• solo@slrpnk.netOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    I watched up to 16:04 like, and I have to admit what I saw was a technical talk about the differences of the bulbs. So it didn’t sound to me like a proof of his claims.

    So I looked around and found a Briefing from the EU [Planned obsolescence: Exploring the issue - 2016] and they also talk about it like it’s a thing:

    A classic example of planned obsolescence

    In 1924 top representatives from all the major light-bulb manufacturers of the time met in Geneva to found the Phoebus cartel, which created a supervisory body that would divide the worldwide incandescent light bulb market. … By early 1925, its lifespan became codified at 1 000 hours for a pear-shaped household bulb, which was a notable reduction from the 1 500 to 2 000 hours …

    • Gebruikersnaam@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 month ago

      Yeah Philips was also in there, this is well known in The Netherlands. They’d give out fines if a company made bulbs that would last longer.

    • Firebirdie713@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 month ago

      They limited it to that because, at the time, there was only one way to make a lightbulb and they wanted a consistent brightness. The easiest way to do that was to make a standard filament, and the easiest way to measure that was to test how long on average it lasted.

      It is like saying a bread cartel was made by saying a loaf of bread has to be a standard weight and anyone selling a different weight was fined. Making an industry standard that is arguably for the benefit of the customer is not the same as planned obsolescence. Especially when you consider the fact that the 1000 standard wasn’t followed when they started making different kinds of lightbulbs that didn’t use filament.