Planned obsolescence and the Phoebus cartel
PAPER X — DESIGN · QUESTION 16 OF 40
In plain terms: The free definitive article on the case where shorter life was minuted — the question’s central evidence.
The question as set
Is obsolescence designed? Take the thousand-hour lamp as the test case, and separate the cartel’s economics from the filament’s physics.
The question in Paper X · Its section on the reference page
The question in context
This is question 16 of the 40 set in Paper X — Design of The Truly Hardest Exam in the World, the examination of The College of All Minds. Like every question of the College, it carries three references of record, verified live at publication and described twice — technically, and in plain terms — so the ground can be judged before it is walked. The response required is an argument, not a survey, of at most three thousand words, as technical as the question demands and no more.
The references of record
The great lightbulb conspiracy
The cartel documented: Phoebus’s 1,000-hour standard, its enforcement by fines, and the engineering trade it fixed.
In plain terms: The free definitive article on the case where shorter life was minuted — the question’s central evidence.
The physics counterweight: a carbon-filament lamp burning for over a century at low power — lifetime as an operating point.
In plain terms: The free official page of the world’s longest-burning bulb, showing what the filament permits when efficiency is surrendered.
An economic theory of planned obsolescence
The economics separated from the conspiracy: durability chosen by a monopolist, with commitment the binding constraint.
In plain terms: The free theory paper showing when shorter life pays even without a cartel — the incentive behind the minutes.
Background: Planned obsolescence · Phoebus cartel