On Wed, 18 Sep 2024 16:58:58 +0200, Jarosław Sokołowski wrote:
> Pan J.F napisał:
>>>> A znajdziesz ten tekst?
>>> Gdybym potrzebował, to bym znalazł. Kiedyś czytałem. Nie zajmuję
>>> się prowadzeniem działalności usługowej w Usenecie.
>>
>> Ale tu inaczej piszą
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoebus_cartel
>>
>> The cartel lowered operational costs and worked to standardize the
>> life expectancy of light bulbs at 1,000 hours[6] (down from 2,500
>> hours),[6] while raising prices without fear of competition.
>
> Piszą tak samo, tylko trzeba zajrzeć do podanego źródła[6], a nie
> iść za tym, co Wikepedysta zrozumiał:

A nie wiem, czy to jest źródło, czy kolejny artykulik z serii
"co autor usłyszał".
Czy to jednak historyk, po poważnych poszukiwaniach żródeł?


> Cartel members rationalized this approach as a trade-off: Their
> lightbulbs were of a higher quality, more efficient, and brighter
> burning than other bulbs. They also cost a lot more.
>
> Wszystko prawda, ale słowo "rationalized" jest tu chyba oskarżeniem.
> Zupełnie bez dowodu winy. Prawdy nie trzeba racjonalizować.

Ale koszt, w warunkach monopolu, to juz można.

> Dalej idą już z grubej rury:
> Indeed, all evidence points to the cartel's being motivated by
> profits and increased sales, not by what was best for the consumer.
>
> Nieładnie jest wchodzić w czyjąś głowę i arbitralnie orzekać, co go
> motywowało. Ważne, że konsument zyskał. A że przemysł chce zarabiać,
> to oczywiste.

No ale czy konsument na pewno zyskał, a czy przemysł nie zarobił za
dużo? Bo podwyżka cen jednak.

Mowa tam też o licencjonawaniu kilku patentów GE, być może wynalazł
cos nowego.

> Idźmy dalej:
> In carefully crafting a lightbulb with a relatively short life span,
> the cartel thus hatched the industrial strategy now known as planned
> obsolescence.
>
> Skąd wiadomo, że pracowano nad skróceniem żywotności, a nie wzrostem
> efektywności? Tak powstają teorie spiskowe -- z jednej prawdziwej

Czasem się zachowują dokumenty, gdzie są podkreślone zalety ... czytaj
- większy zysk :-)

No i ... to jak z tym tekstem źródłowym - był limit dolny na
wydajność, i kartel to kontrolował, czy był limit górny na żywotność,
i kartel ją kontrolował ?

> i słabo zrozumianej informacji (o kompromisie) wyciąga się stos
> nieuprawnionych wniosków. Potem jest o tym, że umowa straciła moc
> w roku 1940. I co? Ano nic. Nawet socyalizm, będący w kontrze do
> wrednych kapitalistów nie zrobił konkurencyjnej żarówki o dobrych
> parametrach i żywotności dłuższej niż tysiąc godzin.

Socjalizm miał trochę lepiej - mógł dobrać optymalne parametry nie
patrząc się na zysk fabryki. Ale czy nasze tez miały 1000h?
I czy coś dobieraliśmy, czy przejęliśmy fabrykę od Niemców, i
kontynuowaliśmy produkcję?
A potem na licencji ZSRR ?

A poza tym ... najpierw trzeba było zrobic elektryfikację kraju ...

> Legendarne 2500
> godzin okazały się bujdą. Chociaż firmy cały czas kraftowały w tym
> temacie. Dopiero technika halogenowa (trochę) pomogła.

W sensie, ze takie trwałe były, czy że pozwalały na przyzwoitą
wydajność i żywotność?

https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts
/FSupp/82/753/1755675/

"Exhibit GE-181 is a condensation of his testimony showing how two 100
watt lamps having design lives of 750 hours would cost the consumer
less than one 100 watt lamp to operate for the same light designed for
a 1500 hour life.

The Government insisted that General Electric was primarily interested
not in giving the consumer more efficient light but basically in
increasing its sales of flashlight lamps and that the reason it
returned to the two battery life formula was because one of the
battery manufacturers was unwilling to approve the change as is
indicated in Exhibit 1861-G."


i jeszcze ta historyjka:
"The third basis for the charge of deterioration leveled by the
Government against General Electric also involved miniature lamps. One
of these, in 1936 and 1937, was a night lamp known as C-7, designed
for a life of 2000 hours and the other was the Christmas tree lamp
known as C-7- 1/2 , designed for a life of 500 hours.
The Government charged that General Electric was opposed to any plan
which would permit the substitution of the long lived night lamp for
the Christmas tree lamp having the shorter life because it was
concerned with loss of sales and the opposition of the Christmas tree
string manufacturers. It pointed to Exhibit 1867-G, a memorandum dated
July 30, 1937, from the Incandescent Lamp Department to managers and
salesmen, as follows:

"We have been informed that some of our B agents contemplate ordering
C-7 night light lamps for use in multiple Xmas Tree sets, rather than
purchase C-7- 1/2 multiple Xmas tree lamps from our Xmas Tree Outfit
manufacturers. While the cost of the C-7 night light lamp to a jobber
is *898 slightly higher than that of the C-7- 1/2 Xmas Tree Lamp, this
may be offset by the advantage of crediting sales of night light lamps
to their MAZDA lamp sales.

"We do not recommend the use of C-7 night light lamps in Xmas Tree
sets because:

1-Night light lamps are less rugged than multiple Xmas Tree lamps and
will not give the customer as satisfactory service in multiple Xmas
Tree sets.

2-Naturally our Xmas Tree Outfit manufacturers object to the use of
C-7 night light lamps in their Xmas Tree outfits, because they do not
want to lose the sale of C-7- 1/2 multiple Xmas Tree lamps.

We urge that whenever substantial orders for C-7 night light lamps are
received from our B agents, that you have them investigated to
determine whether they are to be used in multiple Xmas Tree service.
If so every effort should be made to convince the B agent that the
regular C-7- 1/2 multiple Tree lamps should be ordered from his regular
source of supply or Xmas Tree outfit manufacturer."

I co tu racjonalizowano?

"The Government insisted that the argument put forth that the C-7s
were less rugged in construction and that the consumer would not
receive satisfactory service from them if they were used as Christmas
tree lamps was obviously for promotional purposes because of the
emphasis on the loss of sales.
To support this it pointed to the letter of the Noma Electric
Corporation bitterly complaining that even the C-7- 1/2 lamp was "too
healthy" and calling for General Electric to help in the "serious
problem" of restraining the use of the C-7 lamps as Christmas tree
lamps (Ex. 1865-G) and the reassuring reply by Mr. Potter that:

"I hope you have not become too panicky about the possibility of our B
Agents using Night Light lamps instead of the Christmas Tree C-7- 1/2 .
This Night Light Business has been quite a problem for us and we saw
no other way to handle it, but in order to forestall any activity such
as you fear we are sending out a lettter to our Divisions requesting
them to analyze all orders which they may receive on a B Agency for
this type of lamp and point out in each individual case the danger of
supplying such a type for Christmas Tree use. I think you need have no
great concern about this practice growing." (Ex. 1864-G.)

General Electric disclaimed the Government's charge that it emphasized
the sale of the C-7- 1/2 s for Christmas tree lamps without thought of the
consumer's interest but insisted that technical reasons for different
designs of the lamps were the paramount considerations.

It argued that the night light was a small lamp designed to throw a
spot of dim light for use in hallways, nurseries, etc. It was required
to burn throughout the night and the amount of light produced was
unimportant so that long life could be given to it.
The Christmas tree lamp of similar size and shape was entirely
different in purpose being required to produce the sparkle and
brilliance of particular interest to Christmas tree decoration.
Designed to give brilliant light it had a shorter design life. Even
so, it would last the ordinary consumer about 10 Christmas seasons,
disregarding shocks in handling.
The night lamp, although it would fit into the socket of the Christmas
tree lamp, was unsuited because it lacked brilliance and was not of
the rugged construction to meet the rougher handling to which the
Christmas tree lamp was exposed.

The C-7- 1/2 was a new product introduced to take the place of the old
one which was constructed in series and in which, if one lamp burned
out, all of the rest of the lamps on the string ceased to burn, and
General Electric acknowledged that it was anxious that it be accorded
a good reception. However, it contended that the decision to push the
promotion of C-7- 1/2 lamps for Christmas tree use was solely on the
ground that it was properly designed for that purpose while the C-7
was not and would give unsatisfactory service if used for Christmas
tree purposes."

Niby racjonalnie ... ale jednak musimy dbać o fabryki, i dyscyplinować
agentów :-)


J.