Why Don't More People Buy Electric Cars?

In 2018, there are more electric cars and plug-in hybrid vehicles for sale in the US than ever before. Some examples include: the Nissan Leaf, Chevrolet Volt, Chevrolet Bolt, Tesla Model S, Tesla Model X, and Tesla Model 3.

But there is one big problem holding these vehicles back from widespread adoption.

It's not the cost.
It's not the range.
It's not a lack of consumer information or confidence in the technology.

The problem is that electric cars are for homeowners, not renters.

Take a big step back and think about the concept of a car. People store cars at their homes, but the process of refueling takes place away from the home - at a gas station usually located a short distance away.

The move to electric cars also changes the way in which we use cars. With an electric car, the refueling is now shifted away from the corner store to your home. A high-voltage home charger is an essential part of owning this type of vehicle.

But therein lies a huge problem: not everyone is able to install an EV charger in their home, because millions of American households are renters.

Whether you are renting a single-family detached home or live in a multi-family unit like an apartment, condo, or townhouse, many rental properties have outdoor parking for their tenants with no possible way to install a high-voltage charger to support electric vehicle ownership.

The percentage of American households that are renters has been climbing steadily over the last decade, and is now at record high levels.

I bet there are plenty of people who would consider owning an electric or plug-in hybrid vehicle, but are forced to rule them out simply because they are not able to install a charger at their home. Either the landlord or rental company will not allow it, or they park in a covered/uncovered space or parking garage with no access to a 240-volt outlet.

If someone can solve this problem, I think it would greatly increase the potential of electric vehicle ownership for a significant number of households.

Extreme Consumer Products are Extremely Lame

All my life, I always thought that the world was a pretty normal place. But as it turns out, I was wrong. The world is a very extreme place. Life is just one heart-racing, adrenaline-pumping adventure after another. What's that? You mean your life isn't like that? Well, you'd think we were a nation of nonstop adventure junkies based on the skyrocketing number of extreme consumer products out there!

I suspect that the flood of extreme consumer products began in the beverage industry. For years, extreme sports enthusiasts have apparently been unable to quench their "xtreme" thirst with ordinary beverages such as water, juice, and soda. This led to the development of energy drinks, which are carbonated beverages similar to soda but with absurd amounts of caffiene and other allegedly "natural ingredients."

One of the first xtreme beverages to hit the scene was Monster Energy Drink. Besides classic Monster, it is also available in several varieties including a low carb version and a coffee-flavored version. Monster Energy has branded itself as THE drink for the extreme lifestyle by sponsoring events such as motocross racing and the X-Games.

So if you play regular sports like baseball and basketball, you drink regular beverages. If you do extreme sports like backflipping an ATV over a train, you drink extreme beverages. Fair enough. But I think that the number of products claiming to be extreme is getting out of control. I'm sorry, I meant to say "x-treme."

We don't use regular toothpaste anymore, we use Aquafresh Extreme Clean. We can't just remodel our house, we get an "extreme makeover." We can't use ordinary deodorant, we use Right Guard Xtreme deodorant. We eat Xtreme flavored chips and snacks from Pringles. We snack on Xtreme Snickers candy bars. We connect to the Internet using D-Link Xtreme wireless routers. We work with Xtreme tape measures from Stanley. We chat on xtreme cell phones from Samsung. Even Hasbro is putting an xtreme spin on the classic board game "The Game of LIFE." Look for "The Game of LIFE: Extreme Reality Edition" coming soon!

The whole trend of mundane, everyday products being rebranded and reintroduced as "xtreme" products really bugs me. I am not a (completely) stupid person! I can tell that the only difference between regular Pringles and the "xtreme" Pringles is the label on the can and a little bit of flavor additive! There is definitely a limit as to how extreme a product such as potato chips can really be.

What if D-Link's regular routers transmitted information at 54mbps and the Xtreme routers transmitted information at 540mbps? What if Right Guard made a deodorant that you only had to apply once per week? What if Pringles started using capsaicin extract in their flavoring? These products would deserve to be called "xtreme" if they really existed. However, this is not the case with the products you see at the store labeled "xtreme." I think that "xtreme" products are NOT significantly more extreme than their competitors in any way.

The truth is, D-Link's regular and Xtreme routers contain the same electronic components and have the same function, but one has a slightly different package. Woo-freaking-hoo. At the end of the day, the Xtreme router is not xtremely faster than the regular one. The Xtreme Pringles don't taste all that different from ordinary Pringles. I don't have to handle them with gloves or keep them away from children. The Xtreme deodorant doesn't contain any magic ingredients not found in ordinary deodorant. There is absolutely nothing more extreme about a Stanley Xtreme tape measure over a regular tape measure that costs less.

Taking a regular product and re-branding it as an xtreme product is the hottest new trend in marketing consumer goods these days. This explosion of xtremely lame consumer products is xtremely annoying. At this rate, it won't be long before "xtreme" sounds as dated as other buzzwords such as "radical," "groovy," and "da bomb!" This is one marketing trend that I would love to see laid to rest.

Why The Kindle, Nook, and Other E-Book Readers Suck

I like technology that makes sense and makes my life easier. Voicemail is a great idea because it lets people leave messages for me when I am busy. Cruise control on cars, that's another great invention. But I fail to see what's so awesome about electronic book readers like the Kindle, Nook, and Sony Reader.

Electronic reading devices are very trendy right now, and I just cannot figure out why people like them so much! When compared with traditional bound and printed books, it seems to me that e-readers are a vastly inferior technology. Here's why:

An electronic book reader is an expensive investment. Amazon's Kindle reader costs $259 for the 6-inch version and $489 for the 9.7-inch DX version. Barnes and Noble's Nook reader is also $259, and Sony's line of e-readers (cleverly named Reader - nice one, Sony) ranges from $199 to $399. Wow! Reading a plain old paperback book does not require any special hardware other than your eyes and your hands.

When you think about it, an e-book reader costs about the same as a netbook computer yet has less functionality. Both devices can display electronic books and RSS feeds, play MP3s, and access the Internet via 3G and Wi-Fi. However, a netbook can also be used to run programs, access email, watch videos, and more. Netbooks also feature full color screens and keyboards which make them much more suitable for accessing the Internet than e-book readers.

Another problem with e-readers is battery life. Both the Nook and the Kindle feature internal rechargeable batteries which last 10 and 14 days, respectively. However, both of these pale in comparison to traditional bound-and-printed books which never need to be recharged.

When it comes to durability, traditional books beat electronic readers into the dust. A paperback or hardcover book can survive getting banged around in a backpack all semester and still be perfectly readable. Accidentally dropping an e-reader could result in a scratched or cracked screen, or in the worst-case scenario, a $259 paperweight. Don't believe me? Check the comments from Kindle users on Amazon's Kindle Drop Test video.

Borrowing a hardcover or paperback book from a friend is extremely easy. Borrowing an e-book from a friend is, well, not so easy. Currently, Barnes and Noble's Nook is the only platform that lets you lend your electronic book titles to a friend. There is a maximum time limit of 14 days your friend must also have a Nook reader, PC, Mac, or iPhone. I hope Grandma can speed-read through Harry Potter in less than two weeks!

One heavily advertised feature of e-book readers is their ability to store up to 1,500 books on the device's memory. Now I don't know about you, but I usually just read one book at a time. It's nice that they give you so much space, but is it really necessary? E-books are not MP3s, and I honestly don't plan to read through hundreds of volumes of literature the way I would listen to hundreds of songs on an MP3 player.

When it comes to purchasing books, retailers such as Amazon and Barnes and Noble are quick to offer their electronic titles at discounted prices. Amazon has Dan Brown's "The Da Vinci Code" as a hardcover book for $26.40 or paperback for $9.99. Kindle users pay a paltry $6.39 for the same title in electronic format. It would seem at first that owning an e-reader would allow Kindle users to save piles of money on their book purchases, but sadly this is not the case.

The truth is that serious readers already know where to get the best deals on books. Whether it is trading in merchandise at the used bookstore, patronizing the public library, or browsing websites like half.com and eBay, true bookworms never pay the full cover price for their books. That same copy of The Da Vinci Code sells for just $0.75 cents on Half.com in Like New condition!

In many cases, perfectly good books can be purchased at thrift stores and yard sales for 50 cents or less. I picked up a mint copy of Herman Melville's classic Moby Dick (published by Bantam Books) for a mere 15 cents at my local Goodwill. The same book costs $4.95 for a digital copy at Barnes and Noble. Why pay the extra $4.80 to read about Captain Ahab on an electronic device if you don't need to? Electronic books are still not as good of a bargain as used books and probably never will be.

Additionally, I can think of several ways in which traditional bound-and-printed books will always be a better choice than electronic books. For example, my mother would absolutely love to unwrap the newest thriller from Jeffrey Deaver on her birthday. However, I cannot give her an e-book to unwrap, nor could I get it signed by the author at a book signing.

Non-electronic books are often gifted in other ways as well. Religious texts such as the Bible, the Torah, and the Qu'ran make excellent family heirlooms when they are handed down from generation to generation. Proprietary electronic devices do not. Honestly, do you really think your great-grandchildren will still be using Micro USB and 3G technologies decades from now? I sure hope not!

Regular books are also excellent for situations where I really would not feel comfortable using a $259 electronic device. Take the kitchen for example. A spiral-bound cookbook will always show your favorite recipes, even if it gets a little marinara sauce or water on it. E-readers are much more delicate and might not fare as well in a hot, messy kitchen environment.

Also, I can leave a regular book in my car on a hot summer's day in Phoenix without worrying about ruining it. That's something I cannot do with an e-reader.

Another great thing about dead tree books is that they can be used for the duration of a long flight, including take-offs and landings. People with electronic readers must adhere to the same strict rules as other personal electronic devices aboard an aircraft. Hope you don't have to land during a suspenseful part of the chapter!

Finally, there comes a time when every book lover must prune their shelves to make room for new books. It is easy for me to find a new home for books I did not enjoy or do not wish to keep any longer. They can be donated to charity, given away to friends, exchanged for credit at a local bookstore, or in the worst case, put in the recycle bin.

What do you do with the $4.95 copy of Moby Dick you purchased six months after you finished it? So far, there are no trade-in or buy-back options for e-books. You are stuck with them my friend, so choose your purchases wisely!

When you consider the high cost and limited functionality of today's electronic book readers, I just don't see why anybody would ever buy one! You don't need to read between the lines to see that traditional bound-and-printed books offer greater flexibility and freedom of ownership at lower prices than electronic books. So far as I can tell, e-books are a very innovative solution to a problem that never really existed in the first place.

I'm not the only one who feels this way:
http://www.markhaddon.com/e-books
http://mikeshea.net/Seven_Swords__44000_words.html
http://jasonkinner.wordpress.com/2009/09/07/a-few-reasons-e-book-readers-suck/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GI0Zry_R4RQ

7 Good Reasons Why LightScribe Sucks

It's hard to believe that it is 2009 and people are still excited about LightScribe technology. For those not familiar with LightScribe, it is a technology that allows you to "Burn, Flip, and Burn" your CD and DVD discs. First you record your information, flip the disc over, and then use the same drive to laser etch your artwork directly on to the disc surface.
In theory this sounds great because you can label your CD and DVD discs without buying another ink cartridge or adhesive label ever again. But after some hands-on testing, I have come up with 7 Good Reasons Why LightScribe Sucks.

7). LightScribe is monochromatic only. This one is a no brainer: you cannot print color photos with a LightScribe drive. A cheap inkjet printer and a package of adhesive CD/DVD labels would produce a far superior result.

6). Another reason why LightScribe sucks is that it is excruciatingly slow. A full disc of artwork can take up to 30 minutes to print! An average inkjet or thermal printer can do a full color disc in about two minutes or less. You do the math.

5). LightScribe cannot print to the center hub. It's true, the center hub of a LightScribe disc contains the information needed to guide the recording laser around the top surface. You'll never get a professional looking CD or DVD disc when you use LightScribe because you'll always see their huge logo branded in the center of the disc.

4). One big downside to LightScribe is that blank CD and DVD discs with LightScribe printable surfaces cost more than regular discs. This may not be a big deal if you buy a small package of 50 discs, but for high volume buyers this can really hit you in the wallet.

3). You need a special drive to record LightScribe artwork. Most desktop and laptop computers and almost all professional recording gear does not come with LightScribe drives. To use this technology, one must upgrade their hardware to something that supports LightScribe.

2). Designing your LightScribe artwork is only slightly easier than building the pyramids of Egypt. Forget about using industry standard design software such as Photoshop, Illustrator, and Quark. You have to use a cumbersome program to create a print file, and then record that to a disc. Good luck getting an engineer to figure this one out, let alone your Grandmother.

1). Finally, LightScribe sucks because the prints just look awful. Even under the best of conditions when using high-resolution artwork and recording at the Best Quality setting, you can still see horizontal bands and gaps in your artwork. It's absolutely not worth the 30 minute wait time for a monochromatic print that looks like a bad photocopy.

LightScribe would have been a cool technology had it had been invented about 10 years ago. Here in 2009 where we have color inkjet printers that print full color artwork directly on CD and DVD discs in just minutes for a few cents per print, LightScribe is simply laughable. It's the equivalent of crossing the sea in a balloon and navigating by compass while the rest of the world uses GPS-equipped jet airplanes. Sure it works, but the alternative is faster, cheaper, more accurate, and all around better at getting the job done. Don't even get me started on Disc t@2 technology!

UPDATE: HP has discontinued support for all LightScribe products in January 2014. The software, burners, and media are no longer supported. I am surprised that it took this long for it to happen!

The Slow and Painful Death of the Fax Machine

Every so often, a new technology is invented that completely displaces an existing technology. When a new invention offers such significant improvement over the current technology that it can drive an entire market out of business almost overnight, it is a phenomenon known as a "disruptive technology."

In many cases, the new technology is hailed as a "quantum leap" or "paradigm shift" in the industry. Before the pocket calculator came along, the slide rule was the best we had. Before jet-powered aircraft came along, propeller-powered aircraft were the best we could do. The typewriter was the king of the publishing world for decades before the personal computer came along.

In almost every case, these new technologies provided huge improvements over the existing ones. Businesses and consumers are generally eager to pick up on new technologies that will make their lives easier.

And yet, one technology that should have been disrupted long ago is still around. One slow and inferior communication technology still has not been defeated by its superior rival. It is 2009 and for some strange reason, fax machines are still commonly found in businesses, offices, and homes nationwide!

The death grip that the business world has on fax machines extends far beyond mom and pop businesses and the Luddites of technology. In fact, everyone from small local businesses to Fortune 100 companies still uses fax machines on a daily basis. I just cannot understand this!

Fax machines require a dedicated telephone line. They take forever to scan, compress, and transmit information. Sometimes they have busy signals or cannot go through. The information sent to a fax machine can only be retrieved from one physical location.

Do these people know about email? Do they know that it's possible to send multi-page documents electronically from one computer to another? In fact, email is a superior technology to the facsimile in every way.

Email messages can be retrieved from any computer that's connected to the Internet. With email, it is possible to send larger, high resolution pictures and documents in less time. Although both email and faxes are subject to unsolicited messages ("spam"), email provides the option of setting up filters to automatically delete such messages. Fax machines do not.

It seems to me that the only people who are still using fax machines are the ones who are too dumb to use email. I think fax machines should have been inducted into the Museum of Obsolete Technology long ago.

Stupid Naming Conventions: Cell Phones

Today, cell phones can do everything from snap pictures to play music, go on the web, and even open and edit business documents. They have full keyboards that swivel, flip, and slide open in every way imaginable. To make these new phones even more appealing to teens, college kids, and hipsters, cell phone manufacturers began giving their phones names.

Just look at the Razr, the Rokr, the Chocolate, the Shine, the Instinct, the Secret, the BlackJack, the Scoop, the Cookie, the Lotus, the Renown, the Behold, the Saga, and the ubiquitous BlackBerry. This is a trend that's really, REALLY fucking stupid and I wish it would stop before it gets even more out of hand. These names are almost as generic and inane as colognes and fragrances at the mall.

How could you ever tell someone that you got a new phone called "the Chocolate" and not feel stupid and embarrassed? What a dumb name for a phone! What a dumb name for anything other than a bar of chocolate! I'm just waiting for them to come out with a phone called "the Cliche." Better yet, the perfect phone for me would be called "the Critic," if only it made fun of all the other phones with stupid names. I would rather have a phone with an esoteric naming system like "A-100" than a retarded name dreamed up by some marketing executive.

Phone manufacturers: stop naming phones after random nouns in the dictionary. Seriously.

I am not the only one who feels this way:
 http://techcrunch.com/2007/04/05/the-futurist-where-all-these-cell-phone-names-are-taking-us/
 http://betanews.com/2009/02/04/does-a-cell-phone-s-name-spell-its-success/
http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS131854+03-Feb-2009+BW20090203
https://web.archive.org/web/20081208211128/http://blog.gsmliberty.net/cell-phone-musings/cell-phone-names-gone-wrong/