I am all for increased efficiency but I sure have a hard time paying $15.00 or more for a 60W light bulb (HD online) that I can only hope my heirs will use since 30,000 hours is going to out last me. Now increase my electric water heater's efficiency and we can talk about some savings.

I appreciate the ingenuity of the folding board and the claimed specs. However, I do not find the final design of the product very pleasing and the rear facing LEDs look like a wasteful arrangement to me (excluding some applications). One fundamental issue is also the initial cost. To pay an initial several folds higher price on the promise/expectation that it will allow you to save in the long run, will take time to be accepted. I.e. only when empirical experience will prove it is the case, as it is slowly happening with fluorescent bulbs.

I just drink 2 cups of coffee less each day, and I'll be saving more on the electricity to boil that water, than what all my cheap light-bulbs are wasting in a week..
only way these energy savers can be profitable in the real world for the consumer, is if they where priced, at exactly the same as a normal globe, which of coarse they are not...

Seen here is the too-common technique of fudging the numbers. The LED output of 1600 lumens is not equivalent to a common 100 watt lightbulb. It is about 7 percent less (1600 versus 1710-1750 lumens). Is 7 percent important? Yes, because light is what one is paying for in lighting equipment. Whether it is a 7 percent luminance increase, rent increase, tax increase, or food price increase, 7 percent is significant.

There are those who pay more for a hybrid car since it saves money in the long run by having better MPG. I think there are those would be willing to pay more intially to save money in the long run.
Perhaps with time, the cost will come down. With technology, it seems that it usuaslly does when some one finds a cheaper way to make them.

I suspect that this bulb will be obsolete by better designs and replaced long before it reaches it's break-even point.
Just as the typical hybrid car's total cost of ownership completely wipes out the gas savings from driving it and results in a much, much-more expensive car than the basic car it is supposed to replace. Hybrid cars don't save you money and neither will this light bulb. However it is an important step in the light bulb's continuing evolution.

My experience with CFLs is that they have failed to live up to the life expectancy claims. This is usually because the manufacturer skimped on the quality of some component. I would be very unhappy if that were the case with a $50 100 watt LED bulb. I've seen plenty of LED taillights on trucks and busses with failing LEDs on them.

This sounds like a fantastic and very innovative design, and actually not very highly priced considering it looks like they provide free shipping from their kickstarter website. About $40 for a real 100W bulb is a pretty awesome deal compared to the pricey Philip ones I recently bought. The fact that someone is thinking outside of the box and being able to remove that ugly heatsink while keeping the bulb cool is definitely impressive. The appearance is rather futuristic, which I am a fan of. Just ordered one from kickstarter, I am interested to see how it performs in real life.
to mmcconoughey, it looks like on their kickstarter website they have one that achieves 1800 lumens too, just a fyi.

Thanks but no thanks, $50.00 . I spent $21 on 3 bulbs from china that have a full 360 range and only burn 12 watts total. combined output is about an 80 watt bulb. Ebay rules

Ten dollars is the highest anyone should pay for a 100W LED 1700 lumen standard size 110- 220 v light bulb. Paying more plays the fool.