When you have that level of information asymmetry, people might value qualities like durability but can't guide their purchasing decisions with it because they don't know what ion exchanged glass is and why they should be looking for it. Not everyone is an engineer/scientist.
Neither of which fit your example which is search cost. Not everyone knows a lot of things, it is impossible to know everything. Therefore tradeoffs are made. Which is rational.
I've got a big house with a lot of can lights, and it's not really possible to buy for durability. Obviously, incandescents are out, but if I buy a batch for a room to see if a model is durable, by the time I have a good idea, I can't actually get that model anymore, so it's not super helpful. And I'm not a monster, so I don't use multiple models in one room, so it's better to buy several at once. Different brand incandescents are fine together, but LEDs outputs vary and their startup and shutoff delays vary, and their response to dimming varies, and their failure modes vary... So yeah.
Well, there’s your problem.
These things are just not a good idea; the heat has to go somewhere.
Eight years ago, I bought a bunch of Ikea GU-10 LED bulbs, I believe 6EUR for two; I think roughly a quarter have since died. But they’re exposed spotlight fittings rather than recessed. Never heard of those lasting particularly long.
It’s naive to believe only buyer behavior drives what products are available, when the market is fixed to limit offer. You’re probably confused between the meaning of capitalism and free market.
It's easier to sell long-life lamps than high-efficiency lamps (bulb failures are obvious, but few people had the test equipment to measure efficiency of individual bulbs). The cartel avoided competition on lifespan that would have wasted a lot of electricity.