I think people will be a lot keener to move from CFL to LED than they were from Incandescent to CFL. The CFL conversion was done very poorly. People didn't realize what color temperature was and manufacturers put 5000K lamps on retail shelves.
Disagree. This is an issue with LEDs, not CFLs. LED "bulbs" until the last 2-3 years have been 6500K. Lower CCT LEDs weren't commercially available until at least 2008. I'm not sure how far back you're looking, but CFLs have been 2700K for a long time. It wasn't until recent 3500K and 6500K have become available. Daylight is a newer choice that's available in CFLs.
People don't like the warmup time. They insist the lamps don't last as long as the package stated (I think heavy cycling is the issue).
3 hrs PER CYCLE is not realistic in homes except for maybe outdoor porch light. If 3 hrs/day consists of multiple 15 minutes uses, it does shave a lot of life like you said.
Not all CFL failures are due to lamp failure. it is often due to integral ballast failure. If CFL was made with aluminum heatsink shell, ballast failure would be reduced. Ballast failure isn't as frequent with externally ballasted CFLs. Cold cathode CFLs do not suffer from reduced life due to power cycling, though they've had limited success. The stabilized state efficacy isn't quite as good as hot cathode CFLs.
The LED on store shelves seems to be heavily 27k. The product doesn't look goofy. It's instant on. LED is seen as a "sexy" product.
That's only in the last few years. Earlier LED bulbs were made with hundreds of small LEDs and they were 6500K.
In the residential sector, LED can address most of the residential's consumer's complaints with CFL.
LED lamps are heavy and cost $50 each. The latter is a big gripe with consumers. Heavy lamps limit applications. Swing arm type lamps will not stay up. It will hang down with horizontal mounts like on vanity fixtures. They're even more heat sensitive than CFLs, so they may have trouble in any application that limits free airflow across the heat sink.
Reduced cooling may lead to failure or output reducing throttling.
For uncompromised light quality, there is really no replacement for incandescent. Motion sensor switches are very effective when applied correctly and much can be done in implementation of software in the switch. How often do you need the bathroom, shed, closet or laundry room lights to remain on for over 30 minutes with no motion inside? I don't see this very often. For exceptions, the switch's software can be programmed to apply 8 hour override by pushing the button five times quickly... or something like that.
For residential lighting, LPW isn't especially important. If you already get 50 LPW, the cost to double that far exceeds the cost saved.
LEDs do have their place in special application where demand is at higher premium than energy, for example on battery power or generator power. You could have infinite fuel, but demand is limited by generator capacity.
Squeezing every bit of lumens per watt only makes sense where the total energy usage is very large or where demand and power are both very scarce and have direct significant impact like back light on battery powered computers and smart phones.
LEDs for general purpose lighting is like organic food. Plenty of intangible perceived values and definite high cost.
Regardless of real benefit, if organic food sells and conductive to bottom lines or brand building, that's all that matters in capitalism.
