| General > General Technical Chat |
| LED lighting and planned obsolescence, intentional or not. |
| (1/19) > >> |
| Psi:
This is just for the LED lighting planned obsolescence and regulation discussion that was happening in the superconductors thread that I moved to here, as it was off topic for superconductors. |
| Psi:
--- Quote from: gnuarm on August 04, 2023, 05:58:05 am --- --- Quote from: Psi on August 04, 2023, 05:02:10 am --- --- Quote from: gnuarm on August 03, 2023, 10:14:34 am ---I was commenting on the false statements you appeared to be making. --- End quote --- Ok, fair enough, I should have said "most" instead of "all". I know there are some LED lighting manufactures that sell good products. I was not suggesting that manufacturers are having design meetings on how to get their devices to fail just outside of the warranty in order to sell more. Or they're testing them to ensure they do fail soon after warranty. I'm saying they are choosing their product design requirements based on their chosen product lifespan and they are doing that process wrong. Lifespan requirements in the design process should be determined by a cost/benefit analysis from the users perspective, not the sellers perspective. If you can add $0.05 of extra parts to a product with $2 BOM cost and that will make it last twice as long then you should do that. Not doing that means you are designing it to fail prematurely. --- End quote --- I hate reading stuff like this. You essentially claim that "most" manufacturers actually go to the trouble of designing the product to be a time bomb, rather than simply minimizing the product cost, which sets the minimum selling price. Yet, You offer zero evidence of anything you say. What $0.05 worth of parts will make an LED bulb last twice as long? Whatever. People believe what they want to believe and there is little in the way of facts or evidence, that will change their minds. --- End quote --- That is exactly what i'm not saying. I'm saying they are doing it as a side effect, not on purpose, at least not directly. For any product you need to come up with an expected life-span requirement that you want to achieve so you have something to check against and verify the design. The lifespan requirement is often decided by competitors products and by the market. Instead of looking at that question with an eye towards what's best for the product and best for the consumer they are looking at it as an exercise of lowering BOM cost and maximizing profits. In most cases the cost to make it last 5x longer is not even $0.05, it's free, just change the value of a resistor to run the LED at 50% brightness so the temps are all under control and the bridge rectifier is not running at 105C and not cooking the electrolytic cap and LEDs. At 50% brightness you might need 2 of them or you might need a larger version to light your room, but that is a different issue. The main problem is that to sell LED lights with proper lifespans the cost would be higher as you might need more of them, and companies selling them would lose money because the public are stupid and will usually buy the cheaper product and save a little cash even if it only last 20% as long. This is why we need legislation against planned obsolescence, either intentional or unintentional. |
| gnuarm:
--- Quote from: Psi on August 05, 2023, 03:03:57 am --- --- Quote from: gnuarm on August 04, 2023, 05:58:05 am --- --- Quote from: Psi on August 04, 2023, 05:02:10 am --- --- Quote from: gnuarm on August 03, 2023, 10:14:34 am ---I was commenting on the false statements you appeared to be making. --- End quote --- Ok, fair enough, I should have said "most" instead of "all". I know there are some LED lighting manufactures that sell good products. I was not suggesting that manufacturers are having design meetings on how to get their devices to fail just outside of the warranty in order to sell more. Or they're testing them to ensure they do fail soon after warranty. I'm saying they are choosing their product design requirements based on their chosen product lifespan and they are doing that process wrong. Lifespan requirements in the design process should be determined by a cost/benefit analysis from the users perspective, not the sellers perspective. If you can add $0.05 of extra parts to a product with $2 BOM cost and that will make it last twice as long then you should do that. Not doing that means you are designing it to fail prematurely. --- End quote --- I hate reading stuff like this. You essentially claim that "most" manufacturers actually go to the trouble of designing the product to be a time bomb, rather than simply minimizing the product cost, which sets the minimum selling price. Yet, You offer zero evidence of anything you say. What $0.05 worth of parts will make an LED bulb last twice as long? Whatever. People believe what they want to believe and there is little in the way of facts or evidence, that will change their minds. --- End quote --- That is exactly what i'm not saying. I'm saying they are doing it as a side effect, not on purpose, at least not directly. --- End quote --- Ok, then we agree and this discussion is over. --- Quote ---For any product you need to come up with an expected life-span requirement that you want to achieve so you have something to check against and verify the design. The lifespan requirement is often decided by competitors products and by the market. Instead of looking at that question with an eye towards what's best for the product and for the consumer they are looking at it as an exercise of lowering BOM cost and maximizing profits. In most cases the cost to make it last 5x longer is not even $0.05, it's free, just change the value of a resistor to run the LED at 50% brightness so the temps are all under control and the bridge rectifier is not running at 105C and not cooking the electrolytic cap and LEDs. At 50% brightness you might need 2 of them or you might need a larger version to light your room, but that is a different issue. The main problem is that to sell LED lights with proper lifespans the cost would be higher as you might need more of them, and companies selling them would lose money because the public are stupid and will usually buy the cheaper product and save a little cash even if it only last 20% as long. This is why we need legislation against planned obsolescence, either intentional or unintentional. --- End quote --- I was with you until you started talking about the absurd idea of legislating "planned obsolescence". Now, you have gone off the rails. |
| Psi:
--- Quote from: gnuarm on August 05, 2023, 04:43:36 am ---I was with you until you started talking about the absurd idea of legislating "planned obsolescence". Now, you have gone off the rails. --- End quote --- We can't keep manufacturing trash and filling up landfills with throw-away devices, or devices that might as well be. Well... I guess we could, but it would trash the earth and probably kill us eventually. It's not something anyone wants. I guess it's possible companies might start to do it on their own if public option shifts enough to change purchasing habits and affects their profit. But if that happens it's likely to cause new laws anyway. |
| Haenk:
--- Quote from: Psi on August 05, 2023, 03:03:57 am ---That is exactly what i'm not saying. I'm saying they are doing it as a side effect, not on purpose, at least not directly. This is why we need legislation against planned obsolescence, either intentional or unintentional. --- End quote --- I'm certain they *are* doing this on purpose. Imagine your light bulbs last "forever". Selling you a full set of bulbs is a one-time-business, after that all manufacturers can close their doors, as there is no need of further supply ever again. And there is hardly any tech cycle, requirin new "hardware". Forcing a longer lifespan howevery is a very good thing though, as this is eventually toxic electronic waste, which should be avoided. |
| Navigation |
| Message Index |
| Next page |