Working in the lighting industry for the last few years I’ve seen how the lighting technology is moving gradually from the incandescent light bulb to CFLs, HIDs and ultimately to Solid-State Lighting (SSL) i.e. LEDs and OLEDs. While the SSL lamps primarily promise high efficiency, they are also highly controllable, an attribute partially ignored by the marketing people, mostly due to the lack of an adequate lighting infrastructure (with all its consequences – read below).
It is obvious that an infrastructure almost 150 years old, devoted mainly to incandescent bulbs, will hardly meet the needs of the emerging controllable light engines. Attempts to overcome the obstacles created by the current infrastructure have been made but they lack vision and consumer appeal: adding more wires or wireless transceivers, inventing lighting specific protocols, replacing switches and dimmers with fancy (and quirky) user interaction devices, did not help either the electrician nor the end user to avoid the peculiar nature of such solutions.
The historian Thomas Hughes has attributed Edison’s success to the fact that he invented an entire, integrated system of electric lighting (and not only the incandescent bulb which was the result of 22 prior inventions according to historians):
“The lamp was a small component in his system of electric lighting, and no more critical to its effective functioning than the Edison Jumbo generator, the Edison main and feeder, and the parallel-distribution system. Other inventors with generators and incandescent lamps, and with comparable ingenuity and excellence, have long been forgotten because their creators did not preside over their introduction in a system of lighting.”
Is the lighting industry ready in investing and supporting the development of a better lighting infrastructure that will enable the full potential of the new lighting technologies?
While technical comments are welcome, I am more interested in your opinions and suggestions from a marketing and business perspective.
I believe you’ve already answered most of your question.
For a business perspective, let’s take the example of BCHydro. With the current infrastructure, BC Hydro has to pay for maintenance and operation. Let’s say, to make $100 today, BC Hydro spends $10 on maintenance and $30 on operation(including labour and cost of operation). They still make $60 profit. If they replace the incandescent bulbs with more energy efficient bulbs, say CFL, that are still compatible with existing systems, their operational cost will go down plus their expenditure will go up for the new bulbs. Over a 7 years period (the life time of CFLs), that expenditure will be paid out and some savings in the operation cost. (for instance, they’ll incur less labour costs to replace the burned out bulbs plus the cost of electricity)
However, if they have to replace their entire infrastructure, including wiring, control systems etc, the break-even period will be too long. Plus they need to raise the capital for that today, which will incur interest expenses. From a business perspective, this may not make sense.
Plus we’ve to ask, a few basic questions:
+ What are the additional benefits from the new infrastructure for BC Hydro’s bottom line?
+ Who (I mean customers) is asking for this and why?
+ How likely that the demand for the new infrastructure translate into revenue? (I mean the number of interested customers and their ratio to overall customer base)
+ What is the TCO (total cost of ownership) of the new infrastructure?
May be this makes sense to new developments, again based on cost over profit calculations.
My 2c.
I’m afraid that I created a bit of confusion by saying “the development of a better lighting infrastructure”: I’m not suggesting replacing the current infrastructure (absurd) but enhancing it by adding (smartly) the communication ability and the software required to achieve the final goal: enabling controllability. Currently, there are attempts to do it but without a clear overall idea.
There are different lighting communication standards that compete with each other or are incomplete or confusing, difficult to implement consistently, or trying to address only certain devices while ignoring others (especially the new ones). Some of them attempt to satisfy the requirements of the entertainment industry, other to satisfy building lighting and others do not have a clear target. They all target just the pieces of the puzzle and not the whole system. That’s why the interoperability is almost a nightmare.
It seems that lamp manufacturers lack the vision when it comes to building a lighting system rather than lighting components. There is no unity; most companies hope making money with a proprietary system (if they have one); the lighting community does not have a clear picture of how the lighting industry will evolve in the next decade.
One thing is clear: without the ability of controlling light easily in all aspects (intensity, color, timing) the future of the new lighting technologies will depend primarily on cost: this means slow adoption because people think with their wallets. From this point of view, the retrofit lamps that come mainly from China will satisfy the market needs in short term. Unfortunately, quality and lack of features will remain the main issues in order to keep the cost down.
Adding controllability (and, subsequently, new features) on top of the long life, the efficiency and being environmentally friendly but hiding the complexity of the technology in the software embedded in these devices will accelerate the adoption.
Changing or enhancing the technology doesn’t have to become “the obstacle” but the facilitator in this process. In fact, the novelty factor will act as a catalyst in educating the market. Just think of two recent examples: digital cameras and smart phones. It won’t happen over night but, eventually, it will happen: controllability without complexity for the end user is the next big thing in lighting. And, yes, we need a plan (not only vision). That’s why I asked your opinions.
Have I made my self clear this time? I really appreciate the feedback.