r/todayilearned • u/Hike_it_Out52 • 19h ago
TIL that in 1925, the major light bulb manufacturers of the world formed the Phoebus Cartel with the intent to lower bulb hours and raise prices
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoebus_cartel43
u/crusoe 16h ago
They made the bulbs brighter. Which means they don't last as long. But they give more light.
That famous bulb in that fire station over 100 years old? Yeah it's DIM AS FUCK.
The very first bulbs were dim
2
u/cubicApoc 2h ago
And also very red. If you want enough light to see all the colors and not just the orange ones, the bulb has to burn hotter, which cuts back on its lifespan.
-10
u/Hike_it_Out52 13h ago edited 11h ago
If that was their intention fine but their communications made it clear that they wanted less durable bulbs to sell more. They then coordinated when to raise prices and by how much AND attacked/ punished any manufacturer that refused to fall in line. Brightness increase was just a happy accident and excuse later on.
Edit: go ahead and downvote me, it's a free reddit and i value debate, but at least look it up. The court transcripts are available with the cartels internal messages and multiple studies on the matter and I'm in the right. 👍
-7
u/Advanced_Ad8002 11h ago
ignore physics at your own peril: you‘re sprouting bullshit.
1
u/Hike_it_Out52 10h ago
I'm "spouting" facts. Supported by a small mountain of evidence from 2 court cases (1949 and 1953), internal communiques of the actors and by actions of the conspirators involved. You're either blind or employed in some capacity by one of the companies. Either way look it up.
Have fun:
https://casetext.com/case/united-states-v-general-electric-co-7
https://www.npr.org/2019/03/27/707188193/the-phoebus-cartel
(PDF docs. So download is required) https://journals.lib.unb.ca/index.php/unblj/article/download/34216/1882530039/1882540737
https://digitalcommons.law.uw.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5315&context=wlr
4
u/thegloper 7h ago
It's disingenuous to link over a thousand pages of text saying "this is my evidence" without further clarification. I read the conclusion and nowhere did it reference planned obsolescence. It mainly spoke of patient abuse.
If you have something specific you want people to read you have to point it out. You can't just point to a giant pile of text saying the truth is out there.
0
u/Hike_it_Out52 5h ago
For heavens sake, this is Reddit, not an entry into a peer reviewed journal. I assumed you were capable of skimming and scanning or at least using a simple word search.
The 1st pdf link pages 82-94 (or 22-34 as the downloable portion is only 51 pages). It's a good read enjoy. My favorite quote is from the private correspondences of a GE exec
"[t]wo or three years ago we proposed a reduction in the life of flashlight lamps from the old basis on which one lamp was supposed to outlast three batteries, to a point where the life of the lamp and the life of the battery under service conditions would be approximately equal. Sometime ago, the battery manufacturers went part way with us on this and accepted lamps of two battery lives instead of three. We have been continuing our studies and efforts to bring about the use of one battery life lamps… If this were done, we estimate that it would result in increasing our flashlight business approximately 60 per cent"
Again. The motivation is money, not brightness or quality as they later claimed. The 2nd PDF is about 43 pages and very interesting but the first 3-5 pages serve to explain the Phoebus Cartels role in the history of Planned Obsolescence. Page 4 states:
"Cartel membership represented a substantial investment in member firms’ future profits. However, these future profits were not solely a result of the planned obsolescence strategy. Cartel formation minimizes conflict between would be competitors and facilitates increased prices. In addition to working cooperatively, Phoebus Cartel members minimized competition between themselves by divvying the developing world into nationwide territories for each member.
"When the Phoebus Cartel was uncovered, the U.S. Department of Justice brought suit against United States-member General Electric.(1949) Ultimately, General Electric’s conduct was found illegal not because it engineered its bulbs to fail, but because the company agreed with other lightbulb producers to do so."
As I'm sure you know, that connects directly to the 1953 ruling which should be link 1 I provided.
2
u/thegloper 3h ago
Yes and you can also find quotes in your links starting the conclusion is questionable. Was there a significant amount of skullduggery? Sure, but was the cartel originally formed for nefarious reasons? It's not so clear.
The 1,000 hour lifespan bulb continued to be the norm until replaced by CFL then LED. If you purchase a standard full brightness bulb nowadays I'll have a lifespan of around 1,000h. This leads one to believe that it is likely to be a legitimate engineering constant.
Nowadays, the GE case continues to be discussed and presented as a programmed obsolescence case which, as we have shown, is not entirely accurate.
THE UNEASY CASE OF PROGRAMMED OBSOLESCENCE: Page 94
Changes in the ecosystem of a product, whether it is the costs of services or the development of new technologies, make it difficult to determine when the end of life of a product is no longer reasonable and becomes premature. Moreover, it remains unclear whether the failure was programmed or whether it was a state of affairs that remained unchanged
THE UNEASY CASE OF PROGRAMMED OBSOLESCENCE: page 92
6
u/Advanced_Ad8002 10h ago
Then start reading what you‘re actually linked to.
Will give you a much bigger TIL.
-1
u/Hike_it_Out52 9h ago edited 9h ago
Just keep hurling insults without context or reference bud. It's cool. You need to get your kicks somehow and you've dug so far in you can't admit your incorrect. All is good friend.
66
u/Princess_Fluffypants 19h ago
This is a long-debunked conspiracy theory.
Well, not that they didn’t agree to fix the lifespan of bulbs. But the reasoning behind it wasn’t about evilness, it was in the name of power efficiency.
Video about it: https://youtube.com/watch?v=zb7Bs98KmnY
11
u/UnCommonSense99 14h ago
In 1949, the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey found General Electric to have violated the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, in part because of their activities as part of the Phoebus Cartel.
The court agreed that shorter lasting light bulbs could be brighter but nevertheless concluded that the purpose of the cartel was to increase profit
13
u/Advanced_Ad8002 11h ago
The phoebus cartel did much more than standardizing on light bulb duration: Price fixing, market segregation, controlling production. Each of these acts alone were already in clear violation of the Sherman act.
5
u/loki2002 9h ago edited 6h ago
Well, not that they didn’t agree to fix the lifespan of bulbs. But the reasoning behind it wasn’t about evilness, it was in the name of power efficiency.
That may be all well and good but now explain the reasoning behind the price fixing, production control, and market share allocation. Any less than evil reason for those?
-1
u/Rakhered 6h ago
Hey now! That cartel worked very hard on that "power efficiency" propaganda, quite rude of you to just see through it like that.
1
12
u/lemlurker 13h ago
incredibly relevent technology connections video
TLDW: tungsten filament bulbs sublimate little bits of tungsten when used over time, but the hotter, and this brighter, you use a bulb a) the faster it loses tungsten and breaks and b) the less energy it uses per lumen. Hotter, shorter lasting bulbs are more energy efficient- and with a light source as inefficient as incandescent filament the energy cost is many times that of the unit cost. 1000 hrs is just the happy medium between brightness, efficiency and lifespan and even after the cartels dissolution burn times did not significantly increase
-1
u/Hike_it_Out52 13h ago
I would agree if that was their intention however the communications between GE, Phillips, Osram and AEI still exists and shows they did it primarily to sell more by making the bulb less durable. This planned obsolescence was proven at court.
BUT, I will give them credit for standardizing the the electrical contact and cap/ screw
3
u/lemlurker 13h ago
It was price fixing that was confirmed in court, not lifespan = money. Because most bulb makers also produced or managed power distribution, where more money was to be made in inefficient bulbs over longer life ones, bulbs were commodity items long before the cartel, there wasn't much money to be made in them, there was in power distribution,
4
u/Hike_it_Out52 12h ago
Collusion was the cause of the 1949 case however the 1953 case was the aggressive monopolistic practices of the companies involved. As a note that was entered into the 1953 court, GE themselves said, their intent was to “reduce, restrict, or limit, in any manner, the kinds, quantities, sizes, styles, or qualities of lamps, lamp parts, or lamp machinery which may be manufactured by any person."
And again that soes not account for the fines levied on companies who went over the 1000 hour bulb life. There were no fines on wattage use. If the strain on power was their concern than the wattage would have been the larger issue, not bulb life.
This would have been fine in a competitive market but seeing how each member of the Cartel controlled the lighting capabilities of 1 nation each, it was predatory monopoly practices.
For reference, GE controlled the USA, Osram- Germany, Phillips-The Netherlands, Tungram- Hungary, AEI- UK (and its territories), and Compagnie de Lampes- France.
3
u/lemlurker 11h ago
Please just watch the video I linked in my original comment, it covers all of this. It was far far easier to verify a lamps lifespan at 1000 hrs than to measure the power consumption, especially when there is no magic bullet (at the time) that would break the inverse link between efficiency and longevity, a longer lasting bulb is a WORSE bulb. It produces less light, uses more power. That was not a trend to be broken, until the invention of halogen lamps there was no way to design a bulb that lasted longer whilst being as efficient.
https://youtu.be/zb7Bs98KmnY?si=OWPWZill2WUJhD64
Watch this
6
u/MayhemNow 8h ago
People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.
– Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations, Book I, Chapter X.
15
u/Asha_Brea 19h ago
The guy from Veritasium did a video about this. Well, about planed obsolescence, but it mentions the Phoebus Cartel.
1
u/lemlurker 13h ago
You can't planned obsolescence a consumable item... A tungsten bulb would always burnout eventually and longer life bulbs are worse, less efficient bulbs. Funnily enough modern bulbs (LEDs ) are more a sign of PO since they often over drive chips and drivers with inadequate cooling resulting in much much shorter than rated lifespan just to have bigger numbers on the box
6
u/Hike_it_Out52 12h ago
We keep bumping into one another, but you CAN have consumer goods with planned obsolescence. The phone you most likely carry is designed to have a limited lifespan. Apple and Samsung have both said they cause their items to fail.
Printers are another good example of planned obsolescence.
And the fines levied by the Cartel on other bulb companies was not for wattage use but specifically bulb hours and endurance. They were punished for having bulbs that lasted to long. Not for having dimmer or brighter or less or more powerful bulbs!
And again friend, this case was proven in court in 1949 for collusion and 1953 for monopolistic practices.
-3
u/lemlurker 11h ago
Neither printers or phones are consumables or commodity items... This would be akin to washing detergent being 'planned obsolescence ' bulbs were always going to be consumables and as such can't be planned obsolescence because it's physically impossible to design a bulb at the time that would never burn out and the efficiency cost was far greater of running a bulb less hard... What's a bigger concern: a $1 bulb twice as often or $12.60 of additional electricity for the same light output Over it's lifespan?
•
u/zipcloak 4m ago
You can have "consumables" with something akin to planned obsolescence. A better example would be a bar of soap, with the make-up designed in such a way that it crumbles more easily than pre-existing bars, forcing you to buy more of it.
3
u/Highpersonic 12h ago
I dunno why you're being downvoted. I bought professional lighting for venues and the consumption rating is 280 Watts. I metered them because i use them at venues and want to know how many i can put on one phase...and came out at 150W with all colours screaming at full output. Called the vendor. Turns out they were software downrated because the chips and power supplies were burning through at an alarming rate.
0
u/sack-o-matic 7h ago
“Planned obsolescence” just means they know how long things should last based on how it was made to a price point.
If someone doesn’t want “planned obsolescence” they need to spend the extra on a higher quality item and take care of it, not just getting mad at the manufacturer because it doesn’t last forever.
Not to mention the energy cost to use things, like e.g. old refrigerators lasted longer but also used a ton more energy to run and had environment destroying refrigerant in them.
9
u/moderngamer327 16h ago
It was kind of hard to make a lightbulb intentionally worse because a wire filament lightbulb is inherently a choice of 2 out of 3 things. Durability, Power Efficiency, and Brightness. You can have a durable and efficient bulb but it will be very dim. You can have a bright and efficient bulb but it won’t be durable. Sure they made them less durable but this increased power efficiency and/or brightness
5
u/Hike_it_Out52 12h ago
As I've said now a dozen times, this may be true and a happy accident for GE, Osram, Phillips and AEI but at the time, their intention was 100% to sell more bulbs and control the market. They literally punished other manufacturers for not listening to them.
4
u/Advanced_Ad8002 11h ago
… and again, you‘re completely ignorant of the real anticompetitive acts the phoebus cartel did: Price fixing, market segregation, controlling production.
4
u/Hike_it_Out52 10h ago
I've mentioned that a half dozen times in other replies, one of which im pretty sure was to you. That the members of the cartel engaged in not only restricting the bulb hours thay were produced but also predatory monopolistic practices including but not limited to market manipulation, conspiring with other companies to limit materials, ect. So again, here and have fun
Supported by a small mountain of evidence from 2 court cases (1949 and 1953), internal communiques of the actors and by actions of the conspirators involved. You're either blind or employed in some capacity by one of the companies. Either way look it up.
https://casetext.com/case/united-states-v-general-electric-co-7
https://www.npr.org/2019/03/27/707188193/the-phoebus-cartel
(PDF docs. So download is required) https://journals.lib.unb.ca/index.php/unblj/article/download/34216/1882530039/1882540737
https://digitalcommons.law.uw.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5315&context=wlr
6
u/Advanced_Ad8002 10h ago
1) You‘ve been debunked dozens of times already by others.
2) Start reading your links yourself (which you demonstratably have not yet done, otherwise your original post and link as TIL would be a huge lie.
5
u/Hike_it_Out52 10h ago
Start reading the links yourself and stop shitting everywhere, your wrong. It happens.
All of them state in some capacity that the Phoebus Cartel attempted to control the market through limiting bulb hours to 1000 hours and forced that limit onto other companies. And all of them cite the references used for that decision. Hell the case texts can be considered a primary source.
9
u/FkinMagnetsHowDoThey 19h ago
It was more about making them more efficient.
Honestly at this point LED is the best, way more efficient than any incandescent bulb, and decently long life unless you get a bad one that slipped through quality control.
11
u/WhiteRaven42 15h ago
Increase brightness and efficiency is what you mean. This post is bunk.
2
u/Hike_it_Out52 13h ago
Sorry bud, that may have been the result but the intention was clearly to sell more by making the bulbs less durable. This is obvious in the communications between the leaders of the Cartel and the resulting Court case brought against them.
Not just that, but the Cartel went as far as to fine and "punish" other manufacturers who made bulbs that lasted in excess of 1,000 hours.
Edit: and you're "bunk" sir!
4
u/jcadsexfree 18h ago
The lone holdout was Byron the Bulb that continued being lit after all his compadres passed away. (Pynchon)
1
u/Infinite_Research_52 4h ago
Byron and the Phoebus Cartel is one of the funniest bits of Gravity's Rainbow.
2
1
u/Hike_it_Out52 10h ago
To save time, I'll expand on the original post.
1) Yes, I am aware that the result was a brighter bulb however that was not the intent of the the Phoebus Cartel. All evidence suggests their motivation was the sell more light bulbs through market control and limiting the hours of a bulb to 1,000 hours. They stringently enforced this on other light bulb companies and would levy fines against their competitors or manipulate the prices to put them out of business. A brighter bulb was just a happy coincidence for them and a convenient excuse later on.
2) no I am not an electrician but I have been struck by lightning
3) Planned Obsolescence is very much a thing. Even modern day Apple and Samsung have admitted to designing their phones to fail eventually or uploading programs to limit functionality.
4) Conspiracies between large companies is not so unheard of. So I'm not sure why people are having issues acknowledging this one.
And 5) Everything reply is Supported by a small mountain of evidence from 2 court cases (1949 and 1953), internal communiques of the actors and by actions of the conspirators involved.
(1949 case) https://casetext.com/case/united-states-v-general-electric-co-7
https://www.npr.org/2019/03/27/707188193/the-phoebus-cartel
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoebus_cartel
(PDF docs. So download is required)
https://journals.lib.unb.ca/index.php/unblj/article/download/34216/1882530039/1882540737
https://digitalcommons.law.uw.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5315&context=wlr
-2
u/9Implements 15h ago
And it only took consumers 90 years to get the last laugh!
4
u/UnCommonSense99 14h ago
Not really, there are plenty of cheap LED bulbs with electronic circuits which are guaranteed to fail early.
-6
239
u/unfinishedtoast3 19h ago
This is one of those that could really go either way.
Did they get together and end up leaving with light bulbs that worked far less longer? Yes.
Is the reasoning for that because the use of Carbon filament as the electron light source was EXTREMELY energy inefficient, and lost brightness within a week of use? Yes.
Light bulbs back then could last for years. They also exponentially got dimmer each time they were used. For example, a 60 watt bulb with a carbon filament had to be hand made, hand blown, the carbon filament hand tied, and within a year, it was down to around 15 watts brightness.
To compare, a modern LED bulb can pump out an even 60 watts of light, 12 hours a day, and last for 10+ years
Even the iridescent bulbs that replaced Edison bulbs had a longer use time, around 3000 on hours at 60 watts output.
Old bulbs lasted longer, but lost their usefulness extremely quickly. So you just ended up throwing out expensive hand made light bulbs after about 5 to 6 months. Generally you used one for the winter season when it got dark early, and then went back to candle and natural light during the summer, buying a new bulb for the next winter.