Planned Obsolescence, from the Phoebus Cartel to Today: Can a Light Bulb Last More Than 125 Years? 

Guido Donati* 11 Set 2025




Planned obsolescence is not a modern invention but a strategy with roots in the early twentieth century. Born with the goal of increasing profits, it has evolved over time, moving from mechanics to the sophisticated interaction between software and microchips, and continues to shape our relationship with consumer goods.


The dawn: the Phoebus Cartel
It all began in 1924 with the so-called Phoebus Cartel, a secret and unprecedented agreement between the giants of the incandescent light bulb industry, including General Electric, Osram, Philips, and the Compagnie des Lampes. The objective was simple and unscrupulous: to standardize the useful life of light bulbs to a maximum of 1,000 hours, even though the technology of the time made it possible to produce ones that lasted much longer. To ensure compliance with the limit, members imposed heavy fines on each other for exceeding the threshold. In essence, the cartel intentionally shortened a product's life to maximize profit.
A century later, the Centennial Light bulb in Livermore, California, lit almost continuously since 1901, remains a living testament. It has been shining for more than 219,000 hours, and although its wattage has dropped from 60 to just 4 watts, its filament continues to glow, making it a symbol of the fight against planned obsolescence.

The electronic Era: the birth of suspicion
With the advent of consumer electronics, planned obsolescence changed its form. It was no longer just a physical limit but a problem related to design and connectivity. The first suspicions emerged when it became clear that devices were being designed to make it difficult or impossible to replace key components, such as batteries sealed with industrial adhesives or memory chips soldered directly onto the motherboard. Manufacturers started using proprietary screws and tools, making at-home repair an impossible undertaking.
The debate exploded globally in 2017 with the "batterygate" scandal involving Apple. The company admitted to intentionally slowing down the performance of older iPhone models through software updates, a choice justified to prevent sudden shutdowns due to worn-out batteries. Although the motivation was technical, the lack of transparent information for consumers sparked a wave of indignation and led to numerous lawsuits and sanctions from antitrust authorities, including the Italian one. The case brought to light an uncomfortable truth: software and microchips, working in tandem, can be used to control a product's life cycle and force consumers to buy a new model.

The oxymoron of progress: LED light bulbs
An emblematic case of this new form of obsolescence is found in LED light bulbs themselves. Although the diode technology promises a useful life of decades, the final products often last only a few years. The weak point is not the LED but the driver, which is the electronic circuit that regulates the current. To contain costs and compete in the market, many manufacturers choose to install low-quality drivers. These cost-saving components overheat and fail much earlier than the diode. This strategy, while not explicit "programming," acts as a form of hidden planned obsolescence, turning a potentially immortal product into a disposable item and pushing consumers toward a new purchase.

The response: the "right to repair" movement
Today, planned obsolescence is a ubiquitous and increasingly complex phenomenon, fueling a strong movement in defense of the "right to repair." This movement, composed of consumers, independent repairers, and activists, demands that manufacturers be required to make repair manuals, original spare parts, and diagnostic tools available at affordable prices.
Legislative initiatives are multiplying worldwide, particularly in the United States and the European Union, where regulations aimed at combating planned obsolescence have been approved or are in the process of being approved. The battle for repairability is not only economic but also environmental, as electronic waste represents one of the most significant threats to the planet.
The fight continues, with the goal of creating a more sustainable economy and giving consumers the power to choose to repair rather than replace

 

 *Board Member, SRSN (Roman Society of Natural Science) Past Editor-in-Chief, Italian Journal of Dermosurgery

Vota questo articolo
(0 Voti)

Lascia un commento

Assicurati di aver digitato tutte le informazioni richieste, evidenziate da un asterisco (*). Non è consentito codice HTML.

 

Scienzaonline con sottotitolo Sciencenew  - Periodico
Autorizzazioni del Tribunale di Roma – diffusioni:
telematica quotidiana 229/2006 del 08/06/2006
mensile per mezzo stampa 293/2003 del 07/07/2003
Scienceonline, Autorizzazione del Tribunale di Roma 228/2006 del 29/05/06
Pubblicato a Roma – Via A. De Viti de Marco, 50 – Direttore Responsabile Guido Donati

Photo Gallery