Long lasting light bulbs and other addiction myths
In my lifetime, I have known a few otherwise sane and intelligent people who believed that "they" could make an incandescent light bulb that would last thousands of times longer than the normal bulbs, but "they" don't because we wouldn't have to buy any more bulbs and "they" would go out of business. Let's say regular bulbs cost $1 and last a year: how much would you pay for a bulb that lasts 10 years? 100 years? Wouldn't you pay something on the order of $10 for the 10 year bulb and $100 for the 100 year bulb? Accounting for inflation and risk, of course.
Further, let's say there are a billion light fixtures in existence, that they were populated evenly (1 billion divided by the average lifetime of the bulbs) to level the demand for replacements, and there were a million new fixtures built every year. The companies making these miracle bulbs could expect fairly constant business for new bulbs, and constant replacement business once the first long-lasting bulbs reached their lifetime limits. So why wouldn't "they" do it?
Actually, if you are willing to accept some tradeoffs, "they" have. The number one cause of light failure is the sudden increase in heat when it is turned on, so warming the element, using heavier elements, and other such changes can increase the lifetime. All of these increase the cost, and the heavier element results in less light (4 W or so for the Livermore Centennial bulb - barely a glow). Similar arguments can be made for the miracle refrigerator, the miracle carburetor, and so on.
As it turns out, we no longer have to conjecture about this: with the advent of the Compact Flourescent Lamp (CFL), we essentially have a competing product that should drive the miracle lamps out of the cupboards of GE, Sylvania, Philips, etc. Where are they? A standard soft white 100W bulb costs about $0.65 while the equivalent CFL costs about $7-8, puportedly lasts 10 times as long*, and costs about 1/3 as much to operate.
* I tried an experiment with the earliest models: I installed a CFL and an incandescent in the same overhead fixture at the same time. When I changed out the third incandescent, I replaced it with a CFL and never looked back. Therefore, in my mind, CFLs have always lasted 3x as long, but that's obvously an underestimate. And that was with a Gen I CFL.
Now, most people accepted the fact that this is a myth even before the advent of the CFL. Why, then, do the rumors persist? And why do otherwise clear-thinking people believe them when you change the industry? For example, why do people believe that Big Pharma will attempt to hook diabetics on insulin when they could be developing a permanent cure? Obviously, Big Opta is hooking people on glasses when they could be ... trying to ... um, nevermind.
My guess: such people undervalue competition. They could be stuck in a sort of Innovator's Trap Stockholm Syndrome. That is, they look at the state of the market for, say, incandescent light bulbs from the point of view of the incandescent light bulb manufacturer and forget to consider it from the point of view of a heretofore unknown novel competitor who comes outta left field and creatively destroys the old paradigm.
Question: Are there any real industries or institutions which are addicted to the income or other compensation they get by holding back innovation from us and/or getting us addicted to half-measure solutions? What are the most significant, and what is the solution for each?
Further, let's say there are a billion light fixtures in existence, that they were populated evenly (1 billion divided by the average lifetime of the bulbs) to level the demand for replacements, and there were a million new fixtures built every year. The companies making these miracle bulbs could expect fairly constant business for new bulbs, and constant replacement business once the first long-lasting bulbs reached their lifetime limits. So why wouldn't "they" do it?
Actually, if you are willing to accept some tradeoffs, "they" have. The number one cause of light failure is the sudden increase in heat when it is turned on, so warming the element, using heavier elements, and other such changes can increase the lifetime. All of these increase the cost, and the heavier element results in less light (4 W or so for the Livermore Centennial bulb - barely a glow). Similar arguments can be made for the miracle refrigerator, the miracle carburetor, and so on.
As it turns out, we no longer have to conjecture about this: with the advent of the Compact Flourescent Lamp (CFL), we essentially have a competing product that should drive the miracle lamps out of the cupboards of GE, Sylvania, Philips, etc. Where are they? A standard soft white 100W bulb costs about $0.65 while the equivalent CFL costs about $7-8, puportedly lasts 10 times as long*, and costs about 1/3 as much to operate.
* I tried an experiment with the earliest models: I installed a CFL and an incandescent in the same overhead fixture at the same time. When I changed out the third incandescent, I replaced it with a CFL and never looked back. Therefore, in my mind, CFLs have always lasted 3x as long, but that's obvously an underestimate. And that was with a Gen I CFL.
Now, most people accepted the fact that this is a myth even before the advent of the CFL. Why, then, do the rumors persist? And why do otherwise clear-thinking people believe them when you change the industry? For example, why do people believe that Big Pharma will attempt to hook diabetics on insulin when they could be developing a permanent cure? Obviously, Big Opta is hooking people on glasses when they could be ... trying to ... um, nevermind.
My guess: such people undervalue competition. They could be stuck in a sort of Innovator's Trap Stockholm Syndrome. That is, they look at the state of the market for, say, incandescent light bulbs from the point of view of the incandescent light bulb manufacturer and forget to consider it from the point of view of a heretofore unknown novel competitor who comes outta left field and creatively destroys the old paradigm.
Question: Are there any real industries or institutions which are addicted to the income or other compensation they get by holding back innovation from us and/or getting us addicted to half-measure solutions? What are the most significant, and what is the solution for each?
Labels: philosophy
<< Home