Planned Obsolescence documentary - The Light Bulb Conspiracy (2010) RENT / BUY TO MORE GREAT WORK
invidious.protokolla.fi
The Light Bulb Conspiracy (2010) Pret-a-jeter (original title) 53 min | Documentary | France | Spain Once upon a time..... products were made to last. Then, at the beginning of the 1920s, a group of businessmen were struck by the following insight: 'A product that refuses to wear out is a tragedy of business' (1928). Thus Planned Obsolescence was born. Shortly after, the first worldwide cartel was set up expressly to reduce the life span of the incandescent light bulb, a symbol for innovation and bright new ideas, and the first official victim of Planned Obsolescence. During the 1950s, with the birth of the consumer society, the concept took on a whole new meaning, as explained by flamboyant designer Brooks Stevens: 'Planned Obsolescence, the desire to own something a little newer, a little better, a little sooner than is necessary...'. The growth society flourished, everybody had everything, the waste was piling up (preferably far away in illegal dumps in the Third World) - until consumers started rebelling... Can the modern growth society survive without Planned Obsolescence? Did ... Written by Cosima Dannoritzer Director: Cosima Dannoritzer Writer: Cosima Dannoritzer http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1825163/
  • Firebirdie713@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    54·
    27 days ago

    Anyone who still thinks that lightbulbs are a good example of planned obsolescence needs to watch Technology Connections’ video about lightbulbs on YouTube. Planned obsolescence is definitely a thing, but lightbulbs are not an example of this, and this has been disproven time and time again.

    • soloOP
      3·
      27 days ago

      Thank you for your input! Just to be sure, is it this one?

      Btw when you say

      Planned obsolescence is definitely a thing, lightbulbs are not an example of this, and this has been disproven time and time again

      what do you mean? Could you share a relevant link?

      • Firebirdie713@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        11·
        27 days ago

        It is that channel, yes!

        And here is the relevant link to the specific video he did on lightbulbs and why they aren’t an example of planned obsolescence: https://youtu.be/zb7Bs98KmnY

        The TL;DW is this: no matter what method you use, the process of converting electricity into visible light is going to generate heat. With old filament bulbs, they had to balance the intensity of the light with the rate at which the filament would burn. Those older bulbs that lasted ages gave off so little light that they weren’t practical because you would need several times as many lightbulbs. Turning up the amount of light meant the filament would not last as long, but you needed fewer of them. With newer models, we still have to play that balancing act, just with different electrical components, because making them brighter still means making them hotter and potentially frying the components inside.

        • soloOP
          4·
          27 days 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
            2·
            27 days 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
            12·
            26 days 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.