|
by Mike R.
on 4/27/2008
|
Good and Bad
Excellent idea and i think this is exactly where we need to be headed but the price is absolutely outrageous. You can do the whole house in current energy efficient lights for much less then just this one bulb. |
|
by joanne
on 7/8/2008
|
you miss the point
mike you miss the point. yes they are slightly expensive, however the electric bill savings and the fact you almost never have to change the bulb more than make up for the cost. I replaced three regular track light floods with just one bulb and my bill went down $20 in one month. so in 7 months it paid for itself.
I also have R30's in all of my house lamps and my Texas electric bill in high summer is under $100. |
|
|
by H. P. Felgentreff
on 8/1/2008
|
Price issue
I'm the first to admit LED lights when designed right are wickedly cool. However, slice it and dice the investor pitch anyway you want, I guarantee you that selling this product will have about as much success as Leonardo da Vinci marketing helicopters in the middle ages.
Ultimately for LED lighting to take off the price point must be addressed, otherwise the $80 "light bulb" sales will be limited to the few tinkering and visionary types. |
|
by Clay S
on 8/5/2008
|
wave of the future
LED lighting isn't quite "soup" yet. Yes, they are expensive, and yes, they use almost no electricity, compared to other light sources, and yes, they almost never wear out.
This is why they are used almost exclusively in commercial applications. The cost of replacing light bulbs in a commercial building far outweighs the cost of the bulbs. A company that can hire fewer maintenance guys due to not having to change light bulbs as often saves money by using $150 light bulbs, even if it means tens of thousands (or even hundreds of thousands) of dollars for the bulbs.
At home -- well, most of us will wait for the bulbs to get in the $40-$50 range. They are going to get there, though. Maybe sooner than we think. |
|