Aren't incandescent light bulbs pretty much the poster child of the problems with capitalism's expectations of infinite growth? It is possible to create incandescent light bulbs with extremely long life time, but it doesn't make much economic sense, so no one does.
Choose your own adventure on whether this is a good or bad thing.
I'd defend the light industry as an example of creative destruction, candles and lanterns gave way to incandescent, florescent, and L.E.D.
I have no doubt that someone nerfed their incandescent bulbs to make more money, but that probably made it easier for people to buy alternatives so good riddence.
It's akin to oil - the oil producers had their day in the sun when it was $100 barrel but because it was $100/barrel, people started to talk about how to use less oil or extract hydrocarbons more cheaply.
Now we have electric cars and fracking. Sure, capitalism is the reason OPEC got greedy, but capitalism is the reason we explored alternatives.
If it's an ideology, capitalism is best practiced as 'understanding the questions' than 'knowing the answers'. The questions capitalists should ask are 1) how do I add value? 2) How do I capture enough value to invest in adding more value?
If they think the answer to their questions is "make enough money that it doesn't matter" they're going to walk the same road to hell that Enron, Worldcom, and Saudi Arabia find themselves on.
