• Smogon Premier League is here and the team collection is now available. Support your team!

Planned Obsolescense

Umbreon Dan said:
[Apple]... is the world leader of planned obsolescence.
Click to expand...

That would actually be the lightbulb companies. At least, the previous generations of them.

It's not problematic to make a lightbulb that works for a hundred years. All it takes is a strong glow wire and a solid glass bulb. However, lightbulbs were/are made with hair-thin tungsten wires. They work well for a while, then they snap. Then you have to go buy a new lightbulb. It's perfectly possible to make them better, but oh, so much less profitable.

Next on the list would be the guys making printer cartridges. Then possibly Apple.
 
Cobraroll said:
That would actually be the lightbulb companies. At least, the previous generations of them.

It's not problematic to make a lightbulb that works for a hundred years. All it takes is a strong glow wire and a solid glass bulb. However, lightbulbs were/are made with hair-thin tungsten wires. They work well for a while, then they snap. Then you have to go buy a new lightbulb. It's perfectly possible to make them better, but oh, so much less profitable.

Next on the list would be the guys making printer cartridges. Then possibly Apple.
Click to expand...

Of course, it is straightforward to light a bulb for a 100 years, except you'd need a tiny current flowing through it that would never be sufficient to light a room. You could also make the filament of course, but the high resistance from the thinness of the filament is what creates light in the first place. A quick search on wikipedia shows a bunch of relationships between voltage and power output, lifetime etc. Voltage is a function of resistance. If you want a higher lifetime then you need a dimmer bulb.
 
Planned Obsolescence and Light Bulbs

Cobraroll said:
That would actually be the lightbulb companies....
It's not problematic to make a lightbulb that works for a hundred years.....It's perfectly possible to make them better, but oh, so much less profitable.
Next on the list would be the guys making printer cartridges. Then possibly Apple.
Click to expand...

cookie said:
Of course, it is straightforward to light a bulb for a 100 years, except you'd need a tiny current flowing through it that would never be sufficient to light a room.....If you want a higher lifetime then you need a dimmer bulb.
Click to expand...

Both good points!

The Phoebus cartel set the lifespan standard for regular bulbs at 1000 hours,
- at which it has endured, even though 5000 hr bulbs were available quite early on. Manufacturers exceeding the limit were fined or excluded from markets.

However, the myths re everlasting Binninger bulbs and the like (and the Livermore station bulb)
all seem to rely on the basic trade off between brightness and lifespan.
Same with today's 10 000 hr+ rough service incandescents,
that for 100w typically have between 60 and 75W equivalent brightness.

An interesting online video about light bulbs and indeed inkjet printers (!) and other products
"The Lightbulb Conspiracy"
.
 
lighthouse said:
Both good points!

The Phoebus cartel set the lifespan standard for regular bulbs at 1000 hours,
- at which it has endured, even though 5000 hr bulbs were available quite early on. Manufacturers exceeding the limit were fined or excluded from markets.

However, the myths re everlasting Binninger bulbs and the like (and the Livermore station bulb)
all seem to rely on the basic trade off between brightness and lifespan.
Same with today's 10 000 hr+ rough service incandescents,
that for 100w typically have between 60 and 75W equivalent brightness.

An interesting online video about light bulbs and indeed inkjet printers (!) and other products
"The Lightbulb Conspiracy"
.
Click to expand...

Pretty good first post, most newbies suck. Welcome to smagan!
 
I believe it can be solved with nothing but laws banning the practice. It'd be hard to imagine a law actually be put in place, and I don't know how it would have to be worded but it's something that needs to be done.

It's bad for consumers, the environment and increases the cost of living.
 
Why couldn't I have been smart like lighthouse?

Planned obsolescence does suck, but this is something that always interests me: at some point, technology will be so advanced that you don't really have a choice but to upgrade. Planned obsolescence, to me, sounds like a way to keep consumers ready for the next advancement in technology. If it's 2020 and you're using something made in 2010, it's likely that it's going to have a lot of trouble doing things that newer computers can do easily.

Case point: My grandma has a computer that was made in 2001. She doesn't have a lot of money, but it does what she needs. Sadly, her computer struggles to load newer webpages because the processor is highly outdated. Her computer actually stopped updating Flash Player a few years ago and we have to manually check/update it to keep her computer functioning correctly. She's had over 6 technicians work on it and they all told her the same thing: you have to get a new one. She's looking for one on eBay, but I doubt she really wants to give up that thing.

tl;dr we need planned obsolescence so we don't get behind on technological advancements
 
Gengan said:
tl;dr we need planned obsolescence so we don't get behind on technological advancements
Click to expand...

That's great for computers and stuff that regularly keeps getting better, but doesn't apply to the stuff that changes little over time, from most household gadgets to more "advanced" stuff like earphones (seriously I know people tha change this faster than they buy a new pair of underwear) that is unlikely to be upgraded in the near future

It's a topic that I too find highly interesting if just for the fact that it's a part of the process of designing a lot of stuff that will eventually be thrown out, many times without considering the effects it will have, but at the same time as an important piece of the economy, an industry that doesn't bring new costumers dies

Botton line is: People don't want to pay more, even if that extra money would help their objects last longer, and thus the people manufacturing those things will look at another way to turn profit in order to stay afloat
 
Not at all, but at least it's a bit more understandable that needing to get a new pair pair of headfones every 3 months

Edit: In the end the industries need bringing new costumers, and the only two ways are making products that keep getting better (even if only slightly so) that warrant a new purchase (maybe it's a new trend or a new color or an extra inch in whatever didn't have enough inches before), or something necesary or at least useful that has to be replaced (either because of it breaking, loosing it's capacity of just running out like food)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top