It is actually about a much simpler product, that all of us are using in our everyday life: Light Bulbs.
But unlike the usual famous joke "how many people/engineers/mathematicians it takes to replace a bulb ?", the real question is "how much does it really cost, and why ?".
 |
| http://thestoryofliberty.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/normal-light-bulb.jpg |
While many still use the light bulb that didn't change since the days when Edison invented it (as in the picture above), there was a lot of recent progress in this field. Led and halogen bulbs should significantly prolong a bulb's lifespan, while reducing its energy consumption.
Unfortunately, the above advantages do not necessarily come to practice due to what I see as a "wasteful" design. I have encountered this while replacing my own halogen light bulbs in my living room.
The lamps and the lights were inherited from the previous tenant, so there was no participation from my side in the original choice...
Basically, a halogen bulb is very small, and quite cheap (about $1.5 USD). It is a very small component, and the only thing that needs to be replaced when it burns out.
 |
| http://www.absak.com/catalog/images/bi-pin-halogen.jpg |
However, the bulbs I had installed, were packed as a much more complex unit, that needs to be replaced as a whole unit, you could not replace just the small halogen bulb component.
Exhibit 1 (price - about $10 USD)  |
| Exhibit 1 |
Exhibit 2 (price - about $15 USD)  |
| Exhibit 2 |
As you can see, quite a lot of material goes to waste here, while it could have been saved, by replacing just the small halogen bulb in the center. It could also save the consumer (me, in this case) quite a lot of money (consider that I have 4 bulbs of each kind in use, and they need to be replaced roughly every couple of years).
So why do the manufacturers design it this way ?
The naive answers would probably be: "to make the replacement process easier", "to make them more compatible", etc... This might be true for the 2nd exhibit but definitely not for the first one (where two bolts needed to be unscrewed just to pull it out).
The truth is that they are probably trying to capture the maximum "willingness to pay" of the customer. They figure out that if someone acquired this lighting in the first place, their "willingness to pay" is high enough so as to pay the additional $50-70 USD for the additional bulbs every couple of years. Of course, their own (as well as of the retailers) profit margin on such products is much higher, and these products are much more profitable than just the simple halogen bulbs.
So, I guess this is yet another case where the manufacturers make the consumer pay much more than necessary, without the consumer being able to do anything about it.
But even if we put the consumer cost aside, the environmental footprint of such products is so much higher than of the simple part that really needs to be replaced (all this plastic, aluminium and other metals that go to garbage unnecessary).
Why do the future generations have to suffer because of greedy manufacturers creating a wasteful design on purpose ?
A final thought - when choosing your next lighting, make sure you really understand the economic and environmental cost of having the bulbs replaced.
So why do the manufacturers design it this way ?
The naive answers would probably be: "to make the replacement process easier", "to make them more compatible", etc... This might be true for the 2nd exhibit but definitely not for the first one (where two bolts needed to be unscrewed just to pull it out).
The truth is that they are probably trying to capture the maximum "willingness to pay" of the customer. They figure out that if someone acquired this lighting in the first place, their "willingness to pay" is high enough so as to pay the additional $50-70 USD for the additional bulbs every couple of years. Of course, their own (as well as of the retailers) profit margin on such products is much higher, and these products are much more profitable than just the simple halogen bulbs.
So, I guess this is yet another case where the manufacturers make the consumer pay much more than necessary, without the consumer being able to do anything about it.
But even if we put the consumer cost aside, the environmental footprint of such products is so much higher than of the simple part that really needs to be replaced (all this plastic, aluminium and other metals that go to garbage unnecessary).
Why do the future generations have to suffer because of greedy manufacturers creating a wasteful design on purpose ?
A final thought - when choosing your next lighting, make sure you really understand the economic and environmental cost of having the bulbs replaced.
No comments:
Post a Comment