Nonsense. His initial comment was:
"They don’t last for crap!
And they least ever less in ceiling fans!.................
And at the prices they cost the savings on utilities is eaten up to nothing!..................
This is a blanket assertion, completely unqualified or unlimited. As such, it is false. As a qualified statement of his own experience, it is probably true (I choose to believe him, as regards his own experience).
This is an opinion forum. Therefore, some people will actually express an opinion.
If you have a different opinion... state it.
He did not state an opinion. He made a factual assertion (that is, an assertion that is subject to being tested and proven true or false). His general, unqualified assertion of fact, his statement turns out to be false. Many people (self included) have experiences contrary to his.
The ""as per my experience" disclaimer " is of enormous importance. It distinguishes between a single data point and a general principle.
Think for a moment.
I seem to be one of the few folk doing that around here.
This isn’t physics, this is finance.
Nonsense. It is both.
The law of finances is: Caveat emptor.
I agree. The devices in question clearly demonstrate a much higher than advertised failure rate under some environmental conditions. This failure rate is a matter of physics and engineering. This is a matter of which potential buyers should be aware.
To advertise these devices as fully functional according to specification, in all reasonably expected environmental conditions (as the manufacturers and politicians do) is false and misleading.
To condemn them as unqualified expensive failures in all reasonably expected environmental conditions (as RB initially did) is false and misleading.
End of discussion, on my part at least. If adults can't or won't understand the fallacy of extrapolating from their own singular individual experience to general principle, there's very little I can do to help them. This is a lesson that should have been learned in childhood.
This failure rate is a matter of CHEAP PARTS, CHEAP LABOR, AND NO QUALITY CONTROL. These bulbs could be made more rugged and longer lasting, but there is no incentive on the part of the manufacturer to do so. A bulb that needs to be replaced half as often has half the sales on repeat orders. As a tire engineer (1970's) once told me, "We could make tires that last 200k miles, fairly easily, but why would we want to?"......... It's all about money and getting it while the getting's good...........