Of course, that's the right short, concise technical answer, but is it right? Certainly well built products that meet the need make money. Examples abound, but take the good old incandescent light bulb as an example. Did you ever look at the thing? Of course, you try not to, because the filament burns an image in your eye. Ah, you say, "that's why we have frosted bulbs, because the market demanded it" and you'd be right. But, go into a big box and look for bulbs. It's taken an incredible amount of effort, largely on our part, to get the American Public to buy CFL's and we can't even imagine the daunting task of selling $$$ LED's to consumers. Why? Because we set the market in place with an "Engineered" product and consumers are so accustomed to buying the old style of bulb, they can't imagine buying the latest "market-push" bulbs. TAE was not a great salesman, otherwise I wouldn't devote a lot of my time teaching people why DC can solve their electrical distribution problems. Yet, we can't stop using the best engineered product of his time, largely exactly the same product he engineered over 100 years.
Bad example, really. CFLs pretty much suck in my experince except in the area of longevity. I end up having to cut on an additional incandescent to read, most of the time. I can't say I've seen any improvement in energy savings, either.
The outrage over mercury in CFLs cracks me up. Every single fluorescent tube ever used in the world has either the same amount or more mercury in it than a CFL. I'd argue that more fluorescent tubs have been sold than incandescent bulbs since they are used in commercial and industrial applications.
What's complicated? I toss 'em in the garbage.
