Phil Baker | Vox

Deception on the internet is nothing new, but you’re right, it is getting worse

2017-10-09T15:12:05-04:00

A version of this essay was originally published at Tech.pinions, a website dedicated to informed opinions, insight and perspective on the tech industry.

We’re just digesting and analyzing the impact to the nation of being exposed to untruthful news stories. (Note: I’m following Dan Gillmor’s advice and not using “fake news,” because that term has been hijacked by Donald Trump to refer to news he disagrees with.) And while this may be the most severe example of being misled by the Internet, it’s certainly not the only. In fact, the internet is filled with cases whose sole purpose is to trick and deceive us under the guise of offering useful information.

One pervasive example is when searching for ratings on various products. There’s a vast number of sites that purport to provide objective analyses and ratings of products. The sites are titled with names such as www.top10antivirussoftware.com, but are often sites created to tout one product over another, or to just provide a list of products with links to buy, in exchange for referral fees.

The internet is filled with cases whose sole purpose is to trick and deceive us under the guise of offering useful information.

A search for “Best iPhone cables” finds one top choice (paid-for position), “BestReviews.Guide,” a site that reviews numerous products. There’s no explanation of how they rate, but in their disclaimer, they write, “BestReviews. The guide provides information for general information purposes and does not recommend particular products or services.”

But pseudo-reviews are not confined to mysterious companies. Business Insider offers reviews called “Insider Picks.” Many of these reviews are filled with words but do little to explain the basis for their ratings.

What’s motivating all of these review sites? The opportunity to monetize them by receiving kickbacks or referral fees when someone clicks to buy, primarily from Amazon. You can examine the link that takes you to Amazon to see the code added to the normal link. Commission range up to 10 percent, with an average of about 5 percent.

And here’s another example of deception and trickery on the web. I experienced a problem with QuickBooks on my Mac, and looked for a phone number to get help. There was no phone number in the app, so I searched online. Up came an 800 number, using Google’s search and a Website titled “QuickBooks 800 Help Line.” I called it, got a seemingly helpful technician, and he readily identified the cause of my problem. He said he needed to install the QuickBooks utility software on my computer to remove some bad files. As I started to allow this, I hesitated and asked if there is was any charge. He said there is a $300 charge for the utility.

Misleading support sites are still rampant, taking advantage of those looking for help and information.

That’s when I checked with my daughter, using a second phone line — coincidentally, she’s an Intuit manager. She confirmed after a quick call to the head of customer support that I was not speaking to Intuit, but an imposter. I quickly hung up and later discussed this with an executive at Intuit. Their policy, like many companies, had been to hide their customer-service number because they were not equipped to handle the volume of calls. She said they never anticipated what I experienced and, perhaps, as a result, their phone number pops up at the top of a search.

I was reminded of this the other day when I was doing a story on Google’s customer support, which is a major consideration when buying their new phones. Searching for a support number brought up many sites purporting to be Google support, but no Google number. One prominent site is “Gmailtech.info” with the headline “Unlimited Gmail support” and a phone number, and this paragraph:

“Phone Support-one can reach the Google Technical Support service by dialing their customer service number which is completely free of cost and our customer care is available 24/7*35 days. You just need to call on the Google Support Phone Number, and you will get all the solutions to your problems.”

Of course, it takes you to a GTech number. And notice the poor grammar.

These misleading support sites are still rampant, taking advantage of those looking for help and information.

This is probably not a revelation to most of us in the tech community that once laughed about the Nigerian scams, but like deceptive news stories, the players are getting more sophisticated at deception.

Phil Baker is a product development expert, author and journalist covering consumer technology. He has developed scores of products for companies, including Apple, Seiko, Polaroid, Barnes & Noble, Polycom, Proxima, ThinkOutside and Pono Music. Baker is the author of “From Concept to Consumer,” a former columnist for the San Diego Transcript and founder of Techsperts Inc. Follow him at Baker on Tech and reach him @pbaker.

This article originally appeared on Recode.net.

With Walt Mossberg retiring, let’s review the tech reviewers

2017-04-17T16:00:32-04:00

Apple CEO Steve Jobs speaks with technology columnist Walt Mossberg during an Apple special event introducing the iPad, Jan. 27, 2010, in San Francisco. | Justin Sullivan / Getty

A version of this essay was originally published at Tech.pinions, a website dedicated to informed opinions, insight and perspective on the tech industry.

When I read that Walt Mossberg would be retiring, it reminded me of how much has changed in the way consumer technology products have been reviewed over the years. I write this as one who has been on both sides — developing products that ultimately were reviewed and writing my own column for 12 years that reviewed products for the now-defunct San Diego Transcript.

In the late ’80s, as technology products began to appeal to non-technical consumers, reviews were written by those who valued a product by how many features it contained.

In the late ’80s, as technology products began to appeal to non-technical consumers, the only place where they could go for buying advice was the numerous technology magazines. The magazines did a great job of evaluating the technical details of computers, printers and other complex devices, with some periodicals even creating their own test labs.

But, for the most part, the reviews were written by those who valued a product by how many features it contained. The reviewers appreciated technological wizardry above all else, so the articles were filled with graphs and tables with checkmarks comparing the plethora of features each product had, usually awarding the Editor’s Choice to the product with the most checkmarks. It was assumed that the customers would find the products as easy to use as the reviewers did.

For the non-technical reader, getting through each article could be a challenge, with all the new terminology and abbreviations that were used by the industry. I remember trying to keep straight the different units of memory, data speed and processor speeds.

In 1991, Walt Mossberg created a much different approach to product reviews that not only made it easier to assess a new product but also changed how products would be designed.

As a product designer, it was frustrating to see a product reviewed and rated based on the number of features it had, even when many of those features would never be used. And I saw how the magazines had influenced the design of new products. Design engineers and marketing people would tend to pile on feature after feature without much thought to usability. That made products take longer to design, harder to use and less reliable.

In 1991, Walt Mossberg created a much different approach to product reviews that not only made it easier to assess a new product but also changed how products would be designed.

He would look at products not based on the number of features but on their practicality and usability. He was one of the first to understand that these products would find a much larger audience among those who might not be technically inclined, and that they needed to be assessed differently. He took a position as an advocate for the user, and found a receptive audience by reminding his audience not to blame themselves for finding a product hard to use, because they were not alone.

When I was writing my book, “From Concept to Consumer: How to Turn Ideas Into Money,” I asked Walt to describe the attributes of what he considered to be an excellent product. He told me:

“It is a product so useful in function and clear in its operation that its user, within days or weeks, wonders how she ever got along without it. This is not the same as having long lists of features, specs, speeds and feeds. In fact, my rule is that, if a product claims to have, say, 100 features, but an average person can only locate and use 11 of them in the first hour, then it has 11 features.”

That was the basis for his judging products. Because of Walt’s ability to understand products from the position of the consumer, his observations were much more relevant and useful. From his post at the Wall Street Journal, his influence was widely felt. Companies knew that his reviews could make or break a product or even a company.

He was also instrumental in advocating for the consumer beyond just products. He saw how cellular providers were restricting product advancements, and compared them to Soviet ministries.

Walt, along with David Pogue of the New York Times, the late Steve Wildstrom of Businessweek (who also wrote here at Tech.pinions) and Ed Baig of USA Today, was among the first to review major new products. All four were courted by big-name companies such as Apple, Samsung, Sony and others, so that their reviews would appear at nearly the same time. Because their columns were published in each Thursday’s edition of their respective publications, the marketing people, engineers and company executives would frantically wait for the first edition to see how their product fared, much like the cast of a Broadway show reads their reviews the morning after opening night.

Good sites with in-depth reviews include Digital Photo Review, PC Week, Tom’s Hardware, The Gadgeteer, iLounge, The Verge, the Wirecutter and many others.

On a personal note, I always found Walt, Steve and Ed to be thoughtful, insightful and fair-minded. While one might disagree with their product assessments, they were always respectful and considerate. If they encountered a problem with a product, they’d get back to the company and get their comments, but reported their complete experiences without omissions. They took their job and the impact of what they wrote with great responsibility. And they would not waffle, but gave their opinions and backed them up with facts. David Pogue does do reviews, but with a more entertainment focus.

In recent years, as gadget blogs replaced newspapers for our source of new product news, the number of reviews have multiplied, although the quality seems to have fallen. Many are done by those with limited product experience and often reflect their own biases, without thinking from the position of the consumer. I’m often appalled at how inaccurate they are about products and technology I know well.

There are good sites with in-depth reviews, including Digital Photo Review, PC Week, Tom’s Hardware, The Gadgeteer, iLounge, The Verge, the Wirecutter (owned by the New York Times) and many others. Many of these sites now derive revenue from their reviews by linking the products to Amazon to receive referral fees.

So, while we have more sources, it will be hard for them to replace the wisdom of a few good writers who avoided parroting press releases and took a very thoughtful approach to assessing new products, based on their years of experience.

This article originally appeared on Recode.net.

We think technology can solve the world’s problems, but it can’t even stop robocalling

2017-03-21T13:58:27-04:00

A version of this essay was originally published at Tech.pinions, a website dedicated to informed opinions, insight and perspective on the tech industry.

We like to think technology can solve our pressing problems, but there’s one problem it has not been able to solve. It’s a problem that, if solved, would have one of the most positive impacts on our daily lives. No, it’s not related to health care, it’s not a new self-driving car, nor does it solve any life-and-death issue. It’s the problem of robocalls.

This is an issue we all understand, all experience and all universally hate, regardless of political affiliation. If a politician made this his goal to solve and succeeded, that person could be reelected in a landslide.

Yet still, after years and years of this intrusion on our privacy, it keeps getting worse. While originally a problem just with landlines, it’s now pervasive on cellphones and affects more than 250 million of us in the U.S. — essentially everyone with a phone.

According to the FCC, robocalls are already up 50 percent this year from four billion last year.

According to the Federal Trade Commission, calls are already up 50 percent this year from four billion last year. That’s four billion interruptions that generally come at the most inopportune times. And few of those calls bring us any benefits. They’re either scams, solicitations or some attempt to steal our money, identity or banking account information. They prey mostly on the elderly and uninformed, yet they can sometimes fool the most knowledgeable among us. And they cost the innocent billions of dollars per year.

Robocalling has brought out the dregs of humanity, with callers impersonating Microsoft telling us our computer is infected, or an IRS agent telling us we need to pay now or go to jail. Robocalling can turn a pleasant evening into an annoying one, with many of us getting a number of calls throughout the day.

This problem is a demonstration of how technology, as well as our government, has failed us. Technology enabled the robocalling machines and, while politicians wrangle about divisive social issues that affect few, no one tackles a problem that millions experience and would all be grateful for it to be solved.

I don’t have the solution, but it’s not hard to imagine how one could be found by creating a combination of a database, an app and some strong enforcement.

There is little doubt that with a concerted effort by the cellular providers, the FCC and even the phone manufacturers, the problem could be solved. I don’t have the solution, but it’s not hard to imagine how one could be found by creating a combination of a database, an app and some strong enforcement. Cellular providers and the FCC can identify and filter out calls from certain gateways, authenticate the numbers used for calling and create a database of bogus numbers.

The Do Not Call List Registry the government created years ago has no enforcement power and many loopholes. It doesn’t work, yet the FCC still has a website that makes you think it does, complete with complaint forms to fill out.

Caller ID, one of the tools intended to help us screen calls, has been turned on its head, with robocalls now spoofing local numbers and fake identities to make us pick up the call. Many of the calls originate from outside the country, where there’s no enforcement. Even legitimate companies, such as Stratics Networks, a company I randomly selected from those offering robocalling services, advertise how their robocalling service can “Assign custom local or toll-free Caller IDs to your broadcast.”

It should be an embarrassment to the industry that, while the FCC and the carriers procrastinate, a small company has found a solution for some situations. Nomorobo has been able to help users who use VoIP calling and/or iPhones significantly reduce the number of robocalls. The company has about 300,000 subscribers who give the company high grades for reducing or eliminating the calls.

Others have tried, including several companies offering hardware solutions (basically a box to screen the incoming number) and allow you to designate it as a robocall to block the number from calling again. But, with numbers changing randomly, these solutions aren’t very good, based on my experiences.

My own solution to eliminate these calls at home is to cancel my wired phone line and switch to VoIP calling, where I’ll have a better chance of screening out these calls.

Now that we have a new head of the FCC, let’s see if he can fix this once and for all.

This article originally appeared on Recode.net.

Apple may have already lost the battle to Google for a new generation of students

2017-03-08T16:47:33-05:00

Steeven Cajuste, 14 (L) and Christensen Agnant, 14, worked on new Chromebook notebooks gifted by Google to their school, Mildred Avenue K-8 School. | Dina Rudick / Getty Images

A version of this essay was originally published at Tech.pinions, a website dedicated to informed opinions, insight and perspective on the tech industry.

When I worked for Apple in the ’90s, there was a constant push to put Apple computers in schools so students would be more likely to become Apple customers for life. Now, nearly 30 years later, we read how Apple is falling behind in the use of their products in schools.

According to an article in the New York Times:

Over the last three years, Apple’s iPads and Mac notebooks — which accounted for about half of the mobile devices shipped to schools in the United States in 2013 — have steadily lost ground to Chromebooks, inexpensive laptops that run on Google’s Chrome operating system and are produced by Samsung, Acer and other computer makers.

Mobile devices that run on Apple’s iOS and MacOS operating systems have now reached a new low, falling to third place behind both Google-powered laptops and Microsoft Windows devices, according to a report released on Thursday by Futuresource Consulting, a research company.

Futuresource notes that Chromebooks accounted for 58 percent of the 12.6 million mobile computing devices shipped to primary and secondary schools in the U.S. in 2016, up from 50 percent in 2015. During the same period, iPads and Mac laptops fell to 19 percent from about 25 percent. Microsoft Windows laptops and tablets remained relatively stable at about 22 percent.

While we adults complain about the slow pace and limited innovation at Apple, it’s something apparent even to youngsters who take technology for granted, are more adept with devices, and have a technical proficiency that may negate Apple’s easier-to-use interface — the primary advantage Apple could offer to earlier generations.

These statistics confirm what I’ve experienced firsthand. I initially became aware of Chromebooks in schools when my 12-year-old grandson told me last year how many of his classrooms in his Bay Area school were equipped with Chromebooks. He then showed me how he used it to do work at school, go online from his home computer to the school’s portal to check and finish his work, submit his homework assignments, get scores of his tests and use Google Docs to write his essays.

When I asked about how iPads — a product he uses at home — are used in school, I got rolled eyes, as if I were in the Stone Age. He explained how less useful and how more expensive iPads are for the things he does at school. He said their Chromebooks cost $200, while iPads are more than twice that amount and have no keyboard.

But it wasn’t until I spoke with his 8-year-old brother and my other grandson that I realized how much more aware they are of technology products at such a young age — younger than any generation before.

While his parents waited for their older son to graduate from fifth grade before getting him an activated phone (an iPhone 5c), the younger one uses an inactivated Samsung Galaxy 6 with a home Wi-Fi connection, primarily as a game player. He figured out how to make calls, send messages over Wi-Fi using WhatsApp and, when he wants to use it away from home for playing Pokémon Go, he makes sure his brother or mother is with him so he can connect to their hotspot.

When I asked each brother which phone they prefer, iPhone or the Android, both spoke up in unison and unequivocally said Android. They each reeled off a list of comparisons between the two operating systems that would make a reviewer proud. They both prefer Android because they like Google Voice more than Siri, and criticized the iPhone for its shorter battery life and no headphone jack. When I asked the 8-year-old which phone he liked the best, he said the Galaxy 7 because it was waterproof and had a curved display.

Now, anecdotal stories from 8- and 12-year-olds are just that, but taken with these new findings, it should be a concern to Apple. While we adults complain about the slow pace and limited innovation at Apple, it’s something apparent even to youngsters who take technology for granted, are more adept with devices, and have a technical proficiency that may negate Apple’s easier-to-use interface — the primary advantage Apple could offer to earlier generations.

.newsletter-sign-up-form *{vertical-align:baseline;font-feature-settings:"kern" 1;font-variant-ligatures:no-common-ligatures;box-sizing:border-box;-webkit-tap-highlight-color:transparent}.newsletter-sign-up-form form{margin:1em 0;width:100%}.newsletter-sign-up-form .newsletter-signup{position:relative;z-index:2;height:100%;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;flex-wrap:wrap;-moz-flex-wrap:wrap;-ms-flex-wrap:wrap;-webkit-flex-wrap:wrap;-ms-flex-direction:row;flex-direction:row}.newsletter-sign-up-form .field{border:solid 1px #e7e7e8;border-bottom:none;padding:1.8rem 1.2rem;-ms-flex:1 100%;flex:1 100%;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;flex-wrap:wrap;-moz-flex-wrap:wrap;-ms-flex-wrap:wrap;-webkit-flex-wrap:wrap;-ms-flex-direction:row;flex-direction:row}.newsletter-sign-up-form .field:last-child{border-bottom:solid 1px #e7e7e8}.newsletter-sign-up-form .field.sign-up{cursor:default;display:inline-block;-ms-flex:none;flex:none;width:100%;background-color:#FAFAFA}.newsletter-sign-up-form label{margin-bottom:.25em;color:#3b3b3b;font-family:"Open Sans",Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:1em;letter-spacing:.015rem;line-height:1.35rem;-ms-flex:2 90%;flex:2 90%}.newsletter-sign-up-form .input-contain{-ms-flex:2 10%;flex:2 10%;max-width:1.75rem}.newsletter-sign-up-form input:hover{border:solid 1px #e7e7e8}.newsletter-sign-up-form input[type='text'],.newsletter-sign-up-form input[type='email']{cursor:text;padding:.5rem .6rem;outline:none;border:solid rgba(255,255,255,.8) 1px;color:#3b3b3b;border:solid 1px #e7e7e8;font-size:16px;font-family:"Open Sans",Helvetica,sans-serif;width:79%;max-width:25rem}.newsletter-sign-up-form input[type='text']:focus,.newsletter-sign-up-form input[type='email']:focus{border:1px solid #bb2323}.newsletter-sign-up-form h3{font-size:1.5em;letter-spacing:.01rem;font-family:"Klavika Medium",Helvetica,sans-serif;line-height:1.2;margin-bottom:.6rem}.newsletter-sign-up-form h4{margin:0 .2rem .1rem 0;display:inline-block;color:#3b3b3b;font-weight:900;font-size:1.3em;font-family:"Klavika Medium",Helvetica,sans-serif;line-height:1.2;text-transform:capitalize;display:block}@media (min-width:40rem){.newsletter-sign-up-form .field{border:solid 1px #e7e7e8;-ms-flex:2 50%;flex:2 50%}.newsletter-sign-up-form .field:nth-child(2){border-top:none}.newsletter-sign-up-form .field:nth-child(4){border-top:none}.newsletter-sign-up-form .field:nth-child(3){border-top:none}.newsletter-sign-up-form .field:nth-child(4){border-top:none}}.newsletter-sign-up-form .label-contain{max-width:20em}.newsletter-sign-up-form button{padding:0.675rem 1rem;letter-spacing:.05rem;border:none;background-color:#f62217;color:#FEFEFE;text-transform:uppercase;vertical-align:top;font-weight:bold;font-style:normal;font-size:0.8em;display:inline-block;font-family:"Open Sans",Helvetica,sans-serif;-webkit-appearance:none;cursor:pointer;margin-left:-4px;width:20%;max-width:8rem}.newsletter-sign-up-form button:hover{background-color:#6b0000}

This article originally appeared on Recode.net.

We’ve had fake news, fake science — and now, ‘fake tech’

2017-01-24T08:43:06-05:00

A version of this essay was originally published at Tech.pinions, a website dedicated to informed opinions, insight and perspective on the tech industry.

There’s fake news, fake science, and now, “fake tech.” Fake tech is a term that came to mind while reading about the augmented-reality startup Magic Leap. The company has raised $1.4 billion based on videos created to demo its technology. But new information has surfaced that indicates these videos were created using special effects, simulated by a New Zealand company that specializes in such things. While it’s not clear how real the company’s technology is, you could describe these simulated presentations as fake.

Then there’s Theranos, the health technology company that raised hundreds of millions of dollars for its fingerstick and microfluidics technologies that promised to revolutionize blood testing. The company’s value was as high as $9 billion before it was discovered that much of its technology was more wishful thinking than real. Apparently, its charismatic leader was able to persuade a number of luminaries to serve on its board, while others — including Walgreens — made huge investments based on fake evidence or no evidence at all.

Uber claimed that it was beginning to use driverless cars in Pittsburgh, when, in fact, it was starting to test the cars with a professional driver at the wheel. Amazon announced last year they were going to begin delivery of packages using drones, yet it will be years away.

Because technology is often complicated and overwhelming to those without science or engineering training, potential customers and investors are not equipped to make knowledgeable assessments, and therefore follow the crowd of believers, not wanting to be left behind.

But, as many of us working in Silicon Valley know, there’s a propensity for entrepreneurs to take on tasks that may seem insurmountable, or even impossible, that can lead to real innovation and breakthroughs. Along the way, with the need to attract investment, employees and customers, it’s easy for the promises to get ahead of the reality. People want to believe and can easily fall prey to those leaders who may be better at promoting than the actual science.

In the case of Theranos and Magic Leap, there were early warning signs, such as the companies’ refusal to provide real demos. In both cases, the truth came out when former employees came forward with their stories. In the case of Theranos, an intensive investigation by the Wall Street Journal did much to undermine the company’s credibility.

I’ve also experienced fake tech on Indiegogo and Kickstarter. There are products described with seemingly impossible claims that can’t be verified by the host sites. So, anyone with a clever idea and a simulated video can raise money proposing an idea that’s impossible to do. Some may know it’s impossible, but many don’t know what they don’t know, and believe it can be accomplished with enough money.

What fuels fake tech is what fuels fake news: The need to create headlines that result in clicks, eyeballs and, hence, dollars.

In addition to these, there are more nuanced examples of fake tech practiced by major companies that rely on exaggerated claims to garner publicity and boost their stock. While perhaps not completely fake, they are a lot less than what they seem to be.

Uber claimed that it was beginning to use driverless cars in Pittsburgh when, in fact, it was starting to test the cars with a professional driver at the wheel. Amazon announced last year they were going to begin delivery of packages using drones, yet it will be years away.

In these cases, the press jumped on these stories, encouraged by the companies’ professional PR people, skilled at creating headlines out of bits of truth, and playing to the strengths and weaknesses of gullible reporters. While perhaps not factually inaccurate, the results were closer to almost-fake tech.

What fuels fake tech is what fuels fake news: The need to create headlines that result in clicks, eyeballs and, hence, dollars. The need to get above the noise and stand out in some way. Too often, reporters who are not trained in science or technology fall for these stories without a critical eye. They, too, want to believe and, as a result, promote a story without understanding the nuances behind it.

What’s the solution? Good reporting by trained journalists that understand basic science. Reporters who have a skeptical eye, and who understand they can’t accept all they are told. The need to assess claims using industry experts without financial ties to the company or its investors. Reliance on industry analysts who have seen and heard it all before, and are not taken in by unsubstantiated claims.

Phil Baker is a product development expert, author and journalist covering consumer technology. He has developed scores of products for companies, including Apple, Seiko, Polaroid, Barnes & Noble, Polycom, Proxima, ThinkOutside and Pono Music. Baker is the author of “From Concept to Consumer,” a former columnist for the San Diego Transcript and founder of Techsperts, Inc. Follow him at Baker on Tech, and reach him @pbaker.

This article originally appeared on Recode.net.

The Samsung Galaxy 7 fiasco may have begun with a tiny mistake on the assembly line

2016-10-17T13:46:29-04:00

A version of this essay was originally published at Tech.pinions, a website dedicated to informed opinions, insight and perspective on the tech industry.

Those involved in the design and manufacture of hardware products understand that one of the most important phases of the process is testing. That’s the point when all of the assumptions that have been made need to be validated. The only way to do that is to build hundreds or thousands of units and subject them to a battery of tests. Even then, you might still find problems not anticipated once devices get into the hands of thousands of customers, but the goal is to be sure they are relatively minor.

The basic tests conducted include subjecting the products to a wide range of temperatures, humidity and physical abuse, including shock and vibration. The goal is to insure that the product performs the same before and after, and that the product remains intact and safe. Other tests include real-life user testing and measurements to insure that the product complies with regulatory requirements.

It’s puzzling that Samsung claimed it was able to identify the problem with the initial shipment, fix it, test it and ship a half-million replacement units in just two weeks.

The testing typically takes several months to perform properly by a large group of quality and manufacturing engineers. Companies have rooms full of test equipment, including large ovens, shake tables and fixtures that exercise buttons and switches millions of times to simulate actual use.

Yet, in the case of the Samsung Galaxy Note 7, it is puzzling that the company claimed it was able to identify the problem with the initial shipment, fix it, test it and ship a half-million replacement units in just two weeks. That just doesn’t compute, and apparently, that suspicion was verified by the failures of the second batch of units.

So now, it’s quite possible the problem might have been caused by another component that interacts with the battery, rather than the battery itself.

Testing of smartphones is particularly important because batteries pack a huge amount of energy into a small volume. They contain circuitry to prevent a runaway condition should the battery or charging circuitry fail or go out of spec. The batteries are custom made to fit into the allotted space. Often, several companies or divisions are involved: The company building the battery cells, the company packaging the battery and adding the circuitry and connector, and the company putting the battery into the phone.

But here’s another opportunity for error: The company doing the assembly may have assumed that the battery integrator has performed sufficient testing. I’ve found that communications and clear division of responsibility among companies are often a weak point.

Imagine a factory building 100,000 units a day, and you can see how a small error can have huge consequences.

Yet in spite of a product passing all of this testing and having a sound design, there’s another thing to be worried about: How well the product is manufactured on the assembly line. Most lines rely on the use of many workers who perform the assembly operations, and not on automated assembly using robotic equipment. Each operator has instructions and tools to do a job that varies from attaching a circuit board assembly to the chassis, positioning and screwing the display in, or soldering a large component in place.

But it’s not uncommon for an operator to make a mistake: Not tightening a screw sufficiently or shorting out a circuit. To minimize this, other operators are interspersed in the assembly line to test the partial assemblies, and then the completed product will go through some functional tests to insure that it’s working.

But mistakes do happen. One electronic product I was involved in had a screw that was not tightened sufficiently. With little effort, it came loose and rattled around inside the product. That could be catastrophic, because the metal screw could short out a battery or blow a circuit. In this instance, the line was building 2,000 units a day on two eight-hour shifts, and by the time the problem was discovered, 8,000 units were affected. It was traced to one operator on one shift who failed to tighten the screw, even though she had a calibrated screwdriver that should have prevented this. So one individual who might have been distracted or wasn’t sufficiently trained caused a massive problem that required thousands of units to be opened, fixed and reassembled.

Imagine a factory building 100,000 units a day, and you can see how a small error can have huge consequences, much like the analogy of a butterfly flapping its wings and causing a hurricane halfway across the globe.

This article originally appeared on Recode.net.

What am I missing about self-driving cars?

2016-12-12T16:16:53-05:00

Uber CEO Travis Kalanick recently announced that Uber would be adding self-driving cars this month, working to modify some Volvo vehicles. | Wang K'aichicn / Getty

A version of this essay was originally published at Tech.pinions, a website dedicated to informed opinions, insight and perspective on the tech industry.

It seems as though every automotive company — plus Uber and Lyft — is touting the imminent arrival of self-driving cars. In an interview with Bloomberg, CEO Travis Kalanick announced Uber would be adding self-driving cars this month, working to modify some Volvo vehicles. Ford’s CEO Mark Fields claims that his company will be offering self-driving cars soon, and Lyft and GM are rolling out a plan as well.

The automotive industry has been notoriously slow in adding innovation, often taking two or three years to make a minor change that could affect drivability, reliability or safety. Yet all of these companies are throwing caution aside and expecting to put thousands of cars on the streets and highways before there has been sufficient testing.

I am just astounded at how little work has been done by the companies planning to populate our streets with two-ton vehicles being controlled by software but with little testing.

Rarely does any product or technology come without unintended consequences. A recent fatal crash of a Tesla was attributed to the driver’s recklessness and relying too much on the car’s sensors, which apparently were blinded by the sun. Problems like this are to be expected. There are millions of combinations of traffic situations, interactions with objects in the road, bicyclists, pedestrians, the environment, human behavior and other diversions. It’s impossible for engineers to anticipate every situation. Engineering is imperfect, and design is only improved by identifying the issues, the corner cases and the missing assumptions, fixing them and then doing more testing.

Unlike other products, where a phone call might not go through or an app crashes, failures of self-driving cars are much different: People will die. It will take the testing of hundreds of vehicles for thousands of hours to refine and prove out the design. Compounding this is that there is not one standardized approach from which the industry learns from each participant and sets requirements for performance and testing.

Instead, we have dozens of companies, all taking their own approaches, with some relying on subcontractors, and all leading to a very confusing environment. Companies that have done their homework, such as Google, are unlikely to share their learning with companies it considers competitors.

And considering that we have companies like Uber (which has never developed hardware and likely has little understanding of hardware issues) putting cars on the road, we may have a disaster in the making. Uber in particular has not been a shining example of maximizing the safety of its customers, with its failure to do adequate vetting of its drivers, based on charges by the San Francisco District Attorney’s office.

Bringing on self-driving cars prematurely is the best way to kill a technology. Every incident, injury or death will be greatly magnified in the press and, even though the fatality rate might be much lower than conventional cars, it could kill the industry or severely slow it down before it gets started.

Don’t get me wrong. I think self-driving cars will be one of this century’s greatest technical achievements. But I am just astounded at how little work has been done by the companies planning to populate our streets with two-ton vehicles being controlled by software but little testing.

This article originally appeared on Recode.net.

Is a hardware product ever really ‘done’?

2016-07-15T10:00:08-04:00

Apple's major product line, the iPhone, has matured to a level that is so good that fewer and fewer owners find a need to replace it. | Stefan Heunis / AFP / Getty

A version of this essay was originally published at Tech.pinions, a website dedicated to informed opinions, insight and perspective on the tech industry.

We all know how software is never really “done.” There are always new updates to refine, fix and add another feature. But what about hardware? Are there some products that you can say are mature and need no more changes? That they are done, finished?

That’s not something we frequently encounter when it comes to high-tech products. We’ve lived in an environment of constant change and improvements, not only in the product but in all of its components. New computers were driven by faster processors, sharper displays and better batteries. When we’re in the midst of this for so many years, it’s hard to realize when it’s coming to an end.

The thought of a product being “done” occurred to me with smartphones. Clearly, they have become very mature. They’ve evolved through successive generations to be not only good enough, but so good that there’s essentially nothing left to do to make them much better.

Signs of maturity: When successive products are virtually identical, require a long explanation to describe what’s changed, or when the focus is on new colors or more memory.

That’s contrary to how we’ve grown up with technology. There’s always something more to add, to fix, to improve. But there are signs that this may no longer be the case and, like a refrigerator or dishwasher, or the more closely related personal navigator device (PND), the need to upgrade is more dependent on when the product wears out and becomes too expensive to fix.

What are those signs of maturity? When successive products are virtually identical, requiring a long explanation to describe what’s changed, or when the focus is on new colors or more memory. Or when the manufacturers start cutting prices to stimulate sales. The personal navigation devices category reached that point several years ago — devices that used to sell for up to $500 can now be bought for under $100.

Take Samsung Galaxy phones as an example. The differences between the S5, S6 and S7 models are mostly cosmetic, such as adding curved edges to their display and performing minor tweaks. In the case of the iPhone, the change made to the 6s series from the 6 series was adding a second level of touch to the display that offers minimal benefits. From all indications, the next generation will have only minor changes, as well.

What are other signs of maturity? The processors and displays become so good that further modifications bring no real benefits. Companies need to spend more time to explain what’s new. Minor improvements are hyped and exaggerated. New models differ only in cosmetics or new industrial design.

The challenge for Apple is to come up with something so compelling we will all want to buy the new product. For me, it would be a battery with twice the life, or a drop-proof, waterproof phone.

So what does a company that’s steeped in hardware innovation do when its major product line has reached this state? That’s clearly a predicament for companies such as Apple and Samsung, where each has come to depend on their customers buying in short one- or two-year cycles. Samsung has many other businesses to rely on and grow: Flat-screen TVs, appliances and a robust component business selling memory and processors. Apple has a bigger challenge because it has only a handful of other products, none with the impact of the iPhone.

The answer is, there is little that Apple can do to make the same impact as before. They need to find another product category that can pick up the slack, or dramatically change the phone entirely. Or reduce the price to attract those who could not afford it at the current cost. That’s a predicament. Its major product line, amounting to about 80 percent of its revenue, has matured to a level that is so good, fewer and fewer owners find a need to replace it.

Replacing the phone or any hardware device these days has also become anathema to those sensitive to the environment, a growing part of the population. It’s better to keep your product longer — whether it’s a phone or a car — rather than add to the junkyards and the recycling of electronic waste. For these, it’s wiser to stick with the old than show off the new.

So the challenge for Apple is to come up with something so compelling we will all want to buy the new product. Do we think its possible?

For me, it would be a battery with twice the life, or a drop-proof, waterproof phone. Nothing else would do it, except perhaps a major redefinition of what a smartphone is. What would it take for you to upgrade to a new model?

Phil Baker is a product development expert, author and journalist covering consumer technology. He has developed scores of products for companies, including Apple, Seiko, Polaroid, Barnes & Noble, Polycom, Proxima, ThinkOutside and Pono Music. Baker is the author of “From Concept to Consumer,” a former columnist for the San Diego Transcript and founder of Techsperts Inc. Follow him at Baker on Tech, and reach him @pbaker.

This article originally appeared on Recode.net.

Apple and the expectation of perfection

2016-06-14T07:00:08-04:00

Fantastical is a new third-party calendar app for Apple Watch, made by Flexibits. | Flexibits

A version of this essay was originally published at Tech.pinions, a website dedicated to informed opinions, insight and perspective on the tech industry.

Last week, I turned on my computer and was greeted by an email message from Apple saying my account was locked and I needed to reset my password. While resetting was simple, over the next two days I was greeted with no less than two dozen requests to enter my password on my iPhone, iPad and MacBook. Sometimes they took, other times they didn’t. I needed to enter the password for email, iCloud, my calendar and numerous other apps.

This seemed so unlike the Apple experiences I’m used to. No reason was given for why the account was locked, and I was surprised that Apple required repeated sign-ins for accounts all linked together with the same password. If this were my Windows computer, I’d probably just dismiss it as another problem with Windows 10. But Apple?

Apple has done such a good job of setting the standards for excellence that, when it falters, we are quick to criticize. But it’s not because most of us just want to be critical. It’s because we want Apple to continue to excel, and because Apple has set our expectations so high.

While it may be more glamorous to invent an entirely new product, continuous improvement on existing products, even the mundane, is important.

This event has been symptomatic with other recent experiences with Apple products, particularly in keeping them competitive. It seems that once the company gets a product released and the bugs addressed, the teams go off to do other things. While it may be more glamorous to invent an entirely new product, continuous improvement on existing products, even the mundane, is important.

I recently reviewed Fantastical, a calendar app from Flexibits that replaces the Calendar on all Apple’s platforms. It’s the product Apple should be doing, with a better interface and a “natural language” ability to enter appointments. Simply type in a phrase like, “lunch with Tim on Friday,” and the appointment is set. It also incorporates to-dos and reminders, something Apple has never adequately addressed.

Apple’s mail client has also failed to keep up with the competition. Many of us suffered for more than a year when Mail didn’t play nice with Gmail, causing email to take hours to retrieve and send. Apple blamed Google; yet other email apps, such as Postbox, worked just fine.

I’ve been enamored most recently with Email, an app for my iPhone that’s faster, can unsubscribe you from spam, and even lets you recall an email within a few seconds of sending. I’m also using Google’s new keyboard, which is far superior to Apple’s. Apple has failed to develop a good app for managing photos, giving up on Aperture and now offering iPhoto, which is mediocre compared to competitive offerings.

Now, maybe Apple intentionally decided that it can’t be the best in all areas and is allowing third parties to compete. But if that’s the case, it seems a major shift from the Apple of old that wanted to be the best at everything it does.

Apple has two choices: Get more aggressive in improving its own software or, better yet, be more aggressive in acquiring companies that have already proven what they can do.

Apple has been a master at using communicating and convincing us that it is different and special, even about the small stuff. I remember vividly the PR leading up to the Apple Watch where Jonny Ive raved about the winding stem of the watch, how precise, how special, how great it was. He expounded about the special aluminum and steel alloys used in the smartwatch’s cases. If these mundane details are training us to pay attention to things we might normally have ignored, what do they expect from us when they fail to meet our expectations elsewhere?

Apple has two choices. One is to get more aggressive in improving its own software. Study the competitive offerings and upgrade their own products. Or, better yet, be more aggressive in acquiring companies that have already proven what they can do.

Every time I use the mapping app Waze, I wonder why Google acquired it rather than Apple, particularly when Apple Maps has been so troublesome. It wasn’t due to a lack of money. Perhaps there’s a feeling within Apple that it can do everything better on its own. But evidence shows more and more that this is not the case.

This article originally appeared on Recode.net.

Hardware upgrades offer new opportunities

2016-05-20T12:00:10-04:00

Tesla will upgrade the battery in an owner’s $71,000 Model S70, using an over-the-air update to activate an additional battery built into the car. | ChinaFotoPress/Getty Images

A version of this essay was originally published at Tech.pinions, a website dedicated to informed opinions, insight and perspective on the tech industry.

Software upgrades are commonplace. We have them in apps, video games, computer software. Pay an additional amount, and the products can seamlessly acquire new capabilities.

Now there’s an equally seamless hardware upgrade: Tesla will upgrade the battery in an owner’s $71,000 Model S70. The owner pays an additional $3,250 for the company to do an over-the-air upgrade to activate an additional battery that’s built into the car. Once activated, the 240-mile-range electric vehicle increases to 260 miles, turning the car into a Model S75.

An over-the-air hardware update also allows Tesla to produce fewer variations of the car, simplify the design, and eliminate the labor and inconvenience of installing an upgraded battery.

No, they don’t teleport the battery over the air. It’s already built into the car. You might think Tesla shouldn’t charge extra for hardware that’s already there. But actually, it’s quite ingenious: A clever way for Tesla to sell their car at a slightly lower price, knowing they’ll recoup a profit from many of the buyers later on.

It also allows Tesla to produce fewer variations of the car, simplify the design, and eliminate the labor and inconvenience of installing an upgraded battery. But its biggest advantage might be customer satisfaction: Giving the owner a way to improve his driving distance with a phone call or tap on the display.

Is this the beginning of something new? Just imagine how hardware upgrades, or “in-hardware purchases” (IHP), might offer designers and marketers all sorts of new possibilities. A company could sell a phone or computer with built-in memory that can be expanded with an online purchase. Cameras could have features turned on for an extra charge, such as increased resolution or a wider zoom range. Tablets and computers could have built-in cellular modems in all of their models. An over-the-air purchase would turn on the cell service.

Yes, these add costs to the bill of materials, but that’s offset by simplifying the supply chain, reducing inventory and shortening the buying decisions. Additionally, the new revenue stream of after-sale purchases provides a competitive advantage and customer convenience.

There’s also a precedent for Tesla’s IHP. GM cars offer OnStar, which, when activated, turns on a built-in cellular modem to connect and make calls. There are probably numerous other examples that we’ve just not noticed.

Appliances such as refrigerators, washers, dryers and HDTVs could come with a built-in computer, display, speakers or an Echo-like device activated as an option by the customer.

Building in extra hardware that can be enabled after the purchase can not only be done for making a new sale, but also to improve performance. The Chevy Volt is powered by a battery that typically needs to be recharged five to seven times per week, depending on the owner’s driving habits. But, just as they do on our phones and computers, Li-Ion batteries deteriorate after successive charges. Chevy solves this issue by only using 10kWh of the Volt’s 16.5kWh battery capacity. This allows the car to maintain the same driving range on the battery, even as it degrades with use. As the battery’s capacity diminishes, more cells are turned on, maintaining the same performance for the life of the car.

Imagine if Apple or Samsung did this with their phones. Instead of a battery needing to be replaced after two or years, just turn on a spare cell to maintain the original performance.

But IHP applies to more than just tech hardware. Several trends are at work that make hardware upgrades more practical. More devices are connected than ever, particularly in the IoT area, and the cost of hardware is falling, with computers-on-a-chip costing under $10 and large displays not much more; tablets cost as little as $25.

Companies need new sources of revenues after the initial purchase, beyond just offering an extended warranty. Appliances such as refrigerators, washers, dryers and HDTVs could come with a built-in computer, display, speakers or an Echo-like device activated as an option by the customer. That provides an aftermarket sale direct to the manufacturer, plus the option of recurring revenue.

The opportunities are endless, and only subject to the imagination of engineers and marketers.

This article originally appeared on Recode.net.

Phil Baker | Vox

Deception on the internet is nothing new, but you’re right, it is getting worse

With Walt Mossberg retiring, let’s review the tech reviewers

We think technology can solve the world’s problems, but it can’t even stop robocalling

Apple may have already lost the battle to Google for a new generation of students

Subscribe to the Recode Newsletter

We’ve had fake news, fake science — and now, ‘fake tech’

The Samsung Galaxy 7 fiasco may have begun with a tiny mistake on the assembly line

What am I missing about self-driving cars?

Is a hardware product ever really ‘done’?

Apple and the expectation of perfection

Hardware upgrades offer new opportunities