As I said in my last post, I feel like I've been getting down on a lot of tech-related news of late, so I'd been looking for some news that gave me a little bit of a lift. That's when an email forward about a compressed air-driven car floated across my desk.
I was trying to find some links on the Internet with more recent pictures/news about these types of cars, but unfortunately, I wasn't able to find much. I did find a 2007 article from Popular Mechanics, which discussed Tata Motors's MiniCAT. From what I've been able to ascertain from other sources, though, the projections that Tata would have the MiniCAT available for entry into the car market in India by 2008 fell short. I haven't been able to find out if the MiniCAT has been produced and sold yet, since then. (If anyone has information about that, please comment to this post.)
There is this article from Wikipedia, however, which describes how the concept works and lists other manufacturers who are working on producing a vehicle that takes advantage of the compressed air concept.
Why do I like it?
First of all, I think the idea of filling up one's vehicle with compressed air at any old gas station is great. One of the big detractors to the concept of natural gas-powered or biofuel-powered vehicles has been the issue of availability. And, the problem with the idea of all electric cars is where to charge them, as well as the length of time to charge. Gas stations wouldn't have to be vastly modified to offer compressed air for vehicles, and the full charge time is much shorter than with an electric car. Also, since compressed air is very cold as it decompresses, it can be used to cool the car's interior and engine, keeping the car from needing coolant for those functions.
Hang-ups to the concept?
Safety, for one. Air-powered cars are mainly carbon-fiber construction, and these types of light cars have a hard time passing U.S. car safety standards. Also, top speed. The estimates differ, but so far I've seen no real evidence that they're made to go faster than 45mph yet. To make it in the U.S., with buyers in the U.S. car market, it will have to go faster.
Speed, safety, and efficiency. These are the three hurdles any car needs to get over to make it in our market. So far, most of the work has been done on efficiency. I'm looking forward to when they clear the other two hurdles.
2011-07-31
2011-07-21
The data plan racket
I feel like I've been getting down on a lot of electronics-related news lately, but I'm afraid I have to toss another grenade into the works, this time aimed at Verizon Wireless's data plans.
In the spirit of full disclosure, even though I love tech and I love my smartphone, I admit that I don't really use apps. I know, it's a shocker. How could anyone in possession of a smartphone not use apps in this day and age?
The truth is that I was big into the idea of apps and games on my phone years ago when I bought my first flip phone. (This was at a time when the mobile web still wasn't very usable.) I found I just couldn't get into the apps and games I tried, no matter what I used. Eventually, I just gave up.
When I picked up a Samsung Glyde later, I went back to mobile web that worked much better. I was happy reading news articles and such on my phone (touchscreen rage aside). And last year, I finally upgraded to a Blackberry, which I definitely love. I totally understand the "Crackberry" nickname now.
But, I haven't been happy to shell out $29.99 every month for unlimited data usage (the ONLY data plan that was available from Verizon), especially since I don't download/use apps, and reading the New York Times doesn't use up that much data.
So, imagine my happiness when I heard that Verizon was finally moving to a tiered plan for data. I know, that was the worst nightmare of users who regularly use apps and download movies, etc. Trust me, I hear where you're coming from. Still, I wanted the choice to get something less than unlimited data, and to pay less, too.
Imagine my own horror when I check out their tiered plans and discovered that they START at $30 per month. I'm sorry, but at the risk of sounding like one of my friends over at The Ranter's Row -- what a crock!
Why would I pay the same price for just 2GB of data as I'm paying for unlimited data? I understand that right now I'm not using even a fraction of the unlimited data I pay for under the unlimited plan, but the monetary math just doesn't add up on the tiered plan.
I'm still grandfathered into my unlimited plan, but I can't believe any new user would willingly sign up to be assaulted in the wallet each month under the tiered plan. They're crazy if they do.
In the spirit of full disclosure, even though I love tech and I love my smartphone, I admit that I don't really use apps. I know, it's a shocker. How could anyone in possession of a smartphone not use apps in this day and age?
The truth is that I was big into the idea of apps and games on my phone years ago when I bought my first flip phone. (This was at a time when the mobile web still wasn't very usable.) I found I just couldn't get into the apps and games I tried, no matter what I used. Eventually, I just gave up.
When I picked up a Samsung Glyde later, I went back to mobile web that worked much better. I was happy reading news articles and such on my phone (touchscreen rage aside). And last year, I finally upgraded to a Blackberry, which I definitely love. I totally understand the "Crackberry" nickname now.
But, I haven't been happy to shell out $29.99 every month for unlimited data usage (the ONLY data plan that was available from Verizon), especially since I don't download/use apps, and reading the New York Times doesn't use up that much data.
So, imagine my happiness when I heard that Verizon was finally moving to a tiered plan for data. I know, that was the worst nightmare of users who regularly use apps and download movies, etc. Trust me, I hear where you're coming from. Still, I wanted the choice to get something less than unlimited data, and to pay less, too.
Imagine my own horror when I check out their tiered plans and discovered that they START at $30 per month. I'm sorry, but at the risk of sounding like one of my friends over at The Ranter's Row -- what a crock!
Why would I pay the same price for just 2GB of data as I'm paying for unlimited data? I understand that right now I'm not using even a fraction of the unlimited data I pay for under the unlimited plan, but the monetary math just doesn't add up on the tiered plan.
I'm still grandfathered into my unlimited plan, but I can't believe any new user would willingly sign up to be assaulted in the wallet each month under the tiered plan. They're crazy if they do.
2011-07-17
Wireless home theater shouldn't cost you a fortune
A July 6th article from David Pogue in the New York Times promoted a set of wireless home theater speakers as "Wireless Speakers That Don't Sound Like a Cordless Phone". The article quoted a source as stating that the average cost of a really good, wireless home theater set-up is around $10K. Since this quote came from an individual who owns a home theater installation company in Fairfield, CT, I suspect that much of this price is for the man hours to install and calibrate said speakers.
The system that David Pogue reviewed still costs $2500 to $3000, depending on the model. Granted, the fact that they are self-calibrating is nothing to sneeze at. Some may say that feature alone justifies the cost. Even with wired speakers, getting all of the speakers in-sync can be a time consuming project.
Speaking as someone who doesn't have a couple thousand dollars to drop for wireless speakers, however, I say that $2500 is still too much. And, with the Aperion system that Pogue reviewed, you still need to plug in each speaker. If there aren't any individual outlets near where you want to place the speakers, you're forced to run extension cords. So, they're not very wireless after all...
If you're really bent on wireless, here are a couple of alternatives:
Sony's Blu-ray Player Home Entertainment System - You know me - I'll stand by most of Sony's products, especially in the audio department. This system features 1000-watt, 5.1 channel HD surround sound and 3D compatibility. The two rear speakers are wireless.
Klipsch LightSpeaker System (seen below) - These win out on the cool factor if nothing else. I've seen mixed reviews, but there seem to be more positive reviews than negative ones. The speakers plug into a standard light socket, wherever you want them, and will offer not only wireless sound, but some light, too.
Both systems are in the $350 to $500 range, and they offer decent wireless for the price.
Me, I don't mind wires. Especially when you can spend a couple hundred dollars on a really nice area rug to cover those pesky wires.
Thanks for driving home my point from the last post, Netflix. Can you really handle more users streaming? I really wonder.
The system that David Pogue reviewed still costs $2500 to $3000, depending on the model. Granted, the fact that they are self-calibrating is nothing to sneeze at. Some may say that feature alone justifies the cost. Even with wired speakers, getting all of the speakers in-sync can be a time consuming project.
Speaking as someone who doesn't have a couple thousand dollars to drop for wireless speakers, however, I say that $2500 is still too much. And, with the Aperion system that Pogue reviewed, you still need to plug in each speaker. If there aren't any individual outlets near where you want to place the speakers, you're forced to run extension cords. So, they're not very wireless after all...
If you're really bent on wireless, here are a couple of alternatives:
Sony's Blu-ray Player Home Entertainment System - You know me - I'll stand by most of Sony's products, especially in the audio department. This system features 1000-watt, 5.1 channel HD surround sound and 3D compatibility. The two rear speakers are wireless.
Klipsch LightSpeaker System (seen below) - These win out on the cool factor if nothing else. I've seen mixed reviews, but there seem to be more positive reviews than negative ones. The speakers plug into a standard light socket, wherever you want them, and will offer not only wireless sound, but some light, too.
Both systems are in the $350 to $500 range, and they offer decent wireless for the price. Me, I don't mind wires. Especially when you can spend a couple hundred dollars on a really nice area rug to cover those pesky wires.
In the wired department, 
I favor the Klipsch QUINTET 5.0 speakers, seen on the right, and a Klipsch subwoofer (the QUINTET system is four front/rear speakers, plus a center speaker, so a subwoofer needs added). 
I favor the Klipsch QUINTET 5.0 speakers, seen on the right, and a Klipsch subwoofer (the QUINTET system is four front/rear speakers, plus a center speaker, so a subwoofer needs added). You be the judge as what's best for you. In my opinion any of these three will fit your needs on the low/mid end. If you want higher end, think about the Aperion system.
And, on other home theater-related topics, Netflix went down yet again this evening, and it's still down as I'm posting this. I can't even sign into the website from my laptop. According to the Huffington Post, there's no word from Netflix about the outage or when it will be back up.
Thanks for driving home my point from the last post, Netflix. Can you really handle more users streaming? I really wonder.
2011-07-13
Netflix Raising Prices Again
Back, after a bit of a hiatus, to bring down some ire about Netflix. They're trying to stick it to us again.
According to this New York Times article yesterday, Netflix is raising their rates again. New subscribers get to feel the heat now (streaming plus one DVD a month goes from $10 to $16 - ouch), while current subscribers get to debate whether to drop Netflix until September, when their rates go up, too. I'm not sure what my rates will go up to just yet, with streaming service plus three DVDs at a time, but this news leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
The article didn't state it outright, but in my estimation, this is just Netflix's attempt to hurd us all toward the streaming-only package ($8 a month), but with the frequent outages and history of yanking formerly-streaming titles off the streaming service, that's a tough sell. There aren't a lot of better options than Netflix out there, but I'll tell you, I'm still weighing my options. After all, there's a Redbox kiosk right over the hill from me and a library chalk full of FREE movies not much farther.
I also think Netflix should tread lightly here, because there are other movie streaming services out there, and Netflix's rising rates will drive some customers to look elsewhere. This would be a great time for a service like Hulu Plus to pick up their game a little and pick up some of Netflix's fee-weary customers in the process.
GBT
According to this New York Times article yesterday, Netflix is raising their rates again. New subscribers get to feel the heat now (streaming plus one DVD a month goes from $10 to $16 - ouch), while current subscribers get to debate whether to drop Netflix until September, when their rates go up, too. I'm not sure what my rates will go up to just yet, with streaming service plus three DVDs at a time, but this news leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
The article didn't state it outright, but in my estimation, this is just Netflix's attempt to hurd us all toward the streaming-only package ($8 a month), but with the frequent outages and history of yanking formerly-streaming titles off the streaming service, that's a tough sell. There aren't a lot of better options than Netflix out there, but I'll tell you, I'm still weighing my options. After all, there's a Redbox kiosk right over the hill from me and a library chalk full of FREE movies not much farther.
I also think Netflix should tread lightly here, because there are other movie streaming services out there, and Netflix's rising rates will drive some customers to look elsewhere. This would be a great time for a service like Hulu Plus to pick up their game a little and pick up some of Netflix's fee-weary customers in the process.
GBT
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)