Are Electric Vehicles Worth It?

Year after year we feel our wallets tightening as we need to fuel the means to move about freely in our highway centric society. Car companies continue to develop vehicles with better gas mileage, hybrids are more common place, and if you happen to live in certain cities, perhaps you have seen vehicles that don't require gas at all. They are still a novelty to many and in parts of the country are still non-existent. In this post I will endeavor to answer the question to myself and my readers "are electric vehicles worth it?"

Before I begin I would like to establish a couple of parameters:

1) Put aside your biases about gas vs. electric cars. In order for this writing to be effective, math and science must be allowed to speak above politics and cause. As an engineer myself, this principle is fundamental to the success of my work. One can be passionate about a given subject, but the science behind your work must drive it. As such, I will put the equations I use in this post and will draw conclusions as I go. The only structure will be the order in which I address specific issues. I do not consider myself to be "environmentally" savvy or even aware, but I do have a respect for challenging the status quo, competition within a genuinely free market, and finding innovative solutions to complex problems.

2) This is not an advertisement - however, I will focus on Tesla Motors' Model S as I am more familiar with it. If you want to read about the Model S, go to www.teslamotors.com. I will also allude to the Nissan Leaf and the BMW i3.

3) As you read, keep in mind a few simple rules about economics (my dad's rules actually):

• Everything we do is a cost vs. benefit situation - Is it worth buying a new gadget? What would we do with it? Pros and cons, etc. So, when reading the information contained here, bear in mind that the costs and benefits of a transportation solution for you may not be worth it to somebody else - and that is perfectly OK.

• Nothing is free - it isn't free to extract oil from the ground, refine it, then transport it to market any more than it isn't free for us consumers to buy it. Newer technologies obviously aren't free, or even cheap. Though EV's don't use gas, you still have to pay for the electricity to power it, which isn't free to produce either.

• Profit is good - I may be stepping on a few toes here, but consider this: a new and innovative technology cannot continue to expand, reach more people, or meet market demand unless the producer is making enough money to justify that expansion. Even Elon Musk himself (Tesla's CEO) has said that he can't mass produce the car he wants everybody to have until he has enough capital to do so. Proof is in the link at the bottom of this page.

• Everything is finite - there is no such thing as unlimited resources. Whether oil lasts 10 years, 100, or 1000 it is still a finite number. What happens when a river can no longer supply the means to power a dam? Even the Sun will fade!

• Politicizing will not impact any of the above - if a company builds an innovative, marketable (in demand), and affordable product, people will buy it. How does a company project itself? The market is what makes our economy tick. Putting on the screws politically won't change what the market is willing to do for a company or a product that people want or performs in a way that grabs people's attention. 

The first question that should be answered is defining "worth." Worth is a largely subjective term, but for a vehicle owner I would surmise the biggest points considered when buying a car are:

• Efficiency - can it do what you want it to (work) and take you where you want to go using resources you deem adequate. (Energy (fuel) and time).
• Cost to buy and use the vehicle in question

Efficiency:

Efficiency can be defined as how much energy is expended to do a piece of work when compared to another process doing the same task. If a Process A uses less energy moving an object from Point A to Point B than Process B in the same amount of time, Process A is deemed to be more efficient. The unit used to define energy mathematically is the Joule (J).

Physics 101: Energy and matter cannot be created or destroyed, only converted from one form to another. The net energy between two processes working on the same system always equals zero. This is called "conservation of energy."

Energy is stored in gasoline as chemical energy. When you add oxygen and a spark, the chemical energy is released as thermal energy, as hot expanding gasses from combustion does work on the pistons, crankshaft, and wheels, thermal energy is transformed into mechanical energy. Some of this energy is lost due to waste heat in the engine and drag as the vehicle overcomes its own mass, friction, and air resistance. The mechanical energy is transformed into kinetic energy as the car starts moving.

Electric vehicles are not exempt. Energy is stored electrically in the batteries, is drawn by the motor
as demand requires, is transformed into mechanical energy on the wheels, and kinetic energy as the car begins to move. Some electric vehicles allow some of the kinetic energy to be recaptured in the form of "regenerative braking" - ergo, the vehicle's motion turns the motor into a generator when the driver takes their foot off of the accelerator (almost called a gas pedal), recharging the batteries as the vehicle slows. Some call this a "one pedal" system as the regenerative braking mechanism slows the vehicle down and you only need to tap the brakes to bring the vehicle to a halt.

With that out of the way, time for some math:

How much energy is in a gallon of gasoline? According to Google: 132x10^6 Joules or 132 Mega Joules (MJ).

MJ = J/1,000,000

For comparison, my vehicle holds 21 gallons of gas which equals 2,772 MJ of available energy.

Many vehicles hold from 9 gal - 25 gal of gas, which translates to 1,188 MJ - 3,300 MJ

Ok - what about electric vehicles? The Tesla Model S holds either 60 or 85 Kilowatt Hours (kWh) of electrical charge. Converting kWh to Joules, you get:

60 kWH = 216 MJ and 85 kWH = 306 MJ

The equation for the conversion of units where E = Energy is: E(J) = 3,600,000 * E(kWH)

Raw energy isn't the whole story, what about range? You need to be able to go the same distance as something else using less energy to claim more efficiency. Lets do a little more math:

My vehicle gets an average 20 miles per gallon. If I use every drop of gas (21 gal), I get a total range of 420 miles. If I assume no loss of energy (not possible) I would use 2772 MJ of energy as described above. So, how much energy does a Tesla Model S use over distance?

Using the range estimator on Tesla's website, I achieved an average of 250 miles per charge on the 85 kWh battery. To travel 420 miles, I need the following:

(((420 miles - 250 miles) / 250 miles per charge) * 85 kWh) + 85 kWh = 143 kWh

(((total distance - expected range per charge) / expected range per charge) * energy available) + energy in one charge

143 kWh = 514.8 MJ used over 420 miles

In conclusion 515 MJ < 2772 MJ - so energy efficiency is a definite yes. (Assuming ideal conditions
and no waste; climbing hills, driving at a higher speed, even using too much heat or A/C can considerably increase the amount of energy used by a Tesla, but even if I needed a 2nd or 3rd charge, I would still be well below the optimum energy consumed by my current vehicle).

Another component in the efficiency equation is time. The full story is: can you go the same distance, using less stuff, in less time. Things get a little fuzzier and more subjective as I'll explain.

Change in distance / change in time is what we call velocity or speed. Ideally we would like to get to our destination as quickly as possible. That doesn't just mean how fast you are going on the road, but how much time is spent refueling.

In the case of electric cars, if you are merely driving around town within the vehicle's range, the vehicle can be recharged when not in use at home or at a charging station like any electronic device can. The caveat being you need a circuit with adequate capability to charge the car. Think of an electrical circuit like a faucet (Tesla uses this analogy) -  you need:

• Voltage (a differential - or capacity to hold charge/energy - size of the pipe) 
• Amperage (a measure of the 'flow of stuff' through the pipe). 

The larger your voltage, the more Amps you can support on the circuit. The more amperage you have, the faster the vehicle can be charged.

Your charge (kW) is how much stuff you have. A standard 110 volt outlet doesn't have the capacity to charge the car in an adequate amount of time (though you could use a standard outlet if you really wanted to), it is recommended to have a 240 Volt circuit capable of handling 40 Amps.


The equations are set up like this: Power (W) = Voltage (V) * Current (A)
Energy (kWh) = (Power (W) * time (hr)) / 1000

Doing the Math: 240V * 40A = 9600W, then 85 kWh = (9600W * 8.85 hr) / 1000
(you are solving for the time variable in this case)

So you can fully charge an 85 kWh battery overnight. Most people won't use that much charge in a day so 8.85 hours is the max time required. Tesla also has a "dual charging" system that allows the battery to be charged at 80 amps if the circuit can handle that much current. (The charger converts the Alternating Current (AC) from the wall to Direct Current (DC) the battery uses.) If you do the math, the time required to charge the car to full drops to 4.43 hours. The Nissan Leaf uses a 24 kWh battery and the BMW i3 uses a 22 kWh battery on the same type of circuit.

In summary, light to moderate driving on a day to day basis without driving beyond the vehicle's range can result in the car being charged from home without the need to visit any gas stations, thereby saving time. You could also conceivably charge at work or at other locations that support charging if the infrastructure is in place.

On the other side is extended road trips. The maximum range of Tesla's best car is 250-300 miles. The circuit I described above dramatically increases the time required to get from point A to B if your charge is depleted, which really becomes a problem for cars like the Nissan Leaf which have a
maximum range of 85 miles.

A common road trip I take is 580 miles in length one way. Maximizing my vehicle's range, I require one complete tank of gas (21 gal) plus 8 extra gallons.

Refresh: max range: 420 miles, average mpg: 20
580 (total distance) - 420 (expected range) = 160 miles; 160 miles left / 20 mpg = 8 gal

Along the way I usually stop for one 30 minute meal and one 10 minute fill up. Adding driving time (~9 hrs @ posted speed limits), it is about 9.5 - 9.75 hrs to my destination.

In Tesla's best vehicle, I require 2 complete charges to get to my destination. Using the model above in a dual charge setting (assuming such circuits are available), it would take 8.85 hours in charge time alone to cover that much distance. It isn't efficient, but neither is it the whole story.

Tesla is developing what are called "Superchargers" along major interstates in areas with shopping, lodging, and food to quickly charge vehicles with Supercharging enabled. According to Tesla's website, a Supercharger can deliver 170 miles of range per 30 minutes of charge time. (Roughly 45 minutes for a full 85 kWh charge). This system bypasses the AC chargers and drops Direct Current directly into the battery pack.

charge time = number of charges * time per charge
charge time = (580 miles traveled / 250 miles expected range) * (250 miles range / 340 miles of range per hour)

charge time = 1.7 hours
total time = 1.7 + 9 hours

Added difficulty is incurred if you are driving off of major interstates. I can reach most areas I would frequent in my region on one charge or less, but another of my favorite spots would require a 9 hr charging stop because there are no Superchargers in range.

In conclusion efficiency based on time is dependent on what you do with your vehicle, where you are, and how much you value your time. A lot of electric vehicle infrastructure exists on the west coast and other major metropolitan areas and Tesla is planning to place Superchargers such that the entire continental US has range coverage. Tesla will also introduce a "battery swap" which exchanges your depleted battery for a full one and takes half the time to replace as filling a 21 gallon gas vehicle. This service to my knowledge is not in place yet, nor do I know if it will cost anything.

If you mainly drive in the city and have an adequate circuit, you can recharge overnight and never waste any time "filling your tank." Much of the central US does not currently have a lot of EV infrastructure  and travel over distance is difficult with current economy model electric vehicles like the Leaf. While you can drive through many parts of the US, Canada, and Europe on the Supercharger network, you may have to get creative when driving off the beaten path. I think this will improve as more infrastructure is introduced, but as it stands, I give efficiency over time a rating of: "it depends."

Cost:

The other major variable in determining a car's worth is how much it costs. I am going to divide cost into two parts: cost to own, and cost to operate. At the end of this analysis, I am going to project these two cost brackets over time to see how much a person pays for their vehicle. 

Cost to own includes: 

• Total amount paid to purchase the vehicle
• down payments
• taxes
• fees
• monthly loan payments, including interest
• In home charging infrastructure if applicable

Cost to operate includes:

• Cost of fuel
• Maintenance costs
• Yearly tab/registration fees
• Insurance payments

The Tesla Model S has a price tag that is comparable to luxury sedans. Their 60 kWh vehicle starts at ~$70,000 and the 85 kWh version is around $80,000. The short range Nissan Leaf (~80 miles of range) has a price tag comparable to many new compact vehicles.

Tesla intends to develop an economy car that costs ~$35,000 called the Model 3, but the vehicle won't be on the market for several years at least. The 3 is rumored to have a range similar to the Model S. If that is indeed the case, many middle class urban consumers will probably jump at the opportunity.

I spend anywhere from $70 - $82 for a full tank of gas (gas prices fluctuate from $3.30 - $3.90 a gallon) and drive about 12k - 15k miles per year. Assuming my overall driving pattern is average and no upward trend in gas prices, I will spend ~$2430 in gas per year.

(21 gal tank * $3.60 per gallon (avg)) * (13,500 miles driven per year / 420 miles of range) =  $2430

The cost to operate an electric vehicle is incorporated into your power bill. In my area, electricity is dirt cheap, around 9 cents per kWh.

To rehash what was stated above, the Model S has: 200 - 250 miles of range and a 60 kWh or 85 kWh charge. My estimations assume total mileage over the course of a year and an an empty to full charge. Other EV vehicles like the BMW i3 and Nissan Leaf have 22 - 24 kWh batteries.

The cost per full charge = 85 kWh * $.09 = $7.65 per charge
The 60 kWh battery would cost -  60 kWh * $.09 = $5.40 per charge

Over the course of the year, assuming averages are the same, the cost to drive is as follows:

(13,500 miles driven / 250 miles per charge) * $7.65 per charge = $413 per year
(13,500 miles driven / 200 miles per charge) * $5.40 per charge = $364 per year

These figures do not factor in possible uses of the Supercharger network (free for Tesla owners), costs incurred from using public charging stations, or other sites with compatible charging equipment.

The savings in fueling an electric vehicle vs. gas is pretty obvious. But adding insurance, car tabs, and vehicle payments easily doubles what I pay for all of the above plus maintenance on my current vehicle. In fact, driving my current vehicle for 15+ years would only match what I expect to pay for a Model S (85 kWh battery) over the same time period. A graph showing this trend in 6 month intervals is below.



Bear in mind, the comparison is for my vehicle and my driving habits. If you drive a luxury sedan, the cost savings could be much more significant.

I still have many questions about how much value an electric vehicle really has:

• If electric vehicles become more mainstream, governments will not be thrilled over the loss of gas tax revenue. Government always wants a piece of the pie so over time, cost of electricity could go up, as could gas taxes, car tabs, or even a "per mile road use tax" could be introduced. I was told that a "road use fee" is required when paying for tabs in my home state.

• How stable are lithium ion battery systems? There have been instances of high energy lithium ion batteries catching fire. The most well known examples are the Boeing 787 battery and the Tesla Model S. I was told that in the Model S' case, fires only occurred after a crash with debris puncturing the battery pack. I was told by a Tesla employee that Elon Musk himself (Tesla's CEO) tested their fix by driving the car over cinder blocks. I understand that to mean that he stands by the quality of the system he is producing. (The guy means business, just an FYI).

• How would you target drivers that live in condos or apartments? In bigger cities, condo and apartment complexes will probably start to introduce charging stations, but in the suburbs, I imagine development will be slow. An EV driver will have to devise a clever means of keeping their vehicles charged. Some may be able to charge at work, others at public charging stations, or even using Superchargers on a regular basis if their area has them. The trick is finding ways to charge the vehicle while not wasting your own time.

• Are electric vehicles really good for the environment? Batteries use highly reactive compounds and many parts of the US still generate power by way of coal or other fossil fuels. The number of coal fired power plants continues to drop, but that power has to come from somewhere. Some individuals use solar systems to charge their vehicles, but such systems are expensive and would take a very long time to match the amount of money spent using the regular power grid. The math above has already shown that the best EVs use far less energy over distance than many gasoline vehicles so I would conclude that they use far less physical material in generating the power they need. In fact, doing some very simple math from above:

One gallon of gasoline = 132 MJ 

1 85 kWh charge = 306 MJ

Energy over 420 miles = 514.8 MJ

So, one 85 kWh charge on the Model S is equivalent to about 2.5 gallons of gasoline and energy expended over the range of my current vehicle equals 3.9 gallons. So, yes you still have to burn physical material to generate the energy needed (the law of conservation of energy requires it), the math clearly shows that you are using much, much less on Tesla's battery pack then on my 4.0L V6 engine.

 

To answer my original question - are electric vehicles worth it? For my own needs, there are a couple of big questions. Namely the cost of the car and where I can keep it reliably charged. A Model S has range that is acceptable, excellent charging capability on the go, and is a very comfortable way to travel. Other vehicles currently on the market require a driver to stay within 40-50 miles of their home charging station, which for me wouldn't work particularly well. Each person's requirements and expectations are different, but whatever you decide, don't let myth and urban legend drive your decision. (like Tesla cars spontaneously combusting due to bad batteries).

That is not to say I don't enjoy working on my current vehicle - a Tacoma pickup. It is reliable, acceptable gas mileage for a truck in its class, maintenance isn't a hassle, and gets me off the beaten path. However, the idea of driving cross country without paying a penny for fuel in a very comfortable, fast, eye candy type vehicle is quite attractive. 

In my next entry, I will go into more technical detail about the Model S and other electric vehicles I have had the opportunity to test drive. (A quick preview: it was a LOT of fun!)

If you want to read more about Elon Musk's plan, go here: Master Plan

on Scotland's Independence Referendum

It was an interesting week on planet earth. After being a member of the United Kingdom for over 300 years, Scotland had a referendum deciding whether to end that union and become an independent nation or not; a simple Yes or No were the only answers on the ballot. In a record turnout, Scotland voted 55% to 45% to remain with the UK. As a result of the No vote, the UK Parliament in London has offered to grant Scotland and the rest of the other nations that comprise the UK further devolutionary powers to their regional Parliaments.

As a bit of a romantic and a sucker for long shots, lost causes, self-determination, David vs. Goliath ... you get the picture, I was hoping to see Scotland gain independence and was very interested in seeing if the new country could function on its own. The history of the UK is long and complicated and the way the UK is organized even more so, but a couple of good informational videos by YouTube's CGPGrey explaining these items are below.

As exciting as the prospect of asserting your independence and establishing a new nation can appear, huge hurdles would have needed to be overcome. What currency would an independent Scotland use?  Would it have to reapply for membership in the European Union? (The EU is a different animal; to see a snapshot of its asterisks an addendum's, please see another of CGPGrey's videos below (yes, I waste many hours sometimes into the wee hours of the morning watching these videos, but they are informative, entertaining, and convey a point that I am trying to convey better than I could in a shortish blog post.)

Members of the EU, EEA, Schengen, or EuroZone have an assortment of benefits that allow them to
move around the continent with ease. An independent Scotland would lose these benefits, at least at first. Scotland is actually more liberal than England and liberal Europeans prefer continental integration instead of regional nationalism and would therefore probably seek to integrate more with Europe. (Which I think is ironic seeing as how Scotland was voting for independence). The UK is a member of the EU, but has an opt out for currency and has its own border controls. Scotland would have to answer many of these questions and more from scratch. What would happen to British military units and gear - Britain's Trident submarines were a huge sticking point, what would happen to Scotland's membership in NATO, would the new country be able to support itself financially? The idea was that a plan would be decided upon and enacted before March 2016, but the uncertainty about how Scotland would proceed probably tipped the "No" scale into their favor.

In any case, Scotland, Wales, England, and Northern Ireland will have the opportunity to gain more local autonomy. At the very least, it got London's attention ... at least that is the hope.

The concept that people have the right to govern themselves in a manner that is best for them is one
that is not lost on many people around the world. Sometimes the application of that concept is civil and sometimes it isn't. I applaud the Scots for making the attempt; although the debates were fierce, the losers aren't in an uproar or rioting in the streets, though I imagine a few bottles of Scotch were consumed over the past few days. Something had to go seriously wrong in London for the Scots to seriously consider a vote at all. 45% of your population deciding it was time to form a new country is quite significant, especially since only about a third of American colonists supported independence from the British Crown.

In my opinion some of the world's strife can be solved by letting people govern themselves. The middle east today was drawn on a map after the Ottoman Empire was defeated in World War I or other mandates imposed by - ironically - the British Empire. Iraq is the mess it is because democracy won't work in a region with many conflicting ethnic groups that are loyal to their communities more than their country anyway. Would it be easier if Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds were allowed to govern themselves separately provided they didn't attack the other groups? Iraqi Kurdistan is making a case for independence with IS wreaking havoc on an impotent Iraqi government. Heck, even Turkey might consider it and they have despised the idea for years. Would it solve their problems overnight? Absolutely not, but I think peace is more likely if people are ruled how they want to be ruled ... consent of the governed anyone?

For me it is refreshing to see a country act on what it thinks is its best interests and the opposition sitting down and trying to determine an amicable solution. America is wracked with deadlock and extreme partisanship. Would certain US states get so fed up with the status quo so as to try something similar? At this stage I doubt it. The most I see is states taking the initiative and trying to solve problems themselves. The notion of a state trying to break away from the Union is a romantic one, but is pursued by a very small portion of the population; though admittedly enough people voted in a poll on a White House website to get the Administration to answer whether they'd let Texas split from the Union if they wanted to (which they do not have the right to do legally speaking). Without a solid plan, forming a new country in all likelihood would not work so well. The Founders of the US didn't have the clearest picture of the country they wanted to create, but they had a goal in mind ... preserving and protecting the rights of Americans. The Declaration of Independence gives us permission to form a new government if the one we have does not abide by the wishes of the people it governs. Granted, the Declaration of Independence carries no weight in
Scotland and really only carries any weight in the US if people actually believe and act on it, the principle of self-determination and consent of governance applies. The people of Scotland gave the Crown consent to continue to govern ... with caveats. Hopefully the MPs at Westminster can follow through.

Tech Wars 2.0

With Apple just releasing a plethora of new gadgets, the latest rendition of the Mac and iOS operating systems about to be released, rumors in the mill about expectations for Microsoft's Windows 9, and the next generation of Google/Android hardware on the market, people from gadget newbs to hardcore geeks are abuzz with excitement, clever retorts are being prepared, and the next round of "my computer is better than yours" is under way.

I don't seek to settle the Tech Wars debate, but only provide high level objective observations about the devices that I have used, compare them to my own expectations and requirements, and provide a template to do the same. To that end, I hope to have a form, app, or portal for readers to see what might likely work for them. To see my initial overview of the major players, please read: Windows vs. Mac vs. ... Google?



Minor digression - the Tech Wars are actually a very good thing because it encourages manufacturers to provide a quality and affordable product for consumers to use. No one solution will work for everybody. Seeing various gadget fan-boys bicker over who's stuff is better makes me smile.

In my last tech post, I gave Microsoft a lot of grief over Windows 8. When it first appeared on the market, it was well deserved - loss of the start menu, the Metro interface that makes a desktop look like a phone or tablet, and poor UI intuition and control. I think MS deserves a fair hearing since they have made continuous and for the most part, better upgrades that improve the user's experience with the system. Among these are:

• Allowing a user to set up the interface much like a Windows 7 device
• Back buttons on Metro style apps
• Most Windows computers now have touchscreens
• Better screen size for "hybrid" or all in one devices like the Surface Pro

I had a chance to see what the Surface 3 Pro is all about and observe these updates in action. I wasn't blown away, but I was relieved that if I invested in that kind of a system, I would be functional in its use. I
still didn't like the fact that you had to buy expensive add-ons beyond the device itself and the duality of the Windows 8 OS, though improved, still requires some finesse and technical know how to use to its potential. There are a great many ways to configure a Windows 8 device, but the configurations not being used increases the system's footprint. However, the device incorporates mobility and productivity into a single platform. You can use it as a tablet, laptop, or tower workstation, but be prepared to spend as much or more than you would for a Mac. From Microsoft's website, a Surface Pro 3 comparable to a MacBook Pro, would cost $999 - $1299 + $129 for the keyboard. Add a docking station, second monitor, keyboard, and mouse, and you add ~$400 more.

As I have had the opportunity to use various Windows systems over the years, I have noticed that software evolves before hardware. Windows 8 was no different. Few new Windows 8 devices had touchscreen capability, and form factor was really skewed (screen size vs. type of UI). The hardware didn't have the capacity or ability to process what the operating system and UI were trying to do. (Engineering fun fact: the UI is not the actual OS!) What is the point of having a touchscreen style interface without a touchscreen? Microsoft doesn't usually design hardware platforms, they design the operating system and let other manufacturers build the computer. This methodology means that the software's capabilities will be a generation ahead of available hardware. Have you heard that
buying the first generation of new software being a bad idea? This is a reason why! (First gen of new software is also usually full of bugs). So now, available hardware is better suited for what Windows 8 is designed to do. However, with MS upgrading in smaller time intervals, the hardware you have now could become obsolete or incompatible with newer features in 6 months.

There are plenty of rumors floating around the web about what Windows 9 will be like though Microsoft hasn't released any real details. The OS should be available to the public in Spring 2015 with look-ins during the fall and winter. The biggest complaint I have heard about Windows 8 is wanting a degree of separation between laptops and tablets/phones; actually most would prefer to stay with something like Windows 7. Windows 9 appears to address this issue by bringing back the Start Menu in its true form, while allowing a user to expand the interface to MS' Metro apps as much as they are comfortable with. If this is true, Windows 9 could be a big hit, however, I see a problem in hardware capacity.

Even though we can compress more data into ever smaller spaces and flash/solid state tech is maturing and becoming affordable, it may take some time for the hardware market to mature depending on how many resources Win 9 needs to function. The dual nature of MS' new OS methodology remains, but a user should be able to better control over which UI components are used. From an engineering standpoint, I think that the OS should determine what kind of hardware is being used and display a compatible UI. Small screen size? Metro would be easier; not a touchscreen? Start Menu, etc.

Questions remain about whether Windows 9 will be a free upgrade or require buying a new license, backwards compatibility with current applications, and how much separation there will be between workstations, mobile, and hybrid devices. All in one platforms seem to be Microsoft's mantra and they are banking on the market accepting these kinds of devices as mainstream. Windows 9 I think will answer that question for MS.

Enough about what could be, now for what is! Apple just released the iPhone 6, the Apple Watch, and is about to make OS X Yosemite and iOS 8 available to the public. Steve Jobs said that he never expected users to want a phone that has a large screen, deferring to the iPad for mobile productivity, but the market thinks otherwise. Google has enjoyed success with platforms like the Galaxy, Galaxy Note, Google Nexus, HTC One, and others. Users want something that is lightweight, simple to use, is productive, and minimizes the number of platforms they need to do all of their work. It is hard to check on an eBay posting, read an eBook, or use many social media functions on a 4 inch screen. If you only want a phone for talk, text, and browsing, a small screen works, but that is not what people are using mobile devices for. Finally, Apple fans will get their screens on the 4.7 inch iPhone 6 and the mammoth 5.5 inch screen on the 6+. Below is an image about the relative sizes of the latest generation of iPhones straight from Apple's website:

And the following are relative phone sizes compared to other competitors:

Google fans scoffed at these new models because they already have much of what the new iPhone offers: total data synchronization across different platforms, cloud storage for files beyond music and photos, tap to pay, WI-fi hotspots, larger screens, etc. They aren't wrong; my droid phone has many of the above, albeit I haven't had much opportunity to use these features. Although I would argue Google is on the cutting edge of innovation and new features, Apple makes them work effectively, better incorporates these abilities into its systems, and jump starts the market into incorporating new features beyond the device itself. Tablets didn't become common place until the iPad and the iPhone was the first modern smart phone.

I have heard Android users complain that their device becomes difficult to use after as little as a month. One of Apple's selling points is that they market a total integrated system, the operating system, its features, and the hardware it is working on. No, you don't have the best ability to accessorize or upgrade and Apple can lag behind its competition in delivering new features, but Apple tries to ensure that what it gives you works well, not just now, but 3-4 years from now. This goes for Macs too. While being technically savvy myself, I have lost many productive hours due to crashes, reboots, re-imaging, pointless or buggy updates, and system lag on Android and Microsoft devices. You also pay a pretty penny for Apple's stuff too, so what would you rather spend, possible time lost from a cheaper, innovative, but potentially buggy device or a more expensive device that usually works as advertised?

To reiterate another of Apple's hallmarks, they focus on stability, usability, and simplicity; focusing on interaction with your apps and not constantly tinkering with your system. To that end, here are a few updates expected with OS X Yosemite, where Apple introduces some simple, but significant changes to its UI:

• The 'stoplight' becomes: close, minimize, full screen instead of close, minimize, and maximize with the full screen key somewhere else on the toolbar

• Reduces toolbar space across many of its apps
• Minor cosmetic changes to the way the UI looks
• Introduces data synchronization for all data across all Apple platforms through iCloud
• Allows a user to use any of their Apple devices interchangeably - e.g. a user can answer a phone call on their Mac if their iPhone is on the same network and can hand-off tasks from one Apple device to another. (iOS 8 required).

• The Spotlight search feature becomes "center screen" when activated and also returns web results

The tradeoff is that many of these new features require an up to date iPhone or iPad.

Then, there is the Apple Watch. If there is a device that am skeptical of, it is this. Android also has smart watches and they aren't popular. There is a concept in the engineering world called "data dumping," where too much information is being delivered that a person can't absorb and respond to it given a method of delivery. That is why when giving presentations, I was taught to be concise and articulate without putting too many data points on one page. Remember small screens being a gripe for Apple users? The Apple Watch is essentially an iPhone for your wrist. Sure, you no longer need your shoulder band to store your device when going for a run, but there are so many functions that most users would become overwhelmed and many of them are pointless unless the recipient also has a Watch. A user would probably prefer an iPhone or iPad to do what the Watch is capable of. If I got a message on the watch, I think I would pull my phone out to respond (and I think a phone is needed to make the Watch functional anyway). I'm also not sure how many users would like to rely on Siri to interpret what you are saying and doing as the Watch is makes heavy use of voice input.

Touching a couple of points that I didn't address about Google's Chomebooks last time - Google has a regular update cycle every few weeks that introduces fixes, updates, and new features. For the most part, these updates are worthwhile, but after some time, the system can get sluggish. Dumping cache or even doing a restore to factory condition would improve system speed. You wouldn't lose your data provided it is in one of Google's cloud apps. Additionally, there are some newer Chromebooks on the market with bigger screens and better hardware.

For getting stuff done on the web, Chromebooks do their job well, but the ability to do something offline is not what these devices are designed for. On a recent trip, not having access to my library of music and video was most unfortunate as was not having access to projects I was working on unless I specifically made all of the required content available offline. I still like the fact that these devices are lightweight and fast. Having Google and everything it can do without all of the extra baggage can make a user's online life far simpler. Some can produce sufficiently on a Chomebook without needing anything else. Google Now is scary (cool and creepy) with relevant information about weather, traffic, stuff to do, even travel itineraries.

Recent updates to Chromecast caused a couple of apps to stop working much to my frustration, but
those bugs were fixed within a couple of days. It is mildly frustrating to not be able to play local content, but Chromecast can be used on any platform, MS, Apple, or Google that has the plugin installed.

In closing, there are a few new points to consider when looking at a new gadget. If you want to do "everything at once," are comfortable with duality and persistent, but not necessarily stable upgrades, or are looking for something that is better for upgrading hardware, consider Windows. If you want something that is simple to use, want predictable upgrades that are more likely to work, and are willing to accept restrictions of limited compatible hardware and be a step behind the next best thing consider a Mac or iOS. Other questions to consider are:

• How mobile are you? 
• Do you need the ability to have access to your data regardless of where you are? 
• How much stuff and what kind of stuff do you do on the go beyond talk and text?
• Do you need the ability to move data across different platforms?

What you decide is dependent on what you are comfortable with and what your requirements are. Whatever you choose, get something that will last. Apple tries to make that a given when you buy a device, but you have the flexibility with other platforms to go "overboard" when you select your hardware. Google/Android is hit or miss in this department, but if you "hit," Google's devices can do surprisingly well.




I'll still laugh at the diehards - besides, maybe they will push those they don't like to make something better. One thing we can probably all agree on though:

Internet Explorer is the best browser ... for downloading a better browser!

Images are the property of their original owners. This post is for educational purposes only!

We can all agree to hate IE yes?

I Stand With Israel

It is an age long battle - and I am sure there are thousands upon thousands of blog entries around the world giving their 2 cents on the situation in the Middle East. Even so, I think it is important to provide my own perspective. I gather information and viewpoints based on what I observe and what I understand. I am open to changing my opinions, but only with fact and intellectual dialogue. I do not respond well to threats or mindless hate. As the title implies I Stand With Israel and if you have a different opinion I am happy to hear it, provided you are civil. If you cannot understand this, move along.

Once again the State of Israel is at war. For the past month or so, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) have been targeting rocket launchers and other weapons infrastructure in the Hamas ruled Gaza Strip in response to a near continuous barrage of missiles being fired at Israeli cities as far away as Haifa, which encompass the major population centers of Tel Aviv and Jerusalem. Recently a ground offensive was launched to remove a sophisticated and elaborate tunnel network that Hamas uses to infiltrate Israel. This latest round of violence has been spurred by the killing of three Israeli teens and a supposed retaliatory murder of a Palestinian by Israeli citizens.

There is much about this conflict that is beyond my understanding. Living in America, I am far from much of the world's strife. The American continent is separated from Europe and Asia by two large oceans, we have the longest undefended border in the world, and despite some issues along our southern border, we have two of the busiest global international crossings on the planet at San Diego and El Paso. We Americans have little tolerance for acts of hatred and violence towards people who are different. Trying to force your beliefs on another will quickly get you shunned, laughed at, and possibly a visit from the US' security apparatus.

To those of us who live far from the conflict like myself, I get a feeling of "ugh, here we go again." I am a Gentile to the Jewish people and am an Infidel to Muslims. I am not particularly religious though my worldview has been shaped by a Christian upbringing and real world experience ... I have no stake in the outcome of this conflict. Yet, I find myself drawn to reading and listening to news articles, blog entries, and commentary when fighting breaks out. Why?

Maybe it is because the struggle in Israel is a reflection of my core beliefs when they turn sour. No person has the right to initiate violence against others and has the right to live their lives as they choose. Conversely, any person has the right to resist when violence is initiated against them. As such, I have no problem with any person's individual religious, social, or political beliefs or practices by themselves. If you want to live under a strict religious social structure, as long as you believe you are making that choice voluntarily and do not force the same upon me, I do not care. If your life or way of life were put in danger would you not resist if you could?

It has been my observation that the Jewish people simply want to live their lives and practice their faith in peace. But, they are also cognizant of the fact that they haven't exactly been well received by the rest of the world for much of their history. As such, they are aggressive in wanting to preserve and protect their historical homeland and have a well trained and well equipped military to do it.

I have a hard time believing that Palestinians simply want to live their lives peacefully while leaving other ethnic groups alone. Groups that border Israeli territory have sworn to eradicate Israel as a state and as a people, particularly Hamas. Numerous times over the State of Israel's history (since 1948) Arab nations attacked Israel directly and without provocation. More recently, Arab nations - even those at peace with Israel have done little to nothing to stem the flow of weapons into the Palestinian territories, although Egypt has kept a close eye on their border with Gaza. The new military government in Egypt has no love for Hamas and has its own problems with militants in the Sinai.

Secondly, I have problems with a common complaint from Palestinian supporters that Israel is an Apartheid (segregated) state and wants to eradicate and suppress Muslims and other minorities living in its territory. Wikipedia says that Israel has a 20% Arab minority and that 18% of its population is Muslim. I have seen blog entries about Israeli Arabs and Muslims serving in the military like the quote below from a Muslim IDF officer.

I have seen that the IDF sends food and medical supplies to Gaza even as rockets rain down on Israeli cities. I have seen examples of Israeli aid groups assisting those displaced by the Syrian civil war. If Israel wanted these people eradicated, why would they act this way?

Other examples of my concern that much of Gaza isn't interested in leaving Israel alone:

• Launching of rockets in the midst of a cease fire (the IDF did not retaliate until the deal collapsed diplomatically)

• The unyielding hateful commentary by supporters of 'Palestine' on pro-Israel blogs. It is more than a little hard to gain my sympathy with spiteful commentary. Seriously, what does hate get you? Hatred will destroy you, not your 'enemies.'

Perhaps another reason why the conflict in Israel grabs my attention is because it is David and Goliath. (In this case that statement isn't just a metaphor.)

Perhaps I am romanticizing the conflict in this case, but it really is quite a story. A group of people escape slavery in Egypt with help from God and his messenger Moses. They wander the desert for 40 years and are led to the Land of Israel which according to the Torah/Bible was promised to them by God Himself. The Bible explains ancient Judea's history in detail, but to get to the point ... after being occupied by the Romans, the Jews attempted to rid themselves of their brutal overseers and found their temple in Jerusalem destroyed and their people scattered around the world. Jewish history refers to this period as the Diaspora. The Jews attempted to preserve their history and traditions in a world that didn't want them. They were constantly mistrusted, alienated, expelled, or were simply not welcome. This culminated in the Holocaust before and during World War II in Europe. The rest of the world ignored their pleas for help, even the US turned a boat carrying Jews from Europe away because of "immigration quotas" or some other reason.

After the travesty of the Holocaust they yearned for a place to call their own and desired to return to their ancestral homeland in Judea. Refugees streamed into Israel and for a time, the people living there had no problem with the Jews' arrival, until Israel became a sovereign nation. Israeli officials offered a two-state solution to allow the Arabs to live alongside Israel, but the Arabs rejected it and attacked instead. Ever since, Israel has fought repeated attempts by the Arab world to exterminate it. They are also fighting a war of public opinion as much of the world is still anti-Semitic and any perceived or actual slight against Palestinian civilians is aggressively used against the Jewish state. Even though Israel is now at peace with Jordan and Egypt, Israel is surrounded by people hostile to the State's and the Jews' existence. I believe Israel has every right to exist and protect that existence and has done much to accommodate others in and around its territory. They have overcome long odds just to simply want to be left alone. Israel isn't much larger than the US state of New Jersey, Muslims control everything else in that part of the world, so what is so hard about letting the Jews have their homeland?

I want peace just as much as anyone else - in fact I would describe myself as borderline pacifist. I do not define pacifism as avoiding confrontation at all costs, but rather as taking the action most likely to result in a peaceful outcome. Sometimes that means standing your ground and stopping the threat against you. Giving your attacker what they want only puts you at risk and encourages further violence against you and others. If danger was on your doorstep or if your country came under fire, would you not want to do something about it?

It is not in Israel's best interests to stand down until the threat against it is removed for the reason I stated above. Hamas has already shown they will continue to fire their rockets even with a cease fire in place. As such, violence against their citizens will continue if the IDF does not respond. Continuing to cave to global pressure to relinquish strategic territory (e.g. the Golan Heights), have 'proportional' responses to the threats against it, and to 'exercise restraint' only gives Israel's enemies incentives to keep fighting. The Iron Dome missile defense system is an impressive piece of technology and is doing an incredible job of stopping rockets being launched towards Israeli cities, but how long can that go on?

If Hamas and other groups stop lobbing explosive laden projectiles into Israel, the IDF would stand down. The IDF's conduct in this conflict thus far leads me to conclude they would do just that. Even Arab countries like Saudi Arabia and the UAE who do not believe Israel "has a right to exist" are willing to ignore it - partially because they have bigger fish to fry, like the "Islamic State" wanting to topple regimes throughout the middle east. I think they understand that if they leave Israel alone, Israel leaves them alone.

To those who support "Palestine" - I think you can have what you seek, but it requires you to do something you don't want to do. You need to let go of your hate and stop firing missiles at people who mean you no harm. You also need to accept the fact that Israel isn't going anywhere and will do everything in its power to protect its people. If you stand down and focus on building roads, schools, homes, and infrastructure within your territory, Israel would probably be willing to ease its blockade and be willing to talk about settlements and greater self rule.

Also, stop using civilians as cover - Hamas puts its weapons and military infrastructure in densely populated civilian areas and actively encourages its citizens to stand in the line of fire. I am not buying that Israel is murdering innocents, though I concede that there are a couple of strikes (like the one in a Gaza cafe' that killed a few people watching the World Cup) that need to be seriously looked at. If you want me to believe that Israel is targeting civilians deliberately, start by getting them out of harms way!! Too idealistic from an ignorant American? Maybe, but I know preaching death and destruction will lead you to just that. If you keep attacking Israel, don't be surprised if they retake Gaza .. permanently. If there are those among you who do seek a peaceful resolution, I do tip my hat to you and wish you to continue to efforts.

Below is an example of why I do not trust that peace is what Hamas seeks, using human shields to protect their military assets:

If there is one thing I understand about Israel and its people, it is that when they say "Never Again," they mean it. Love Israel or hate it, the Jewish State will do what must be done to defend its people. They will never again count on the rest of the world to guarantee their safety. I think 2000+ years of being mistreated may have something to do with that.

They took a barren desert and turned it into a world class country, they revived a "dead" language, and have managed to preserve their culture and traditions over more than 2000 years of persecution and exile. If I visited Israel, it would be quite a culture shock, but I could move and believe freely without fear of retribution. I doubt I could get the same treatment in much of the surrounding territory. Is Israel perfect? No - no country is, no person is, but every person, every people, every country has a right to protect their existence.

There will always be someone who is different, takes offense to you, or believes differently than you. They have just as much right to live and exist as you do. We all have free will and as such we are free to make our own choices and reap the consequences of those choices. You cannot claim freedom for yourself, then deny it to others and claim to be a proponent of peace. Blessed are the peacemakers - isn't that how it goes?

To those Israelis who may read this: may you find the quiet you desperately seek and may you find prosperity in your ancient homeland. My regards to IDF soldiers who stand between extremism and the innocent. This is for you:

I Stand With Israel.