http://gizmodo.com/this-super-efficient-lightbulb-uses-tesla-tech-for-an-i-1609644357

What do you guys think? I am super excited about this honestly, there hasn't been any advancement in Induction technology for at least 10 years. They also got a pretty solid endorsement from Slate, who say the light is nearly identical to an incandescent, and is much better than any of the LED a19 replacements:

http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technology/2014/08/best_led_light_bulbs_finally_bulb_how_to_replace_the_incandescent_with_something.html

Nice, honestly, but... How long are we going to be slaves to a hundred years old design?
Why people need this shape and base when this is the best shape only for an incandescent technology and makes all other technologies rather complicated (fluorescent - too short, LED - overheated, induction - tiny parts need to be used).

And in the upper article:
"We were able to utilize all the old incandescent machines that were being shut down, and repurpose them to produce our lightbulb," Goscha said. "So instead of having to build a billion dollar factory, we're able to use their technology for us and recycle the old, beat up factories."
Seems like a nonsense to me. They could use from those old factories as much as if they were making retrofit LED lamps there.

It could be either expensive like hell, or last just a week till the electronic fails.

It is well known, the weakest part in the retrofit LED's is their ballast electronic. Well, the LED's are the most tolerant technology for the ballast parameters, so keep most of freedom to the ballast designer, yet the designs are pushed so far (for cost reasons), they are on the unacceptable border.
Yes, the margins on LED's are huge, but the competition is pushing that down, so there is quite a lot of room to reduce final prices without sacrificing the quality even further.

Now how could end up something way more technically demanding like an induction generator? There is no way for that being cheaper, nor more reliable, when it has to compete with LED prices on the store shelf.

And regarding the machinery: Yes, they may have gotten that for the cost of metal scrap cost, but don't forget it will be worn out, so in order to work it will require quite significant restoration work. And with that they get just a machinery at the end of it's life anyway, so exhibiting a lot of troubles. So it may appear as cheap solution, but it will mean huge expenses to just keep it somehow operational.

And with such bulb design they (or the machine) have to pick each piece individually for each processing step, so to make 10000 bulbs will cost 100x more than 100 bulbs.
The semicondictors (so LED's,...) mau have more complex processing, but with each operation (pick a piece of material, do something with it,...) you make material for at least 10000 lamps at once. So even when each such step would be 1000x more expensive than a single step for the classic bulb, the final product remain 10x cheaper. With that you just can not compete with anything else...

many of us are a hard sell on this new led tech.and we wont replace our vintage fixtures with china crap.so the replacement must fit whatever fixtures use this form factor.
if reliable these sound good.using idled lightbulb plants even better.not made in china!
since its phosphor based any color temp and cri could be made.
now to see if it lives up to the hype.

That is one of the reasons I'm against all of the bans: In an incandescent fixture, only a real incandescent works properly...

And regarding the reliability: I do not believe such indction will work. It is just too complex technology and that does not mean only the electronic design. So thecorners wuld be "cut" so deep, the reliability would be really a nightmare.