> Their lightbulbs were of a higher quality, more efficient, and brighter burning than other bulbs. They also cost a lot more. Indeed, all evidence points to the cartel’s being motivated by profits and increased sales, not by what was best for the consumer.
It would have been straightforward for them to manufacture higher voltage, less brighter lamps with a longer lifespan. They didn't.
In how many uses cases is anything other than perceived brightness relevant?
Increased costs to provide something the consumer doesn't want is exactly the kind of thing competition is likely to reduce.
The market doesn't always work but it's also very hard to determine what is wrong and how to fix it. If market equilibrium leads to destroying the ozone, it's easy. But if the market means fewer lumens per dollar (or even per joule), that is less obviously bad.
I may be dating myself, but I have never in my entire life seen a light bulb sold without the wattage displayed front and center. It is by far a more accessible metric than when it dies, by which time I have long forgotten where in time immemorial I bought that particular bulb.
The price-fixing aspects, not so much, lol.
Short-lived bulbs were good for the customers. In a market with perfect information people would have chosen them on their own. Unfortunately of 3 categories of information needed for an informed decision (lifetime, power usage, and light output) purchasers only had a good measure of how often they replaced bulbs. Usage patterns are too complex for improvements in a single bulb to be obvious on a power bill, and human brightness perception is roughly logarithmic so it’s not visually obvious how much brighter different bulbs are.
Whether it was motivated by greed or not, the Phoebus cartel is an example of big business successfully advocating for the interests of the general public in the presence of information asymmetry.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incandescent_light_bulb#Light_...