Comments by "EebstertheGreat" (@EebstertheGreat) on "This is why we can't have nice things" video.

I have seen convincing arguments that the Phoebus Cartel's goals were price-fixing and standardization, not planned obsolescence. Throughout its entire existence (and even today), bulbs with longer lives were significantly less efficient than bulbs with shorter lives. The balance between energy efficiency and lifespan was a compromise, and choosing short-lived bulbs probably saved customers money. The amount of money you spend running a bulb is enormously greater than the cost of the bulb itself, so even relatively modest gains in efficiency can offset significant losses in lifespan. Note that this is also true from an environmental standpoint. For instance, let's say it took three 2500 hour-rated 60 W bulbs to produce the same amount of light as two 1000 hour 60 W bulbs. Over the course of 5,000 hours of use, you could either buy 6 long-lived bulbs or 10 short-lived bulbs. But in the former case, you would use 90,000 kWh of energy, and in the latter case, you would use only 60,000 kWh. And 30,000 kWh certainly cost a lot more than 4 light bulbs, even assuming the long-lived and short-lived bulbs had the same price.
2
@whodat105 COB LEDs are much more efficient. They have a somewhat random failure rate, which makes them last less time on average than other LEDs, but they will still save you money, because you can buy a lower-watt bulb that produces the same amount of light.
2
@kjyost This is precisely what the LEDs do that NightHawk is complaining about. That's their whole function. The problem is just that they aren't built to last, not that the LEDs are being run too hot.
1