"to bylo málo"

“A KOMU TÍM PROSPĚJETE CO?”

To bylo málo **zvuk rozbití skla** A KOMU TÍM PROSPĚJETE??

I was about to say that! Pelisky jsou nejlepsi klasika!

yeah and then the dude broke it XD

No, because if the glass doesn't break... then there is no reason to buy new glass. So if you're selling people glass.. yeah sure you'd make a lot of money selling them the superior, unbreakable glass. But when most people have your glass at home.. they'll stop buying from you and you'll make less money. The light bulb makers are literally the ones that made lamps so good they kept working for decades. And So they came together and decided to make their lamps worse, so they break over time. That way they could make a lot more money. That said, the soviets could have just started their own company in the west and sold directly to consumers. Which would have made them money, "proved" that soviet manufacturing is better because they don't have planned absolescence (obviously most western products were still better but everyone would be talking about the unbreakable soviet glass). And it would have hurt an entire sector of businesses in the west. Their leadership was just completely incompetent P.s. the guy claiming that the light bulb people never came together to agree on a planned obsolescence is full of sh. My comments keep getting shadowed. But the Phoebus cartel was 100% a thing. And it had nothing to do with brightness. Instead they claimed they limited the life span because "lamps get less efficient after a thousand hours" ..

​@@3choblast3r4how naive can you be? The soviet Union selling Something in the West that would be Superior to products in the West? You do know that The West heavily Blocked stuff Like that, especially If it meant showing their "Superior" manufacturing. The cold war wasnt onesided. The West would have never allowed the soviet Union to massively Undercut Western manufacturing. That only happened as soon as China came around and they did it in a way it appealed to Western Capitalists - by minimizing Labor Costs while Not being Seen as a threat to the West. Now the West relies on Chinese manufacturing which they wouldnt have allowed if China was Back then already Seen as a threat as was the soviet Union at all Times.

You're wrong have lamps. To get brighter and whiter light out of incandescent bulbs you need to crank the power high to increase temperature. The higher the temperature the more tungsten (or any incandescent) materials starts to (essentially) vaporate. So yes old incandescent bulbs could last forever theoretically, however you would be producing barely even s glow from the bulb. (Not to method that the evaporated filament lays as soot on the inside of the bulb effectively darkening the glass). Please see the video about incandescent lights on the technology connections KZfaq channel for better explanation and real world examples!

Can't edit comment ugh. Ignore typos I'm on a mobile browser. I meant to say *you're wrong about lamps

@@3choblast3r4 or yknow they didn't sell it because there is no reason to make more durable glass when plastic for example coveres every use case it might have?

Yes--and that's one other thing they didn't mention. When it does break, and it can happen spontaneously, it can be quite bad.

Smartphones are made to break. I'm not saying that a shock-durable smartphone has to look like one of the Hammer ones, but some rubber shielding could help a lot.

@@piotrmalewski8178 That's a good point when it comes to the glass backs. It is totally ree tar dead that they don't have titanium backs or something. That much is a complete scam, but for some reason people just take it in stride, or they like the idea of that shiny back which they immediately cover with rubber. Makes no sense whatsoever although I bet some of the smaller cell phone manufacturers make more durable phones. But as far as the glass on the front, it's totally there to be durable and scratch resistant. Not everything can be explained in this world.

​@@friendlyfire7861 What kills the screen in smartphones is that they don't have much shock absorbing material around to actually absorb the kinetic energy when falling, that's why the screen cracks even if it's made of otherwise excellent glass. It's like leasing a car from a lease company. They'll give you excellent brake pads and discs, but it's just a gimmick and the brakes might fail randomly because they won't pay for caliper conservation. For a lease company it's better financially to spend more on quality parts, save on maintenance and then charge you for premature wear of brakes because as a user you cannot prove it was a failing, not properly conserved caliper, and not your driving style. Same for phone makers; they'll sell you excellent glass but it doesn't really matter because the case design puts it exposed to full force of impact so you have to buy new one, because the screen is designed to be integral with the front glass and they charge absurd prizes for new screens.

@@piotrmalewski8178 Hmm... makes sense. I once had a "case" that was just a rubber band that went around the edges but did not cover the back at all. It worked fine! I'm not bad about dropping the phone, but I bet even that minimal protection on the corners did 80% of the work of keeping it from cracking when it did fall.

Answer: "no we hate it, hard pass"

well, sure it is. They're not interesting in sustaining anything but growing profits. People are always going to get sick. The problem is, the pharma heads have conspired with politicos on how to make people just sick enough that the products pharma sells will make them feel better.

curing is profitable, preventing isn't.

Careful there, many conspiracy theories and false medical claims are build upon hat logic. Be careful when you compare aples to oranges.

OP is of sound mind and has no intention of self deletion.

Same type of problem with refrigerators made in America in the 1950s-60s. They ran forever so the sales/service suffered. That's when "planned obsolescence and failure" were incorporated into design. There is a cooling unit in a business not far from me that has run for 60 years with only the occasional scheduled service. There is a Japanese philosopher/businessman that developed a philosophy of creating long-term products. He stated the culture must change to sustain the companies that focused on quality. I like his ideas. Imagine passing down products of superior quality. The environmental impact of consumerism would be greatly reduced.

​@@olliefoxx7165 It's only best to be mindful about the fact that such a transition won't just be uncomfortable, but the perfect breeding grounds for a reactionary Insurgency to take root.

It would mean that there were no more customers interested to buy an unbreakable lathe. So, the world must have been saturated with unbreakable lathes at that moment and nobody was buying new ones. Maybe the lathe was not breaking because nobody actually used it to make anything?

@@Iamwolf134 Yes. It is idealistic I agree. Many things would have to be done to make such a thing palatable to society.

RealSven: name of lathe? Town?

🤯

What makers mark is on the back if any ?

Probably contains lead

That sounds like *Corelle* glassware! It looks like ceramic but it's extremely light and nearly unbreakable glass. Best dishes in the world! Anytime I have guests eating at my place they always ask about my plates lol

Planned obsolescence is a crime against humanity.

Shhhh, don't you dare think about what you're told. Couple that with the fact that no company could ever reach the state of GE and the like, capable of enacting such a thing, without deliberate and repeated government intervention to quash competition.

That's true that old light bulbs using filaments were not made to break as much people think. It's just the balance between the amount of light per wat that mattered, the downside of bright glowing light bulbs is shorter life. Currently we have LED light and they are made to break faster... We can make LED lights that are durable and produce the same amount of light while sometimes being even more efficient. They just need to sell them. In Dubai they have LED light bulbs with a much higher count of LEDs while having the same light output - they last much much longer.

@@adrianzakrzewski4235 the LED's for sale 10 years ago lasted a very long time but were also north of $20, you could drop over a hundred just putting bulbs in a single room, nowadays they don't last as long but they cost $2, use less power, and are brighter (back then 60W equivalents were rare and more expensive, 100w equivalents were nonexistent) the current scam is integrated fixtures where you have to replace the whole damned thing because there is no separate bulb to replace

... No. This continues today. There are legal documents released from court that disputes your statements. Most LED lights that burn out are infact doing so by design in their circuits not their diodes. Whe throw billions of un recycled functional LEDs in non functional lights containing trace amounts of some of our rarest resources. Recycling™️ today has defrauded the world. As we consumers only truly recycle aluminum and glass both at great carbon footprints and only because of the financial benefit.

@@user-dn5bx2iu3e It is right that today they do make LEDs die faster. And as you said it's not because of the LED chips themselves but the overall design and circuit that drives them on the edge of their maximum ratings. I repaired and modified some of my LED lights in house when they failed and I don't expect them now to fail anytime soon. But the thing about old light bulbs is a bit more complicated. While they wanted to make light bulbs to die too, they also made them more efficient and with more white light. Unfortunately they also die faster, but they weren't that expensive to be honest and you could still buy some robust lights. I think gas tubes and all the fluorescent light are the worst. While they can work for a long time - they are more toxic and all that. In public buildings and other similar places it was a pretty good idea, but not in homes where they sold some crappy twisted bulbs.

*our* country

*Bullets get deflected by the glass*

@@heidirabenau511 Communist!!

@@heidirabenau511 Communist!!

*Communist:* Here, a glass you‘ll never need to replace, it’s indestructible! *Capitalists:* Bruv make light bulbs worse I ain’t getting paid enough

Same.

Maybe because you are on the West side (wrong side 😂)?

Same. But right after watching this video, I looked it up, and I noticed that there are people selling those kinds of glasses on eBay. Next time I need to buy new glassware, I might want to those. And yes, my entire family were on the west side and only due to university I moved over to Leipzig.

Ich hab noch 2 sind mir sehr heilig 😂😂

@@Jack-kk2dv Gib eins ab jetzt! So wollte es die DDR!

over time, as we have seen, capitalism results in a smaller range of products as 'capital' is owned by fewer and fewer hands/controllers and is certainly not defined by a 'free market', there's far too much planning by powerful actors (including the various states that practise it) for that !

A truly "free" market will not have state imposed barriers to entry into markets. Tort claims are consumers best defense against bad products. State regulations only serve to protect the big established businesses.

@@noneofyourbizness You mistake the mixed market system we see in the modern west for the free market. Monopolies are similar to civilisations, they rise and fall over time. It's through lobbying of government to legislate competition out of business we find ourselves in the 'late stage capitalism' problem we are in today. A good example of this is the oil industry spending billions lobbying the government to resist the nuclear power alternative, and to a lesser extent renewable. In a free market there would be companies competing for the most efficient/profitable energy service between nuclear and fossil suited to the nature of the energy required. Instead we have giant oil companies using the government as a shield to protect their monopoly on power production.

The consumer failure of Superfest was based on the *Communist* marketing plan, which tried to sell to a major company that made a lot.of money selling logo glasses... and they would sell a lot less of those glasses if they were more robust. Remember, people don't purchase "Coca Cola" logo glasses based on *quality* - they buy them for the logo. So, having a *better* glass wouldn't increase Coca Cola's market share. So, using a glass that *did* cost more, *would not* realistically allow a higher price to be charged commensurate with the cost of production, and which *would* reduce sales numbers, made it a net loser for a major glass manufacturer that already had major market share. This is a failure of trying to treat the economy as one of producing for one major distributor, in a stovepipe model, highly controlled one. As underlined by the fact that the DDR hired *one* Western marketing guy, and expected him to make the sales himself. Patent licensing to individual smaller companies that could market *superior* glasses to their end user customers (who were buying appearance and performance, *not* paying for a specific corporate label) might have worked better. But only if the license arrangement allows the total price of production so as to allow them to beat the total price of what DuPont and Corning was *already* offering (yes, Corning and DuPont *both* had commercial offerings for direct production *or* licensing agreements, for anyone who wanted them, before the end of the 1960s... but they were only successful in those niche specialty cases where the performance was *essential* rather than merely *desirable*, due to the higher cost of production.) It's far easier to force a new product into the market when you control the market entirely from the top down. Remember, this wasn't the first such glass on the market - Corning beat them to the actual market by the 1960s. The problem was, the demand was low because the additional cost wasn't justified by the performance. With smartphones, they really weren't *feasible* without chemically strengthened glass, due to size, weight, and technical requirements. So the benefits *did* justify the additional costs.

you always have capital barrier, and it will get bigger and bigger since larger and larger players are on the market. ​@@punkinhaidmartin

$200 each - HAHAHA.

Glasses that expensive are sold with the assumption that you will be paying someone to clean them for you by hand.

That’s on her. No offense but that’s as stupid as putting a knife in a dishwasher. Common sense isnt as common as it seems

Dude, not a single historical piece of artistic glass or porcelane would last in a dishwasher. There is a line between low quality product and incompetence of a user.

Watching the program, I thought stem glassware would be a great use of this type of glass.

generally speaking, everything. and the workers take the blame for not having the pride, as with all the problems these relentlessly for-profit companies have caused/worsened.

That's not planned.... You bought the cheapest vaccum and grill but expected them to last forever.

@@Ryuker16 explain apple devices... those are far from the cheapest, they're some of the most expensive...

Printers are the worst imho

@@dennism4508 Stop buying Epson then. I have a Brother printer, it's still going.

As someone who also works in the glass industry (Transporting glass in my case) it shocked me that no one was wearing wrist guards (leather or kevlar) while handling large sheets of glass.

Have you ever seen the channel SloMo Guys? They recorded glass shattering in slow motion. It is crazy fast. Almost instantaneous

did you ever try to make some *Prince Rupert* glass thingy, sir ? 🤔

You're telling me we can make simple glasses like this and make them not break? Why the F don't they sell these in stores or for restaurants?

@@Toasticuss I wouldn’t necessarily call it „simple“ to make such glasses. A lot if processing has to be done to make glasses that durable and resistant. Today, with mass production of „cheap glass“, it’s just not sensible from an economical standpoint because the prices for „unbreakable glass“ would be much higher in comparison.

the glass he is talking about is acrylic, you got scammed, go read some books mate, you are too gullible.

@@SpaceMarine113 acrylic isn't even mentioned in the video what the fuck are you on about?

@@SpaceMarine113 Did you know that books don't get live updates, live revisions, comments or any notices if any of the information inside it gets invalidated? Yeah, forgot about that one huh?

So much worse than the problems of communism, right?

@@UmamiPapi yes. you have no idea what you're talking about. Go back to shilling the bible

It's because there is basically only one microwave manufacturer left today, that makes the insides of the microwave! The cheapest one! Imagine all cars using the same motor and transmission... Also when microwaves appeared on the marked , they were expensive high-end products, for the wealthy. Many of these old microwaves could measure the amount of energy absorbed by the thing in the microwaves radiation chamber (imagine a high powered NFC system). So you could dial in how well you wanted the meal to be cooked and the microwave would stop when it was done. While with present day microwave you can make them into a plastic like brick, that would have never happened in those old ones. But how much would you spend on a microwave today for that feature? Surely not enough to justify it getting made.

@@TremereTT You mean Midea? They make ~90% of consumer-grade microwaves, but not all of them :) And there's a higher diversity of actual manufacturers in the commercial-grade microwave ovens.

@@ShadowwwLFS midea makes the cheap cyclotrons right ? I was well informed at one point in time a few years ago ...but the details have faded away

Be careful of survivor bias. You are likely to come across one of the 1985 microwaves that survived. What you will almost never come across, is any of the numerous 1985 microwaves that have long gone to the bin, decades ago. Tho I do agree that on average home appliances have lost in durability, but they also tend to be much cheaper than in the early days. I remember our first microwave in the early 90s, it was a small event at home, a significant investment, and my parents were living on two wages (it also hasn't survived the test of time). Nowadays I can get an entry-level one brand new for like, what, 60 bucks? Maybe $100 if I want a fancy one that also grills?

Freezers made 60 years ago still run continuously.

Yea, the capitalist pigs at corelle ware make 'shatter resistant plates' that are pretty impressive, but they still break occasionally. Something tells me these glasses break too, since they are similar designs.

That's glassy

damn

Yoo, that's a good comment. I wonder if any of the kids of the OGs work for gorilla glass or any of the window companies that make hurricane proof stuff. Also I commented about 40 seconds before he mentioned gorilla glass in the vid. I want it known I put two and two together 😅

My cracked screen begs to differ

Tht they made deliberately 10 thinner to perpetate planned obsolescence. Glass being that thin is irrelevant for overall phone size😂😂😂 If it was 1.5mm thick it would likely never break and phones would last +10yrs😅😅😅

we dont lack glorious products, we lack money to buy them. fern left out the price for a single glass for a reason... Energy shortly after the fall of the wall was not cheap and the process used to make the glass is energy intensive on top of having hughe stratup costs.

That capitalism for you, selling you the worst products at the highest price, and making sure being poor is more expansive than being rich, trapping people in poverty

@@1996Horstfinally someone understands why communism sucks and why we can’t have nice things, because not everyone makes a billion dollars an hour

One of the drawbacks of capitalism for sure

​@@ethan1367like the main one

Yes, it’s contradictory,but if you look closer it kind of makes sense. If you want to sell a smartphone the screen has to be resilient because it is product you use everyday. Despite Apple being a profit orientated cooperation , they need the product to last a couple of years and not break immediately. If the glass would crack when the Smartphone falls out of your pocket, it wouldn’t be successful.They need it to last for a couple of years before eventually it doesn’t work anymore. They need the consumers trust because otherwise they would realise that Apple is manipulating the product. Planned obsolescence should appear to be inevitable ,so that the cooperation is still making huge profits . In the case of Coca Cola they need to sell as many bottles, which means that they have to be disposable . You cannot refill, but have to buy another coke.Although I understand that you resent the sheer amount of greed from this big cooperations.

Idk why so many people say this kind of thing when iPhones are easily the longest lasting phones available lol

@@4lc441 they are not, at all

@@KeithGroover They get software support for longer. They hold more resale value. They just age better. Also, I think iOS users tend to upgrade less often - there are actual stats on that.

@@4lc441 they're never going to live down the fact that they slowed old phones down (until they got caught).

Even it was "unbreakable", it wasnt unscratchable. So after some time of using it wasnt clear, transparent.

You may find a concrete garage floor is hard enough to break it, especially if you have an asphalt driveway, it’s downright bouncy

why the fuck would you use kitchen glassware to measure oil?? does someone have to actually call you an A-hole for you to get that there's nothing to brag about here?

It doesn't look like it, but you did a lot of damage. That causes micro fractures and those will grow over time. I worked in a chemistry lab and brand new Pyrex could be dropped into concrete and it wouldn't break, but the old stuff would randomly break when we set it down a little too hard.

I have Arcoroc glass dinner plates from the 70s. They have survived three boys and they all have been dropped several times. They are just unbreakable.

Not the brightest bulb.

The Volkswagen was actually the one that zipped past the overheated cars. Probably from some kind of advert for air cooled cars.

What is funny is that, of all the BMW models, he showed the Isetta. Very decadent!

That’s capitalism for ya.

If Innovation that serves the only people just exists in communist country’s is our system really th event for us?

​@@GurkenbauerTim No, that's greed

E‎ ‎ ‎

@@GurkenbauerTim same reason we pay for electricity instead of having it free but a mutli billion dollar industrie wouldnt be anymore...

It's a funny detail, and it shows how capricious a planned economy is. One guy wants his beer in a glass, so everybody drop everything and spare no expense to create a glass that suits his taste. 😂😂

@@friendlyfire7861 Tell us more about how little you know about planned economies.

@@kristoffer3000 There are a lot of reasons to leave a sarcastic comment; advancing the conversation isn't one of them. What are you trying to say?

@@friendlyfire7861 I mean, you just spouted off a lot of ignorant shite with no connection to the real world, what am I supposed to do? Pat you on the back?

@@friendlyfire7861 I guess he is trying to say you have no idea what you're talking about...

Yes but he also says dishwashers are great while ignoring how quickly they break down and the much higher cost of running them, tough he does mention they are less water used. Not in my instance where I can clean my plates with a bachelor brush pretty quick. He gets a lot right, but sometimes leaves out other important things. I LIKE doing dishes. Gets my wife and kids out of my hair, whats left of it that is.

@@thorinbanei haven’t had or heard of a dishwasher breaking down except for one that got water damage (clearly just crappy manufacturing)

I just looked into it and NUDE sells crystalline glass, so it’s not the same thing but it accomplishes the same thing. Unfortunately they only sell wine and cocktail glasses with personally unappealing styling. What’s a man gotta do for some indestructible 70s Soviet chic pint glasses :(

I would also want that pint glass 😢​@@salamander405

They are also so expensive that you can buy dozens of normal glasses for the same price.

Now we know not to invest. 😆

€98 for 2 tumblers, ROFL I don't think so, IKEA it is.

I'm gay too buddy

Love from Germany

😮

@@fatal_d1are you a Nazi?

Breath Air That's even more important

Congratulations! You got the point of it! Planned obsolescence is also about cost cutting, the market incentivises that: the lower the production cost the higher the return in investment. There's more to it I'll get into shortly but you're right about that! About the lightbulbs... Sure, shorter lifespan lightbulbs might've been better light-output wise... 100 years ago. It might've been a solution to a nuisance to just limit the lifespan, though you could also innovate! That of course happened, though simply limiting the lifespan disincentivised that. "We have a solution, why bother making it better?". Besides, while they might've been more expensive, they still would've done their job well enough and the added expense would be worth it over time, as you'd have to replace the quickly breaking lamp a lot more than an everlasting one. Always think long-term, not short-term! Besides, your analogy with cars is lacking context. A car, as in one specific car, is usually used 10-15 years BECAUSE of planned obsolescence. It can't be used for more, it would just not be worth it to repair the constantly breaking parts. People normally use cars, as in the mode of transport, for far longer than that! Logically, if you've used your car to commute to work for the last couple of years because it's the most comfortable way, would you want to change your ways? Of course not! You'll keep using the car to commute, be it a different one or the "somehow" still functioning oldie from the 90s. This applies to basically everything, from microwaves (there's a comment in here about that) to glassware (the entire point of this video). You use a product for as long as it's useful to you, if the product breaks while it's still useful to you of course you're gonna buy it again or tediously look for alternatives. In short, the "typical usage period" is made up, it's basically the lifespan of a product before it breaks. Planned obsolescence is almost always used for profit. This might be a bold claim to hear, but it is actually what it is mainly for. You've seen the video, right? The quote from the Coca-Cola salesperson was "we earn money off our glasses" and by the other glass dealers "why should we saw off the branch we're sitting on?". That's not what a person caring about the quality of a product would say, not even one caring about a "typical usage period" of a product. Businesses stay in business because they can continue selling their product on the market, mainly through recurring customers. If they suddenly sell a product that a customer can use for a lifetime, then there would be practically no recurring customers. If then everyone owns their product, because the only way to keep being on the market this way is to reach more people than before, no-one would buy from the company and they'd go bankrupt. This is an issue many big tech companies are facing and have been for a while, it is called "market saturation". It's the natural end result of selling a product of higher quality on a market driven by infinite growth. It's just not practical to produce something of good quality, else you risk market saturation and a loss of profit. "Things oftentimes aren't designed to break after designed shelf-life is up" is thus only technically right for certain products. And on top of that, even those products aren't always designed to break after the shelf life but the breakage often results by constant reduction in production cost. Really, most products nowadays are designed specifically to last "long enough", that long enough being a few years at best and a few weeks at worst. It depends on the type of product and the perceived value of it. If the quality or the user experience was valued over profit, we simply wouldn't have things like fast fashion, insurances for products outside of the manufacturer's "warranty", hell we wouldn't have this much waste production or even carbon emissions. Every single product requires emissions, if one product lasts for less time than it could it's a waste. You hint at companies wanting the quality of the product to be good for the typical usage period, but both the typical usage period and the company wanting good are a myth. Companies need to survive in capitalism and planned obsolescence is a great way of doing exactly that. Greed is the driving factor, the higher your profits the better your chance of survival. If you wouldn't have to grow infinitely in a finite world, if you wouldn't have to be greedy to survive, that'd rid planned obsolescence, that'd rid the trade-off between quality and maximum possible profit. Overengineering something is not wasteful if it prevents much more waste in the long run.

@@balistowo 'generating landfill with extra steps'

Even the ads are crazy good😂 5:55

Same bro watching this channel for last one month Loving it.

You guys don't watch a ton of KZfaq videos.

its good german quality!

​@@EnrichedUranium- I really do but sure

Most basic form of capitalism

the unbreakable drinking glass will probably cost 50 dollars a piece or something, when you could buy breakable drinking glass with 10 cents 12pack, because of settled industry. would probably have to make a law to have unbreakable glasses, so industry would have to make them. "Bormioli Rocco Rock Bar Glass Tumbler Set of 6. 9 ounce capacity. $11.99. Tempered glass resists thermal shock and chipping. Dishwasher safe for easy cleaning. " seems i was wrong, even now break resistant glass costs just 2 dollars a piece. THOUGH break resistant is not the same as unbreakable glass.

@@Redmanticore Also this glass is cheaper to make than tempered glass, since it's literally just making a normal soda lime glass cup, heating it up and dumping it into a potassium-nitrate solution

Now you can with online sales platforms, back then it’s much more difficult to establish a sales network

The mistake they did was going for glasses in place of glass bottles.

And Gorilla Glass is now primarily used in items that have built-in obsolescence: phones and tablets.

What are you talking about? Plankton and coral love to grow on particles of plastic. Plastic is the ideal inert solid, which is why we wrap all of our food in it.

Yeah I think it'd be awesome to make plastics obsolete. Replace what can be replaced with ultra glass.

@@ILovePancakes24 we need to unironicly return to tradition when it comes to materials.

No. This kind of glass can only replace clear hard plastic, which is usually used to make reusable products anyway. The problem isn't plastic; it's plastic disposal. Unbreakable glass is very definitely not a solution to the plastic problem.

@@Syuvinya plastic drinkware is toxic and leeches chemicals into foods. Glassware is safe.

This comment was great until you got to planned obsolescence. Planned obsolescence, for all intents and purposes, does not exist in practice. Tons of things today are designed to be cheap, because people prefer cheaper products - they voted with their wallets and showed they are not willing to pay more for quality. So the result is products designed down to a price. They’re not designed to break soon, they’re designed to be cheap. That’s not the same thing.

Why would they set a lifespan limit in order to keep power usage manageable, as opposed to…a power usage limit? I understand that both attributes are linked through the aspect of filament thinness, but that precludes any innovation which sidesteps this limitation. It’s like if Intel decided that to improve laptop battery life, from now on, all laptops must weigh at least 4.5kg since more weight = more battery, ignoring the possibility of better battery tech, more efficient processors etc allowing for better endurance without compromising weight.

@@tookitogodid you watch the video? Products that were considerably more durable for the same price as their fragile competitors sold worse because they lasted longer, thus demand quickly shrunk, while the sustain in demand from peoples products breaking all the time led to the fragile products outcompeting the quality products. And this never even benefits the consumer, just look at disposable razors. While they have a lower upfront cost, comparing their sustained fees to other shaving types like safety or cartridge razors shows that they're by far the most expensive option, for a worse experience In a market economy you have winners and losers, and the winners are always the ones with the most devious, underhanded tactics

@@tookitogo There's stuff that's clearly designed to break after some time. I've seen some practices in smartphones, laptops of stuff that didn't make sense to me. Either these engineers were dumb, or it was done like that on purpose. Planned obsolescence it's a think and it's becoming even more.

I was about to write a similar comment. If anyone wants a lengthy (but very good and interesting) explanation, I can highly recommend watching "Longer-lasting light bulbs: it was complicated" by Technology Connections.

Yes. The planned obsolescence was part of it, but that can't last forever. LEDs that last forever are in a similar arc, I think. The first ones were super expensive and last forever. But do you really want that? The newer ones put out better light. You'd probably eventually throw out the old ones even if they still work. However, their longer life is still a selling point and even while that goes down, it is probably just coming into balance with the fact that you don't want every item you buy to be a lifetime purchase. And that 100 year old lightbulb barely puts out any light, and it's pretty red. Not good for a normal bulb.

@@friendlyfire7861 nah, led stuff is bullsh**. Basically instead of underdriving more led chips they underdrive less led chips. this is less in materials, to the order of like 20 cents, but runs the chips significantly hotter which makes them burn out in 3 years instead of 15. Dubai got special low power ones with extra filaments because they saw this.

Yeah there's a lot of pretty crucial information left out in this video. Of course with the light bulbs, but the reason Superfest glasses weren't widely adopted isn't purely due to planned obsolescence. It's because there were already international glass makers worldwide that made higher quality products at a less costly price. CorningWare, Pyrex, and Duralex already had very durable glass products that they could manufacture at a lower price, and therefore sell at a lower price. Superfest glasses were much costlier to produce in comparison, and therefore would have had to be sold at a much higher price to make a profit. Most consumers don't want to pay $18 for a glass when they could instead pay $8 and get one almost as durable. The only cases I could see Superfest glasses catching on would be in higher end bars and wineries where thinner glasses are more common, so it would make sense for those business owners to invest in more durable glasses that look the same. But that's also a very small and specific market to sell to, unlike the large household items market that Superfest went after instead.

We are blessed with LEDs that can last thousands of hours while still being brighter than the old bulbs. Thousands of hours is too good, so Philips deliberately sells dimmer LEDs with circuits that run them at overvoltage, thus achieving the same level of light but burning them out faster and making each slightly cheaper to produce. Notice a pattern here?

As we understand it, a 1000h lifespan indeed has advantages. However, internal comments of the cartel suggested a profit motive for the reduced lifespan (spectrum.ieee.org/the-great-lightbulb-conspiracy), this is also supported by findings of a US court: law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/82/753/1755675/

but cosumers didnt choose, its the manufacturers that made the choice, thats why the cartel existet in the first place, to make sure that nobody else is making the long lasting bulbs. If the consumers decided that they wanted the brighter bulbs then there wouldnt be any need for the cartel. Like yes there is a benifit and a pretty big one at that but we dont actually know what the people back then would have chosen, i think its very likely for them to choose the brighter one but i can see uses for the longer lasting one as well that people could have chosen, like for example hallways or places were you let the light on for a long time.

​@@fern-tv The lightbulb conspiracy theory has been debunked time and time again. Internal comments "suggesting" something doesn't mean anything. The linked article from IEEE somewhat misses the point in that the 1000 hours was a compromise between lifespan and brightness. Longer lasting lightbulbs were possible, but those lightbulbs would flicker more and be less susceptible to voltage fluctutations which were common at that time. Oh and this cartel lasted for about five years... big whoop. Of course business interests played a vital role. The linked case United States v. General Electric Co. say nothing about reducing lifespans of lightbulbs, it just - correctly - calls out the fact that there was a monopoly with an iron grip at all.

How does this have any relation to this video

"Superfest is superfest and superfest is firm" - JürgenRigEverything

@@xmorose Because even that hardened glass still breaks if you hit it the right way. Metal won't, but it's unfortunately not transparent.

@@Alias_AnybodyWhat about transparent aluminium?

‘arrakis is arrakis, and the desert takes the weak’

you mean at 0:29 ??? lol

noi, it's superfeschd.

It's a play in words for the quality of the channel​@@starcrawler77

@@starcrawler77 ???

@@starcrawler77 Noi, des ischd subrfeschd

The prevalence of greed is merely the current sociotechnical order. It and its practitioners can and will be expropriated.

​@@draw4everyone And you will do this?

@@rogerkeleshian2215 yes, how did you know?

@draw4everyone Army, navy, airforce, popular support you got em? If not, then I don't see much happening.

@@rogerkeleshian2215 tru

That's because it may be 15x stronger, but your phone screen is also 15x thinner than the wall of a drinking glass, so it'll still break under stress like being dropped multiple times. It just won't break randomly in your pocket when you sit down the way regular glass would have.

Glass is glass, And glass breaks.

Are you stupid..?

Monkey glass

I mean if they went for a thicker iPhone with not so thin glass, it may last TOO long. so there's that too.

Thats nonsense. Watts are watts regardless of the filament is thick or thin. If by "efficient" you mean light at the expense of consumption by self destruction, that is not efficient.

@@onradioactivewaves I'm no expert, but when talking about filament light bulbs, I'm pretty sure the idea of using as small a filament as possible (one that breaks faster) is in fact a matter of getting more efficiency. The thicker the filament the more energy needs to be put through it to produce the same amount of light. Or that is how I remember it at least

@@TheBaitos I'm not an expert either, but have spent a decent amount of time testing lighting professionally ( mostly on the control side). Unless you are considering using a filament so large that the energy does not become visible light due to not being heated enough, it's a rather simple problem. Resistors are 100% efficient at producing heat, and that heat radiates as blackbody radiation. Brighter filaments also outgas more and are more likely to burn out sooner, whereas a larger filament will have more of a chance for those particles to redeposit. Then you also have to remanufacture the light bulb. From a big picture perspective I'm leaning towards larger filament being better and that the efficiency is basically the same ( remember you can somewhat control the resistance as well, there are a lot of variables at play).

Technology Connections I hear?

​@@onradioactivewaveswatch the Technology Connections video on the Phoebus cartel. In an incandescent bulb, the best way to extend the life of the bulb is to lower the operating temperature of the filament to reduce stress on it and on the vacuum seal of the bulb. This requires a longer filament and more watts to produce the same light output. Light bulb engineers even worked out a formula that equates filament length, light output, and power consumption

No it's definitely AI-upscaling. Kind of a shame to be using AI when it's clearly not working

Noted, we will tweak that in future videos

Came here to comment this^

distracting? I don’t even know what you are referring to! I would prefer an upscaled video of the old times than not.

@@Tortee2 I'm referring to the fact the archival footage looks like it's been run through a stylistic oil-paint filter. When the detail is that low originally, there's no point running it through an upscaler cos it comes out looking like colour-blocky mush

yeah, they also invented the superFon 50 years before the iPhone, but nobody was allowed to get one

​@@AtomicAndi i don't think so.

But it pretty bad and still fell

Here in Finland I still use tools that were made in both the DDR and BRD(Also SU). I prefer BRD. In general quality products in the past were made to last at least as far as the less advanced material and manufacturing technology allowed. Nowadays most stuff marketed as quality is synonymous with fancy instead of durable.

@@davisdelp8131 It was objectively not bad, the standard of living fell drastically when East and West were reunited.

One obvious reason is fire+spacecraft is a bad idea. Everything needs to be as flame retardant as possible. Wood and Graphite are flammable in our normal 21% oxygen atmosphere. Imagine how bad it is in 100% oxygen. Also splinters and dust would be a nightmare in Zero-G

And as you likely know, it's not true: the Soviets used pens too.

​@@stephenbrain3620It is true. Both sides were using pencils until at least 1967 because the space pen wasn't invented until 1965, and it was only after a lot of testing that the NASA ordered a batch. The Soviets kept using pencils till at least 1969.

The light bulb planned obsolescence is kind of a myth as well. Technology Connections has a great video on it, but the fact of the matter is that longer-lived incandescent bulbs are more expensive to produce and use more energy to produce the same amount of light. The infamous Phoebus Cartel actually calculated their mandatory maximum bulb life to balance longevity with energy efficiency, and as it turns out, the decreased efficiency of long life bulbs means the customer ends up spending more money over the life of the bulb than it would've cost to replace it.

@@Sammie1053 The life of an incandescent bulb is related to the 13th power of the applied voltage divided by the design voltage. So a slight amount too much voltage will burn out a lamp very quickly, while slightly less will make it a little dimmer, but last a whole lot longer. This has been known for ages, and as a result, most industrial-use and commercial-use incandescent lamps from the 1940s through the 1990s were rated for 130V, rather than 120V consumer lamps are rated for. That little change has a quite small effect on light output, but causes the lamps to last 2.8 times as long as identical 120V lamps.

capitalism*

yes, also it's polluting/destroying the environment completely unnecessarily 😢

It's completely fake. The lightbulb cartel only lasted a few years and wasn't even very effective.

@@tintin323🤡

@@tintin323how original here’s a sticker 🇨🇳

E‎ ‎

??? no shit that’s how money works

​@@amogussus6593No shit that's how money works after capitalism.

Yeah. By making products people want. This isn't a bad thing.

So capitalism is capitalist

Unusable -> unusably

NO it was THE CAPITALISTS

Get a 277V 200-300 Watt light bulb to run at 120V and you will essentially have a lighting that lasts a lifetime. Its not such a direct relationship from brightness to longevity, theres other factors in the middle there, like filament size.

@@therpope It WAS and it IS capitalism. Capitalism itself is not at fault, but humans just can't stop when they have enough. Some are just greedy, but then even the most modest person does not want to live in poverty as a senior, so people save it for then or for their kids... So yeah, even today lightbulbs are not designed to last as long as possible.

Commercial lamps that companies would actually buy were rated for 130V. Consumer lamps were rated for 120V. The difference in light output and power consumed was minimal, and without two different lamps right beside each other, absolutely nobody noticed. But the 130V lamps lasted 2.8 times longer than identical 120V lamps.

There might have been some reason why East Germany couldn't manufacture and export the glasses. Otherwise yeah, consumers would have loved to have those and the East Germans would have made a lot of money selling a set to everyone.

Too bad they're lives are shorter than 100 years and estate tax exits then

It's not actually unbreakable. Sales will slow down a lot, but glass will still need replacing every now and then

That’s the concept manufacturing doesn’t get exactly.

Basically now they try this idea but from a different angle in Netherlands, you can look up service or circular economy, the idea is to pay for services, not products (light, transportation, food storage) in this case you pay a subscription and the company has an incentive to create the most efficient and durable products, because it comes out of their pocket, they pay for electricity and products, and charge a consumer for services, they already do this at Rolls Royce jet engines, companies pay not for engines, but flight hours

I work in a company wich arised from a GDR company. Most things were manufactured in a way to last long or to be easily repaired. Yes it was due to shortages but we still could learn much from this spirit considering sustainability. Theres a german saying "Not macht erfinderisch" Necessity is the mother of invention.

​@@imakro69 Idk if I like that. If I buy something I want to be able to do with it what I want. If I habe to pay a subscription for everything I use, that ongoing expense would get very large, very quick. Even 1€ per Item can cut into Income if you use hundreds of Items a day...

Steady on comrade. So when products last 100 years then where do the jobs come from to produce new ones now? And why would anyone innovate when no-one will buy their better product because the existing ones still work fine? This is why socialist and communist societies stagnate. Do any of you millenial morons understand basic economics?

And yet the capitalist West spent the entire Cold War having superior… everything. crazy.

Yeah this kinda made me question the factuality of the whole video.

Well they still absolutely did it for the profit, I can guarantee you it costing less for the consumers didn't factor into it at all

@@jboudny The glass shatters into tiny splinters which are an absolute health hazard for a restaurant (I believe. I've never actually seen the aftermath of specifically superfest glasses shattering). It's also FAR more expensive, and far harder to make designs in. It's also very difficult to recycle, contrasted with normal glass which is actually extremely easy to recycle. Other than the whole planned obsolescence part, the video is correct to my knowledge.

@@Dell-ol6hb if they didnt factor in cost to consumers then why didnt they jack up prices? they were a cartel after all like OPEC they shouldve been manipulating prices like them as well

A simple counterpoint to 'it was cheaper' is the fact that the Phoebus Cartel issued fines to members if they made bulbs that lasted longer regardless of cost and efficiency.

Pretty sure lots of people have videos on it being a monopoly

Isn't it well documented that it was a cartel though?

I stopped using incandescent lighting 15 years ago.

@@thorr18BEM Or did you just stop buying new incandescent bulbs 15 years ago??? I bet most people still have a number of hard to kill bulbs hiding in their homes, such as oven lights...

@@davidhollenshead4892 I did not swap the internal oven light. You caught me. I did manage to get everything else eventually. I did swap those in the range hood and also the bottom of the microwave which acts as a range hood. All other difficult ones were also swapped for LED, such as various weird sized tube lights. Oven heat would destroy an LED. It’s a tiny specialty exception which is almost always off.

If you buy a decent incandescent bulb rated for the amount of heat your oven puts out, they will never burn out through normal usage. Oven bulbs just don't burn out. They're very energy efficient when the oven is on as well. Not so much when it's off. The heat from the oven does a lot of the work for them.

@@TheGrinningViking and the waste heat from bulbs is terrible to put into an air conditioned room but not wasteful at all to put into an oven you are already intentionally heating.

Warum schockiert? So macht man das doch.

@@nordlicht1881 ne eben nicht. 99% der fälle wird die ddr so behandelt: ddr Wirtschaft schlecht, weil Sozialismus >:(((. BRD Wirtschaft gut, weil Märkte :)))

It is. It's AI upscaled, not AI generated. Learn to notice the difference.

It may have been more about the oven linings than about the glass, as those would likely cost more to rebuild than to just make up a new batch of glass.

It kind of happened with nylon. The production of it caused great concern among workers and the companies subsequently lowered the reliability of nylon products to shorten the products lifes.

@@robertschmitz3788 yes, think stockings. early products were be so good mothers would pass them down to daughters.

pretty much every product and appliance you own has been engineered to fail or has been made in such a way it's hard if not impossible to fix without further damaging it.

oh it also happened with clothes. the material in the movie is a reference to nylon. Manufacturers of tights were in quite a predicament when their new product, the nylon tights because they had put an extremely cheap product on the market that lasted a very long time so they started to build manufacturing defects into their product to not go bust.

it happens with almost every modern product, they design it in such a way that it will break down after a certain duration of time, it'll be too hard or too costly to fix yourself and you'll have to buy a new one, it's horrible