by 
While the government has recently given a nine-month reprieve on the 100W incandescent bulb ban, it's an opportune time to look at how the way we shop for and buy lighting fixtures is changing.
Given the nature of my business, I have a natural gravitation to the lighting aisle every time I'm at one of the big box retailers. It's always interesting to see the latest and greatest products make their way to the shelves.
The transformation of the light bulb aisle over the past year or so has been amazing. When LED products first arrived on shelves, it was very confusing for the average consumer to compare, with the exception of price. Fast-forward to today, and it is fairly easy to compare competing 60W incandescent, CFL, and LED options. Each label contains details such as light output (measured in lumens), energy used (measured in watts), and lifetime (measured in hours).
Ever since Edison invented the light bulb, most of us have viewed light in terms of watts. Every time a bulb burns out, we unscrew the bulb, look for the wattage, and hope we have the right replacement around without a trip to the local store. The LED lighting revolution is facilitating a new way to learn about and, ultimately, buy lighting products. Wattage refers to the amount of power used by the bulb and not the amount of light given off. Light output is measured in lumens.
On one recent visit to a big box retailer, I noticed there was a very prominent signage that helps educate shoppers. The display read, “Lumens — A new way to shop for light” and “Choose brightness you want” and was very helpful in providing comparison details.
One benefit in the improvement in consistent labeling is that it provides the necessary information to take the next step, which is to do the math and calculate total cost of ownership using each of the three technologies. Let's state the obvious — it's hard to make a $20 LED bulb decision when there are $1-$2 incandescent and CFL alternatives, and that's where many of us stop. However, considering that CFL and LED options utilize 80 percent less energy than incandescent and the significant differences in life span (incandescent/1,000hrs, CFL/10,000hrs, LED/25,000hrs), the prudent decision becomes more complex when we're willing to follow through with the analysis.
What you'll find is that, after approximately 4,000 hours (or four replacements of your 60W incandescent bulb), the LED solution achieves total cost of ownership advantage over incandescent. While CFL still maintains a total cost of ownership advantage over LED, there are other distinct differences between these two technologies that factor into the equation. Besides being the least aesthetically attractive option, CFLs also contain toxic chemicals (mercury) that are harmful to the environment. LEDs do not contain harmful chemicals, are less sensitive to temperature and more durable, have better dimming capability, and have instant on/off performance.
So with LED bulb manufacturers reducing costs and many utilities offering rebate programs, the gap between CFL and LED cost of ownership will continue to close. The million-dollar question is, given the additional intrinsic benefits of LEDs, how much does the gap has to close before the purchasing crossover happens in earnest? Have some fun and play with the data in your own environment, especially in locations where lights tend to be on for longer periods of time — at the very least, it could make for an interesting science fair project with the kids.
A $20 LED bulb lasting 25000 hours and a $1 normal filament bulb with 1000 hour life almost compare in total cost of ownership. The pull towards LED bulb usage could be created by govt. subsidies on upfront purchase of LED bulbs – the costs could be recovered by slight increase in power tariff, thus reducing the payback period.
Well said, It is very difficult the Breaking up and both companies will lose at the moment, on the other hand, the other hand maybe it costs too much (bad image of Foxconn affects the Apples sales) if Apple retains the OEM EMS relation with the Foxconn.
If Foxconn saw the light and began to change, you can be sure that the prices of products — not just Apple's — would rise.
@Barbara, I totally agree with your observation. And this is the last thing we want because market is just recovering from severe downturn and this price rise will definitely hurt the OEM's. I think the best solution for all the OEM is to continue relationship with Foxconn and may be parallely start looking for alternatives to Foxconn.
In my opinion the majority of the customers of Apple must be unaware of this Foxconn issue which is making rounds in the media. The customers normally go only by the brand name and do not bother to see what good or bad things are behind that brand. For them the product is more important than the process.
As far as relationship between Apple and Foxconn is concerned it could be a love-hate relationship – not easy to break.
Prabhakar, you are right in terms of initial cost. That covers only the cost of the bulb, but not the working cost and energy utilization. When compare the energy consumption and working cost of LED with filament bulb for 25000 hours, your energy & cost savings for LED and CFL bulbs are high.
Bolaji, consumers are not concerns with the back end companies. Most of them are aware only about apple and apple products. How many people know that apple is works more or less like an assembling unit or branding factory. They are taking LCD panels, storage units, battery and similar components from trusted third party companies. This true with almost all brands. So from customer point of view, they are not bothered about back end suppliers they bother only about brands.
Jacob, Right. It's not the job of the consumer to know the fine details of a company's supply chain. In large part they don't and many simply don't care.
Jacob,
I assume we are comparing LED, CFL and filament bulbs of the same wattage and hence the enrgy consumtion is assumed to be same.
If a low wattage LED or CFL gives more lumens compared to filament bulbs then of course there will be savings on the energy bill.But these pay backs are long term
The initial cost of LED bulb is any way a deterrent for the consumers
I agree that the majority of consumers are unaware of the manufacturing practices of electronics companies. This past Christmas, all 10 of my nieces and nephews sported a new Apple product. Although we parents engaged in a discussion about manufacturing moving to Asia in general, I think we'd all privately admit that did not influence our purchasing decision. As Bolaji pointed out in his blog, we are all complicit in what is happening overseas. The question is, are we willing to pay the price of change? I think that is a personal decision–great to debate here–but one I am struggling with right now.
“In my opinion the majority of the customers of Apple must be unaware of this Foxconn issue which is making rounds in the media.”
Must be unaware ? I want to mention here that the Foxconn issue has to do with human life ………
Moreover, as much as we act with conscientiousness as a consumer then we form a better business environment.
I am very aware about issues like this, and I don't want to feel like a sheep .
Gary–thanks for a practical guide for the consumer. I'll admit I was a bit confused when I first started shopping for LEDs. And I thought I had a pretty good understanding of things from talking to folks such as yourself over the years about LEDs. I'll have to forward this to other folks that are trying to comply with the new guidelines before the government insists on it!
“– it would hurt everyone.”
Who exactly?? Shareholders? Perhaps. Consumers who want the latest Apple product? Not really considering there are viable alternatives/competitors. Chinese factory workers? I hardly feel remorse for them considering American factory workers were forced to deal with the same unemployment. But I question those people who feel like that they can't walk through life without an Apple product in their hands.
But I question those people who feel like that they can't walk through life without an Apple product in their hands.
I find in this echoes of the exhibits I've seen on the sugar and the slave trade in the 18th Century. Though there was no slavery in England, the English demand for sugar, certainly, played a role in keeping up the slave trade that was integral to the production of sugar cane.
Nemos!
I agree with your opinion that we should become conscious of human rights as a consumer .
But what is the general scenario? I suggest you randomly visit any Apple store and take opinion of the customers visiting . I am sure 9 out of 10 of these customers will be unaware of this issue and would not bother to show any interest even if you try to explain it to them.
Barbara, from customer point of view, they are not bothered about where it is manufactured (other than China) and who all the component suppliers. They are only looking for branded products with less cost and advance features. If apple is planning to move their production unit to Malaysia or Philippines, I don’t think US/European/Asian peoples may bother about it. due to low product cost, if apple is offering a discounted price, customers becomes very happy.
Several readers have asked who is hurt if Apple products cost more. The answer is the consumer and by extension, the supply chain. Here's the logic: China's exports are driven by demand from the US and Europe. For one reason or another–say prices skyrocket–demand drops off. Consumers are not buying enough goods, so manufacturers cut back on their forecasts. Component orders get cancelled, and component makers shutter facorties and/or cut jobs. People without jobs don't buy cars, electronics, white goods or other items. And so it goes. Additionally, say the public boycott's Apple products. The same Chinese workers they are so worried about lose THEIR jobs. Foxconn is first and foremost a business, so that will happen. Can people live without their i-products? Of course they can. They can buy less expensive competing items. But the Apple ecosystem is now so large, Apple's “hurt” will be felt by many.
Excellent post. Your understanding and articulation of the meshing between EMS and client is outstanding. It seems to me you have inadvertently generated a pre qualification list for potential gotchas in a mutually dependent business relationship. This leaves some kind of contingency planning as an absolute necessity. What could you build into a supplier survey that would anticipate these potentially problematic entanglements so a company could run for the hills after the first date. Seems like a question such as , ” do you beat your children regularly?” might help you decide if you want to see that company ever again. I guess I am suggesting that the onsite visit before business is transacted, and some higher values going into any relationship, might save a lot of heartache and sleepless nights.
Lightbulbs in the application of illumination are starting to look like vacuum tubes in audio applications. Some audio engineers just can't let go of tubes, whether it's because of their unique operating characteristics or they're just used to working with a certain type of component. Incandescents have their own adherents, and it's likely they'll have a niche role in illumination applications for some time to come.
Excellent comparison. Tube amplifiers are terribly inefficient but they were replaced by new technology without government interference. Wish I could say the same for incandescent lamps.
What a great idea.
While we're at it, let's have government ban all fossil fuel powered cars and fully subsidize replacement electric cars to be paid for with increases in our electric bills.
Why not ban, then demolish, all homes and replace them with net zero homes? The costs could be covered by new income and property taxes.
Why not give everybody anything they have ever dreamed of and pay for it by taking all money away from everybody.
Personally, I prefer freedom of choice.
Thanks, Douglas, and well said. About halfway through my first draft of this, it occurred to me that the whole point of outsourcing was flexibility. In theory, OEMs could move more quickly if they weren't saddled with owning their own factories. It's pretty clear that flexibility is a relative term in outsourcing. Taking a year or more to ramp up a relationship doesn't sound flexible to me, and disengaging is almost as bad. You are right–onsite visits and time spent at the factories would have avoided a lot of grief for Apple.
Kevin,
The undertone of sarcasm ignored, your radical suggestions make sense though may be ridiculus.
Here we are not saying that the govt should force everybody to changeover to environment friendly things – but it needs to lure the people towards these new things that are potentially beneficial to the environment by some attractive schemes.
@Kevin I agree with your libertarian ideals. I think the US here is following in the path of European countries that are far more restrictive with respect to the environment. For example, Germany has disallowed sprays on plants for more than a decade. Major display gardens, like the New York Botanical Garden, are under pressure to be more “green” and have replaced all the roses with varieties that are supposed to be able to survive without chemical applications. I can envision the voluntary movements becoming mandatory down the road.
Prabhakar,
I don't think things can “make sense” and be “ridiculus”.
I think those concerned with saving the planet will buy the bulbs you want them to.
I think those not so concerned with the enviornment may buy the bulbs you want them to if they were labled with the lifetime operating costs, similar to how most all major appliances sold in the US are.
Kevin,
Mentioning about tube amplifiers, the reason most of them were replaced was transistors took up less space than tubes, were more reliable, and transistors didn't need to be replaced every so often like tubes did. I wouldn't say tubes were replaced because of efficiency. In some caes, transistors aren't that more efficient. Tubes are still used in higher quality amplifiers.
So you're saying the transistor units are more space efficent and more efficent when replacement parts costs are considered?
You are correct of course, but my point was that government intervention was not needed to replace the older technology (for the most part).
Go tell that to a Rock Guitarist!! Few of them are prepared to abandon Valve (as we say in Britain) amplifiers, besides it keeps me in business servicing & reparing them
EBN readers: I'm posting this on behalf of a reader that is having some trouble with our site–Barb
If you found out your spouse was abusing your child, this would be a difficult situation. You'd have to consider that it would be extremely difficult to break up. You'd have to somehow split the house and separating all of your conjoined assets would be messy. Your spouse knows many of your secrets and vulnerability, and you'd also have to consider whether you could find another partner who could contribute as well as this one does. There would be costs associated with breaking up too, which would impact how you could take care of your child. There's also both of your reputations to think about; how would those at work treat you? It would be best to try to make it work, wouldn't it?
Is Foxconn like abusing a child? Isn't Foxconn forcing labor and dangerous working conditions abuse?
And your final statement: “A breakup wouldn't just hurt the companies. It would hurt everyone.”
Everyone, that is, who lives here. The 100,000s of students and workers impacted by this, I guess they don't count.
This reply is more elegant in my mind. I'm writing because the focus on business at the expense of others — and justifying it — seems so narrow-focused to me. Do you really believe this when you consider all the people on the other side, the ones without choice, without options?
Apple is huge. They can make changes in the world. Magazines like yours don't need to rescue them from taking action. Any number of companies would jump at the opportunity to take Apple's business from Foxconn. This isn't such a dismal story for Apple or for us.