The top comments on this post point out that it’s run at 10% capacity and never turned on and off so as to protect the filament, so this has nothing to do with planned obsolescence and corporate profits
[Veritasium](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j5v8D-alAKE) made a video about it. While it might just be run at 10% now to preserve it, there IS proof that at least light bulb manufacturers implemented planned obsolescence to increase profit
Some contextual facts about lightbulbs:
* For incandescent bulbs (like this one pictured), the efficiency of the bulb typically increases with decreasing lifespan. That's because to make an efficient bulb, you want a very thin filament (part that glows) that is very hot. So there is actually real incentive to make bulbs that have shorter lifespans. That bulb that has been lit for 100 years has a thick filament and low temperature and terrible efficiency. That's not to say that manufacturers haven't artificially capped lifespan without optimizing efficiency, today, only that it is unrealistic to think that we could or should have lifetime incandescent bulbs without losing substantial efficiency.
* LEDs are actually the opposite. They become more efficient as you stress them less (to a point...). Here is [a good video that demonstrates this](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=biEZ1TbdhhU&list=WL&index=12). However, the market forces to make LED light bulbs that have similar shapes/size as incandescent bulbs, with similar light output, and to reduce material costs, requires them to be more highly stressed. Here is [another good video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=klaJqofCsu4) about some special bulbs that are made to be as efficient as possible and long lasting, and that you can't buy!
Iphones and printers are a better example of planned obsolescents.
The light bulb is like the OG of planned obsolescence. There is even a documentary about it. There is a podcast episode I can’t find that discusses it - the two main manufacturers were in a race to create the longest lasting lightbulb and instead settled on a maximum amount of time that they would last because if you made an eternal lightbulb who would be left to buy the product?
Veritasium made [a video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j5v8D-alAKE) about this
FWIW incandescent bulbs have an awful carbon footprint. If you have an old unused incandescent bulb in your house, it'd be way better for the environment to just throw it out and buy a modern bulb, rather than actually use it.
Same with older refrigerators and clothes washers.
But it still works, why should we replace it with a bulb that uses 1% of the electricity, is 10x brighter and you can turn it off or dim it whenever you need too?
I’ve had several, similar conversations here about cars.
Edit: Also Gravity’s Rainbow.
Agreed. Not to say that there isn't intentional kneecapping of bulb life, but to ignore the fact that there are tradeoffs which make better performing bulbs (or cars, or phones or...) have shorter lifespans, is disingenuous. Yes we should discourage manufacturers from creating planned obsolescence, or even incentivize them to tip the scales of design compromise toward longevity, but to summarize this story as "bulb manufacturers have decided that all bulbs must fail at x hours in order to sell more bulbs" is a bit of a mischaracterization.
That sheds light on it...
There’s also a Planet Money podcast episode about this called The Phoebus Cartel. iirc 1000 hours was the agreed lifespan for bulbs since then.
this statement is totally untrue
I call this Designed Senescence when companies make things to break over a certain time.
I also tried to fix a k cup machine but the screws were purposely screwed in and blocked a certain way to make you not be able to fix it.
I’ve heard about this years ago and just recently watched a video about it that disclosed something about the circumstances that’s always left out that makes a huge difference...
this particular light bulb is used as a night light for a fire station and is receiving a very low current of electricity and is on 24/7....
the low electrical current and because it’s always on so it never has to expand or contract from the temperature change is part of the reason it’s been on for so long.
The video also talks about how they don’t make them like this anymore because all the lightbulb companies in the world got together and decided that they would all agree not to make lightbulbs last longer than an agreed upon amount of time (or the company would have to pay a fine) because if lightbulbs were to last forever (which is possible obviously), than the light bulb business wouldn’t be a profitable industry.
"Does it actually provide any light?"
"That's.. that's beside the point!"
See how that sounds? That's you.
With this light bulb, you won't be able to see the corporations taking advantage of you!
There is no ethical consumption under capitalism.
Here is another documentary on programmed obsolescence :
Why are you referring to the Phoebus Cartel as if it is a conspiracy theory?
What about the California blackouts in 2000-2001 caused by Enron to manipulate energy markets for corporate gain?
Money is more important in a Capitalist Society.
There was also a company who invested tires whose treads never wore out. I think Michelin bought the company and holds the patents but don’t make any of them because why would they when they can sell tires which need to be replaced every 3-4 years
Why does the firefighter look like a half life character
The only thing we value as a society is your ability to generate revenue.
Corporations merely oblige our culture.
There are batteries that never die, oil that never needs changed, so on and so forth.
Globalized capitalist economies cant sustain from things you buy once.
Sustainability is the ability of system to endure. While most people associate the term with the environment, true longevity requires social and economical sustainability as well as ecological sustainability.