What technology impressed me in 2013?

I'm usually skeptical of new and improved products.  Marketing people tend to gush wildly about how something insignificant is wonderful and miss when some small change has a huge impact, positive or negative.

It's been a crazy kind of year with odd things happening at all levels.  I didn't expect all the political stupidity, chest-thumping, etc.  I replaced a car and a water heater, added a camera system, and tried yet-to-be-released equipment.  I also drove over 7500 miles in two trips and never bought a drop of gasoline but drove more miles locally.

What I've listed here aren't the only things that impressed me, but those that had a significant impact on me.  I could add any number of other items that were interesting but had no substantial importance for me.

VW Golf TDI

Diesel fuel seems a good alternative to gasoline and hybrid vehicles.  The use of fuel might not be minimal but you don't have to worry about a number of batteries that will need to be replaced and recycled carefully.  The price of the fuel can be a bit high, and there was one point where the price of gasoline was higher than the price of diesel--a situation I had not seen since the early 1980s when diesel-powered cars and non-commercial trucks were few.  The changes to diesel engines have been many but none more significant than the changes to glow plugs.  Way back when, I remember that people had to wait 20-30 minutes for the glow plugs to heat before they could start the engine.  In frozen climates, that would be an eternity of sorts.  Now, you step inside, start the engine, and go.  It has a bit of that diesel sound from the inside but not much.  However, people walking along the road seem to notice it.

Going from a 1999 Golf GLS powered by gasoline to a 2012 Golf TDI proved simpler than expected, even though I should have bought the manual transmission model.  This was my fifth VW and after the 1999 and all its mechanical and electrical messes, I didn't think I'd have another.  This 2012 is all grown up.  It's not just the +10 mpg over the old car but the fully independent rear suspension, heated seats, and so on, but the way it all fits, it's as though it's not an economy car any longer.

Photographically, I was busy.  I was photographing swimming, basketball, and wrestling in winter, and switching to baseball, softball, and track during the spring.

In order to handle swimming better, I added an Olympus ZD 35-100mm f/2.0 lens and an Olympus ZD 14-35mm f/2.0 lens for various other situations.  These are the heaviest lenses I've used on a daily basis but the image quality of Olympus' Super High Grade line lenses are impressive.

Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 lens

Seeing Sigma announce the 18-35mm f/1.8 lens shocked me a bit.  Sigma has its moments, but most of those moments aren't positive.  Usually when I see good feedback about their products, I think that the user doesn't have high standards for image quality.  However, for a few lenses (50-500mm, 105mm macro, 150mm macro), they've done well for a while.  They've become better lately, but I'm still not convinced enough to buy anything.  The threat of a color cast or back focusing keep me away.

The 18-35mm f/1.8 has received a lot of praise from outlets I trust.  The range of the focal length is somewhat small, even as I find the Olympus ZD 14-35mm f/2.0's range limited.  Of course, the further from 12mm you are, the easier it is to create optical magic without making the lens overly big or heavy.  As I recall, the lens isn't weather-sealed, so that saves weight and complexity and cost.  The lens is about 30% of the price of the ZD 14-35mm f/2.0.  Is the image quality as good?  I haven't tried it, and those who have apparently haven't tried the Olympus lens.  In any case, it was a bold move from Sigma.

I've been searching for a way to extend my wide angle possibilities and the 14mm (times 2 magnification factor) isn't all that wide at an effective 135 format 28mm.

Olympus 12-40mm f/2.8 lens

I was invited to an event to use the new Olympus E-M1.  Since I've been an Olympus dSLR user since 2004 with the E-1, the E-M1 was meant to help me transition to micro Four-Thirds.  At the event, they had the yet-to-be-released 12-40mm f/2.8 PRO lens.  (When a company uses the word professional or otherwise labels any equipment in that way, I laugh.)  I've tried a few micro Four-Thirds lenses since February and I've found most of them to be craptacular, compared to Four-Thirds lenses, especially for the price.  A few exceptions, such as the 75mm f/1.8, 12mm f/2.0, and 45mm f/1.8 seem to be quite good, but not particularly suitable for me, as I require zoom lenses for sport.  So, when I was able to use the 12-40mm f/2.8 lens, I felt comfortable.  It fit between my ZD 14-54mm f/2.8-3.5 and the ZD 14-35mm f/2.0, in price and image quality.  This is the first zoom lens for micro Four-Thirds for which I have no reservations, and it's on my list to buy.

Olympus E-M1

When I first handled the E-M1, I was upset.  Olympus didn't produce another dSLR but that was half-expected by me.  The company, after the E-1 was released in 2003, had done some odd things, and it took until 2007 for them to release a replacement flagship dSLR.  They were planning to have something out in 2005, along with the original 14-35mm design (that never made it) but just couldn't get it done.  In 2007, they gave us a great-for-2005 dSLR, and in 2010, a great-for-2007 dSLR replaced it.

The E-M1 wasn't a surprise.  However, it wasn't exactly a replacement for the E-5.  While the electronic viewfinder is 99.9% as good as the optical viewfinder on the E-5, the rest of the camera body doesn't seem quite right.  It's smaller than even the E-1 and even slightly less than the Panasonic GH3.  The rear display panel cannot be hidden or otherwise protected, and it's not fully articulated.  The grip was small and angular, being built around a small battery.  Given that there are two powered displays, I'd expect the battery to be much larger.  The BLM-1/BLM-5 is not huge, and should have been used.  The grip was uncomfortable to me with my Four-Thirds lenses (being that they're heavier and larger, and optically better!), and there is more of an imbalance than with the Panasonic GH3 or Olympus E-1.

For the typical micro Four-Thirds equipment user, it seems too large.  For the professional using the Nikon D800 or Canon 5DMkIII, it seems really small and incredibly light.  It wasn't right for me, because the support for my current lenses wasn't good enough, and there aren't enough great, native zoom lenses yet.  Many people will find it exceptional, as the reviewers have.  However, I photograph sports, and I don't have time to think about the camera--I need to use it.  Maybe, next time.

Ricoh Pentax K-3

More to my liking was the Pentax K-3.  I've been looking for a replacement for the Nikon D300/D300s, and Nikon aren't making one, nor is Canon.  I'm not convinced that the D610 is enough of a camera body to do what the D300 did well.  While the technical appeal of 135 format is there, not much else is, especially for sports.  So, here is Ricoh, a brand of screwy products, who bought Pentax, a brand of great but inconsistent products, with a new APS-C sized dSLR.

On paper, the K-3 seems to be everything one would need to replace their D300, save lens compatibility.  It has a large buffer for raw images, blazing speed, a high density sensor with the 1.5x magnification compared to 135 format, and supposedly very good video.  (Right now, it has to be a paper comparison.  I've yet to find a store handling the product.)

It's much more than the Nikon D7100, Canon 70D, or Olympus E-M1.  I've been thinking, and thinking, and thinking about it.  In the meantime, there have been the typical weird Pentax-ish issues that may never be fixed.  There is also the lack of a fully-articulated rear display, which makes it less useful.  There are also some image anomalies that could keep it from being amazing, even though it has a lot of detail available, due to its lack of anti-aliasing filter.  You can however, sidestep moiré patterns by turning on the fake anti-aliasing filter functionality using the Shake Reduction technology.  If Ricoh-Pentax can provide firmware fixes, this could turn into a camera body that will wipe out everything else from US$1000 to US$2000 and revitalize Pentax.  It's everything that the mythical Nikon D400 should have been.

Panasonic GM1

This micro micro Four-Thirds camera body has been the kind of thing people had wanted, but didn't dare to dream.  It's so small, it's too small to use the typical lenses easily without the additional grip.  For those of us who end up using our phone camera as a substitute for a high quality camera, this may cause a lot of people to re-think what they're doing, in order to get higher image quality.

At the moment, the 12-32mm f/3.5-5.6 lens is good but not great.  There are plenty of other lenses without the size advantage.  The 12-32mm lens makes the camera pocket-able.  This body has major appeal for me over the Panasonic GF6, G6, or GX7 because it is truly small.

Sony A7/A7R

Sony took poor, old, lackluster Minolta and turned its technology into something better, even better than average sometime.  When they brought out a mirror-less system camera line to compete with Panasonic in their age-old war, they didn't have much.  Unfortunately, they haven't made much progress either.  There are more lenses, but not many more.  They haven't kept pace with Panasonic and Olympus, and their slightly better image quality isn't appealing enough if you can't get the shot you want.

Enter the Alpha 7/Alpha 7R duo with 135 format sized sensors.  Is it a gimmick or is it a system?  They announced several FE-mount (instead of E-mount) lenses along with both bodies, so it's way ahead of Sony's NEX system in fulfilling hopes from the start.

However, this will likely appeal to Sony fanatics only, as the rest of their equipment has.  That's unfortunate, as there is a chance that Sony won't mess this up, and they'll produce something that everyone would like to use.  There is a chance.

Google Nexus 7

Having had two of the 2012 Nexus 7 tablets, and having returned them within 14 days, I was uncomfortable with the idea of buying the new one.  I wanted a tablet, to be sure, but I didn't want a mess, and that was exactly what the 2012 model was.  Also, when Apple introduced their iPad mini for 2013, it was underwhelming and they raised the price.  Sure they used their latest 64-bit A7/M7 processors but having a lower color gamut display, higher density or not, wasn't worthy of a price increase.

I approached the Nexus 7 with caution.  I tried it at several stores.  There was no surge-pause-surge-pause as with the 2012 model.  There were even covers available.  It felt like a grown-up product.

I've used it quite a lot in the short time that I've had it.  It isn't quite a replacement for my laptop computer, but it is filling that void where a bigger display is helpful to get more information faster.  It's as good as the 2012 model was bad.  The only thing I'm missing is the grippy back from the older model.  I was interested in the EVGA Tegra Note 7 tablet, but nervous about nVidia's ability to provide a smooth processor experience, and not just raw power when it was ready.

Google Nexus 5 and LG G2

How could I think about tablets without thinking about the Nexus 5 and the G2.  They're big and powerful, and of course, they're directly related.  Had Apple not appealed to me with the iPhone 5c, I'd likely have the G2 now.  They're impressive phones with impressive displays, and they G2 has a bigger battery than the Nexus 5, so battery life on Android (with its "elegant multi-tasking") isn't as much of a problem.  I still liked the feel of the LG Optimus G over the G2 but I was nervous about the operating system updates for a year old phone.

Motorola Moto G

Motorola, as a subsidiary of Google, has started to impress.  It's been quite a while since the StarTac or RAZR hit the market and shocked everyone.  The various models Motorola has made over the years have been good but yawn worthy, and the company's software enhancements have made the phones more difficult to use, which is typical for Android-based phones from anyone but Google.

So, when the Moto X arrived earlier, I didn't think much about it.  It was a little better than average, but it seemed more like a phone for 2012 with options to customize the outside so you wouldn't think about the inside.

However, when they introduced the Moto G, it was priced like something for cost-conscious countries, but it worked almost like a premium phone, except when you bought it.  Less is more.

Apple A7/M7 processor combination

Apple has been surprising people for a while.  They bought a couple of chip design companies and it seemed as though they were going to design their own PowerPC processors for their computers because Motorola just couldn't handle it.

Instead, they've been working on processors for mobile devices, and extracting a lot of performance and battery life from what seemed to be unexciting processors.  The latest A7 processor with its 64-bit capabilities seems ready to handle almost anything.  Paired with the M7 motion processor keeps battery life good, while still being powerful.

What's more, they shocked the processor market with the 64-bit-ness.

Right now, the software to take advantage of the power is not quite there, and things have been a bit screwy, but this is typical of some new technology, don't you think?  I was uncomfortable enough to avoid buying the iPhone 5s to get the tried-and-true technology within the iPhone 5c.

What will impress me in 2014?

 I wonder about what will come.

I'm waiting on three micro Four-Thirds lenses.  Panasonic's 42.5mm f/1.2 and the Leica/Panasonic 15mm f/1.7 will be out, as well as Olympus' 40-150mm f/2.8 PRO (laugh with me at the "PRO" designation, please!) lens.

I expect that FujiFilm will replace the X-Pro1 and X-M1.  Whether they will provide their lens-specific enhancements (as with the X-E2) for the X-M2 will be anyone's guess.  The new 10-24mm f/4.0 lens specifically mentions the X-E2 in information I've seen.  That should be a great lens, especially if Fuji can diminish low light noise, since it's not an f/2.8 lens.

I'm waiting for a D7200 from Nikon, not that it's on the way, but since the D5300 is out and the Canon 70D and Pentax K-3 have arrived, Nikon need to push forward.  If nothing else, they could increase the depth of the frame buffer for raw images and call it the D7150, though that sounds more like a computer model.

Hopefully, Apple will correct their ridiculous issues with the iPad mini and put great displays in them, instead of the mediocre but denser displays that they're using.  I wasn't about to pay more for a lousy display.  I thought that they should buy Sharp and take control, but they don't want to have anything to do with manufacturing since they closed down the PowerMac factories years ago.

So, I have no idea what will impress me but I have some hopes for the year.

iOS 6.0 or how lost am I?

It's time to poke a bit of fun at Apple, the saviours of the universe.

I've been fooled in the past to update as soon as possible.  When you're running Mac OS X, it usually becomes reasonably steady at the 10.x.4 version and iOS at the x.2 version, which never happened for version 5.

I feel for all of those who were enthusiastic enough to wait for the appropriate time and started downloading the update.  Of course, all of them are having some sort of problem now.  When 6.0.1 arrives (3 weeks from now?), I'm sure I'll be having some sort of problem because I'll probably be tired of waiting and want to download it.  (Update 2012.10.18: No 6.0.1 so far.)

Of course, if there are security updates, we on version 5 won't see them, will we?  That's a !@#$ shame because our devices are just as valuable, and mine (iPhone 4S) is still being sold in a modified form.  When I updated my second generation iPod touch to version 4.1, I only did it because of the security updates.  It certainly wasn't because I wanted decreased performance.  Version 4.2.1 more-or-less resolved things but not well.

I've seen all sorts of talk about the maps being a problem.  Strange, isn't it?  I didn't really have any good luck with Google maps on Android and Apple's app to access Google's maps was no prize either.  Mapquest and Telenav have my interest but Telenav's app is problematic compared to the app on my last 4 feature phones.  However, Google puts things on the wrong block or on the other side of the road, so what's worse? (Update 2012.10.18: I've learned that Apple are using vector graphics and only about 10 % of the data to accomplish their maps, giving us all a chance in areas with no 3G access.)  Update 2012.12.04: I tried the Maps application during a trip to Florida recently and was amused to see I-75 turned into some local road.  Waze was not really good, either.  If I'm sitting at a red light, am I "in traffic"?

I downloaded the YouTube app a while back and it works well, so I expect the Google maps app will work equally well.  (Update 2013.10.29: the Google maps app works reasonably well.  I've only used it once for navigation, although it made some odd decisions. Apple's maps app has been good, though confused in more dense areas.)  According to some Google big wig today (Sept. 25), they aren't planning any app.  That goes against what another said weeks ago.  They could have killed it but to say that it wasn't planned?  Apple's stock price is being hammered on the news.  It's sad that Apple are developing more and more like their competitors.  I appreciated the company for its fit and finish.  Throwing rubbish onto the street and hoping we like it is nonsense, and it stinks.

Were you in line today to buy an iPhone 5?  I read that someone in Australia bought the first one available in a brick-and-mortar store already.  I really don't see the reason to wait in line, especially hours or days.  It's a phone.

I also got the e-mail from Apple, and I saw their press release about amazing pre-order sales figures the first weekend.  Good for them.  When the iPhone 5S arrives, I'll take a look at that, as my contract will be nearing completion.  By then, the iPhone 5 features will be settled and the performance will be improved.  Maybe, it will actually be shock resistant, so I don't need a case to make it 4 times as thick, just to not have it break on a fall. (My Otterbox Defender did a great job when the phone tumbled out of my hand, leaving my motel room.)

Funny how none of my flip phones ever died from a fall and the worst was the Motorola Star Tac with a crack around the antenna housing, but apparently, they all did that.

Seeing what HTC has put out recently, I might buy another Android-based phone, if I can find a display around 4" maximum.  I really don't want to buy a bag of some sort to hold the thing.  I want it on a holster in my pocket.  Of course, if it's only half as thick as the Otterbox Defender case I have, I might be able to handle a longer phone.

Good luck to all of the phone makers, but more than that, good luck to the consumers.

Update 2014.12.05: Here I am with iOS 8.1.1 and there are still navigation issues.

I believe that the TomTom maps need a lot of improvement, even in the San Francisco Bay Area.  I often use navigation from a distance to return to stores I already know, but would have it help me avoid traffic backups.  By the time I'm close, I can generally quit navigation because almost certainly, it will tell me to make a U-turn, even though there is a proper entrance to a strip mall.

I can't speak to any of the other map vendors, but I remember using Telenav's app on my flip phones and it had me take a few U-turns that were unnecessary.

The one problem I still have with my iPhone (5c instead of the 4s now but the 4s did it also) is compass confusion.  It will turn the map at an intersection when I'm stopped.

Samsung lost to Apple in various ways but...

I don't agree with lawsuits, in general.  I think there are better ways to resolve situations, unless the two sides just can't meet in the middle.  What's happened here should have been clear: Samsung copied Apple user interface elements and animation to replicate Apple's device experience.

Does it matter?  I'm just not certain.  I think it's annoying that they would copy.  My Samsung SPH-A900/Blade was a copy of a Motorola RAZR, and the name was obviously a rip-off.  If Motorola had patented the design, would they have been in court to stop Samsung?  Probably.

In fact, HandSpring/Palm, Nokia, and Motorola all had designs and design elements lifted by Samsung and added to Samsung's devices.  For that alone, Samsung should be sitting alone in the corner thinking about what they had done, just as school children who copy are set aside.

This is where I differ from the jury.  I don't see $1.05 billion in damages.  They should each pay their court-related costs and shut up.

As much as I don't like Samsung and I like Apple equipment (but not their legal department), both companies act like spoiled children and should be punished accordingly.  We need a global government to address these situations.

Samsung, the copier

Years ago, I bought a Samsung phone, the SPH-A900 otherwise known as Blade.  That name may make you think that it had something to do with the Motorola RAZR.  It was in many aspects, a copy.

The phone was rather broken, software-wise.  It didn't work well as a phone, but became my first 3G data modem, where the power-hungry display didn't kill the extended life battery I bought at extra cost.  Where I couldn't get 3 hours in typical phone/internet use, I would get around 6 hours of modem use.

I'd always hoped that Samsung would come to their senses and provide good software updates, but what they provided made the phone worse and the people at the Sprint store, weren't able to take the phone back to an earlier level of firmware, though they charged me for it.

At that time, multiple people I knew were angry about their !@#$ Samsung phones, each one a bit more vehement, it seemed.

I'd see the phones at the store, wondering why they looked like other phones in the store made by other companies.  If Samsung was a big player, why did they copy?

I thought back to Mazda's 1974 RX-3, which looked like AMC's Hornet hatchback or the 1975 Toyota Corolla SR 5 hatchback that looked like a 1970 Ford Mustang.  Pontiac made a habit of driving excitement by copying BMW.

I look at Apple's Macintosh and Digital Research's GEM from the mid-1980s.  They both used elements that had been presented in the Xerox Alto machine.  Of course, Apple hired Bill Atkinson and Susan Kare to do some of this work.  Many people from Xerox' Palo Alto Research Center went elsewhere to market their ideas when Xerox would not.

In art, taking inspiration from the greats is a given.  You learn from those who did something wonderful, and you create something of your own that is also quite wonderful, hopefully.  If you copy it, they call you a forger.

I'm unclear as to how Samsung has copied HandSpring/Palm, Nokia, and Motorola designs and no one noticed all this time.  Had those four companies filed design patents, would Samsung be in the business now?

I'm not saying that you should patent a rectangle, a simple button, or other unremarkable details; however, there is a point where the imitation is no longer flattering.

What saved HandSpring/Palm, Nokia, and Motorola in the old days was the Samsung was so terribly bad at software.  They couldn't care less about the software because they would have new phones to sell in the next 6 months.  Now that Android is their main base software, they care even less, but Google help a lot to keep customers able to use their phones.

It was sadly amusing this week when Susan Kare admitted to the court that she had inadvertently picked up a Samsung product, thinking that it was an iPhone.  The Samsung attorneys wanted her to describe in detail the differences, but the point was made.  Most people would never notice the differences.

I look at what HTC, LG, Nokia, Motorola and others are doing and their designs are unique.  Why can't Samsung do their own designs?  Mind you, I don't agree with Apple filing lawsuits but Samsung should do their own work, not copy others.

!@#$ Patents and Copying

How many times are consumers hurt by copying?

There was an episode of All in the Family where Archie Bunker was gloating about his new watch.  He was going on and on about this Omega brand watch he bought for almost nothing.  Then, it's revealed "Oh, no, that's not an Omega.  It's an Onega."

Are consumers always fooled so easily?

A co-worker more than 10 years ago was shocked to learn that her new Lexus E300 was a Toyota Windom.  "Toyota?"  As though the Lexus dealer randomly appeared by the Toyota dealership out of convenience and nothing else.  Then again, people were shocked that the Cadillac Seville started as a Chevrolet Nova.  Would those driving an Escalade be driving the Chevrolet version?

I was reading that the HTC One series phones due to be sold this week are held up in U.S. customs, due to the patent issues between HTC and Apple.  While I understands Apple's frustration, the consumer is losing some great phones, especially those who have pre-paid for those phones.  HTC really haven't done anything to Apple but because they were the vanguard of Android, starting with the T-Mobile G1, they were selected, which is a horrible strategy.  They have made some admirable designs without copying Apple.

The patent war between Samsung and Apple is more realistic.  Samsung copies practically everything Apple have done in the mobile space.  Supposedly, they're planning queues/lines to make it appear their phones are more lust-worthy than they might be otherwise.  However, they made advertising about such lines, and made fun of people standing in line for products.  It looks as though Samsung is Samsung-ing itself.

I read elsewhere that the company is all but stopping production of their point-and-shoot cameras, in order to boost production of their mirror-less system cameras.  I doubt that the few thousand who buy the mirror-less models are going to suddenly want new versions, or that throwing more money at them will make them popular.

Their struggle to overtake Sony may be working but it's going to take a long time.  It's more likely that Panasonic will be there first.  It's amazing to me that Panasonic have gone from household items like rice cookers to high end televisions, phones, and computers in the last 30+ years, and that Sony have diminished.

One last thing about patents and copying: why is it that IBM's laptop computer line never had to look like anyone else's (save my sad L40SX), and they've been such a hit, even now that they're coming from Lenovo?  When most of the Ultrabooks look a lot like Apple's MacBook Air, Lenovo's products don't.  They're stylish in an industrial way and get respect from just about anyone.

Update: In the U.K., a judge has decided that Samsung didn't copy iPad to create their own tablet and has ordered Apple to tell everyone this.  When I was in primary school (as it feels this punishment resembles), the copier was punished, not the person being copied.

If I look at practically every mobile device that Samsung has done in the last 2 years, they look remarkably like Apple devices, so much that I noticed one and wondered what Apple had done to their hardware.  Add to this the rather obvious software tweaks to Android to make it look more like iOS, I can't imagine what the judge is thinking.  The only reasonable explanation I can find is that he was annoyed and decided to fix it since they were acting like school children.

Besides, if Nokia and HTC and Motorola can design devices that don't look much like Apple's, why can't Samsung?

Update 2014.01.10: Apple and Samsung have agreed to another round of arbitration, in order to agree on something, anything.  I don't really understand why the FRAND patents weren't settled already since every other FRAND patent gets very little, unlike what Samsung wants.