I was just reading this article regarding a new super efficient pharox 60 LED light bulb that can last for 25 years. Now without over thinking this, it occurred to me that having a light bulb, or in general, a low-cost/level technology such as the light bulb, is, for a lack of a better word, a waste in regards to lasting for a long period. Recall Moore’s Law, which describes a long-term trend in the history of computing hardware, in which the number of transistors that can be placed inexpensively on an integrated circuit has doubled approximately every two years (or 18 months). Using Moore’s Law as the base line of thinking here, creating a low-level/cost technology, such as the light bulb that can last for 25 years really doesn’t hold much promise for the simple reason that in another year (or two), a technology that is twice as good and is half the price will be hitting the shelf. Yes?
Now the big contradicting point that I see arising here is that a technology like the light bulb, or anything in general, that lasts for an extended period, becomes very useful, if not down right brilliant, to the ‘third world country’ in which the ability to purchase a newer version of the product every few months/years isn’t readily available nor economically feasible. Therefore, this ideaology of creating technological products that can last for ’25 years’ makes sense. However, when developing the product, are the manufactures really thinking about this latter argument?
What do you think?
Let me know what you thought of this post. I appreciate your comments, so start commenting so I can appreciate them. Also, if you liked it enough, let your friends know. The more people the better. Also, be sure to subscribe by clicking here. =)
Why would the company that makes this light bulb bother to develop another more efficient light bulb if no one buys this one though?
Also, why would it be wise for people in “third world” countries to buy this light bulb? If your analysis holds true, the cost/benefit ratio will be more favorable later and the price would be roughly equal too. A new PC top of the line PC is about the same price or less than a top of the line PC 5 or 10 years ago. Why shouldn’t they just wait like everyone else?
Furthermore, should we assume that light bulb tech will continue to increase in efficiency at a steady rate. There would be hardly any concrete advantages to a light bulb that lasts 100 yrs as opposed to one that lasts 200 yrs. (Someone would probably accidentally break it before than anyways
) So why would a company waste time/money in development?