![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
How long is "some years"? 10? 20? 50? 80? Needs to be more specific. Pimlottc 22:32, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
It doesn't make sense. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.219.5.158 ( User ) 16:53, 14 April 2007 (UTC).
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)
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)
1. "could last over 1200 hours" does not mean average life 1200 hours.
2. 100 year + filament lamps can be made, but were a big waste of money & energy for the hapless souls that bought them.
3. The article talks of planned obsolescence, but I'm not aware of any such reality in filament lamp design/manufacture from that period. 82.30.111.65 ( talk) 23:06, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
I'm leaning towards this being a myth based on people not understanding light bulb technology and making the cartel to be far more sinister than it is. A UK government report discusses this claim and says it is baseless: " Report on the Supply of Electric Lamps" , 1953, The Monopolies and Restrictives Practice Commission, Report 287pt.283 , Chapter 17, p.98:
"As regards life standards, before the Phoebus Agreement and to this day the general service filament lamp was and is designed to have, on average, a minimum life of 1,000 hours. It has often been alleged—though not in evidence to us—that the Phoebus organisation artificially made the life of a lamp short with the object of increasing the number of lamps sold. As we have explained in Chapter 9. there can be no absolutely right life for the many varying circumstances to be found among the consumers in any given country, so that any standard life must always represent a compromise between conflicting factors. B.S.I, has always adopted a single life standard for general service filament lamps, and the representatives of both B.S.I, and B.E.A., as well as most lamp manufacturers, have told us in evidence that they regard 1,000 hours as the best compromise possible at the present time, nor has an evidence been offered to us to the contrary. Accordingly we must dismiss as misconceived the allegation referred to above."
Harizotoh9 ( talk) 04:20, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
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 [1]. I'm not sure why the film doesn't count as a valid source. But there's plenty more: [2]. Camipco ( talk) 20:30, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
References
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)
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)
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)
A company has the right to design a product with specifications they want. That has nothing to do with conspiracy. Technically the limitations are just given by the constraints of physics and the constraints of the material used for the product. Beyond physical constraints decision making in economy is driven by market analysis and an analysis of the product itself (e.g. failure rate and costs for maintenance or replacement of the product). The term planned obsolescence has a negative connotation but it is part of any design process of products, if failure rate is considered. The price for a product is also part a design process. All products will fail after some time (independent of long lasting design or designed for short-term use). Putting the word "conspiracy" in the title of movie "The Light Bulb Conspiracy" or article can also be regarded as marketing decision for a movie or article itself ( NPOV).
"See also" links should refer to legal aspects of product design decisions (including lifespan, price, ...) and at the same time to illegal operations of a cartel. If price fixing was legal in a country then "price fixing" will be a legal commercial decision of the product design. It is OK reverting planned obsolescence, but it would guide readers to consider the context of this article from the angle of the design process of products.
-- Bert Niehaus ( talk) 08:19, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
@ Bert Niehaus: This article is poorly written, and I've done some cleanup on it. I also added a quote from a UK Parliamentary committee that discusses this very issue, and it's very relevant. My personal suspicion is that the theory that Phoebus cartel intentionally conspired to limit the lifespan of bulbs to increase sales is a myth. Harizotoh9 ( talk) 00:19, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
This is quite possibly the weirdest edit war I've landed in during my 18 years on WP, but here goes. Some time ago, I added the following sentences to the article:
In Gravity's Rainbow (1973), Thomas Pynchon wrote about "Byron the Bulb", an anthropomorphic eternal lightbulb who fights against the Phoebus Cartel. Pynchon's story has been credited with bringing the Phoebus Cartel to the public eye. [1] [2]
This has now been reverted, first on WP:NOTTRIVIA grounds, and then because "It's brought a false story to the public" (which, IMHO, is quite orthogonal to whether it's notable or not). Obviously I disagree, and I think the sources here are quite solid, but third opinions welcome. Jpatokal ( talk) 14:16, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
Bump, since this has been repeatedly reverted out again. To recap, my assertion is that a) Pynchon's "Byron the Bulb" is notable because it brought the Phoebus Cartel to the public eye, and b) there are multiple reliable sources (below) saying so. I previously requested a third opinion on this, which was graciously provided by User:Ivanvector.
@ Wtshymanski:, would you like to provide the opposing case? You've made it clear that you think this is "trivia", but there are several reliable sources that disagree. Jpatokal ( talk) 09:40, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
References
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)
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)
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)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
How long is "some years"? 10? 20? 50? 80? Needs to be more specific. Pimlottc 22:32, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
It doesn't make sense. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.219.5.158 ( User ) 16:53, 14 April 2007 (UTC).
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)
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)
1. "could last over 1200 hours" does not mean average life 1200 hours.
2. 100 year + filament lamps can be made, but were a big waste of money & energy for the hapless souls that bought them.
3. The article talks of planned obsolescence, but I'm not aware of any such reality in filament lamp design/manufacture from that period. 82.30.111.65 ( talk) 23:06, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
I'm leaning towards this being a myth based on people not understanding light bulb technology and making the cartel to be far more sinister than it is. A UK government report discusses this claim and says it is baseless: " Report on the Supply of Electric Lamps" , 1953, The Monopolies and Restrictives Practice Commission, Report 287pt.283 , Chapter 17, p.98:
"As regards life standards, before the Phoebus Agreement and to this day the general service filament lamp was and is designed to have, on average, a minimum life of 1,000 hours. It has often been alleged—though not in evidence to us—that the Phoebus organisation artificially made the life of a lamp short with the object of increasing the number of lamps sold. As we have explained in Chapter 9. there can be no absolutely right life for the many varying circumstances to be found among the consumers in any given country, so that any standard life must always represent a compromise between conflicting factors. B.S.I, has always adopted a single life standard for general service filament lamps, and the representatives of both B.S.I, and B.E.A., as well as most lamp manufacturers, have told us in evidence that they regard 1,000 hours as the best compromise possible at the present time, nor has an evidence been offered to us to the contrary. Accordingly we must dismiss as misconceived the allegation referred to above."
Harizotoh9 ( talk) 04:20, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
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 [1]. I'm not sure why the film doesn't count as a valid source. But there's plenty more: [2]. Camipco ( talk) 20:30, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
References
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)
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)
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)
A company has the right to design a product with specifications they want. That has nothing to do with conspiracy. Technically the limitations are just given by the constraints of physics and the constraints of the material used for the product. Beyond physical constraints decision making in economy is driven by market analysis and an analysis of the product itself (e.g. failure rate and costs for maintenance or replacement of the product). The term planned obsolescence has a negative connotation but it is part of any design process of products, if failure rate is considered. The price for a product is also part a design process. All products will fail after some time (independent of long lasting design or designed for short-term use). Putting the word "conspiracy" in the title of movie "The Light Bulb Conspiracy" or article can also be regarded as marketing decision for a movie or article itself ( NPOV).
"See also" links should refer to legal aspects of product design decisions (including lifespan, price, ...) and at the same time to illegal operations of a cartel. If price fixing was legal in a country then "price fixing" will be a legal commercial decision of the product design. It is OK reverting planned obsolescence, but it would guide readers to consider the context of this article from the angle of the design process of products.
-- Bert Niehaus ( talk) 08:19, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
@ Bert Niehaus: This article is poorly written, and I've done some cleanup on it. I also added a quote from a UK Parliamentary committee that discusses this very issue, and it's very relevant. My personal suspicion is that the theory that Phoebus cartel intentionally conspired to limit the lifespan of bulbs to increase sales is a myth. Harizotoh9 ( talk) 00:19, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
This is quite possibly the weirdest edit war I've landed in during my 18 years on WP, but here goes. Some time ago, I added the following sentences to the article:
In Gravity's Rainbow (1973), Thomas Pynchon wrote about "Byron the Bulb", an anthropomorphic eternal lightbulb who fights against the Phoebus Cartel. Pynchon's story has been credited with bringing the Phoebus Cartel to the public eye. [1] [2]
This has now been reverted, first on WP:NOTTRIVIA grounds, and then because "It's brought a false story to the public" (which, IMHO, is quite orthogonal to whether it's notable or not). Obviously I disagree, and I think the sources here are quite solid, but third opinions welcome. Jpatokal ( talk) 14:16, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
Bump, since this has been repeatedly reverted out again. To recap, my assertion is that a) Pynchon's "Byron the Bulb" is notable because it brought the Phoebus Cartel to the public eye, and b) there are multiple reliable sources (below) saying so. I previously requested a third opinion on this, which was graciously provided by User:Ivanvector.
@ Wtshymanski:, would you like to provide the opposing case? You've made it clear that you think this is "trivia", but there are several reliable sources that disagree. Jpatokal ( talk) 09:40, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
References
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)
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)
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)