Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The material is more expensive. A lot more in the case of LEDS. But that would not effect the market profitability. I would think a highly competitive market forces similar profit margins.
You are selling more expensive item so the same percentage profitable provides more per unit profit. But that is offset mostly by more investment in the item and the cost of the inventory etc.
In the case of CFLs it really does not compute. Perhaps somewhat in the case of LEDs. CFLs are down in the under $1.00 manufacturing costs were distribution, shipping etc. predominate. Maybe in LEDs where you are significantly higher. Though the LED advantage is a lot stronger.
Why do you think the incandescent bulb manufacturers lobbied in favor of the efficiency standards that effectively banned incandescent bulbs? What was their reasoning when they decided to spend lobbying money and effort in favor of these standards?
Why do you think the incandescent bulb manufacturers lobbied in favor of the efficiency standards that effectively banned incandescent bulbs? What was their reasoning when they decided to spend lobbying money and effort in favor of these standards?
Well being reasonably familiar with the technology involved I will tell you no bulb guy was lobbying in favor of LEDs. Even if you are going to make them in China the bulb guys want CFL no LEDs.
Now both may be in favor of changing over. Simply because that is gong to move a whole lot of bulbs as people get the idea they can save money. I know a number of people who have changed over completely...rather than waiting for the bulbs to die. I am mostly a change when they die fan myself plus I can no longer deal with ladders.
I also doubt that industry spent a whole lot of money. It is not that sort of industry. Never had that sort of profit potential and still does not.
It's entirely different. They both have a coated glass envelope but that's pretty much where the similarities end.
Nah. Has all sorts of similarities. Glass seals of various sorts. vacuum. Forming thin glass. Glass to metal seals. filaments. And the factory is driven by the molding and forming of glass.
Much of the incandescent equipment is likely ancient...but still similar.
The primary reason people still use incandescent bulbs is because they own light fixtures that cannot use any other type of bulb. The ceiling fan in my bedroom (CFL too long, LED too fat), the table lamps in my dining room and the overhead lights in the hall and cellar steps (shade clips onto the light bulb) are several examples.
Hunt around there are lots and lots of variants. I became a believer when I found a LED replacement for the long tube bulbs in our china cabinet. Would never have thought they would make those. I am still looking though for the round clear bulbs in our chandelier.
Well being reasonably familiar with the technology involved I will tell you no bulb guy was lobbying in favor of LEDs. Even if you are going to make them in China the bulb guys want CFL no LEDs.
Now both may be in favor of changing over. Simply because that is gong to move a whole lot of bulbs as people get the idea they can save money. I know a number of people who have changed over completely...rather than waiting for the bulbs to die. I am mostly a change when they die fan myself plus I can no longer deal with ladders.
I also doubt that industry spent a whole lot of money. It is not that sort of industry. Never had that sort of profit potential and still does not.
Your assumptions are incorrect. Phillips alone spent millions lobbying for the standards that resulted in the ban, and for its LED, a $40 light bulb which could be extremely profitable. Perhaps you don't fully appreciate the economics behind all of this as well as you thought.
Your assumptions are incorrect. Phillips alone spent millions lobbying for the standards that resulted in the ban, and for its LED, a $40 light bulb which could be extremely profitable. Perhaps you don't fully appreciate the economics behind all of this as well as you thought.
That is a bulb for the contest...and otherwise not noteworthy. How well do you think it sells against a $3.00 CFL.
It appears they may have spent a half million lobbying the issue. Your belief is that is big money?
There appear to be LED 75 watt equivalents down into the 18 range. I would think they will become practical at $5.00. How well do you think a $40 Phillips bulb will do?
That is a bulb for the contest...and otherwise not noteworthy. How well do you think it sells against a $3.00 CFL.
It appears they may have spent a half million lobbying the issue. Your belief is that is big money?
There appear to be LED 75 watt equivalents down into the 18 range. I would think they will become practical at $5.00. How well do you think a $40 Phillips bulb will do?
Read further down. They spent another $4.5 mil and likely more after that. No denying that there are higher margins in these new products than they could get out of incandescent bulbs. And now that the life expectancy of these new bulbs is proving to be shorter than what was touted, even more profitable for them. This you have to remember about the green movement and big business: it's just another tool to make money for them.
Read further down. They spent another $4.5 mil and likely more after that. No denying that there are higher margins in these new products than they could get out of incandescent bulbs. And now that the life expectancy of these new bulbs is proving to be shorter than what was touted, even more profitable for them. This you have to remember about the green movement and big business: it's just another tool to make money for them.
Well yes they spent 4.5 million or more. But that is after the adoption of the removal law.
Sorry...you cannot sell $40 75 watt light bulbs just ain't gonna happen. After you sell 3 to the collectors of oddities what do you do with the rest?
Ohh there may be a market. Perhaps in boats...or in off grid places where power cost $0.50 per kwh. But no it is not a mass market product.
Now $3.00 CFLs? Maybe. Certainly for $1,00 CFLs which will be here soon.
This is supposed to be a free country. I use cfls for most of my lighting but prefer incandescents for many applications. No bulb dims like an incandescent. Chandeliers look better with incandescent. I like incandescent moon globes for certain fixtures. Bug lights are incandescent. Liberals just want the government to have control over the people. Big government advocates hate freedom for the people.
In the winter the heat put out by these lamps warm the home so you use less heating fuel. BTW man made global warming is bull that only the sheep believe.
This is supposed to be a free country. I use cfls for most of my lighting but prefer incandescents for many applications. No bulb dims like an incandescent. Chandeliers look better with incandescent. I like incandescent moon globes for certain fixtures. Bug lights are incandescent. Liberals just want the government to have control over the people. Big government advocates hate freedom for the people.
In the winter the heat put out by these lamps warm the home so you use less heating fuel. BTW man made global warming is bull that only the sheep believe.
I agree for the chandeliers, at least for the moment. LEDs dim better than incandescent. The color does not change as it dims...or it does change if you wish. So you want dim or color shift?
Bug lights can be CFL or LED. Work better than incandescent.
Resistivew heat is not efficient. You want a heat pump or such.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.