Choir music played as the Apple gods descended from the heavens and bestowed upon humanity the latest iPhone yesterday. It features minor upgrades, including a better camera, a video camera and voice control (all features that currently exist on other phones), as well as a number of functions that, ironically, AT&T (the only current U.S. provider) isn't supporting. Apple and AT&T are sharing a bountiful offering of bile and annoyance in the various forums for a number of reasons, not all of them legitimate:

- Apple apparently didn't tell AT&T the details before the announcement, so AT&T staff have had no clue how to answer questions from customers who began calling as soon as the news was released. Thus, various apocryphal accounts of what is and isn't allowed are floating around. Fault: Apple.

- AT&T is woefully underprepared for the new release; it can't support the flagship upgrades to the phone (multimedia text messaging, the ability to use the phone as a modem for a laptop when away from a wireless network, etc.) until "later this year." Its exclusive Apple contract ends next year and there are rumors that Apple will decline to renew it, something AT&T would desperately like to avoid. This release has not helped its cause in that regard. Fault: AT&T.

- Rage and enmity, boiling up like an undersea cauldron of volcanic fire, has filled the forums from current AT&T iPhone customers who have discovered, with great gnashing of teeth, that the advertised prices are not available to them. While I could buy a new iPhone this month for $200, a current iPhone customer would have to shell out at least $400 and possibly more for an identical phone. A veritable revolution is forming out of Apple addicts, some of whom have stood in lines on Day 1 for every new iPhone release, who feel they should be rewarded for their customer loyalty by being offered at least the same deal new customers receive (and perhaps some perks) and blame Apple and AT&T for consciously deciding to take advantage of them. On the surface their complaints seem valid; I'd certainly be annoyed if I had to pay more for my next iMac because I currently own one. The difference here is contractual; mobile phone providers (across the board) often subsidize the cost of an expensive phone for subscribers in return for a 2-year contract, with the cost of the phone factored into the monthly bills, allowing the phone company to recoup some of its costs and stay in business. In this case, the new iPhone release comes less than 2-years after the last release, meaning the early adopters are not yet far enough into their contracts for AT&T to have made up for the phone subsidy and making AT&T reluctant (or outright unwilling) to subsidize another expensive phone. Fault: Customers who didn't read the contracts they signed a year ago and now want out of them with no penalty.

When I first saw the announcement I considered buying, but now I think I'm going to hold off, for a couple of reasons:

- This release didn't include some of the anticipated upgrades, like a touchscreen-side camera to allow for video chat (how cool would that be?) and built-in GPS (although at least one app is now offering that).

- I'd have to switch my provider to AT&T, which doesn't have the best coverage in my state (in fact, it's pretty much limited to Omaha and Lincoln, with "partners" covering (most of) the rest of the state). Rumors hold that Apple is going to dump AT&T's exclusive contract in 2010 and offer Verizon a place at the table. Granted most of my acquaintances who are Verizon customers have less-than-positive things to say about the company, but I'm going to be a Verizon customer by default (due to acquisition of my current provider) in the next couple of months, which would give me a chance to review them before locking into a 2-year AT&T contract.

- My current phone works fine, and the monthly iPhone plans are substantially higher than my current plan.

Plus by now all of my friends know that if they text message me, they're going to get an e-mail back instead (since typing punctuation on a Razr is a pain in the ass); once I get an iPhone they'll actually expect me to text back. ;)

Labels: technology

Posted at 2:12:00 PM.  |     |   Permalink to this post.

 

Tuesday, May 19

Grid Unlock

It's not a secret that our energy usage is overtaxing our production (and will be seriously threatened if not overwhelmed as the population continues to drastically expand, developing nations begin to match first-world energy usage levels and easily tapped energy supplies shrink). One band-aid for the problem was touched upon in the most recent Discover issue (which isn't online yet, so I'm linking to a parallel article).

Boulder, Colorado is running an experiment with a modern "smart grid" and new technologies that looks very promising. The program boils down to a number of points:

- Customers of the utility have their houses upgraded to "smart" status that allows for computer control via in-home controls or over the Internet of most of the major appliances as well as giving online real-time reports of how their homes are using electricity. This allows people to, for example, turn their thermostats up or down from their work computer or cell phone if their schedules change.

- The utility keeps customers updated (currently via their Web site or wireless messaging) of the status of the grid and when electricity is being supplied to the grid by renewable (in this case, wind) sources. A future proposal (which I like) is an "ambient light" in the house (a glowing orb or some such) that glows green when the grid is using renewable energy and red when it is using conventional power plants or being overtaxed.

- Customers can program their houses to use energy-intensive appliances (like dishwashers, laundry machines and rechargeable battery banks) only when the grid is using renewable energy.

- Customers with plug-in hybrids (which should be a wave of future cars) can not only set their cars to charge only during "green" times, but can leave their cars connected to the grid to act as additional energy sources during "red" times, acting as storage banks to ease strains on the grid by "selling" their stored electricity back to the utility (or rather, having it deducted from their bill), offsetting the cost of the hybrid.

The experiment faces a number of major hurdles. The technology isn't cheap (not even counting the cost of a hybrid). It relies on a certain level of computer-aptitude (I think this sounds fantastic, but my grandmother, who doesn't own a DVD player, let alone a computer or smart phone, would think it was horribly frustrating). And even some of those who are savvy enough to participate in such a system will resist for personal reasons (the experiment has already met resistance because a necessary component is allowing the utility to determine how you're using your electricity and giving them the technical capability to change your appliance settings).

Despite that, I'm hoping the experiment does well. It will determine whether a larger program is rolled out in other cities.

Labels: environment, science, technology

Posted at 1:27:00 PM.  |     |   Permalink to this post.

 

Thursday, March 12

Time To Buy New Extension Cords

I've been looking forward to trading in my Saturn (even if I can coax close to 50 mpg out of it) for a Prius for a couple of years, although finances have prohibited (and will continue to prohibit) such a transaction for quite some time (damn mortgage). My most recent issue of Discover, though, presented an interesting new option. Provided GM is even still in business in 2010 (or 2011, depending on when they work out the kinks), the Chevy Volt should come onto the market and present the first real challenger to the Prius. It's a hybrid, but a different class of hybrid than the Prius; rather than switching back and forth between combustion engine and batteries as the main power source, the Volt uses the battery-driven electric motor as the exclusive direct power source (the combustion engine is only used to charge the batteries, not run the car) and, even more noticeably, allows its internal batteries to be charged from a home power source (something the Prius doesn't do). Theoretically, if your commute is less than 40 miles (like mine), a 6-hour nightly charge in the garage is enough to make your gas consumption exactly zero (well, not *exactly* zero, since the engine will still kick on now and then to lubricate the parts, but pretty close to zero), and the electricity vs. gasoline price ratio is something like 2 cents/12 cents per mile. And it's still supposed to be capable of 100 mph.

Now for the downsides. Chevy has been pushing the release date back on a semi-regular basis because the battery technology has had some snags, and the projected price has been going up (it's now at $35,000, which is probably out of my price range and makes buying it for the fuel efficiency something of a very long-term investment). And since 2011 is still a good stone's throw away, it's entirely possible Toyota will have released a new Prius that bests the Volt by then anyway. But I'm going to keep an eye on it anyway.

Labels: car, technology

Posted at 4:57:00 PM.  |     |   Permalink to this post.