3 ms·

From the intro: > Airplane seats are getting smaller and smaller, clothes are unrecognizable after the second wash, and machines now answer our calls. The aut

From the intro: > Airplane seats are getting smaller and smaller, clothes are unrecognizable after the second wash, and machines now answer our calls. The author talks about a range of motivations behind these, but it seems like there's an obvious one we're missing. All these changes make products more profitable. I would love to live in a society that prioritises sustainability and quality of life for its citizens. We currently only achieve those things if they're a byproduct of profit for coorporations. Maybe I'm being overly cynical, but I definitely don't see these changes as bewildering. Quality has been intentionally lowered when it conflicts with profit since at least the Phoebus cartel[0] [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoebus_cartel https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoebus_cartel

ryukoposting 1y ago
Have you ever actually used a long-life incandescent lightbulb? They suck. It's like your bedroom is lit by the miserable little lamp in your oven. That's because Tungsten lighting has inherent tradeoffs between life span, and every other desirable characteristic. Brightness, spectral quality, and energy efficiency all improve as you make the filament thinner, and thus less durable. The Phoebus cartel is an example of planned obsolescence, but it's a bad example for your argument because it made lightbulbs much, much better at their intended purpose. Consumer number-gawking incentivized manufacturers to make their product objectively worse, and the cartel solved that problem.
- benrutter 1y ago
  No I haven't - has anyone? It sounds like you have, so I won't argue. I am no expert on what the actual consumer impact of the Phoebus Cartel was, maybe it wasn't a great choie of example. Wikipedia doesn't make it sound positive for consumers overall: > Regulators in the UK and some independent engineers have noted that there are benefits to shorter bulb lifespans, as shorter-life bulbs can be brighter for the same wattage. Nevertheless, both internal comments from cartel executives and later findings by a US court suggest that the cartel's direct motivation for the change was to increase profits by forcing customers to buy bulbs more frequently.

ryukoposting 1y ago

Have you ever actually used a long-life incandescent lightbulb? They suck. It's like your bedroom is lit by the miserable little lamp in your oven. That's because Tungsten lighting has inherent tradeoffs between life span, and every other desirable characteristic. Brightness, spectral quality, and energy efficiency all improve as you make the filament thinner, and thus less durable. The Phoebus cartel is an example of planned obsolescence, but it's a bad example for your argument because it made lightbulbs much, much better at their intended purpose. Consumer number-gawking incentivized manufacturers to make their product objectively worse, and the cartel solved that problem.

benrutter 1y ago
No I haven't - has anyone? It sounds like you have, so I won't argue. I am no expert on what the actual consumer impact of the Phoebus Cartel was, maybe it wasn't a great choie of example. Wikipedia doesn't make it sound positive for consumers overall: > Regulators in the UK and some independent engineers have noted that there are benefits to shorter bulb lifespans, as shorter-life bulbs can be brighter for the same wattage. Nevertheless, both internal comments from cartel executives and later findings by a US court suggest that the cartel's direct motivation for the change was to increase profits by forcing customers to buy bulbs more frequently.