Kindle - Size Matters!

The new Kindle Oasis just released.  It is Amazon's high end e-ink reader, starting at $290.  It is a very nice product.  It comes with a leather case, a battery that lasts months, and amazing back lighting for night reading. There are now four versions of Kindles, all e-ink, starting with a budget $80 model, and moving all the way up the Oasis.  Even the different models have different variations. If you want the Oasis without ads, with 3G, and with a two year protection, you're talking more like $450.  I like that Amazon offers you a wide range of choices and price points so different consumers can get the level they want at the price they want.

You can, of course, simply download the free Kindle App onto your tablet or phone.  That gives the convenience of carrying around just one device. Kindle's e-ink technology, though, makes it much preferable to reading an e-book on your regular old tablet.  It is definitely much easier on the eyes.

Personally, I have tried the Kindle but never purchased one.  Although I like the e-ink technology, and love the idea of being able to have my entire library at my fingertips at all times, one simple thing continues to hold me back.

All four of the current Kindle models, as well as all past models, come with a six inch screen.  That is barely larger than my cell phone screen, and smaller than most mini tablets.  My eye sight is not the greatest.  I would love to see Kindle come out with a larger screen.

Kindle sells its screen size as being the size of a typical paperback book.  But books come in all sizes. If, for example, Kindle eventually wants to be used in schools, it needs to have a reader that can show text, images, graphs, all on a page that needs to be bigger.  Many books simply require a larger page to display the content as the author intended.

I get that the smaller screen makes the Kindle easier to carry around, keeps prices lower, conserves battery life, and makes screen refreshes faster and easier.  I would happily give up all that for a larger screen though.  With four different varieties of Kindles, is it wrong to ask that just one of them comes with a ten inch screen?  I have been waiting for the bigger screen for years, but Amazon keeps knocking out the six inch screens without any variation.

Come on Kindle! Give us a larger screen with an option of larger type on the page.  Millions of old people with thank you!

Samsung Galaxy S7 - A step in the right direction

I am pleased to see some of the changes Samsung has made with the new Galaxy S7.  The best fix was the return of the MicroSD port which was abandoned on the S6.  The S7 comes with an upgraded minimum 32 GB of space, but the MicroSD port allows for an extra 200 GB if you are so inclined.

Unfortunately, the S7 has not returned to the removable battery we enjoyed with the S5.  I like the idea of removing a battery just to be certain nothing is still running on my phone when I want it off completely.  I also like the idea of carrying around a spare battery in case I run out of power, as well as the ability to add higher capacity batteries for longer life.

The S7 did increase battery capacity from 2600 mAh to 3000 mAh.  You can also use a portable USB charger if you just have trouble getting through the day on a single charge.  Still, the lack of a removable battery is disappointing. Fewer high end phones have a removable battery.  I've been looking at the LG G5.  I'm not sure that the removable battery is enough for me to switch, as I do like a great deal of other things about the Galaxy S7.  It is a disappointment though that I cannot remove my battery.

The S7 has also greatly improved its camera.  Major carriers thankfully have ended the focus in increasing the number of megapixels in their photos and started to focus more on the lenses.  The S7 has a larger aperture (1.9) which means you get much better photos in low light situations.  That is where my current phone gives me the most trouble.  The S7 seems much improved in this area.  It also has image stabilization.

Samsung has also improved the water proofing in the S7.  Although I've never had the nerve to take a cell phone into the water, I guess it's nice to have that level of protection.

A new feature on the S7 is the "always on" screen.  When not using the phone, it still displays the time and a few other pieces of information on the screen.  To battery hoarders like me, this just seems like  a drain on battery life.  The "always on" feature supposedly uses about 1% of battery per hour, meaning you could lose nearly a quarter of battery life over the course of a day.  I also wonder what sort of screen burn in I will get from having a clock on the screen always.  Fortunately, it is possible to turn off this feature.  Even with it on, the S7 loses less power in standby mode than the S6.

Overall, the S7 is a very great improvement over the disappointing S6.  Whether Samsung can continue to maintain its dominance in the high end Android market remains a big question.  Many new manufacturers, including Google itself, are beginning to produce worthy competing product.  Samsung is in the difficult position of trying to distinguish itself, without veering too far from the standard Android path.

Supersonic commuter jets: a solution in search of a problem

NASA recently announced the development of a new supersonic jet that can carrier passengers at around 1100 miles per hour, slower than the Concorde, which could go 1400 MPH went out of business years ago.  The great breakthrough with the new jet is that the sonic boom it makes is much quieter than older planes.

The sonic boom was not the Concorde's biggest problem.  The problem was that it cost a fortune to run and did not save that much time.  Lowering the sonic boom might allow the new jet to fly overland. The Concorde was limited to flights over the ocean.  Overland flights, however, don't benefit much from faster speeds.  Right now, a flight from LA to NY is about 2400 miles.  The new jet flying at maximum speed might make it there in 2 hrs, 20 minutes.  A standard Boeing jet in use today could do the same flight in about 4 hours.  But standard jets do not fly at their maximum speed. It wastes too much fuel and increases costs.  Therefore, a nonstop flight will probably take over 5 hours today. There just is not enough demand for the maximum speed.

Any traveler will tell you that the bulk of time spend during most domestic flights is not the time spent in flight.  It may take you an hour or more to reach the airport.  If you are parking, you may need another hour to get to the lot, find a commuter bus to take you to the terminal, then spend two hours in the airport going through security and dealing with the advance time airlines require to load luggage and passengers.  You may spend another two hours getting off the plane, collecting your luggage, getting to your ground transportation and then driving to your final destination.  As a result, you have spent six hours of travel time not counting any time actually being flown anywhere.  So a faster plane can cut your two hour flight to one hour.  You are still spending seven  hours of travel time instead of eight.  That is not a big deal, especially if it means your ticket will be four times the cost.  All of this does not include the common problems of flight delays.  It also does not calculate the fact that you must leave at a particular time which may mean more wasted time on either side of the flight before you make your appointment.

There are many wealthy people who gladly spend more money to save time and hassle.  But they are much better off spending that money on a limo to reduce time getting to and from the terminal, Investing in pre-clearance to get through airport security faster.  The very wealthy may even prefer a private jet which allows flexibility in when they leave or arrive and avoids much of the security delays for public carriers.  Making these changes to your ground strategy can save you possibly four or more hours of travel time, as opposed to an hour or two paying for a faster jet.

The faster jet may carry some appeal.  But supersonic planes are usually much smaller, meaning a smaller and more cramped cabin.  People who paid big money to fly the old Concorde were not impressed with the level of comfort on the plane.  If money is not the issue, a slower private jet would be much preferable.

For these reasons, private companies gave up on super sonic commercial flights years ago.  Without a way to make the faster flights as cheap as current jets, the improved speed is simply not worth the cost to virtually any customers.

NASA may have found a way to eliminate the big boom, but that was not really the problem.  NASA wants $300 million from Congress to develop the technology and build a miniature prototype that can carry exactly one passenger.  Presumably the cost would be in the billions to bring a small fleet into actual use.  While scientific advancements are always nice, paying for them when they have little practical application in the market makes no sense.

Smart Advertising is Still Stupid

The promise of smart advertising is something we should all embrace.  Rather than being bombarded with advertisements that we find dull, uninteresting and repetitive, we will only see ads about things we actually want, when we want, and in a format that appeals to us.  That, at least, is the promise of smart advertising.

As with most advertising, however, what is promised is far different from what we get.  I see targeted advertising all the time.  I can often tell when an ad is being targeted at me.  The problem is that it does a very poor job.

For example, this morning of Facebook, I saw an ad for some power adapters that I had browsed on eBay the day before.  The caption read "take another look!"  The problem with this ad was that I not only browsed the product, I had purchased it.  Why is eBay not smart enough, or more likely not concerned enough, to block ads to products I have already purchased?  Similarly, I often see ads to buy items that I am trying to sell, probably because I looked up finished sales on various sites to determine the value of the item.

It has gotten to the point that when I want to look at a product that will trigger ads, I use my browser's "private" or "incognito" mode in order to minimize the trail I will leave for advertisers.

Smart advertising is in its relative infancy so it will probably get better over time.   Of course that can be scary too as advertisers learn not only what we like but what gimmicks prompt us to buy, and which targets are more or less susceptible to advertising in the first place.  It will become easier to prey on the weak and get into consumer's heads.  We will be more easily manipulated.

We are not there yet though.  For many of the ads that I see, I think to myself: I know where you targeted me for that, and you really need a much better algorithm.

After several months with Windows 10, I hate it even more

I've usually been fairly reluctant to upgrade to a new version of Windows, mostly because a new version will require me to relearn how to perform the same basic tasks in a different way.  In exchange for this, I get... well nothing.  Newer version rarely add anything useful.  Any new features are usually things that are done better by other third party programs.  Sometimes, I even lose features.

I work on multiple computers, which at this point are mostly Windows 7.  I still have a few running XP because they run much better for some of the games I still enjoy playing.  I've completely avoided Windows 8 and 8.1 because they were just horrible.

When Windows 10 came along, I figured I better start getting used to it.  Sooner or later security and support would become an issue on my Windows 7 machines.  Also, friends and family always assume I can help with their new computers, inevitably Windows 10.  Since I work in IT for a living, it would hurt my cred if I could not maneuver around a Windows 10 computer with ease.

Since I didn't want to risk problems by upgrading any of my existing computers, I got a new laptop with Windows 10 pre-installed.  As I expected, there was a little bit of a learning curve in using it. The new system offered nothing more that I wanted, and I ended up losing a few features, like my ability to play DVD videos without a third party program.  I figured I get used to it over time though. I forced myself to use the new Windows 10 laptop for most day to day tasks (such as writing this blog right now), but still go back to my older Windows 7 computers when I want to get things done quickly and easily.

One feature I really hate about Windows 10 is its obsession with updates.  Earlier today, I was writing a blog post (on a different topic).  Windows decided to pop up in the middle of my work and tell me it wanted to install updates and reboot right now.  I told it no and went back to work.  A short time later, I guess I got distracted by something on TV, because when I turned back to my laptop, I saw it was restarting and installing the update anyway.  I had to sit around fuming for quite some time while it did its thing, unable to stop it and get back to work.  Since it restarted without even letting me save my work, I lost some work as well.  To top it all off, once it restarted and I began my work again, I was interrupted with another pop-up message telling me that the update was unsuccessful and that I should try again.  I said no, but now I'm dreading when it tries to force another update and restart when I least suspect it.

Windows XP and 7 were annoying enough then they took 20 minutes to install updates after I shut down my laptop and was trying to catch a train.  Now with Windows 10, the update annoyance has gone a step further by interrupting me while in the middle of my work.  This is truly ridiculous and unacceptable.

I've always thought of my Windows PCs as my personal computer which I controlled.  More and more though, it seems Microsoft considers my PC as a terminal attached to a giant Microsoft network.  Anytime it wants, Microsoft thinks it is just fine to reach out and take information frrom my computer, and to make changes to it without my permission or sometimes even my knowledge.

I have long avoided the techie geek step of working on a Linux OS.  There are just so many programs made for Windows that will not work on Linux that I've always felt I'd be left without something I  needed.  I've stuck with Windows computers and used an Android tablet as my limited use light and nimble option.  But if Microsoft continues to interrupt and annoy me by treating my PC as a terminal attached to a larger Microsoft controlled network, perhaps I need to consider other options.

Stupid Uses of Smart Technology

Last year, the train station I use (PATCO) installed several LCD signs in each of its stations, some on the platform and some down by the gate.  I don't know the actual cost, but they look like pretty hardy all weather devices.  I'm sure the project cost at least several hundred thousand dollars.

Up until this time, PATCO had posted paper schedules at the stations, and also posted paper notices as needed.  Finally, I thought, PATCO was moving into the modern era with new signs.  I had visions of seeing postings of when the next train was leaving, so commuters did not have to run when they heard the train approaching, or unnecessarily hurry through ticket purchases, just in case one came.  I also thought we might look forward to real time postings of delays or other problems.

None of that happened though.  For a while, they posted all the times for all trains, in fine print, making it difficult to find the relevant information.  There was not even an attempt to highlight the next train on the list.  Eventually, I guess they decided the schedule was too difficult to read, so they want back to posting papers schedules.

When there were track problems and major delays recently, no information appeared on the signs.  Commuters had to rely on announcements made by train operators on the decades old PA systems that were often incomprehensible.

Lately, the signs have posted no useful information.  They are simply used to post those meaningless advice ads, like "be sure to keep your bags with you" or "don't take up two seats when you sit on the train."

My point in describing this example is not just to criticize PATCO (though it deserves the criticism) but to make the larger point about how great technology often fails when put to use by users who are unconcerned about getting much out of the technology.  The many benefits of the new electronic signage could have made commuters' lives easier, but the company never bothered to put them to use. They should have saved their money and stuck with the much cheaper method of posting paper signs and flyers from time to time.

Better yet, hire someone who understands how to use technology.  Hire someone who can publish real time information about train times or delays, who can make the signs relevant to commuters' lives.  Make the signs dynamic with useful information that is updated throughout the day.  This is the benefit the technology offers.

Many people mindlessly buy more technology than they need or want.  In my job, I support people who buy the latest iPhones, but never use it for anything other than making phone calls or perhaps occasionally checking email.  I know people who buy state of the art ultra thin laptops but never move the machine off of their desk.  I see companies who go through the time and trouble to build a web site, then never update the content on it for years.  All of this seems a bit like buying a million dollar Lamborghini and never taking it over 55 mph.

I suppose this is inevitable.  Waste is normal in a wealthy society.  People buy clothes that they never wear or wear only once.  People buy more food than they need, only to throw most of it away. People buy a 400 channel cable package but only ever watch the same six channels.  People buy houses so large that some of the rooms are only used on rare occasions.  Why should technology be different?

Still, it seems beyond frustrating when so much money is invested in technology, only to see it wasted because the user refuses to make use of it.

Cell Phones Are Going To Start Getting Much Cheaper

Since the rise of the smart phone, cell phones have been crazy expensive.  A good smart phone without a contract will cost around $800, more than a decent laptop.  Since these high end phones are actually quite powerful miniaturized computers with cutting edge technology, this has been understandable.  Smart Phones have been at the front of technology's growth and innovation over the past few years

That, however, is going to begin to change this year.  The main reason cell phone makers have been able to get away with such costs is that much of the cost is hidden in your cell phone bill.  Customers have grown accustomed to getting free cell phones if they are willing to go with last year's model or a mid-level smart phone.  Many pay $200-$300 for a top phone, along with a two year contact.  This, of course, means that much of the actual cost of the phone is buried in those monthly payments made under the two year contract.  

Beginning last years, major cell phone providers have begun phasing out discounted phones which are paid through the monthly contracts.  AT&T just announced it is killing off phone contracts entirely.  Instead, users pay one price for their service and another for the phone, which can be paid for in installments over a year or two.  This change is a good thing.  It provides customers with transparency.  They can see what portion of their monthly costs go to the phone and what goes to service.  More importantly, if they choose not to upgrade, they don't keep paying that hidden cost for an upgraded phone that they never got.  Users can save money by holding onto their phones beyond the two year mark.  Once installment payments are done, they just pay for the service.

Of greater benefit to the consumer is that phones will start to become less expensive.  When users received a free deeply discounted phone, they had no incentive to decide if they could make due with something less powerful and cheaper.  Just get the best free phone, or pay a small sum for a top phone, knowing you could probably get that money back as a trade in on your next upgrade. 

When you actually see what you pay for a phone, you may not be willing to pay quite as much. Picking up a new iPhone or Samsung for $800 may dissuade some buyers, even if they know they can pay for it over two years, especially if they find that a $300 phone can do pretty much everything they want.

How cheap can phones get?  Well let's take a look at a very similar technology that has not had the benefit of cell phone subsidies: tablets.  You can pick up the Amazon Fire HD, a reasonably good Android tablet with a 7" touch screen for $50.  There is no reason you could not make a similar device with phone and 4G data for less than $100.  In some parts of the world today, you can buy a cheap smart phone with a camera and Internet for under $30.  Of course, that price comes with some real compromises in speed and quality.

Most of use will want more power and quality than a $30 smart phone can provide.  But I would not be surprised to see some really nice high end smart phones selling in the $300 range in the next year or two.  Even those really highest end $800 phones may fall closer to the $500 mark.  Today, you can pick up the very nice Nexus 5x for under $400.  

There will be some down sides to these price cuts.  The speed at which phones continue to develop will diminish as phone makes focus more on cost savings and less on improving speed and adding features.  But this new phase was inevitable as smart phones move from being "the new thing" to an everyday appliance.