fashion and style are concepts that have existed as a part of human nature longer than manufacturing, corporations, or even money itself have even existed.

Having the latest flashy accessories to show off to potential mates is something that was literally invented (at least) 75,000 years ago by Neanderthals, not GM or Apple.

⬐ neonological

>I did watch it. (And I have watched it once before years ago.)

This is a total and deliberate lie. The video came out march 2021. There is no way you watched this years ago. You didn't watch it at all. I recommend you actually watch it.

⬐ kube-system

I misspoke -- but I assure you I subscribe to Veritasium and watch all of his videos.

⬐ neonological

> Design is also an engineering constraint. All of these constraints are interconnected. None are wholly independent.

Did I say they weren't interdependent? My response to you LITERALLY stated an interdependency.

Also when does "design" being an engineering constraint have to do with anything? Are you talking about aesthetic design choices made by an artist/product designer that an engineer has to take into account? You should be more specific because engineers "design" solutions around constraints as well, and the statement makes no sense when viewed from the engineering perspective.

>The “fashion” argument is particularly silly. Fashion and style are concepts that have existed as a part of human nature longer than manufacturing, corporations, or even money itself have even existed.

What fashion argument? You say the "fashion" argument is "silly" but I'm over here thinking, what "fashion" argument? I NEVER made such an argument. What's silly here is that you're talking about some weird imaginary tangent that I never even touched upon.

If you actually did watch that video or even read my posts I'm thinking you read it really quickly and you skimmed that video. I think you skipped some words and sentences and made a huge assumptions about what I'm talking about.

>

The part of my response that you didn't even address is that I'm saying FAILURE is engineered into the design DELIBERATELY. It's not a side effect of creating a cheaper product. It's a actual design choice making the consumer more likely to buy a new product.

You realize that the filament for those bulbs weren't picked because the filament was cheaper. A deliberate R&D effort was created to pick filaments that were roughly the same cost but failed quicker. That's counter to your entire argument. R&D costs money so costs are actually INCREASED to make the product fail quicker.

⬐ yourapostasy

I've learned through experience that people like kube-system are blinkered in this context [1], and best routed around. This is usually by conscious but not obtusely malicious choice. The shrugged-shoulders, learned-helplessness, "of course it's that way, what can anyone do about it" choice. This is the mass-market default, I wouldn't get too worked up over it; you won't convince them of a position until it benefits their personal scope of attention. You don't need kube-system's consent for change, they'll go along with pretty much any status quo, go ahead and find the levers of change you want to see created and yank them.

An aspect of planned obsolescence I don't see discussed much is the built-in incentives for factories (giant sinks of capex) and how we conceive manufacturing in general to lead the cart before the horse in our current dominant economic paradigm. They and their logistical tail including the staff are so expensive to re-tool and re-skill that it leads to many perverse incentives. There are vanishingly few US anvil and vise factories left because they made such a good product up to and into the 20th century that when industrialization's per capita saturation curve inevitably flattened, their market nosedived as their products were literally outliving their initial customer base. Entire manufacturing ecosystems are built around trying to avoid that outcome, and it is nearly impossible to a priori tell whether an industry in a nation is hidebound avoiding necessary technological change or undergoing another anvil and vise experience.

I have some hope in automation and cell-based flexible manufacturing though I strongly suspect the economic case for both is not nearly as straightforward as the narrative exposed to laypeople like us makes it out to be. I think we're missing quite a few pieces of the puzzle (design-to-floor-changes automation being one example) before we can tell the story that the flexible industry/factory narrative would like to tell.

[1] I'm carefully trying NOT to slight kube-system here. There is only so much attention any one individual can apply to any given context. The situation could easily be reversed between kube-system and you in a different context. We need cognitive density in all the wide-ranging human endeavors our species engages in, there is room enough for everyone.

⬐ neonological

>I'm carefully trying NOT to slight kube-system here. There is only so much attention any one individual can apply to any given context. The situation could easily be reversed between kube-system and you in a different context. We need cognitive density in all the wide-ranging human endeavors our species engages in, there is room enough for everyone.

In the arena of the internet I wouldn't worry too much about slighting people. It's all fair game, they can "slight" you too. This necessity to be overly polite over moderately polite so you can avoid hurting someones precious feelings is overblown on the internet. First of all the feeling will pass, second of all it's the internet, you're anonymous so the chances of permanent damage is basically zero.

Worrying about slighting someone hinders you from getting your point across, it also stops the other party from emotionally engaging with you. Conflict often fuels the fire of a debate giving the opponent incentive to try to expose every single logical flaw in your argument.

The internet is the perfect arena for this kind of heated discussion. It also goes both ways. If I have a wrong idea that I think is right, by god I will fight for that idea to be right until all possible logical alternatives are decimated and even then I'll only admit that I'm wrong 5 years later. Still my efforts allowed the other party to strengthen their arguments and expose flaws in my arguments and the discussion is open to public record. Even more important my attempts at vindicating myself could actually expose a real flaw in other parties argument, thereby maintaining a healthy dose of scientific doubt.

My philosophy is don't try to deny your own human bias. Be aware of it, and revel in it. You and others were naturally selected to have this bias because it helped you survive. Trying to deny it and be above this base emotion could hinder your competitiveness in the game of life.

⬐ kube-system

> Did I say they weren't interdependent? My response to you LITERALLY stated an interdependency.

I am referring to:

>> The iphone not having a replaceable battery is a design decision, it doesn't make the phone cheaper.

>> You are taking two independent phenomenons and trying to group them together as if they are the same phenomenon.

>What fashion argument?

14:25 in the video. :D

> The part of my response that you didn't even address is that I'm saying FAILURE is engineered into the design DELIBERATELY. It's not a side effect of creating a cheaper product.

Yes, there are examples of this deliberately happening. However, there are reasons why it happens as a side-effect of the engineering process, and this is an exponentially more common scenario (because it is common engineering process!).

⬐ Jiro

Something "engineered to fail" may be cheaper because materials that don't last so long are cheaper.

But it's also possible that the material isn't cheaper at all, but the manufaturer gains because if the part wears out sooner they can sell a replacement sooner. That isn't a case of "consumers prioritize price".

For instance, manufacturers have tried to sell printers which refuse to print when there is still quite a bit of ink left in the cartridge. Printers which refuse to let you use all the ink are engineered to fail, but they aren't cheaper than printers that do let you use all the ink. The manufacturer is relying on the fact that obtaining good information is costly; testing printers to rigorously prove this takes resources, and even when it gets discovered, many consumers won't know that the printer is doing this, so they won't use that information in comparing otherwise similar-looking printers.

⬐ kube-system

The “razors and blades model” you’re referring to isn’t really the same thing as obsolescence. People know these items have consumables when they purchase them, and the original item doesn’t “break”, it just inherently requires another product.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Razor_and_blades_model

⬐ Jiro

The ink cartridge isn't actually consumed. The printer falsely reports that the cartridge is consumed so that the consumer has to purchase another one.

Veritasium did a story on this: https://youtu.be/j5v8D-alAKE

Veritasium made a video that reviews the history and presents the topic in an engaging way.

"This is why we can't have nice things" - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j5v8D-alAKE

> Light bulbs don’t illuminate.

I find this one especially funny as it's pretty much the lack of regulation that made the 'old' bulbs burn out much too quickly [1].

And before someone says "but my LED bulbs keep burning out", also the free-market/lack of regulation. To see how they should be built watch Clive on how bulbs are made for Dubai[2].

1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j5v8D-alAKE

2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=klaJqofCsu4

⬐ josephcsible

Yes, those Dubai bulbs are better than the ones we're all stuck with. But isn't that because of a regulation rather than because of the market? In particular, when Dubai accepted those kind of bulbs, didn't it prevent the manufacturer from selling them anywhere else?

⬐ kenmacd

> But isn't that because of a regulation rather than because of the market?

Yes. Sorry, that was what I was trying to convey. The 'market' brought us incandescent bulbs that were purpose built to fail much earlier . The market brought us LED bulbs that overdrive fewer LEDs resulting in them burning out and running less efficiently.

Dubai, in essence, went the regulation road and has longer-lasting more-efficient bulbs because of it.

⬐ josephcsible

That's not what I meant. My point was that Dubai has a regulation that prohibits their efficient LEDs from being sold anywhere else. If not for that regulation, then the efficient Dubai bulbs could be bought worldwide.

⬐ kenmacd

I don't understand. How does Dubai control what other sovereign nations citizens are allowed to buy? And even if they did, why would they do so?

⬐ josephcsible

I assume it was by saying something to the effect of "if you want to do business here, then you have to follow our rules globally" to the manufacturer, and that one of the rules was that they not sell those bulbs elsewhere. And I don't know why they did, but doesn't Clive's video say that they are only allowed to be sold in Dubai?

⬐ kenmacd

Not as far as I know. It wouldn't make sense for them to push for more manufacturers to make more efficient bulbs but then try to prevent them from being sold elsewhere. What would they gain from such an agreement?

And there's not really anything special about these bulbs. I mean they have more redundancy and run the leds at lower current, but there's nothing special you could claim ownership to. There's no new coating or led technology or anything, so even if such an agreement was made it doesn't seem like anything would prevent another manufacturer from making them.

From Clive's video description on youtube:

>> These lamps are currently only available in Dubai. The likelihood of them appearing elsewhere is limited by the fact that they are designed to last a long time, which isn't profitable for the manufacturers.

It's profitable for Philips to make them for Dubai because regulations mean there's no one selling a worse but cheaper version. If Philips sold the bulbs for $1 more in your local shop you'd buy the cheaper version because both say "last's forever", you can't tell the difference, and you've never even heard of tDubai bulbs ('you' being an average shopper).

If other countries created regulations around the efficiency level and how long the bulbs had to last then we'd likely end up with a similar bulb. We'd pay a little more per bulb, but save over the long term. As it is now there's more profit from multiple angles on making worse bulbs.

The cartels were for incandescent light bulbs [1], rather than other kinds of lighting. It's harder for cartels to exist now, given that we can buy alternatives from other countries on Ebay and AliExpress.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j5v8D-alAKE

⬐ nlqp

In Europe most bulbs in the stores are expensive Philips, Osram, etc. products. Ikea bulbs are rebranded and also expensive.

You can buy on Ebay of course, but that is not what most consumers do. I don't consider it competition if all brick and mortar stores do the same.

⬐ TeMPOraL

Who buys bulbs in the stores when there's a hundred thousand small vendors on local e-commerce sites, selling super cheap LED bulbs imported straight from Shenzhen?

(The race to the bottom in LED lighting is another environmental issue, though. The cheap bulbs I see people buy are mostly garbage that's barely fit for purpose, and in a sane world would not be allowed to leave the assembly floor.)

⬐ tap10

The average cost of buying something online, especially from China directly, is:

- At least 1 hour of searching, market research, vetting the vendor (insofar that is possible at all).

- Staying at home for multiple days when the delivery is expected, while frantically checking incorrect package trackers.

- Alternatively, having the package delivered to the post office. Going there and waiting with 50 other people takes 2 hours.

- If the vendor is dishonest or the package delivery fails, add another 4 hours at least.

So the answer to your question is: Everyone who does not want to jump through these hoops or values their time.

⬐ TeMPOraL

I talked about local vendors reselling things from China. Pretty much their entire value is in shielding the buyer from the inconveniences you listed.

The real experience of a typical person I know is:

- Go to your local eBay equivalent, look for LED lightbulbs, sort by price.

- Pick the cheapest offer that doesn't look super-sketchy, place an order for half a dozen and pay for it, all with a few clicks.

- Wait 2-5 days, depending on seasons and phase of the moon.

- Depending on the delivery method you picked in step 2, a courier comes and brings you a package, or you visit the parcel locker 2-5 minutes from your home at a time that's convenient for you.

- Repeat the process when the cheapass bulbs invariably all burn out within a year.

At least in Europe, shopping on-line is a solved problem.

⬐ Aerroon

Maybe this works in the US or some of the large European countries, but that has not been my experience. Local online stores are such a poor experience and unreliable that I'll usually get a product faster from Amazon.de than my own country, despite the former taking almost a week to get to me.

It took me over a month to buy a harddrive that was shown as in stock, but it really wasn't. When it did become available 2 weeks later, they wanted more money than what I had already paid them.

Online shopping is a joke here.

⬐ comprambler

Yeah LEDs themselves last for a long time, but the integrated ac-dc transformers still fail over time whether due to poorly made parts, soldering flaws or cheaply made power inrush circuits causing local voltage variances to destroy sensitive components.

⬐ coding_coffee

This video is about stuff: light bulbs, printers, phones and why they aren't better

⬐ fireattack

Cool video as usual.

I do have a question from the other side though: what about the concerns of "too good" products making workers losing their jobs or companies losing too much profit to operate, as mentioned in that movie?

Of course I'm not worried about Apple at all as it has find other ways to deal with it ("dynamic obsolescence" or style changes as mentioned in the video), but this does may still affect some other businesses for real.

After another thought, I guess it's really no difference from the classic "machines have made jobs obsolete" argument, but I haven't put enough critical thinking into that either.