Samsung’s new consumer SSDs shoot to the top of the benchmark league

For the last year or so, Samsung has been touting a “paradigm shift” in the way it constructs flash memory: from a horizontal to a vertical arrangement of cells, or what it calls 3D V-NAND . Now, judging from reviews of the first V-NAND consumer SSDs, the 850 Pro range, it looks like this shift has resulted in a geniune and unequivocal boost to performance. Compared to synthetic and real-world scores from rival drives, made by the likes of Intel and Crucial, Sammy’s 850 Pro “led the pack almost across the board, ” according to HotHardware . Then again, Tom’s Hardware noted that Samsung is now pushing the limits of the SATA interface, such that other products are “within a stone’s throw” of the the 850 Pro’s scores (at least until a PCI Express version comes around). What’s more, all the reviews listed below highlighted the fact that the new line-up comes at a significant premium, even when you factor in Samsung’s nice 10-year warranty. The 128GB drive costs $130, while the maxed-out 1TB option costs $730, equating to a cost per gigabyte that is almost twice as high as other recent drives that lack the cutting-edge NAND (such as Crucial’s MX100). Actual street pricing, meanwhile, will only be established over the course of this month, as the 850 Pro starts to become widely available. Reviews of the Samsung 850 Pro SSD: HotHardware TechSpot The SSD Review The Tech Report Tom’s Hardware Filed under: Storage , Samsung Comments

Read the original:
Samsung’s new consumer SSDs shoot to the top of the benchmark league

US book publishers now make more money from online sales than physical stores

Brick-and-mortar book stores have clearly been on the decline for a while — just look at Barnes & Noble’s rocky finances . However, there’s now some tangible evidence that the pendulum has swung in favor of internet-based sales. BookStats estimates that US publishers made more money from online orders and e-books in 2013 ($7.54 billion) than they did from old-fashioned physical retail ($7.12 billion). While the difference isn’t huge, it suggests that a large chunk of the American population is content with buying books that it hasn’t seen in person. There is a bit of a dark cloud to this silver lining, at least for the booksellers. BookStats notes that e-book sales jumped about 10 percent to 512.7 million copies, but revenue was flat between 2012 and 2013; it may have been lower prices that triggered a surge in demand, not a renewed interest in going digital. With that said, researchers warn that their data doesn’t include books without ISBN numbers, so quite a few self-published e-books may have slipped through the cracks. Even with that wiggle room in the data, it’s evident that there’s a transition underway — you just shouldn’t expect to see the corner bookstore disappear overnight. [Image credit: Robert Michael/AFP/Getty Images] Filed under: Internet Comments Via: GigaOM Source: Book Industry Study Group

See the original post:
US book publishers now make more money from online sales than physical stores

What ‘Ultra High-Definition’ really means

In yet another successful attempt at making the Quad HD / 4K / Ultra HD situation as clear as mud, this week the CEA updated its official… definition of the term “Ultra High-Definition.” The original spec was established in late 2012 just as the first high-res TVs debuted , and now the expanded “updated core characteristics” will let customers know the TV or player they’re buying is actually capable of playing high-res video content. What’s new is that Ultra HD TVs, monitors and projectors have to be able to upscale HD (1080p) video to Ultra HD (3, 840 x 2, 160), decode HEVC, have at least one HDMI input that supports Ultra HD video input at 24, 30 and 60fps and that can decode the HDCP 2.2 DRM that super-sharp video will require. Not up on all of the acronyms and buzzwords? Whether it’s a stream from Netflix or Amazon, a broadcast over cable or satellite or some new version of Blu-ray , if your new TV has the logo this fall, you’ll be ready for it — simple, right? Filed under: Home Entertainment , HD , Samsung , Sony , LG Comments Source: CEA

Read the article:
What ‘Ultra High-Definition’ really means

What you need to know about Uber, Lyft and other app-based car services

For the first time last month, I requested a car using a smartphone. The app correctly guessed my location using GPS, gave me a ballpark arrival time with a real-time map, and even estimated the fare. A polite driver arrived on time and whisked me to my destination. When I tried to pay and tip, he explained that the payment was already taken (I’d receive a receipt by email soon) and that the service (Uber) forbade tipping. Wait, what ? No haggling, luggage fee, credit card refusal, time wasted on receipts or even tipping? This was an epiphany! But professional taxi drivers who pay thousands of dollars for a license are understandably not thrilled about these services. Neither are many cities (and regions ) which collect those fees and say that Uber/Lyft/etc. are dangerous or improperly insured. The result of this clash, thus far, is chaos: bans , mass demonstrations and even violence . Despite all that, ridesharing poster-child Uber was recently valued at $17 billion . So, will app-driven car services gain traction or be run out of town ? WHAT IS IT? Uber and Lyft are the best known services, but other players include Sidecar , Wingz , Summon and Hailo . In Europe, there’s also LeCar, SnapCar , BlaBlaCar , Djump , Heetch and Carpooling.com . Uber has several slightly different services: it still operates its limo-style UberBLACK, which requires drivers to have a commercial chauffeur license and insurance. Taxis can now sign up for a service called UberTAXI with their existing permits and insurance. Finally, there’s the pure ridesharing service UberX and an even cheaper version called UberPOP . For its part, Lyft and its pink ‘stache is ridesharing-only, but recently announced Lyft Plus , a premium service it says is cheaper than competitive offerings. Believe it or not, SideCar and Lyft only launched two years ago. Uber arrived in 2009, but was just limos with apps until UberX launched in 2012. Oddly, the companies style themselves as “peer-to-peer transportation” platforms, not passenger services. So why the slippery terminology? We’ll cover that soon, but it’s largely about licensing, permits and insurance. If you drive for Uber or Lyft (or Sidecar, Hailo and others) you don’t need a commercial license or commercial insurance. However, all the services require a clean driving record and Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) check. They also perform a 10-year background check to ensure drivers have never been convicted of a violent crime, sexual offense or DUI (for example). Uber , Lyft , Sidecar and others also offer liability insurance for drivers, passengers and pedestrians for up to $1 million, but only if the driver’s personal insurance doesn’t cover an accident. Both Uber and Lyft now levy a $1 per-ride charge for insurance. A driver who works for all three companies in San Francisco (let’s call him “Jasper”) told me that Lyft and Sidecar encourage drivers to be extra-smiley and friendly, complete with fist bumps. He added that Lyft tends to overdo it, however, and some drivers “don’t drink the Kool-aid” and aren’t crazy about the “look-at-me” pink mustaches — which aren’t optional, by the way. HOW DOES IT WORK? Most ridesharing companies have a smartphone app that works on iOS and Android. You need to sign up and give your personal details, along with a credit card or PayPal account. When you’re ready to find a ride, they all work about the same. You can input your location based on your GPS coordinates, and add your destination if you need a price estimate. Again, with Sidecar you must enter your destination when you order a car. Most will tell you how close the nearest ride is in minutes, and show the car arriving on a map. You’ll also get the name of your driver, their overall rating (for Uber and Lyft, it’s on a scale of one to five) and the type of car they’re piloting. The nearest driver is dispatched based on their GPS location, and just before they arrive, you’ll receive a text message. “Jasper” told me that Uber’s driver app won’t transmit your destination to the driver, unlike Lyft and Sidecar’s app. Instead, he has to enter it manually when the passenger arrives, so most Uber drivers pack a second phone or GPS. However, Sidecar customers must enter a destination, which drivers like as it gives them a close idea of their fare. He said that many of his customers avoid Sidecar for the same reason, though — they’d rather not be bothered. When I used UberX about a half dozen times on a recent trip to San Francisco, none of the drivers had a rating less than 4.7 out of 5. However, the quality of vehicles varied. I rode in an older, not-very-fancy (but clean) Toyota Corolla and in a new, deluxe Honda Accord. Some drivers were very familiar with the city and drove me efficiently to my destination (I checked), but a few times they overshot it or took a wrong turn. Incidentally, Uber drivers keep track of passenger ratings, too, but keeps them under wraps to avoid confrontations — a low enough passenger rating can get you kicked off the service. The only way to find out is to ask a driver, who may or may not reveal it. I was told that on all three services, if either you or your driver give a rating of three out of five or less, you’ll never be paired together again. HOW MUCH DOES IT COST? Once you arrive, the driver will stop the “meter” and that’s it. You can just say “bye” and split, because your fare has already been calculated and the payment taken automatically. Tipping isn’t permitted on most services, though 20 percent is automatically added on UberTAXI (that can be changed globally ). So how much does it cost? That depends, but the chart below for San Francisco — the home base of Lyft, Uber and Sidecar — offers a rough idea. Most of the services come in around 10 – 30 percent less than a regular taxi…with some huge caveats. Uber’s infamous “surge” pricing, for instance, could make a trip much more expensive depending on demand, while Lyft’s happy hour pricing could make it much cheaper (which aggravates some drivers ). UberBLACK, XL and VAN services are higher, more in line with the price of a taxi or limo. San Francisco Rideshare / Cab (regular rates) UberX Lyft Taxi Base Fare $3.00 $2.25 $3.50 Per Minute (waiting-only for taxis) $0.30 $0.27 $0.55 Per Mile $1.50 $1.35 $2.75 Safe Ride (or similar) Fee $1.00 $1.00 $0.00 Minimum Fare $6.00 $5.00 $3.50 Cancellation Fee $5.00 $5.00 NA Price for 5 mile, 15 minute ride $16.00 $14.05 $18.95 [Source: Uber, Lyft, SFMTA — assumes 4 minutes of traffic/red light delays for cabs ] Sidecar allows drivers to select their own rates — either lower or up to 1.25x higher than the so-called community average (the company doesn’t post those figures). That lets users pick a driver with a low fee or, say, a high rating. Jasper told me, however, that Sidecar offers drivers some other interesting options. For instance, during their own commute, drivers can lower their minimum rate drastically to ensure they have a fare, rather than riding empty. If a neighbor goes to work at the same time, for instance, the driver could give him a cheap ride every day — a win-win deal. How much commission ridesharing companies take is another interesting aspect. Jasper said that right now, Uber is charging a 20 percent commission while Lyft is charging zero in San Francisco. (He added that fees seem to drop when companies get new rounds of funding.) In addition, drivers can be offered bonuses for recruiting other drivers — Uber is reportedly offering up to $500 for new recruits right now. WHAT’S AT STAKE? It’s hard to see the downside of ridesharing for passengers. The increased supply of cars makes it easier to find a ride, for one thing — even if you prefer taxis. It also avoids the normal calling or wandering around to hail a cab, and gives you a status of your ride from the moment you request it. It’s often cheaper than a cab, and there’s rarely a dispute about unwanted fees or questionable route decisions. And the rating systems help keep drivers ( and passengers ) honest. From a ridesharing driver’s perspective, it’s mostly all good, too. You’ll never get stiffed on a fare, and the services generally shuffle cars around efficiently, minimizing downtime. The pre-registration process and automatic ride logging also adds a safety factor for both parties. Of course, most cab drivers would rather that ride-sharing services go away. They see them as amateur interlopers who pay no hefty fees , but steal precious fares. As pointed out by the New Yorker , if peer-to-peer transportation companies continue on their current trajectory, they could put a lot of taxi drivers out of business. That would turn out to be bad for passengers in the end, too — with less competition, fares would go up. WHAT’S THE ARGUMENT? A demonstrator kicks a car, suspected to be a private taxi, during a protest in Madrid, Spain Ridesharing has two loud camps — which have literally come to blows in the past. Cab drivers call Lyft and Uber businesses-for-profit — not “peer-to-peer transportation” — and believe they should pay the same license fees and insurance as taxis. Cities, states and countries feel the same, in many cases. Uber started up in Vancouver last year, but was quickly shut down on the grounds that it was technically a limousine service and had to charge a minimum of $75 per trip. Similarly, it was barred in the state of Virginia and is technically illegal in all of Belgium. In addition, though Uber now does thorough background checks, it wasn’t always so careful. Following an investigation by the Chicago Tribune , it had to apologize for hiring a driver with a felony conviction and was forced to redo thousands of driver screenings. Other black marks include an allegation of kidnapping against one Uber driver (the charge was dropped), and questions of insurance gaps for passengers. The new $1 fee for “passenger safety” and insurance addressed those issues, but one pundit noted that it was like paying a fee not to get assaulted. On the other hand, taxis have a horrible reputation in many cities. According to the Washington Post , some 12, 000 complaints were filed against cab drivers in Chicago through the city’s Business Affairs and Consumer Protection fields, or around 33 per day . Amongst those, one passenger cited a driver that left him at the curb when the driver saw that he had a guide dog, while another cabbie refused a customer that wanted to pay with a credit card. Worse, many drivers have been cited for racist behavior or flat-out dangerous driving . Ridesharing services say their drivers would be banned with the first sign of such behavior, or weeded out by lousy customer ratings. They also say there wouldn’t be a demand for their services in the first place if cab companies didn’t mistreat customers so poorly. WANT EVEN MORE? The best way to find out if ridesharing services are for you? Grab one of the apps, sign up and give it a whirl. You’ll find them by searching for Sidecar, Uber, Lyft et al on the iOS and Google Play app stores. Unfortunately, none of the major players have official Windows Phone apps at the moment — Uber did at one point , but the app was pulled . Uber also has a BlackBerry app . Lyft , Uber and Sidecar ‘s blogs detail new city locations, service changes and other news. Uber also uses its blogs to discuss controversial topics, like the banning of cars in Brussels. You can check out the Washington Post’s story about the litany of Chicago taxi complaints, the Daily Beast’s argument against Uber’s $1 “safety” fees and why ridesharing insurance headaches could get worse . Forbes’ feature details the competition between Uber and Lift while GQ’s Uber Cab Confessions touches the industry’s sordid side. Finally, we here at Engadget have covered Lyft , Uber and Sidecar closely since ridesharing became “a thing.” [Image credits: Uber, Lyft, Justin Sullivan/Getty Images, Paul White/AP] Filed under: Transportation Comments

Original post:
What you need to know about Uber, Lyft and other app-based car services

Android Wear brings Google to life

How many times have you checked your phone today? If Google’s data is correct, your answer is somewhere between zero and 125. This proclivity to check our phone is the foundation upon which Android Wear, the company’s wearables platform, is built. Wear isn’t about replacing your smartphone though; it’s about extending Android beyond your pocket and into the world around you. Yesterday’s I/O keynote revealed a lot about Google’s vision for the future — and Wear is the thread that could tie it all together. On stage, Director of Engineering for Android, David Singleton, explained that everything in Android L is contextually aware, and has voice recognition enabled. Wear isn’t a separate entity; it’s an extension of Android L. An interface that bridges your experience of the world to the phone in your pocket (and vice versa). No more unlocking your phone and digging for restaurant recommendations. Wear knows your location and preferences; it’s already giving you step-by-step directions to a ramen joint around the corner. Or so the theory goes. Wear isn’t a separate entity; it’s an extension of Android L. Singleton’s demonstration of how Wear dances with, rather than marches beside, your phone was to order a pizza through his watch in under 20 seconds. A party trick to please the mostly developer audience, sure, but that demo showed Wear’s potential in a way that people understand: a useful interaction that solves a (hunger) problem. That’s something you can easily do from your phone, of course; the smartwatch skeptics are going to be harder to impress. Singleton’s second onstage demo showed Wear working with a tablet, displaying a recipe from Allthecooks . The tablet is the main screen in this scenario, but Wear is listening; it’s a servant to more than one device. The tablet feeds Wear each stage of a recipe one by one. Swipe for the next instruction on the watch, and this is reflected back on the tablet. The same is true for all interactions on all apps across all your Android L devices. No more dismissing notifications twice. This same symbiosis will be present across Android, Wear and Chrome OS — Google’s making the most determined push for unity yet, and Wear is a big part of it. Great, we can order pizza and make recipes a little less likely to fail. But Google has a much broader ecosystem now. Android will be in cars , TVs and your home . It knows what you like to eat, where you go on weekends and how badly you suck at Tappy Chicken . All of this information is united by your phone, and (the idea being) effortlessly enhanced by Wear. The feel-good promo videos might ham it up a little, but Google Now’s cards are getting smarter , and could find a natural home on your wrist. Having a wearable that controls (and is controlled by) all the technology in your life is, perhaps, the only logical case for a smartwatch — and that’s what Google is going for. Google wants Wear to be the key that unlocks the Android experiences around you right now. Earlier on in the I/O keynote, Director of Engineering at Google, Dave Burke, showed off a new feature within Android L — trusted environments. If you have a “Bluetooth watch” (this was before Wear was discussed), your phone knows you’re near, and removes the need for a password to access it. This might work for all Bluetooth devices, but it’s further evidence of the neat shape Google has cut out for Wear in Android’s future. Google wants Wear to be the key that unlocks the Android experiences around you right now. If you’re thinking Wear is just a fancy example of the internet of things , that’s because it is. This isn’t even the first wrist-worn gadget to be used for controlling other smart devices. Jawbone and SmartThings may spring to mind. The difference here is potential scale. Having a fitness tracker feed into your home automation is great. A platform that can set your thermostat , get driving directions (or score a lift ), tell you about your surroundings and quickly reply to a friend’s message is better. Your phone is still the brain, the identifier, the hardware that knows you. Wear listens, interfaces, serves. Much like Android itself, or Google Now, Wear is a platform that, if grown with care and attention, could usher in the era of the smart-world. A world where technology is used to lower, not create barriers between discovery and social interaction. That’s the marketing dream at least, and surely one we’re all invested in. On a more practical level, if Google is working on a unified ecosystem (as it appears to be ), it’s about time for something like Android Wear. Filed under: Wearables , Software , Mobile , Google Comments

Follow this link:
Android Wear brings Google to life

Android L is bringing better battery life to all, battery saver squeezes out 90 extra minutes

Even as smartphones are getting bigger and better, battery life is often an issue. Google announced today at I/O that it’s upcoming version of Android includes “Project Volta” to take the problem head-on. A “battery historian” gives more info on exactly what’s draining energy, while a battery saver mode lets users squeeze up to an extra 90 minutes out of each charge by doing things like lowering the screen refresh rate. Developing… Filed under: Cellphones , Mobile , Google Comments

Read the article:
Android L is bringing better battery life to all, battery saver squeezes out 90 extra minutes

Brain implant restores control of paralyzed muscles

The quadriplegia that comes as a result of a serious spinal cord injury cuts off the lines of communication between a person’s brain and their limbs. The condition is often irreparable, and those who suffer it do so for the rest of their lives, but surgeons at Ohio State University and researchers at Battelle might have just struck back at the condition. Using a technology called Neurobridge, the pair have been able to offer Ian Burkhart, a 23-year-old who was paralyzed after a diving accident, the ability to move his hand with his own thoughts for the first time in four years. Neurobridge works thanks to a chip that’s been implanted into the patient’s motor center, which relays those signals, via a muscle stimulation sleeve, directly to the subject’s muscles. That way, the technology bypasses the damaged nerves, essentially cutting out the middle man and restoring direct muscular control to the brain. The transmissions take less than a tenth of a second to be processed and sent, so while it won’t be as fast as the biological process, could still help people live relatively normal lives. Naturally, this first test isn’t going to mean an instant cure for people with spinal cord injuries, but the first moment of Burkhart twitching his fingers after four years, available in the video below, is a huge breakthrough. Filed under: Science Comments Via: Sky News Source: OSU , (2) , Battelle

Read More:
Brain implant restores control of paralyzed muscles

The Big Picture: Punching a hole in a (simulated) spacecraft

Space debris is a scary thing — tiny objects become missiles that can destroy whole spacecraft. If you need proof, just take a look at the results of the European Space Agency’s shield testing for its freighter, the Automated Transfer Vehicle (ATV). That gaping hole you see above is the result of shooting the ship’s multi-layer Kevlar-Nextel fabric armor with an aluminum bullet traveling at 15, 658MPH, a speed that’s entirely possible for debris caught in orbit. The good news? As bad as this looks, the test was a resounding success; while the bullet tore through the shielding, it only scorched the aluminum wall underneath. When the last ATV visits the International Space Station this summer, astronauts won’t have to worry that shrapnel from an ex-satellite will destroy their vital supplies. [Image credit: ESA-Stijn Laagland ] Filed under: Science Comments Via: Gizmodo Source: ESA

View original post here:
The Big Picture: Punching a hole in a (simulated) spacecraft

US Supreme Court rules against Aereo, deems streamed broadcast TV ‘public performance’

In a precedent-setting decision , the United States Supreme Court ruled today that Aereo is in violation of US copyright law. The decision states that Aereo’s use of tiny antennas hooked up to cloud DVR technology violates the right of companies producing broadcast content. Specifically, the decision says that Aereo’s business violates the 1976 Copyright Act; the act states that individuals or businesses are violating copyright if: 1: perform or display it at a place open to the public or at any place where a substantial number of persons outside of a normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances is gathered; or 2: to transmit or otherwise communicate a performance or display of the work … to the public by means of any device or process, whether the members of the public are capable of receiving the performance or display receive it in the same place or in separate places at the same time or at different times In the case of Aereo, the Supreme Court says the company’s service is tantamount to “a performance or display of the work.” Developing … Comments Source: US Supreme Court (PDF)

Read More:
US Supreme Court rules against Aereo, deems streamed broadcast TV ‘public performance’

Supreme Court says cops can’t search your phones without a warrant

The Supreme Court’s Aereo decision may not have it earned many techie fans, but its decision on two other cases — Riley v. California and U.S. v. Wurie — may change that. The highest court in the land has just ruled that the police “generally” cannot search your cellphones without a warrant. As always, there’s room left for extenuating circumstances, but you won’t have to worry about the police rifling through the contents of your mobile devices if you get pulled over for speeding. Developing… Comments

Follow this link:
Supreme Court says cops can’t search your phones without a warrant