OK OneDrive, You Are Gone!

I am not a big data user on my phone.  I am usually connected via WiFi at home and work, where I spend most of my day.  I don't stream music or video.  Generally I use about 1/2 GB per month when not traveling.  So I was shocked when my Android Phone warned me when I exceeded 2 GB this month.  I'm up to 2.4 GB so far.  It's not a crazy amount of data, but far more than I usually use.

So, I looked into the details to find the culprit.  It was not even close.  OneDrive (Microsoft's cloud documents app) had used 1.9 GB of data.  Even worse, I don't think I even opened the app all month.  I tested OneDrive a couple of months ago, and uploaded some test data to the cloud.  But since then I have not used it. I much prefer Google Drive, which is where I do all my work (less than 0.1 GB used in Google Drive.

Therefore, OneDrive is doing a heck of a lot in the background.  I cannot imagine what it is doing with all that data.  Either it is uploading and downloading the few measly MB of data I have saved on it all day every day, or it is going through my phone and doing heaven knows what.  I also have it set not to upload pictures except when connected to WiFi and plugged in.  That did not seem to help.

Given that OneDrive is of minimal use to me, and the fact that it is sucking down all my data behind my back, I am uninstalling it now.

I am disappointed that Microsoft still cannot get its act together and design quality software that works efficiently.  There was a time when Microsoft cared about such things, but that was long ago, in another millennium.  Changing CEOs has not seemed to help matters.  Microsoft has a reputation for fat, overloaded bloatware.  The new CEO Satya Nadella showed some promise to get back to this. But my experience with OneDrive speaks volumes to me.

Therefore, farewell Microsoft.  You briefly found your way back onto my phone with the hope that you could be useful to me again.  You failed miserably and I have banished you once again.

Do not buy the "best" tablet

Tablet sales are falling.  Some question whether the class is even sustainable.  In my view, the class has become hopelessly muddled which leads to consumer confusion.

Tablets first really captured the attention of the public with the release of the iPad in 2010, followed quickly by Android tablets.  These early tablets were essentially smart phones without the phone, and larger screens.  One could use WiFi or cell technologies to access the Internet and use various apps for limited purposes.

Others had tried to release tablets long before this.  Microsoft announced a Windows XP tablet edition in 2001.  There were some very real hardware limitations that kept these from taking off.  But the real limitation was that manufacturers were trying to jam an entire PC into a much smaller device.

Doing so is possible, but it comes with real limitations.  A full size processor generates more heat and uses up battery power much faster.  Cutting back on processing power makes the OS run much slower and creates a frustrating experience for the user.  No one wants to wait two minutes (or more) for their tablet to boot up, like we tolerate on desktop or laptop.

As a result, tablets come with real limitations with regard to processing power, ram, drive capacity, etc.  This limits what they can do well.  You can still do quite a bit with a well designed low end tablet.  Those limitations are not debilitating.  A low to mid-range tablet probably has better computing specs than a Windows XP PC from a decade ago.  You can read and create documents and spreadsheets, watch movies, look at photos, play music, play video games, etc.  Maybe the highest end high 3-D graphics games would not play well.  Maybe you might experience problems using just the computing power in your tablet.  But then again, you can either do those limited tasks on a real PC, or use a cloud based tablet solution where the computing power is done on a server.  In short, you don't need to have a supercomputer in your tablet.

Microsoft has been an abject failure in mobility despite multiple attempts to break into the market. Microsoft has either tried to jam all of the large and clunky Windows OS into a tablet, or it has created a "lite" version of Windows that it tries to convince users is just as good as Windows (it is not).

For years, I have railed that tablets should be easier to upgrade.  That  has not happened.  I have accepted that tablets, like smart phones, need to be considered cheap devices that are probably going to be replaced every few years.  I break my tablet screens on a regular enough basis that I have become convinced that regular replacement is inevitable

That said, I never buy the most expensive tablets.  If I were to spend $800 on a top of the line iPad or Galaxy Tab, I would be much more upset when I smashed the screen.  Those higher end devices do very little more than the $150 I paid for a 10" Acer Iconia Android tablet.  If I would have been happy with an 8" screen, I probably could have paid half that amount.  But screen size is important to me, so I paid the extra money.

I have used the tablet for six months now and am not at all disappointed.  I don't play many games on it, and those I do are not graphics intensive.  I mostly use it to access my email and Google drive, or read articles.  Sometimes I use it to remote desktop into other computers, control my Chromecast to watch Netflix, or read e-books.  It has done everything I've demanded of it with no problems.  I am so glad I did not spend another $600 or more for a top of the line device.  I just don't see the point.

Microsoft has tried to break into the tablet market with various versions of Windows, or by making laptops that are creeping ever closer to tablets.  When I need a whole computer, I don't want a tiny tablet with a detachable keyboard.  I want my full size keyboard and mouse.  I want a decent sized screen.  I want a whole computer.  I don't mind lugging around my 15" laptop on the occasions when I need to have the whole computer.  I can then use my much smaller and cheaper tablet for the 95% of functions that do not require that full functionality.  When I want to play video games, I don't want mobile at all.  I want a console connected to a 50" TV with surround sound.  Same with movies: I don't want to watch an epic saga on a 10" screen.  I want the large screen experience.

Getting a tablet that is capable of high end gaming or providing some minor improvement in video (no, I don't need 4k video on a 10" screen) seems pointless to me.  I'm much better off with the cheap tablet, and using price difference to by a 50" HD TV.  I'll also feel far less guilty when I want to replace that tablet a couple of years from now.

Granted, there are some really cheap tablets that are not worth the savings.  You can buy some new tablets for under $50.  But even I would be frustrated with the 8 GB drive, small screen, and overall poor performance.  There is some value in spending more than the bottom of the barrel to get something better. But in the $100-$200 range, there is an amazing variety of quality Android tablets that will not disappoint most users.  For most people, paying any more than that is a waste of money.

Microsoft: Upgrade or Else!

You can mark me down as one of the "conspiracy theorists" in a recent Forbes article about Microsoft's latest service pack scandal.  It is no secret that Microsoft has been doing everything in its power short of brute force to encourage users to upgrade their Windows 7 or later computers to Windows 10.

Put simply, Microsoft has decided that support for legacy operating systems is a pain (and expensive). Although the company promised to support Windows 7 until 2020, it is clear that Microsoft would rather not have to do so.  At best, it will do a mediocre, careless, and inattentive job in providing support for Windows 7, Vista, and 8.1 (Microsoft has already stopped supporting 8.0, telling users that 8.1 is essentially a service pack for 8 that they must install for continued support).

Microsoft as the article link above points out, Microsoft has added an update to be downloaded automatically onto computers that it knows will render some computers inoperable.  It simply has not bothered to fix this issue before adding to its recommended list.  Sadly, Microsoft has a long history of pulling stunts like this to force people to upgrade.

For example when Windows XP first deployed in 2001, it ran well on 256 MB of RAM (1/4 GB).  It could even run on half that, 128 MB.  After several years and a service pack, the OS really seemed to require 512 MB (1/2 GB) to run optimally. But after Windows Vista and 7 came out, additional updates shot up that requirement to at least 1 GB.  Today, running on less than 2 GB causes significant performance problems. Whether this was a deliberate change to convince users to get a new PC with the newer version of Windows, or just sloppy coding since Microsoft no longer cared about users with the older computers, the effect was the same.  Technical people like me bought more memory, but most users just decided it was time to buy a new computer with a new version of Windows.

Another example, even though Microsoft goes through the trouble to make new security updates for Windows XP users even today, it does not make them available to the public.  One would think that patching flaws and security holes would be expected.  But Microsoft says no. Imagine if GM decided that problems that showed up in cars after 10 years were the driver's problem and that recalls or fixes to known problems were not longer required or available.  They would not even notify drivers of these problems.  I don't think that would go over very well.

In the IT world this sort of treatment is nothing new.  Apple has ignored its old products and even sent out updates that destroyed them, like the iOS upgrade that destroyed the WiFi antenna in your iPhone 4.

Microsoft, you may argue, is at least giving away its upgrade.  It is not reaching into our pockets and requiring us to spend more to be able to continue using our computers.  But Windows 10 does do away with some functionality.  Further, it allows Microsoft to get a great deal more information about how you are using your computer.  In other words, Microsoft gets valuable marketing data about you.  Microsoft also has not promised not to charge for Windows 10 updates in the future.  Once you are moved to 10, it will be difficult and expensive to go back.  If they start charging a year or two from now, you are stuck.

Other changes Microsoft is making to Windows 7 seems to be increasing the length of time it takes to start one's computer.  Users are also seeing unusual lag times in other areas.  These were not problems in prior years.  Now, however, they are becoming much bigger issues.  Since Microsoft has a direct financial interest in getting you to upgrade or buy a new computer, its hard to give the company any benefit of the doubt that fixing these problems is beyond its ability.

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.