4 ms·

If it were possible, say, to create a light bulb that lasted 1,000 years for a dollar. Who could afford to make such a thing? Anybody who wants to get rich. L

If it were possible, say, to create a light bulb that lasted 1,000 years for a dollar. Who could afford to make such a thing? Anybody who wants to get rich. Let's say that you can sell such a light bulb, and that it's so great that everyone in the world buys one, on average. And say you can sell it for a dollar, but you only make a cent of profit on each one. Why, that'd only leave you with. . . $70,000,000 dollars. Well that's not too bad, but really not great either. It'd certainly let you retire to a tropical island for the rest of your life. But you could do better. If the light bulb is so great, wouldn't everyone be willing to spend more than a dollar on one? After all, those inferior light bulbs cost about twice as much, so if your bulbs are better than others should be willing to pay at least that much. Let's knock the price up to $2, then. That puts the profit per bulb at $1.01. So then you can simultaneously destroy the light bulb industry (fun!) and put a cool 7 billion dollars in your pocket (profit!). Who would choose not do do such a thing? Certainly most anybody who's motivated by profit (like, say, a capitalist) would jump at the opportunity.

Decade 12y ago
If it took 1 person to make, sell, and distribute those things, then $70 million are enough to retire comfortably. If it takes 100 people, then you could still retire, if you lived somewhere cheap. More realistically, you might sell a few hundred thousand to the developed world, and then sales fall off a cliff, because it takes a lot of work to distribute outside your home market. Total payoff: Less than 2 months' salary. That's the concern with the new lights. The industry is built on 1,000-hour bulbs and regular replacements. We currently have a boom as incandescents get replaced by fluorescents and fluorescents get replaced by LEDs (my father hates fluorescent light). Once that is done, who is going to buy bulbs at the rate that the factories can produce them?
- theworst 12y ago
  This thread has gotten way out of hand with the thought experiments that reveal more about the author than the subject... but I can't resist! If it took 100 people to make/sell/distribute, and you are the owner of the company, you're probably going to still be rich. Figure 99 employees at $150k fully loaded annually would cost you 15 million dollars, leaving 55 million to retire on. Of course, if you are an employee, you would only have a job for 1 year.
- theworst 12y ago
  This thread has gotten way out of hand with the thought experiments that reveal more about the author than the subject... but I can't resist! If it took 100 people to make/sell/distribute, and you are the owner of the company, you're probably going to still be rich. Figure 99 employees at $150k fully loaded annually would cost you 15 million dollars, leaving 55 million to retire on. Of course, if you are an employee, you would only have a job for 1 year.
vidarh 12y ago
Even assuming the hypothetical price does not refer to just production costs per bulb, but also initial capital outlays for a manufacturing plant etc., you're still assuming there are no marketing and sales costs, and no distribution costs, and no costs to cover returns (want to claim it lasts a 1,000 years? better be prepared to replace each and every bulb that fails for some reason or face lawsuits). You'd also need capital to stand up to much larger manufacturers who'd go for an all out assault to find real or imagined flaws with your product (it'll destroy the environment - think of the dying baby seals!). Some products costs many times their manufacturing cost to sell and distribute. > After all, those inferior light bulbs cost about twice as much That may sound like a good thing for you, but it's not a given. You've just created a reason for people to go "hold on, if this bulb lasts so long, why does it cost so little? what's wrong with it?" (at which point the less ethical of your competitors will whisper in their ears: "think of the dying baby seals; we can't prove that's what they make their filament of, but ...") You'll need to convince people that you're selling them a genuine product, because it sounds too good to be true and a lot of people would assume it is too good to be true. Convincing them would cost a lot of money. The irony is that you might be better off promising a much shorter timespan (you'd still need a fortune for marketing campaigns) and/or hiking the price up. But if you're promising a shorter lifespan, why not cut manufacturing costs and achieve a shorter lifespan and increase your profit? It's what your competitors will do. And of course you'd face clones of your products - patents or no patents there'd be people trying to find workarounds, or just blatantly ignoring any patents and hoping to make a profit before you can stop them (or hope they can make it too expensive for you to pursue) > Who would choose not do do such a thing? Certainly most anybody who's motivated by profit (like, say, a capitalist) would jump at the opportunity. The article points out that a cartel of the biggest manufacturers at the time saw things opposite: They saw increasing how long they'd last as a threat to the extent that they went to extreme lengths to prevent it from coming to pass. I think that's a pretty good indication that "most anybody who's motivated by profit" would not necessarily jump at the opportunity to create a longer life product.
- merrua 12y ago
  You kind of ignoring that we live in the age of the internet and word-of-mouth can work a lot better than sales/marketing. Returns too, only matter if it actually does fail, which given the premiss it doesnt. No reason why a exponential improvement in lightbulbs would be less popular than anything else people have looked at and said this is way better than that.

Decade 12y ago

If it took 1 person to make, sell, and distribute those things, then $70 million are enough to retire comfortably. If it takes 100 people, then you could still retire, if you lived somewhere cheap. More realistically, you might sell a few hundred thousand to the developed world, and then sales fall off a cliff, because it takes a lot of work to distribute outside your home market. Total payoff: Less than 2 months' salary. That's the concern with the new lights. The industry is built on 1,000-hour bulbs and regular replacements. We currently have a boom as incandescents get replaced by fluorescents and fluorescents get replaced by LEDs (my father hates fluorescent light). Once that is done, who is going to buy bulbs at the rate that the factories can produce them?

theworst 12y ago
This thread has gotten way out of hand with the thought experiments that reveal more about the author than the subject... but I can't resist! If it took 100 people to make/sell/distribute, and you are the owner of the company, you're probably going to still be rich. Figure 99 employees at $150k fully loaded annually would cost you 15 million dollars, leaving 55 million to retire on. Of course, if you are an employee, you would only have a job for 1 year.
theworst 12y ago
This thread has gotten way out of hand with the thought experiments that reveal more about the author than the subject... but I can't resist! If it took 100 people to make/sell/distribute, and you are the owner of the company, you're probably going to still be rich. Figure 99 employees at $150k fully loaded annually would cost you 15 million dollars, leaving 55 million to retire on. Of course, if you are an employee, you would only have a job for 1 year.

vidarh 12y ago

Even assuming the hypothetical price does not refer to just production costs per bulb, but also initial capital outlays for a manufacturing plant etc., you're still assuming there are no marketing and sales costs, and no distribution costs, and no costs to cover returns (want to claim it lasts a 1,000 years? better be prepared to replace each and every bulb that fails for some reason or face lawsuits). You'd also need capital to stand up to much larger manufacturers who'd go for an all out assault to find real or imagined flaws with your product (it'll destroy the environment - think of the dying baby seals!). Some products costs many times their manufacturing cost to sell and distribute. > After all, those inferior light bulbs cost about twice as much That may sound like a good thing for you, but it's not a given. You've just created a reason for people to go "hold on, if this bulb lasts so long, why does it cost so little? what's wrong with it?" (at which point the less ethical of your competitors will whisper in their ears: "think of the dying baby seals; we can't prove that's what they make their filament of, but ...") You'll need to convince people that you're selling them a genuine product, because it sounds too good to be true and a lot of people would assume it is too good to be true. Convincing them would cost a lot of money. The irony is that you might be better off promising a much shorter timespan (you'd still need a fortune for marketing campaigns) and/or hiking the price up. But if you're promising a shorter lifespan, why not cut manufacturing costs and achieve a shorter lifespan and increase your profit? It's what your competitors will do. And of course you'd face clones of your products - patents or no patents there'd be people trying to find workarounds, or just blatantly ignoring any patents and hoping to make a profit before you can stop them (or hope they can make it too expensive for you to pursue) > Who would choose not do do such a thing? Certainly most anybody who's motivated by profit (like, say, a capitalist) would jump at the opportunity. The article points out that a cartel of the biggest manufacturers at the time saw things opposite: They saw increasing how long they'd last as a threat to the extent that they went to extreme lengths to prevent it from coming to pass. I think that's a pretty good indication that "most anybody who's motivated by profit" would not necessarily jump at the opportunity to create a longer life product.

merrua 12y ago
You kind of ignoring that we live in the age of the internet and word-of-mouth can work a lot better than sales/marketing. Returns too, only matter if it actually does fail, which given the premiss it doesnt. No reason why a exponential improvement in lightbulbs would be less popular than anything else people have looked at and said this is way better than that.