Talk:Phoebus cartel

message: How long is "some years"?  10? 20? 50? 80?  Needs to be more specific. Pimlottc 22:32, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "some years" 

message: It doesn't make sense. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.219.5.158 (User ) 16:53, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Last Sentence 

message: The purpose section of this article is wrong. The Phoebus cartel existed, but it's purpose was price fixing, not planned obsolesce. The english references don't mention 1000 hours, and the german references (via google translate) seem to talk about why developing a light bulb that lasts over 1000 hours is difficult. I couldn't find it in external links, and one of them doesn't seem to exist (Patrick Gaughen. Structural Inefficiency in the Early Twentieth Century: Studies in the Aluminum and Incandescent Lamp Markets). 
After chasing down links the original source for the argument appears to be a documentary called "The Light Bulb Conspiracy", which I wouldn't consider a valid source. The review on imbd sums it up perfectly: "All light bulb types have advantages, and energy saving and lifespan mandates compromise other advantages that light bulbs - or indeed other products mentioned in the film - may have."
140.79.15.161 (User ) 23:44, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Recall that incandescent bulbs that last a long time have low efficacy; for example, a 60 watt 120 volt 1000 hour bulb will give off something like 850 lumens, whereas a 60 watt 120 volt 5000 hour bulb will only produce around 600 lumens. Since explaining lumens to consumers was as hard in 1930 as it is today, Phoebus made sure that no-one could promote their bulbs as "long life" compared to other manufacturers by cheating on efficacy. The cost of electricity a bulb consumes is many times the initial cost of the bulb, for incandescent bulbs anyway.It's not hard to find 20,000 hour bulbs today, but you'll need three of them to supply the light given by two 1000 hour lamps; they are really meant for places where labor to replace a bulb is costly.  --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:30, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: yes, the 'planned obsolesces' bulbs actually saved people money, and because lighting was a very large user of power, these also saved generating capacity, distribution infrastructure and given the reduction in power being pushed about, undoubtedly lives. this all come about in a less capitalistic time when the originators of this were certainly trying to help society, (no longer considered a possible motivation), some reference to this needs to be added to the article, along with its urban meme status. the modern "i suffering because i'm being cheated mindset" is rampant with this one.  79.65.106.15 (talk) 15:10, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  One aspect has been forgotten: What these globes replaced, which was gas lights. 
I remember in my grandmother's house there were capped gas outlets in the ceilings where the gas lights had been. The apartment building would have been built in the years after Bismarck's formation of Germany in 1971 and was located in Berlin-Schöneberg. 
1000 hours can be seen as a minimum or maximum. People might have needed a guarantee that they did not have to buy new bulbs every 10 days. 2001:8003:A070:7F00:E573:6DDC:4C77:E058 (talk) 23:41, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Purpose of conspiracy is wrong 

message: One basic argument that the cartel did include limiting life span of light bulbs was that Thomas Edison's 1880 or 1881 bulb was noted as having an average life of 1200 hours, so the idea that 40 years later (1920's) it was difficult to obtain even the same performance is highly unusual. 
References: 
"... it was not until several months after the patent was granted that Edison and his team discovered a carbonized bamboo filament that could last over 1,200 hours"  Src: Thomas Edison accessed 13 April 2013, and "Edison and his team later discovered that a carbonized bamboo filament could last over 1200 hours." Src: History of the light bulb accessed 13 April 2013.
Also given the existence of the 1901 Shelby light bulb (operating for 112 years) at Livermore California's fire station number 4, and 1908 Palace Light Bulb, Fort Worth, Texas operating for 104 years. Under a friction-less free market economy, such products should of been commercial successful by saving consumers money, yet continue to have a market given the (near?) continuous expandson of electric lighting use globally).
Regarding the non-existent external link re: Patrick Gaughen, the original was
 http://www.andover.edu/aep/papers/610/pgaughen98.pdf
and the original document can be found at
 http://web.archive.org/web/20050204082354/http://www.andover.edu/aep/papers/610/pgaughen98.pdf
 "Structural Inefficiency in the Early Twentieth Century: Studies in the Aluminum and Incadescent Lamp Markets"
 December 1998.
I believe that these do present enough trusted references to at least acknowledge the claim of planned obsolesces or limiting performance.
Mctylr (talk) 20:54, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Recall that incandescent bulbs that last a long time have low efficacy; for example, a 60 watt 120 volt 1000 hour bulb will give off something like 850 lumens, whereas a 60 watt 120 volt 5000 hour bulb will only produce around 600 lumens. Since explaining lumens to consumers was as hard in 1930 as it is today, Phoebus made sure that no-one could promote their bulbs as "long life" compared to other manufacturers by cheating on efficacy. The cost of electricity a bulb consumes is many times the initial cost of the bulb, for incandescent bulbs anyway.It's not hard to find 20,000 hour bulbs today, but you'll need three of them to supply the light given by two 1000 hour lamps; they are really meant for places where labor to replace a bulb is costly.  --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:30, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: yes, the 'planned obsolesces' bulbs actually saved people money, and because lighting was a very large user of power, these also saved generating capacity, distribution infrastructure and given the reduction in power being pushed about, undoubtedly lives. this all come about in a less capitalistic time when the originators of this were certainly trying to help society, (no longer considered a possible motivation), some reference to this needs to be added to the article, along with its urban meme status. the modern "i suffering because i'm being cheated mindset" is rampant with this one.  79.65.106.15 (talk) 15:10, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Counterpoint 

message: It reads strangely to me that the article doesn't directly mention planned obsolescence, probably the thing the Phoebus cartel is most famous for, but instead buries the accusation of planned obsolescence in the hard-to-parse 1953 report. I suggest it should read something like "[Sources] have called the Phoebus cartel's restrictions on bulb life an example of planned obsolescence. However, a 1953 Monopolies ... report concluded: blockquote." Examples of sources for the accusation include the 2010 film The Great Lightbulb Conspiracy and https://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-history/dawn-of-electronics/the-great-lightbulb-conspiracy. I'm not sure why the film doesn't count as a valid source. But there's plenty more: https://www.urbo.com/content/the-lightbulb-conspiracy-shining-light-on-planned-obsolescence/. 
Camipco (talk) 20:30, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  One aspect has been forgotten: What these globes replaced, which was gas lights. 
I remember in my grandmother's house there were capped gas outlets in the ceilings where the gas lights had been. The apartment building would have been built in the years after Bismarck's formation of Germany in 1971 and was located in Berlin-Schöneberg. 
1000 hours can be seen as a minimum or maximum. People might have needed a guarantee that they did not have to buy new bulbs every 10 days. 2001:8003:A070:7F00:E573:6DDC:4C77:E058 (talk) 23:41, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Absence of mention of planned obsolescence in article

message: Regarding the infobox, the purpose of the cartel is listed as Planned Obsolescence, but there seems to be disagreement on this talk page as well as within the article as to whether or not that is supported by data. For this reason, should the purpose be changed, or a clarification added to the purpose so as to better inform readers of the purpose, or at very least the academic disagreement on the purpose of the Phoebus Cartel? EEEcon5761 (talk) 05:07, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Purpose in Infobox lacking clarity

message: I don't understand the capitalization scheme being used. Is it Phoebus Cartel, Phoebus cartel, or phoebus cartel? It appears as all three at various place.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.212.217.199 (User ) 00:11, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've standardized it to the most common form used in the article: "Phoebus cartel".  Opencooper (talk) 19:03, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Um, capitalization??

message: Most of the recent research on the Phoebus cartel seems to be written in German, as evidenced by the German article which is much better referenced than this one. Could someone more proficient in German than I look into translating sections of that article and putting them here? Swaggernagger (talk) 09:49, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  German language article 

message: Article states "The cartel took over market territories and lowered the useful life of such bulbs, which raised their efficiency and output" and cites a New Yorker article. But there's nothing I can find in there which suggests an increase in efficiency and output as a direct result of the group's activities. In fact the source says "...the only significant technical innovation in the new bulbs was the precipitous drop in operating life. “It was the explicit aim of the cartel to reduce the life span of the lamps in order to increase sales,” [Krajewski] said. “Economics, not physics.”" which would appear to directly contradict the claim. 
The statement seems to suggest a technical purpose behind the changes, but the source cited mostly talks about market forces that encourage it - this makes the manufacture of products with shorter lifetimes than what is possible a rational decision, certainly. But wouldn't negate any criticism people might have of the practice itself, it just shifts any blame to "the market" as a whole.
To be clear, I'm not saying the statement itself is necessarily incorrect, I'm saying that the article cited doesn't support it, from what I can tell. Chris-P-FYI (talk 05:24, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: You're correct. I cut the unsourced clause. Loki (talk) 22:03, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source does not appear to support claim 

message: The name of the video is « this is why we can’t have nice things », on youtube, it’s worth adding 2A01:E0A:A59:70:B1F7:602D:D286:ADC9 (talk) 00:18, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm aware of the video. Unfortunately Youtube videos aren't usually reliable sources, but maybe we could add an External Links section for it. Loki (talk) 00:53, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Veritasium did a video on that