News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:The Great Lightbulb Conspiracy by ChrisLomont on Tuesday March 06, 2018 @10:46AM (#16529500)
Usually not enough customers are willing to pay for it to make it worthwhile. If that many customers would pay for it, then it would be profitable for the company to make products that way, and companies would make it that way.
Re:The Great Lightbulb Conspiracy by flukus on Tuesday March 06, 2018 @10:39PM (#16534086)
Customers don't have enough information to make an informed decision. I don't mind paying twice as much for something that will last a lot longer, but without a lot of research the price signal is the only indication of quality and more often than not it's just a premium for a well known brand rather than actual quality.
Re:The Great Lightbulb Conspiracy by manjushri on Tuesday March 06, 2018 @12:50PM (#16530501)
Indeed, that is the justification for planned obsolescence, the environment be damned.
Re:The Great Lightbulb Conspiracy by ChrisLomont on Tuesday March 06, 2018 @03:16PM (#16531712)
Doing things that are unprofitable is also unsustainable on a large scale. It an only be done by using subsidies, i.e., other resources generated from profits, which does not scale.

Losing money is not a viable long term solution for a business, an economy, or mankind.

Re:The Great Lightbulb Conspiracy by manjushri on Wednesday March 07, 2018 @10:52AM (#16537192)
Accepting lower profit != accepting negative net profit and is far more sustainable for mankind than dogmatically seeking maximum profits.