Tuesday 13 July 2010
Tributes to XKCD
I've been a fan of the web comic XKCD for quite a while. Unfortunately as I did not have the required social skills to do computer science at university I often feel left out from some of the strips that hinge on computer geekery, my own specialisation being in aerospace engineering. That's why a year or two ago I found the need to translate a couple of the better known XKCD icons into engineering language.
A t-shirt I should get made
Why all engineers love running an ANSYS simulation
Thursday 8 July 2010
iPhone 4 antenna
There has been a lot said about the iPhone 4 and its antenna recently. As someone who has recently acquired one of these phones I feel that I should write a little bit about this issue and what I have experienced in the first week of using it.
For those of you who aren’t aware of this issue, the iPhone 4 uses parts of the metal band around the phone as its antenna. The story goes that if it is held in the left hand one of the gaps is bridged de-tuning the antenna and causing the phone to lose signal and drops calls. Not good.
The first thing I should say is that I was well aware of this antenna issue when I ordered the phone, who wouldn’t be with all the words flying on the internet, and in truth I was completely prepared for it to be a major issue. Why did I go ahead and buy it anyway? Well, after being absolutely delighted with my iPhone 3G, the first Apple product I ever bought after a previous eternal scepticism about all things Apple, I was quite keen on the idea of an upgrade, especially in light of all the new features the phone offered. Above all though, I have always kept my iPhone 3G in a case and had been expecting to get one for the replacement anyway, so embarrassing for Apple as it may be, the antenna was always going to be a non-issue for me.
Anyway, I got the phone home, plugged it in, and laboriously transferred everything across from my previous phone (I think I had to click the mouse twice). With my new phone set up to be exactly like my previous phone, I unplugged and had a play.
The phone was showing 4 bars of signal so, curious, I tried clamping my hand over the infamous gap in the steel band on the lower left hand corner of the phone. It took a few seconds, but yes the reported signal strength steadily dropped from four bars down to just one. I took my hand off and sure enough, the indicator rose steadily back up to 4 bars.
Next I switched on the speed test app, a useful device for testing just how much our broadband company are overselling their pitiful broadband services, and with the wi-fi turned off sure enough I saw a dramatic difference in speeds depending on whether my hand was on the device. Videos of both of these effects are of course all over the net, so my phone clearly isn’t unusual.
Oh well, I thought, time to buy a case.
Or was it? As I didn’t feel like spending the extra £5 on postage ordering online a case that was already overpriced - sadly the true for all mobile phone cases. I decided to wait and just buy one the next time I was near an Apple store. As a result of this I have found myself using my iPhone au naturel so to speak for the last week, and this is where the plot thickens.
The odd thing is that the apparent reporting of the “bars” and speed test app doesn’t seem to reflect itself in the way the rest of the phone works. Where I’m sat right now speed test actually times out and reads big fat zeroes for both upload and download speeds when my hand is in the wrong place. However, safari still happily loads web pages, facebook works absolutely fine, texts still transmit, and I’ve had absolutely no trouble at all with the phone dropping calls.
The other weird thing is that no matter what the signal to start with, strong or weak, bridging the gap never seems to cut off the signal.
Now, it seems to me that something is definitely happening when the gap in the antenna band is bridged, there can be no doubt about that, but what? Is it really as crippling as some people would have me think? Apparently not. Apple have of course come out with their usual propaganda saying that this is just a software issue relating to how the “bars” are calculated. “Bars” do not really exist and they are just arbitrarily calculated by the phone’s software to show when signal strength is, say, between 0% and 15%; the range 15%-100% all being “5 bars”. I’m sure that there is an element of truth in this, but it doesn’t explain everything; the speed test results for example.
What this all has to boil down to is my experience of actually using an iPhone 4 for the last week, and that has been very unlike what the all the internet hype would seem to suggest. Of course, the Apple-haters have been all too happy to dance in delight that Apple finally made a real mistake for them to talk about, the media have all covered this story, and there have been anecdotes all over the internet. I, however, fail to see what all the fuss is about. I am actually holding one of these things in my hand and it is working well.
The iPhone 4 is an awesome piece of kit and I am really enjoying owning one.
To make my point, I have posted this blog entry from my iPhone 4, over the phone network, with my hand firmly clamped over the gap in the antenna.
For those of you who aren’t aware of this issue, the iPhone 4 uses parts of the metal band around the phone as its antenna. The story goes that if it is held in the left hand one of the gaps is bridged de-tuning the antenna and causing the phone to lose signal and drops calls. Not good.
The first thing I should say is that I was well aware of this antenna issue when I ordered the phone, who wouldn’t be with all the words flying on the internet, and in truth I was completely prepared for it to be a major issue. Why did I go ahead and buy it anyway? Well, after being absolutely delighted with my iPhone 3G, the first Apple product I ever bought after a previous eternal scepticism about all things Apple, I was quite keen on the idea of an upgrade, especially in light of all the new features the phone offered. Above all though, I have always kept my iPhone 3G in a case and had been expecting to get one for the replacement anyway, so embarrassing for Apple as it may be, the antenna was always going to be a non-issue for me.
Anyway, I got the phone home, plugged it in, and laboriously transferred everything across from my previous phone (I think I had to click the mouse twice). With my new phone set up to be exactly like my previous phone, I unplugged and had a play.
The phone was showing 4 bars of signal so, curious, I tried clamping my hand over the infamous gap in the steel band on the lower left hand corner of the phone. It took a few seconds, but yes the reported signal strength steadily dropped from four bars down to just one. I took my hand off and sure enough, the indicator rose steadily back up to 4 bars.
Next I switched on the speed test app, a useful device for testing just how much our broadband company are overselling their pitiful broadband services, and with the wi-fi turned off sure enough I saw a dramatic difference in speeds depending on whether my hand was on the device. Videos of both of these effects are of course all over the net, so my phone clearly isn’t unusual.
Oh well, I thought, time to buy a case.
Or was it? As I didn’t feel like spending the extra £5 on postage ordering online a case that was already overpriced - sadly the true for all mobile phone cases. I decided to wait and just buy one the next time I was near an Apple store. As a result of this I have found myself using my iPhone au naturel so to speak for the last week, and this is where the plot thickens.
The odd thing is that the apparent reporting of the “bars” and speed test app doesn’t seem to reflect itself in the way the rest of the phone works. Where I’m sat right now speed test actually times out and reads big fat zeroes for both upload and download speeds when my hand is in the wrong place. However, safari still happily loads web pages, facebook works absolutely fine, texts still transmit, and I’ve had absolutely no trouble at all with the phone dropping calls.
The other weird thing is that no matter what the signal to start with, strong or weak, bridging the gap never seems to cut off the signal.
Now, it seems to me that something is definitely happening when the gap in the antenna band is bridged, there can be no doubt about that, but what? Is it really as crippling as some people would have me think? Apparently not. Apple have of course come out with their usual propaganda saying that this is just a software issue relating to how the “bars” are calculated. “Bars” do not really exist and they are just arbitrarily calculated by the phone’s software to show when signal strength is, say, between 0% and 15%; the range 15%-100% all being “5 bars”. I’m sure that there is an element of truth in this, but it doesn’t explain everything; the speed test results for example.
What this all has to boil down to is my experience of actually using an iPhone 4 for the last week, and that has been very unlike what the all the internet hype would seem to suggest. Of course, the Apple-haters have been all too happy to dance in delight that Apple finally made a real mistake for them to talk about, the media have all covered this story, and there have been anecdotes all over the internet. I, however, fail to see what all the fuss is about. I am actually holding one of these things in my hand and it is working well.
The iPhone 4 is an awesome piece of kit and I am really enjoying owning one.
To make my point, I have posted this blog entry from my iPhone 4, over the phone network, with my hand firmly clamped over the gap in the antenna.
Monday 21 June 2010
Coast to Coast '10
Holiday time! Once again this year our summer holiday has been cycle touring. Just a week this year, so we planned a route across the spine of the UK that took in all the best of Cumbria, Northumberland and the Scottish Borders. We started at Windermere, made our way west to the coast at St Bees, then headed east and north taking in Bassenthwaite Lake, Hadrian's Wall, Kielder Water, Berwick-upon-Tweed and Lindisfarne Island on the East coast.
Over 6 days of cycling we covered over 300 road miles. We also took a day off to walk the wall from Housesteads fort all the way to The Twice Brewed Inn and then the museum at Vindolanda. All in all an excellent holiday!
Yours truly posing on the beach at St Bees
Rosie setting the pace on one of the quiet back roads we took to climb out of the Lake District
Rosie poses on Hadrian's wall
Arriving to find queuing traffic at Lindisfarne Causeway
Lindisfarne Mead!
I can definitely recommend cycle touring as the best way to truly experience the places you visit. During this holiday I lost count of the number of people who, when we showed up on our bikes, wanted to know where our car was. So many people are so dependant on their cars, and yet I find that travelling these sorts of distances without one is a very liberating experience.
Now, where we will be cycling next summer?
Over 6 days of cycling we covered over 300 road miles. We also took a day off to walk the wall from Housesteads fort all the way to The Twice Brewed Inn and then the museum at Vindolanda. All in all an excellent holiday!
I can definitely recommend cycle touring as the best way to truly experience the places you visit. During this holiday I lost count of the number of people who, when we showed up on our bikes, wanted to know where our car was. So many people are so dependant on their cars, and yet I find that travelling these sorts of distances without one is a very liberating experience.
Now, where we will be cycling next summer?
Tuesday 13 April 2010
The evils of the iPhone
As my friends will doubtless be able to testify to I am a big fan of the iPhone. Being a fan of the iPhone often leaves one open to accusations of being a fanboy who has been duped into buying something that is over-hyped, and of course inevitably leads to lectures on the evils of the iPhone. Here are the common arguments, and my answers to them.
1. "The iPhone doesn't run flash."
Only people who don't own an iPhone seem to think this is a problem. I guess if you wanted to access video sites like YouTube, Veoh, BBC iPlayer... oh wait, no, those all work on the iPhone, either through a free app or a non-flash mobile page.
There are flash games on the internet, true, but by the nature of flash none of those are really designed for a touch screen interface or to be viewed on a mobile phone screen anyway. Why not just spend 50p on a decent game that actually fits the screen and uses the phone's accelerometers and multi-touch interface? There are also free games in the app store if you don't mind the odd advert - just like flash game websites.
After videos and games the only thing left is those annoying flickering adverts. Oh no! My phone browser won't display them!
Flash is not an open standard anyway, it is closed and owned by Adobe. The iPhone does support and run all the common open standards for video and other web content like MPEG, Java, HTML5, etc. It is in Apple's interest, as a minority player in computing, to promote such universal standards.
2. "The iPhone is chained to iTunes."
I think the iPhone is best thought of as an iPod that's also a phone. This is because all of the data resides on the parent computer, and is synchronized when the phone is connected to it. This makes it very easy to choose what content is on the phone and automates the whole process. Music (with cover artwork), video, pictures, applications, calendars, contact details, notes, basically everything on the phone, is backed up and copied across with minimal effort.
There are some huge advantages to this philosophy. For example, new podcast episodes are automatically added and old ones deleted. If you lose or wipe your phone you haven't lost your data.
Software updates also come through iTunes and are installed with just a click.
In my opinion the iTunes connection is a good thing.
3. "There's no way to manage files on the iPhone."
You don't have to manage files on the iPhone because everything is done automatically; this saves hours of faffing. Why do you want to waste your time pushing all your jpegs and mp3s around into folders? With the iPhone you just tick what folders you want to sync in iTunes and press go.
4. "But I want to use my phone as a mobile disk. The iPhone is useless because it won't let me do that."
Okay, so you want to carry around a USB cable around with you just in case you want to plug your phone into any computer you want to get files off? What's wrong with a flash memory stick? I have one, cost me £20, very small, lives in my wallet. Much easier.
5. "The iPhone has no removable storage."
I have had had several phones with removable storage cards. Such phones inevitably come with cheap, low capacity, memory cards which admittedly makes the phone seem cheaper to buy. Having subsequently bought a high capacity card for such phones I have never once changed the card from then on - because all the phone's files are on it! I do not not know anybody who has changed cards in mid use.
Most anti-iPhoners argue that they want "the option" to remove the storage. Most do not use this option on their existing phones where it does exist, and those that do are a tiny minority of phone users.
The iPhone's memory is built in and cannot be changed. This means that there is no confusion as to where, say, application and music files are. The easy sync with iTunes wouldn't work if the phone's memory could be changed during use, so I think losing the ability to remove the storage is quite an acceptable tradeoff.
6. "The iPhone has no removable battery."
The iPhone's battery is built in and cannot be removed. Here, again, we are into the "I want the option" territory. I have been told by people that they want "the option" to pop a couple of spare batteries in their bag if they're going on holiday - presumably to antarctica where there are no wall or car cigarette lighter sockets.
I have never met anybody who owns spare batteries for their phone, or indeed carries around spare phone batteries with them. I certainly never have either. It's an option that nobody ever really uses. Don't forget that making things like batteries and memory removable also requires infrastructure inside the phone making it heavier and bulkier for the same level of performance. In my opinion Apple have made a good tradeoff.
For that tiny minority of people who do want to be able to top up their phone on the go there are relatively compact external battery packs available for the iPhone that will charge it up again several times. Apple, or several 3rd parties, also offer the service of replacing worn out internal batteries if that's ever needed.
7. "The iPhone cannot multitask."
Every iPhone from day one has been able to multitask. The OS is constantly managing wireless connections, checking email, running alarms, calendars, etc. It can also play the iPod app's music in the background. What's that if not multitasking?!
What anti-iPhoners mean when they say the iPhone "can't multitask" is that up until now the iPhone has been unable to run multiple third party applications concurrently. The trouble with running multiple applications at the same time on a phone is that it runs the battery down very quickly and can impact on performance of the foreground application. Multitasking is easy to implement but it's very difficult to do this well.
Apple's solution until now has been to restrict the phone to running one 3rd party application at a time - there is, after all, only one small screen anyway. iPhone OS4, which will be released this summer, will allow 3rd party apps to run in the background and in a much more efficient way than on any other phone operating system. We will then hopefully cease to hear whinging about the iPhone's lack of true multitasking.
8. "But I want to run a messenger app or facebook in the background."
Apple's solution to the most common multitasking problem, ie wanting to have something like MSN or facebook in the background, is actually a much more elegant solution than simply running the app on the phone.
Run a messanger app or facebook feed application on a phone that does support multitasking and that application will be running on the phone, periodically contacting the server to see if there's new information. This all uses power.
The iPhone has something called the "push notification server", which is provided by Apple as part of the app store and doesn't require any tinkering to set up. It is possible to close the messenger app on the phone completely, whilst instead the server, not the phone, stays logged in to the messenger service. If anyone sends a message to the user, the server receives it and then pushes it as a notification to the phone telling the user that there is a message waiting. The user then fires up the messenger app, which takes all of about 2 seconds, reads the full message, and can answer. This means the user can be online continuously with barely any use of power or processing power. I think it's a much better way of doing things!
9. "The iPhone is expensive."
Fair. You get what you pay for though. It's not much more expensive than the Google Android equivalent phones - the Nexus One or HTC desire, especially after you've also bought a sensibly sized memory card.
10. "The iPhone will only take applications from the Apple app store. This is a bad thing and kills bunnies."
Yes, without jailbreaking at least, the iPhone will only run applications from the app store. This restricts the unfortunate iPhone user to the mere 185,000 apps that Apple have approved.
There are plenty of good things about the app store. It is a highly effective distribution system that allows professional and amateur application developers to write and distribute software easily and get paid for their efforts. It also means that theoretically none of the programs that one can legitimately download and run on an iPhone is going to do anything Malicious as they've all been checked and approved.
Perhaps in principle Apple's monopoly of iPhone software through the app store is not 100% good and perhaps in time users will be able to get iPhone software from other sources. This is not, however, an issue that manifests itself to the man in a street holding an iPhone.
10. "The iPhone is made by Apple. Apple = bad."
This is really the usual argument being put forward, if under the guise of one or more of the above, and the most likely reason why any true anti-iPhoner will not be swayed by what I've written.
Apple = bad. Playing in a loop inside their heads.
This is why, to them, the iPhone is a totally flawed concept, but the Nexus One or HTC desire are the best thing since sliced bread. (Err, it's the same form factor and the same interface guys!)
Apple are a company. They are interested in selling their products and increasing their market share. So are Microsoft, Google, Adobe, Dell, HTC and indeed any other company that makes computer software or hardware. Any company behaves in ways that are both "good" and "bad" to the outsider's eyes. What really matters is what the product does and how well it does it.
Apple believe in vertical integration - their software running on their hardware - and they believe in selling products that are of the best quality and targeted at the average user, priced accordingly. That's their niche in the market. If their products are "locked down" it's not out of some huge conspiracy it's simply because doing so makes them more suited to the people they are designed for.
These conspiracy theories are often wild and illogical anyway. For example I've heard people claim that Apple are "anti-developer", which is presumably why the full suite of software development tools for OS.X and iPhone are available for free from their website!
The average motorist doesn't want to have to strip down and clean their engine very 1,000 miles. That's the final word here; the iPhone isn't designed for a geeky minority who enjoy opening up the bonnet and tinkering with every aspect of their techno-toys, it is designed for the majority of users who want something that does awesome things without that fuss.
In conclusion
There is no doubt that the iPhone was and still is a game changing device. It has set the bar for a new generation of smart phones and brought many new technologies to the marketplace. I am glad that there are imitators like the Nexus One out there because it provides the incentive for Apple to innovate as they continue to evolve the iPhone concept.
There are many myths about the iPhone perpetuated by a very small but vocal minority of technophiles, mostly born from the discord stemming from the fact that the iPhone isn't really designed for them. This wouldn't be a problem if it wasn't for the way in which people who are not hugely technologically savvy will tend to listen to such people and, whilst not understanding the myths, get a bad feeling about the iPhone and be discouraged from getting something that is incredibly sound and better suited to them.
At the end of the day the iPhone is a superb, highly capable, easy to use, and incredibly reliable device. I wish that the nay-sayers would at least acknowledge that, even if they don't think it is for them, but I guess that's just wishful thinking on my part.
1. "The iPhone doesn't run flash."
Only people who don't own an iPhone seem to think this is a problem. I guess if you wanted to access video sites like YouTube, Veoh, BBC iPlayer... oh wait, no, those all work on the iPhone, either through a free app or a non-flash mobile page.
There are flash games on the internet, true, but by the nature of flash none of those are really designed for a touch screen interface or to be viewed on a mobile phone screen anyway. Why not just spend 50p on a decent game that actually fits the screen and uses the phone's accelerometers and multi-touch interface? There are also free games in the app store if you don't mind the odd advert - just like flash game websites.
After videos and games the only thing left is those annoying flickering adverts. Oh no! My phone browser won't display them!
Flash is not an open standard anyway, it is closed and owned by Adobe. The iPhone does support and run all the common open standards for video and other web content like MPEG, Java, HTML5, etc. It is in Apple's interest, as a minority player in computing, to promote such universal standards.
2. "The iPhone is chained to iTunes."
I think the iPhone is best thought of as an iPod that's also a phone. This is because all of the data resides on the parent computer, and is synchronized when the phone is connected to it. This makes it very easy to choose what content is on the phone and automates the whole process. Music (with cover artwork), video, pictures, applications, calendars, contact details, notes, basically everything on the phone, is backed up and copied across with minimal effort.
There are some huge advantages to this philosophy. For example, new podcast episodes are automatically added and old ones deleted. If you lose or wipe your phone you haven't lost your data.
Software updates also come through iTunes and are installed with just a click.
In my opinion the iTunes connection is a good thing.
3. "There's no way to manage files on the iPhone."
You don't have to manage files on the iPhone because everything is done automatically; this saves hours of faffing. Why do you want to waste your time pushing all your jpegs and mp3s around into folders? With the iPhone you just tick what folders you want to sync in iTunes and press go.
4. "But I want to use my phone as a mobile disk. The iPhone is useless because it won't let me do that."
Okay, so you want to carry around a USB cable around with you just in case you want to plug your phone into any computer you want to get files off? What's wrong with a flash memory stick? I have one, cost me £20, very small, lives in my wallet. Much easier.
5. "The iPhone has no removable storage."
I have had had several phones with removable storage cards. Such phones inevitably come with cheap, low capacity, memory cards which admittedly makes the phone seem cheaper to buy. Having subsequently bought a high capacity card for such phones I have never once changed the card from then on - because all the phone's files are on it! I do not not know anybody who has changed cards in mid use.
Most anti-iPhoners argue that they want "the option" to remove the storage. Most do not use this option on their existing phones where it does exist, and those that do are a tiny minority of phone users.
The iPhone's memory is built in and cannot be changed. This means that there is no confusion as to where, say, application and music files are. The easy sync with iTunes wouldn't work if the phone's memory could be changed during use, so I think losing the ability to remove the storage is quite an acceptable tradeoff.
6. "The iPhone has no removable battery."
The iPhone's battery is built in and cannot be removed. Here, again, we are into the "I want the option" territory. I have been told by people that they want "the option" to pop a couple of spare batteries in their bag if they're going on holiday - presumably to antarctica where there are no wall or car cigarette lighter sockets.
I have never met anybody who owns spare batteries for their phone, or indeed carries around spare phone batteries with them. I certainly never have either. It's an option that nobody ever really uses. Don't forget that making things like batteries and memory removable also requires infrastructure inside the phone making it heavier and bulkier for the same level of performance. In my opinion Apple have made a good tradeoff.
For that tiny minority of people who do want to be able to top up their phone on the go there are relatively compact external battery packs available for the iPhone that will charge it up again several times. Apple, or several 3rd parties, also offer the service of replacing worn out internal batteries if that's ever needed.
7. "The iPhone cannot multitask."
Every iPhone from day one has been able to multitask. The OS is constantly managing wireless connections, checking email, running alarms, calendars, etc. It can also play the iPod app's music in the background. What's that if not multitasking?!
What anti-iPhoners mean when they say the iPhone "can't multitask" is that up until now the iPhone has been unable to run multiple third party applications concurrently. The trouble with running multiple applications at the same time on a phone is that it runs the battery down very quickly and can impact on performance of the foreground application. Multitasking is easy to implement but it's very difficult to do this well.
Apple's solution until now has been to restrict the phone to running one 3rd party application at a time - there is, after all, only one small screen anyway. iPhone OS4, which will be released this summer, will allow 3rd party apps to run in the background and in a much more efficient way than on any other phone operating system. We will then hopefully cease to hear whinging about the iPhone's lack of true multitasking.
8. "But I want to run a messenger app or facebook in the background."
Apple's solution to the most common multitasking problem, ie wanting to have something like MSN or facebook in the background, is actually a much more elegant solution than simply running the app on the phone.
Run a messanger app or facebook feed application on a phone that does support multitasking and that application will be running on the phone, periodically contacting the server to see if there's new information. This all uses power.
The iPhone has something called the "push notification server", which is provided by Apple as part of the app store and doesn't require any tinkering to set up. It is possible to close the messenger app on the phone completely, whilst instead the server, not the phone, stays logged in to the messenger service. If anyone sends a message to the user, the server receives it and then pushes it as a notification to the phone telling the user that there is a message waiting. The user then fires up the messenger app, which takes all of about 2 seconds, reads the full message, and can answer. This means the user can be online continuously with barely any use of power or processing power. I think it's a much better way of doing things!
9. "The iPhone is expensive."
Fair. You get what you pay for though. It's not much more expensive than the Google Android equivalent phones - the Nexus One or HTC desire, especially after you've also bought a sensibly sized memory card.
10. "The iPhone will only take applications from the Apple app store. This is a bad thing and kills bunnies."
Yes, without jailbreaking at least, the iPhone will only run applications from the app store. This restricts the unfortunate iPhone user to the mere 185,000 apps that Apple have approved.
There are plenty of good things about the app store. It is a highly effective distribution system that allows professional and amateur application developers to write and distribute software easily and get paid for their efforts. It also means that theoretically none of the programs that one can legitimately download and run on an iPhone is going to do anything Malicious as they've all been checked and approved.
Perhaps in principle Apple's monopoly of iPhone software through the app store is not 100% good and perhaps in time users will be able to get iPhone software from other sources. This is not, however, an issue that manifests itself to the man in a street holding an iPhone.
10. "The iPhone is made by Apple. Apple = bad."
This is really the usual argument being put forward, if under the guise of one or more of the above, and the most likely reason why any true anti-iPhoner will not be swayed by what I've written.
Apple = bad. Playing in a loop inside their heads.
This is why, to them, the iPhone is a totally flawed concept, but the Nexus One or HTC desire are the best thing since sliced bread. (Err, it's the same form factor and the same interface guys!)
Apple are a company. They are interested in selling their products and increasing their market share. So are Microsoft, Google, Adobe, Dell, HTC and indeed any other company that makes computer software or hardware. Any company behaves in ways that are both "good" and "bad" to the outsider's eyes. What really matters is what the product does and how well it does it.
Apple believe in vertical integration - their software running on their hardware - and they believe in selling products that are of the best quality and targeted at the average user, priced accordingly. That's their niche in the market. If their products are "locked down" it's not out of some huge conspiracy it's simply because doing so makes them more suited to the people they are designed for.
These conspiracy theories are often wild and illogical anyway. For example I've heard people claim that Apple are "anti-developer", which is presumably why the full suite of software development tools for OS.X and iPhone are available for free from their website!
The average motorist doesn't want to have to strip down and clean their engine very 1,000 miles. That's the final word here; the iPhone isn't designed for a geeky minority who enjoy opening up the bonnet and tinkering with every aspect of their techno-toys, it is designed for the majority of users who want something that does awesome things without that fuss.
In conclusion
There is no doubt that the iPhone was and still is a game changing device. It has set the bar for a new generation of smart phones and brought many new technologies to the marketplace. I am glad that there are imitators like the Nexus One out there because it provides the incentive for Apple to innovate as they continue to evolve the iPhone concept.
There are many myths about the iPhone perpetuated by a very small but vocal minority of technophiles, mostly born from the discord stemming from the fact that the iPhone isn't really designed for them. This wouldn't be a problem if it wasn't for the way in which people who are not hugely technologically savvy will tend to listen to such people and, whilst not understanding the myths, get a bad feeling about the iPhone and be discouraged from getting something that is incredibly sound and better suited to them.
At the end of the day the iPhone is a superb, highly capable, easy to use, and incredibly reliable device. I wish that the nay-sayers would at least acknowledge that, even if they don't think it is for them, but I guess that's just wishful thinking on my part.
Portmoak '10
Once again Rosie and I have spent a week up in Scotland doing some rather enjoyable gliding and other shenanigans. The Scottish Gliding Club at Portmoak were once again very graceful hosts to the universities easter soaring week, and a good time was had by all.
My pictures from the week are in my web gallery here.
My pictures from the week are in my web gallery here.
Thursday 18 March 2010
Leaves
I heard today about Nissan's recent foray into the world of electric cars. This is the Nissan "Leaf", an all-electric car.
I have trouble thinking of a more wishy-washy eco-hippy sounding name than "Leaf". It's not even a good acronym; apparently LEAF stands for Leading Environmentally friendly Affordable Family car. Presumably the original plan was to call it the LEFAFC, and sell it in Poland.
I do not understand the point of this car, and I am speaking as a person who accepts the fact of man-made climate change.
The first thing is the range. I'm sure that, given it is electric, it will have good acceleration and regenerative braking, but the fact of the matter is that the quoted range provided by its lithium ion batteries is 160km - about 100 miles. This means that, if I wanted to get in one and drive to my parents house in Nottingham say I would not be able to make even that comparatively short trip of about 120 miles in one leg. I would have to find somewhere where I could plug in a cable to a 240-volt socket and wait 4 hours for the battery to charge, possibly a petrol station or convenience shop where the staff are either too bored or moronic to wonder why the lights in one of their display fridges have gone out.
I'm rather reminded of the rather optimistic claims that the manufacturers of my various mobile phones over the years have made regarding battery life. I have often wondered under what conditions they ever managed to get a phone to achieve those numbers, because I have never ever seen any phone match them, even when brand new. This is another concern; the batteries may achieve 100 miles when new, but what about after a couple of years?
I find myself thinking of the kind of back-up battery packs that one can buy for iPhones and wondering whether it'll be possible to buy a trailer with extra power packs. Perhaps you could get one with a diesel generator on it. Then you could boost your environmentally friendly car all the way to Scotland if you wanted!
This brings me to the whole "environmentally friendly" business. Let's be honest here, the best way to build an environmentally friendly car is not to get national grid electricity, in the UK over 60% of which is from burning fossil fuels, accept transmission losses between power station and the point of use, and then go through the terribly inefficient process of charging and then discharging the energy from a rechargeable battery. This is before considering all of the so-called "embedded carbon" in producing the batteries in the first place. You are not going to save the polar bears by buying a Leaf, far from it.
So what's this car for? Who is going to buy it? What are they going to use it for? The 100-mile range is suggested to be at city speeds, not motorway speeds, and so the implication is that this is supposed to be a "city car". So someone living in a city whose misguided sense of concern for the environment causes them to buy an "affordable" £20,000 electric city car is the prime candidate.
I have never understood the logic behind "city cars". Anyone who has heard me rant on the subject of cars might want to jump to the conclusion that I am one of those car-hating eco-mentalists. I do dislike cars to some extent, or rather what they do to the minds of the people behind the wheel, but my assertion has always been that cars have their place and that place is most definitely not the city. There is simply not the space to accommodate each individual person in their own car in cities, and when everybody tries to achieve this goal by driving into town en masse the roads get gridlocked, there's nowhere to park, pedestrians get knocked over, and the street environment is incredibly unpleasant.
This is the situation where it's best to just hop on public transport where there is no need for the stressful drive down congested roads nor the cost and inconvenience associated with finding and paying for a parking space. If you're the type of person who's set on going electric in the city in the name of the environment why not lobby for a metro, trams or trolley-buses where the power flows straight from the grid to the traction motors; it's much more efficient without this battery nonsense.
In any case, the fastest way to get around in cities is nearly always by bicycle. If you're going less than 5 miles there's no better way to beat the traffic and save the polar bears in the process if that's something you really care about. You can even smile and wave at all the motorists as they sit waiting in queues, steam coming out of their ears.
Both of these options are far more eco-friendly than a large battery-powered 5-door car weighing in at about 1.5 tonnes.
So it's not particularly good for the environment, it's not affordable (£20k?!), and it's no good for long journeys. What we have here is a car that is good for taking the whole family and sitting in urban traffic jams.
I rarely agree with Jeremy Clarkson on anything environmental but one thing he has said that I do agree with is this. If you want to cut your CO2 emissions, don't buy a new car, simply learn to drive the one you already have more efficiently. I would add my own comment that many journeys are actually much easier to make without using a car than the sort of person who drives everywhere by default would actually care to realise.
To be honest I think that this car fits into the same category as the Toyota Prius, which is that it's undoubtably excellent and cutting edge technology, but saying that it good for the environment is a bit of a gimmick to sell it to people who are far more environmentally conscientious than they are intelligent. Anyone who really wants to cut down their "carbon footprint" can make the biggest difference by living near where they work and dropping their mileage enormously in the process. This also has the effect over the course of a year of saving hundreds of hours of personal time and thousands of pounds, especially if one is within walking or cycling distance.
So here's to all you future leaf owners, what's important is that I know you mean well!
I'll start work on that battery-boost trailer, I'm sure there's a commercial opportunity there...
I have trouble thinking of a more wishy-washy eco-hippy sounding name than "Leaf". It's not even a good acronym; apparently LEAF stands for Leading Environmentally friendly Affordable Family car. Presumably the original plan was to call it the LEFAFC, and sell it in Poland.
I do not understand the point of this car, and I am speaking as a person who accepts the fact of man-made climate change.
The first thing is the range. I'm sure that, given it is electric, it will have good acceleration and regenerative braking, but the fact of the matter is that the quoted range provided by its lithium ion batteries is 160km - about 100 miles. This means that, if I wanted to get in one and drive to my parents house in Nottingham say I would not be able to make even that comparatively short trip of about 120 miles in one leg. I would have to find somewhere where I could plug in a cable to a 240-volt socket and wait 4 hours for the battery to charge, possibly a petrol station or convenience shop where the staff are either too bored or moronic to wonder why the lights in one of their display fridges have gone out.
I'm rather reminded of the rather optimistic claims that the manufacturers of my various mobile phones over the years have made regarding battery life. I have often wondered under what conditions they ever managed to get a phone to achieve those numbers, because I have never ever seen any phone match them, even when brand new. This is another concern; the batteries may achieve 100 miles when new, but what about after a couple of years?
I find myself thinking of the kind of back-up battery packs that one can buy for iPhones and wondering whether it'll be possible to buy a trailer with extra power packs. Perhaps you could get one with a diesel generator on it. Then you could boost your environmentally friendly car all the way to Scotland if you wanted!
This brings me to the whole "environmentally friendly" business. Let's be honest here, the best way to build an environmentally friendly car is not to get national grid electricity, in the UK over 60% of which is from burning fossil fuels, accept transmission losses between power station and the point of use, and then go through the terribly inefficient process of charging and then discharging the energy from a rechargeable battery. This is before considering all of the so-called "embedded carbon" in producing the batteries in the first place. You are not going to save the polar bears by buying a Leaf, far from it.
So what's this car for? Who is going to buy it? What are they going to use it for? The 100-mile range is suggested to be at city speeds, not motorway speeds, and so the implication is that this is supposed to be a "city car". So someone living in a city whose misguided sense of concern for the environment causes them to buy an "affordable" £20,000 electric city car is the prime candidate.
I have never understood the logic behind "city cars". Anyone who has heard me rant on the subject of cars might want to jump to the conclusion that I am one of those car-hating eco-mentalists. I do dislike cars to some extent, or rather what they do to the minds of the people behind the wheel, but my assertion has always been that cars have their place and that place is most definitely not the city. There is simply not the space to accommodate each individual person in their own car in cities, and when everybody tries to achieve this goal by driving into town en masse the roads get gridlocked, there's nowhere to park, pedestrians get knocked over, and the street environment is incredibly unpleasant.
This is the situation where it's best to just hop on public transport where there is no need for the stressful drive down congested roads nor the cost and inconvenience associated with finding and paying for a parking space. If you're the type of person who's set on going electric in the city in the name of the environment why not lobby for a metro, trams or trolley-buses where the power flows straight from the grid to the traction motors; it's much more efficient without this battery nonsense.
In any case, the fastest way to get around in cities is nearly always by bicycle. If you're going less than 5 miles there's no better way to beat the traffic and save the polar bears in the process if that's something you really care about. You can even smile and wave at all the motorists as they sit waiting in queues, steam coming out of their ears.
Both of these options are far more eco-friendly than a large battery-powered 5-door car weighing in at about 1.5 tonnes.
So it's not particularly good for the environment, it's not affordable (£20k?!), and it's no good for long journeys. What we have here is a car that is good for taking the whole family and sitting in urban traffic jams.
I rarely agree with Jeremy Clarkson on anything environmental but one thing he has said that I do agree with is this. If you want to cut your CO2 emissions, don't buy a new car, simply learn to drive the one you already have more efficiently. I would add my own comment that many journeys are actually much easier to make without using a car than the sort of person who drives everywhere by default would actually care to realise.
To be honest I think that this car fits into the same category as the Toyota Prius, which is that it's undoubtably excellent and cutting edge technology, but saying that it good for the environment is a bit of a gimmick to sell it to people who are far more environmentally conscientious than they are intelligent. Anyone who really wants to cut down their "carbon footprint" can make the biggest difference by living near where they work and dropping their mileage enormously in the process. This also has the effect over the course of a year of saving hundreds of hours of personal time and thousands of pounds, especially if one is within walking or cycling distance.
So here's to all you future leaf owners, what's important is that I know you mean well!
I'll start work on that battery-boost trailer, I'm sure there's a commercial opportunity there...
Wednesday 17 March 2010
Birdstrike!
Well now we've finished moving house I am quite happily back to a routine of cycling to and from work. To be honest it's a brilliant way to wake up in the morning, and of course it helps keep the weight off and makes me feel less guilty about the bacon and stilton panini for lunch at work.
The trouble is that I'm doing overtime at the moment, which means I am leaving work after dark and negotiating farm tracks. To be honest this is not nearly as bad as it sounds because the front light I currently have installed on Gertie blasts out an almost infeasible amount of light for a small box with 5 LEDs on the front. I can easily see well enough to follow the path and to brake or avoid obstacles.
We are, however, getting to the stage where the warmer weather brings out the dog emptiers and the autographs some of them leave behind on the path. Of course, the further one gets from Didcot the fewer of these there are, and so I have been able to find routes that avoid the worst bits of footpath in favour of using the road. One simply has to take care, keep ones eyes open, and assume that any dark shape that is a person will probably have one or more other untethered dark shapes with them, ready to jump out directly into the path of anyone else coming down the path.
To be fair, some of the dog walkers I have seen in the last couple of weeks have gone out of their way to make sure their dogs are well out of my way and indeed have them impressively well trained, so I really can't complain too much. Most of them are cheerful, friendly, and happy to exchange a "good morning" as I roll past. Usually I can let my speed drop out of courtesy until I'm past, as opposed to having to slam on the brakes because darling Lindy the long wheelbase rat who can do no wrong has, out of stupidity, decided to lie down directly in front of my wheel.
Anyway, I digress, because what is more worthy of note was my ride home last night, which featured a very unusual lineup of animals. I saw three or four rabbits, two cats, both of which are species that have the good sense to get out of the way if there's something coming. I also nearly ran over a pheasant, and I've never seen one of those by night before. I certainly heard it for a good 200m before it leapt out in front of me; they have a very distinctive call.
The biggest first of that whole trip however was what happened just as I was leaving Chilton. There I was innocently cycling along when something struck my head, mostly on my helmet but also the area around my right eye. I never saw it coming, because there was no way that the light on my handlebars could have illuminated it, so there was no warning.
The impact didn't really hurt, but the dull "thunk!" came as a bit of a shock. At first I thought some kids had hit me with a ball of mud or manure, but when whatever it was appeared to bounce off I had to reconsider. After while I concluded that it must have been a bird. It had been soft, warm, and I wasn't scraping mud or manure off my face.
If it had been a shock to me, one can only imagine what the bird thought of the experience!
I guess it could have been a bat, but I was under the impression that bats were quite adept at avoiding collisions even in complete darkness. There was no quiet squeaky pronouncement of "Whoop whoop! Traffic! Pull up!".
So there we have it kids, another reason to wear a cycling helmet - birds.
The trouble is that I'm doing overtime at the moment, which means I am leaving work after dark and negotiating farm tracks. To be honest this is not nearly as bad as it sounds because the front light I currently have installed on Gertie blasts out an almost infeasible amount of light for a small box with 5 LEDs on the front. I can easily see well enough to follow the path and to brake or avoid obstacles.
We are, however, getting to the stage where the warmer weather brings out the dog emptiers and the autographs some of them leave behind on the path. Of course, the further one gets from Didcot the fewer of these there are, and so I have been able to find routes that avoid the worst bits of footpath in favour of using the road. One simply has to take care, keep ones eyes open, and assume that any dark shape that is a person will probably have one or more other untethered dark shapes with them, ready to jump out directly into the path of anyone else coming down the path.
To be fair, some of the dog walkers I have seen in the last couple of weeks have gone out of their way to make sure their dogs are well out of my way and indeed have them impressively well trained, so I really can't complain too much. Most of them are cheerful, friendly, and happy to exchange a "good morning" as I roll past. Usually I can let my speed drop out of courtesy until I'm past, as opposed to having to slam on the brakes because darling Lindy the long wheelbase rat who can do no wrong has, out of stupidity, decided to lie down directly in front of my wheel.
Anyway, I digress, because what is more worthy of note was my ride home last night, which featured a very unusual lineup of animals. I saw three or four rabbits, two cats, both of which are species that have the good sense to get out of the way if there's something coming. I also nearly ran over a pheasant, and I've never seen one of those by night before. I certainly heard it for a good 200m before it leapt out in front of me; they have a very distinctive call.
The biggest first of that whole trip however was what happened just as I was leaving Chilton. There I was innocently cycling along when something struck my head, mostly on my helmet but also the area around my right eye. I never saw it coming, because there was no way that the light on my handlebars could have illuminated it, so there was no warning.
The impact didn't really hurt, but the dull "thunk!" came as a bit of a shock. At first I thought some kids had hit me with a ball of mud or manure, but when whatever it was appeared to bounce off I had to reconsider. After while I concluded that it must have been a bird. It had been soft, warm, and I wasn't scraping mud or manure off my face.
If it had been a shock to me, one can only imagine what the bird thought of the experience!
I guess it could have been a bat, but I was under the impression that bats were quite adept at avoiding collisions even in complete darkness. There was no quiet squeaky pronouncement of "Whoop whoop! Traffic! Pull up!".
So there we have it kids, another reason to wear a cycling helmet - birds.
Friday 12 March 2010
High speed rail myths
Yesterday the government released its plans for High Speed 2, the next high speed rail line to be built in the UK, following on from High Speed 1, the new line from London to the Channel Tunnel.
Reading the reception in the press there are certain common themes that come up in comments to it, many of which lead one to doubt the intelligence of the reporter writing it, or at least whether they have actually bothered to research the topic they are writing about at all.
Here are a few pearls of reporterly wisdom that I have found particularly irritating, and my answers to them.
1. "Spending £X billion to save 30 minutes isn't a good use of money."
The main driver behind high speed rail in the UK is transport network capacity. We have a choice between building or expanding motorways, expanding airports, or building railways. Yes HSR trains are fast, but they are preferable to conventional speed rail because there is a much better business case for faster trains. They are more likely to attract travelers from other modes of transport.
2. "HS2 only goes to Birmingham."
Yes, in phase 1 HS2 only goes to Birmingham. Guess what, phase 1 of the M1 motorway only went from Watford to Rugby. There are two points here: Firstly the trains on HS2 will be able to run on to serve other destinations beyond the end of high speed line such as Manchester, Liverpool and Scotland. Secondly it's important to see HS2 as the first stage of a broader UK-wide network.
3. "Nobody will be able to afford a ticket."
I've no idea where this particular pocket of nonesense comes from. Perhaps this is because of the current high cost of tickets on routes like the West Coast Main Line where capacity problems lead to operators trying to manage excessive demand by increasing the cost of flexible tickets. Each train on HS2 will have up to over 1,000 seats and the line will have capacity for 18 trains an hour; that's a lot of seats! Tickets will be priced such that people use the service and fill those seats, otherwise the business plan wouldn't be viable in the first place.
4. "HS2 does nothing for communities between Birmingham and London."
No, it does a lot for communities between. Principally it releases an enormous amount of capacity on the overstretched existing rail network such as the West Coast Main Line, which can be used for freight - fewer lorries on the roads - and also for more local rail services.
5. "£30 Billion is too expensive."
£30 Billion is a lot of money, but the greater cost comes from not acting on the nation's increasing transport problems. As already states we have a choice between roads, air and rail. High speed rail is the best choice from both economic and environmental perspectives.
6. "Can't that money be spent on improving the trains we already have?"
£13 Billion has been spent in the West Coast Main Line upgrade program, and it will be at full capacity again by 2017. Incremental upgrades to existing rail lines are expensive, disruptive, and do not produce anywhere near the same levels of new capacity for the same amount of money as a new build line.
7. "We can't afford this in a recession."
Recessions come and go. We're in recession now, but most likely won't be when construction work actually starts in a few years time.
8. Why will it take 16 years to open just 130 miles of railway track? Surely it would take only a fraction of that time if this line was being built in France, Span, Germany, Italy, Japan, Korea, Taiwan, China, etc?
Oh, hang on, this is a question I too would like an answer to...
Reading the reception in the press there are certain common themes that come up in comments to it, many of which lead one to doubt the intelligence of the reporter writing it, or at least whether they have actually bothered to research the topic they are writing about at all.
Here are a few pearls of reporterly wisdom that I have found particularly irritating, and my answers to them.
1. "Spending £X billion to save 30 minutes isn't a good use of money."
The main driver behind high speed rail in the UK is transport network capacity. We have a choice between building or expanding motorways, expanding airports, or building railways. Yes HSR trains are fast, but they are preferable to conventional speed rail because there is a much better business case for faster trains. They are more likely to attract travelers from other modes of transport.
2. "HS2 only goes to Birmingham."
Yes, in phase 1 HS2 only goes to Birmingham. Guess what, phase 1 of the M1 motorway only went from Watford to Rugby. There are two points here: Firstly the trains on HS2 will be able to run on to serve other destinations beyond the end of high speed line such as Manchester, Liverpool and Scotland. Secondly it's important to see HS2 as the first stage of a broader UK-wide network.
3. "Nobody will be able to afford a ticket."
I've no idea where this particular pocket of nonesense comes from. Perhaps this is because of the current high cost of tickets on routes like the West Coast Main Line where capacity problems lead to operators trying to manage excessive demand by increasing the cost of flexible tickets. Each train on HS2 will have up to over 1,000 seats and the line will have capacity for 18 trains an hour; that's a lot of seats! Tickets will be priced such that people use the service and fill those seats, otherwise the business plan wouldn't be viable in the first place.
4. "HS2 does nothing for communities between Birmingham and London."
No, it does a lot for communities between. Principally it releases an enormous amount of capacity on the overstretched existing rail network such as the West Coast Main Line, which can be used for freight - fewer lorries on the roads - and also for more local rail services.
5. "£30 Billion is too expensive."
£30 Billion is a lot of money, but the greater cost comes from not acting on the nation's increasing transport problems. As already states we have a choice between roads, air and rail. High speed rail is the best choice from both economic and environmental perspectives.
6. "Can't that money be spent on improving the trains we already have?"
£13 Billion has been spent in the West Coast Main Line upgrade program, and it will be at full capacity again by 2017. Incremental upgrades to existing rail lines are expensive, disruptive, and do not produce anywhere near the same levels of new capacity for the same amount of money as a new build line.
7. "We can't afford this in a recession."
Recessions come and go. We're in recession now, but most likely won't be when construction work actually starts in a few years time.
8. Why will it take 16 years to open just 130 miles of railway track? Surely it would take only a fraction of that time if this line was being built in France, Span, Germany, Italy, Japan, Korea, Taiwan, China, etc?
Oh, hang on, this is a question I too would like an answer to...
Thursday 25 February 2010
Renting
Rosie and I are coming up on the time for us to move out of the flat, and this has reminded me of just how much I hate renting.
The first thing that irritates me is that I have to rent at all. I am fortunate in being better off than most people; I am a young professional earning a good wage that is already well above the national average, but it's just not enough. The problem is the way in which house prices in this country are simply sky high, they are just out of reach for any young person trying to get a first tenuous foot on the ladder. It's not even as though you get much for your money either; the first floor of a modern £180,000 house would probably fit into one of the bedrooms of my parents victorian-era home.
So there is no sensible choice available to me but to rent, especially as Rosie is now living with me.
The main reason I dislike renting is landlords.
This dislike isn't a personal dislike; indeed I've liked most of the individuals who have been my landlord or landlady in the past, but I really dislike the relationship with them.
One reason that it is so impossible to find housing that is within the range of affordablity to a well paid graduate engineer is the demand on housing, and in particular the buy-to-let phenomenon. This is a where the landlord, usually an older individual with enough clout to get a second mortgage, can buy a property and then sit back and relax whilst the tenant labours away paying off their mortgage for them. The tenant's crime, the thing that condemns them to rent and not own? Just not wealthy enough to begin with. It's as though the system is structured (through cock-up rather than conspiracy) to ensure that the underdog or newcomer has no chance, whilst the rich get richer.
Hooray for the free market. Nice to know that our supposedly Labour government is pushing the progressive agenda on which it is allegedly founded. A tax on buy-to-let properties to redress the balance and make it easier for newcomers to get on the ladder? Don't be silly!
All this leads to the worst thing about renting and landlords, which is this. Every Landlord has to have their own oddball fetish over something that needs to be cleaned beyond sensible possibility, and this becomes a particular sticking point when the time comes to move out.
My landlord in Southampton had a particular thing about the caulking around the shower and the fact that there was mould growing in it. This is what tends to happen with old bathroom caulking of course, but that wasn't good enough for him, we would have to get it out with bleach, or else pay for it to be re-caulked. Of course the bleach didn't make the blindest bit of difference, but at least in that instance the landlord seemed to forget and my housemates and I didn't end up pay for his caulking fetish.
The first flat I rented on my own after university was furnished. My landlord and landlady did an inspection and during this decided to inform me that the desk was showing signs that I'd put things on it. Apparently this was not on because it was an antique, and thus it needed professionally re-varnishing. I wasn't able to get out of meeting that particular whim.
Rosie holds the record for the best landlord's fetish anecdote though. She had a landlady who wanted to get the carpets professionally cleaned. Which was a bit of an odd priority to have considering there was a HOLE IN THE ROOF letting in water whenever it rained!
The latest gem that Rosie and I face, and what prompted this rant, is that our current landlady wants the cooker professionally cleaned, because it was apparently professionally cleaned before I moved in. Likewise the curtains, which were new when I moved in.
Did I mention,the bloody cooker IS clean, the bloody curtains ARE clean. The only difference if I got in a "professional" would be a little piece of paper saying how much of my money they've pocketed.
Landlords seem to like to string tenants up by the petard of their deposit and indulge themselves in a game of selective implausible perfectionism on a whim.
Leave me alone! It's partly due to speculators like you that I can't be putting my own money into a mortgage of my own! I've paid 21 months' worth of your mortgage and taken good care of your property, isn't that enough?!
The first thing that irritates me is that I have to rent at all. I am fortunate in being better off than most people; I am a young professional earning a good wage that is already well above the national average, but it's just not enough. The problem is the way in which house prices in this country are simply sky high, they are just out of reach for any young person trying to get a first tenuous foot on the ladder. It's not even as though you get much for your money either; the first floor of a modern £180,000 house would probably fit into one of the bedrooms of my parents victorian-era home.
So there is no sensible choice available to me but to rent, especially as Rosie is now living with me.
The main reason I dislike renting is landlords.
This dislike isn't a personal dislike; indeed I've liked most of the individuals who have been my landlord or landlady in the past, but I really dislike the relationship with them.
One reason that it is so impossible to find housing that is within the range of affordablity to a well paid graduate engineer is the demand on housing, and in particular the buy-to-let phenomenon. This is a where the landlord, usually an older individual with enough clout to get a second mortgage, can buy a property and then sit back and relax whilst the tenant labours away paying off their mortgage for them. The tenant's crime, the thing that condemns them to rent and not own? Just not wealthy enough to begin with. It's as though the system is structured (through cock-up rather than conspiracy) to ensure that the underdog or newcomer has no chance, whilst the rich get richer.
Hooray for the free market. Nice to know that our supposedly Labour government is pushing the progressive agenda on which it is allegedly founded. A tax on buy-to-let properties to redress the balance and make it easier for newcomers to get on the ladder? Don't be silly!
All this leads to the worst thing about renting and landlords, which is this. Every Landlord has to have their own oddball fetish over something that needs to be cleaned beyond sensible possibility, and this becomes a particular sticking point when the time comes to move out.
My landlord in Southampton had a particular thing about the caulking around the shower and the fact that there was mould growing in it. This is what tends to happen with old bathroom caulking of course, but that wasn't good enough for him, we would have to get it out with bleach, or else pay for it to be re-caulked. Of course the bleach didn't make the blindest bit of difference, but at least in that instance the landlord seemed to forget and my housemates and I didn't end up pay for his caulking fetish.
The first flat I rented on my own after university was furnished. My landlord and landlady did an inspection and during this decided to inform me that the desk was showing signs that I'd put things on it. Apparently this was not on because it was an antique, and thus it needed professionally re-varnishing. I wasn't able to get out of meeting that particular whim.
Rosie holds the record for the best landlord's fetish anecdote though. She had a landlady who wanted to get the carpets professionally cleaned. Which was a bit of an odd priority to have considering there was a HOLE IN THE ROOF letting in water whenever it rained!
The latest gem that Rosie and I face, and what prompted this rant, is that our current landlady wants the cooker professionally cleaned, because it was apparently professionally cleaned before I moved in. Likewise the curtains, which were new when I moved in.
Did I mention,the bloody cooker IS clean, the bloody curtains ARE clean. The only difference if I got in a "professional" would be a little piece of paper saying how much of my money they've pocketed.
Landlords seem to like to string tenants up by the petard of their deposit and indulge themselves in a game of selective implausible perfectionism on a whim.
Leave me alone! It's partly due to speculators like you that I can't be putting my own money into a mortgage of my own! I've paid 21 months' worth of your mortgage and taken good care of your property, isn't that enough?!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)