Portable Bluetooth Speakers

a year now meaning

Embark on a Quest with a year now meaning

Step into a world where the focus is keenly set on a year now meaning. Within the confines of this article, a tapestry of references to a year now meaning awaits your exploration. If your pursuit involves unraveling the depths of a year now meaning, you've arrived at the perfect destination.

Our narrative unfolds with a wealth of insights surrounding a year now meaning. This is not just a standard article; it's a curated journey into the facets and intricacies of a year now meaning. Whether you're thirsting for comprehensive knowledge or just a glimpse into the universe of a year now meaning, this promises to be an enriching experience.

The spotlight is firmly on a year now meaning, and as you navigate through the text on these digital pages, you'll discover an extensive array of information centered around a year now meaning. This is more than mere information; it's an invitation to immerse yourself in the enthralling world of a year now meaning.

So, if you're eager to satisfy your curiosity about a year now meaning, your journey commences here. Let's embark together on a captivating odyssey through the myriad dimensions of a year now meaning.

Showing posts sorted by relevance for query a year now meaning. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query a year now meaning. Sort by date Show all posts

Apple Watch: It's Been 5 Years Since My Original Review, And It Holds Up


Apple Watch: It's been 5 years since my original review, and it holds up


Apple Watch: It's been 5 years since my original review, and it holds up

I'd love to say that when I first put on the Apple Watch, I'd never seen anything like it before. But of course, that's not true. By late 2014 I'd been surrounded by smartwatches for a few years. So when Apple announced it was making its own watch, my thought (as so often with Apple) was: finally.

The first smartwatch I reviewed at CNET was the Martian Passport, an analog watch that could make phone calls. It sounds so primitive now, but it was cool in early 2013. The Pebble Watch followed, and the Steel version became my favorite: It was like a Casio watch turned into a useful little pager-assistant. It was simple and had long battery life, and it was great.

There were others, too: Samsung's first smartwatches were ambitious (a camera?). Google's first Android Wear watches arrived in 2014. Meanwhile, there were Fitbits and Jawbone trackers galore.

I say this to lay the groundwork for the Apple Watch and what its impact was. Like the iPhone wasn't the first smartphone, the Apple Watch wasn't the first smartwatch... but it made the biggest footprint. It was another step validating that a world of wearables was here to stay. 

I was able to wear the Apple Watch a month before it went on sale. I spent a ton of time with it, getting used to both how it handled phone calls, and the activity tracking rings. I looked at my heart rate measurements. I accidentally ordered an Xbox One with an early Amazon app.

The Watch was, much like the first iPhone, sometimes feature-limited. But it also had some features that already stood out.

My original review was updated a year later, which you can read here. Some parts have changed, clearly, and Apple has updated the OS. But I'll comment on what I wrote then, and how I felt, and how that's evolved. Quotes from the original review are in italics.

apple-event-apple-watch-edition-5597.jpg

The gold Apple Watch, way back when.

James Martin/CNET

An excellent design, with luxury overtones

Apple wants you to think of the Apple Watch as fine jewelry. Maybe that's a stretch, but in terms of craftsmanship, there isn't a more elegantly made piece of wearable tech. Look at the Apple Watch from a distance, and it might appear unremarkable in its rectangular simplicity compared with bolder, circular Android Wear watches. It's clearly a revamped sort of iPod Nano. But get closer, and you can see the seamless, excellent construction.

The first Apple Watch came in aluminum, steel and ramped all the way up to a gold model costing more than $10,000. Compared to other smartwatches, it screamed luxury.

Certain touches felt luxurious, too: the fine-feeling Digital Crown, which spun ever so smoothly like a real watch part, for instance. The OLED display, which was a first for an Apple product, looked crisp and bright.

The most amazing part, maybe, were the watch bands. Apple created a really nice series of specially designed straps, from a steel link to a clever magnetic Milanese mesh that were extremely expensive and impressively engineered. 

Its watch face designs were great, too, and they integrated some information from the iPhone that aimed to add at-a-glance ease of use. There was a Mickey Mouse watch face that danced! The Solar face showing sunrise and sunset, and the astronomy face that showed planetary alignments and moon phases, felt like magic. I wanted more, but Apple's assortment of watch faces was limited, and it didn't allow for third-party watch face design. That's still the case now.

A lot of the Apple Watch reminded me of the strides Apple began with the iPod Nano, which also had watch mode... and a Mickey Mouse watch face.

chronometer-92.jpg
Sarah Tew

New technologies at first: fantastic haptics, a force-sensitive display

All Apple Watches have a new S1 processor made by Apple, that "taptic" haptic engine and a force-sensitive and very bright OLED display, which is differently sized on the 38mm and 42mm models. The watch has its own accelerometer, gyrometer and heart-rate monitor, but no onboard GPS. It uses Bluetooth 4.0 and 802.11b/g/n 2.4GHz Wi-Fi to connect to your phone or your home network. There's a built-in speaker and microphone, but no headphone jack.

As I wore the watch on the first day, I felt a rippling buzz and a metallic ping: one of my credit card payments showed up as a message. Apple's "Taptic Engine" and a built-in speaker convey both a range of advanced taps and vibrations, plus sounds. Unlike the buzz in a phone or most wearables, these haptics feel sharper: a single tap, or a ripple of them, or thumps.

Sometimes the feelings are too subtle: I don't know if I felt them or imagined them. My wrists might be numbed from too many smart devices. I set my alerts to "prominent" and got sharper nudges on my wrist.

The first watch introduced some ideas that eventually made their way to other iPhones. A "taptic engine" delivered on some amazingly refined vibration effects, ranging from a purr to a ping to a gentle tap. These were way ahead of what anybody else was doing -- and they weren't just a gimmick. The notification types associated with unique vibrations felt distinct. Sometimes, the vibrating taps on the first Watch weren't as powerful as I wanted. But with later updates, the haptics made parts of the interface seem real: virtual wheels, clicking as if moving with invisible gears.

The more advanced haptics made their way to the iPhone next, making us used to them now. Other phones, game consoles like the Nintendo Switch, and VR accessories, have evolved haptics since, but the Apple Watch was the first mainstream device that upped the haptics game.

Force Touch was another wild idea: Apple made its watch display force-sensitive, meaning a deeper press could work like pushing a button. Though this idea was refined further into 3D Touch on the iPhone 6S, 3D Touch was a technology that never became as necessary as expected, and current iPhone models have dropped the pressure-sensitive display tech completely.

The Apple Watch still has Force Touch, though, and I think it always will.

chronometer-55.jpg

Digital Touch: I never used it much after that.

Sarah Tew

Lots of features. Too many features?

As you can see, this is a lot of stuff. Did I have fun using the watch? Yes, mostly, but there are so many features that I felt a little lost at times. There are so many ways to interact: swiping, touching, pressing harder into the display, a button and a clickable digital crown-wheel. Plus, there's Siri. Do I swipe, or click, or force touch or speak? Sometimes I didn't know where an app menu was. Or, I'd find getting back to an app I just had open would require an annoying series of crown clicks, swiping through apps, then opening the app again.

There's a reason I used the word "complicated" to describe my feelings using that first Apple Watch. Setting up bits of information, called complications, was slow and not always intuitive. Apps took a while to load, and were sometimes so slow that it was easier to check my phone instead. Quick glances and notifications, and phone calls, were fine. Apple Pay on the watch was clever, but would I use it? I wished the watch had more battery life.

I didn't like the overcomplicated feel. The design of the OS, and the card-like swappable mini-view apps that used to be on the Watch like a dock, changed over time. It's gotten better since.

Storing music on the watch, while it took a while to sync, was easier than attempts on Samsung Gear or Android Wear. Of course, I had to hunt for a good pair of Bluetooth headphones to connect with the watch.

Today I still forget to dive into and make the most of the apps on the watch. I just dusted off Walkie Talkie: it's cool. There's noise monitoring. One app lets me remote control my iPhone camera, which has been a huge help for my stay-at-home self-shot videos. The Remote app helps me when I lose the Apple TV remote every other day. 

Third-party apps, and the grid of options? It turns out I don't use them much at all. I don't dig down deep into the layers of functions. I prefer what's on the surface: watch faces, and their readouts. But I've come to appreciate the watch's surprising number of options and settings. It's better than not having them at all.

river-chronometer-42.jpg

The rings were the beginning.

Sarah Tew/CNET

Fitness: The ring idea was just the beginning

The Apple Watch doesn't work any fitness miracles that the rest of the wearable world hasn't already invented, and it doesn't ship with any new magical sensors that change the game. But the Apple-made integrated fitness apps, Activity and Workout, are far and away the best fitness apps on any existing smartwatch that isn't a dedicated "fitness watch" (Samsung Gear, Android Wear, Pebble and the like). A clever three-ring method of tracking daily activity, which simultaneously measures and rewards daily calorie burn, active exercise and standing up, feels like a fusion of rewards and metrics seen on the Nike FuelBand, Jawbone Up, Fitbit and others. 

I appreciated Apple's complete-the-ring motivational activity tracker, which felt inspired by wearables like the Nike FuelBand (not surprising, since Apple's head of fitness, Jay Blahnik, arrived from Nike). For the red ring's daily goals, it's great. It felt too easy to complete the blue Stand ring, and it still does.

There are tons of fitness advancements Apple has made on the Watch in the last five years: GPS, resting heart rate, workout controls, social sharing, third-party app integration, swimming, modes for accessibility, activity trends -- and I haven't even discussed Apple's massive health aspirations like adding ECG, checking for falls, monitoring elevated or irregular heart rate or women's health tracking. There is some form of coaching and motivation, too. But I'd still love to see more of that. I hit a wall when trying to be fit, and there's only so much watches seem to help.

The first Apple Watch was more of a Fitbit. Now, it's more of a health companion. Those two worlds still feel like they need to dovetail and grow. There are missing features, too, like sleep tracking, which feels like the inevitable next step.

chronometer-85.jpg

You still need an iPhone, just like in 2015.

Sarah Tew

It was, and still is, an iPhone accessory

Much like most other smartwatches, the Apple Watch isn't a standalone device -- it's a phone accessory. Android Wear, Samsung Gear, Pebble and others work the same way. But here, you must own an iPhone 5 or later to use the Watch. A few Apple Watch functions work away from the phone, but the watch primarily works alongside the phone as an extension, a second screen and basically another part of your iOS experience. It's a symbiote.

One thing I noted back then was that you needed an iPhone to use the Apple Watch. Unlike other wearables that can pair with Android or iOS, or even sync with a computer, the Apple Watch was always designed to live symbiotically with the iPhone.

That's still the case now. Even with independent cellular options, and an on-watch App Store, you can't use the Watch without pairing to an iPhone. And it still won't work with Android. It's a shame, because a fully standalone watch could be a really helpful tool for many people who don't have iPhones, and it could even be a phone alternative (for kids, maybe).

Apple's AirPods created a gadget trinity where the Watch, the iPhone and AirPods can all work seamlessly together. But that trinity is an expensive one. The entry price of the Apple Watch has dropped, at least. But it feels like an extension of the iPhone more than its own device, even now.

41-apple-watch-series-5

The Apple Watch Series 5: much better, with a few similarities.

Sarah Tew/CNET

Today: the best watch in a war of attrition

You don't need an Apple Watch. In many ways, it's a toy: an amazing little do-it-all, a clever invention, a possibly time-saving companion, a wrist-worn assistant. It's also mostly a phone accessory for now. In the months and years to come, that may change: with Apple's assortment of iPads, Macs, Apple TV and who knows what else to come, the watch could end up being a remote and accessory to many things. Maybe it'll be the key to unlock a world of smart appliances, cars and connected places. In that type of world, a smartwatch could end up feeling utterly essential.

I think back to what the Apple Watch was competing against back then: Jawbone, Pebble, Fitbit, Google's Android Wear, Samsung's watches, the Microsoft Band. A lot of competitors are gone now. Fitbit was acquired by Google. Samsung still has watches. Garmin makes lots of dedicated fitness watches. There are still plenty of more affordable relative newcomers, too.

chronometer-113.jpg

The original Apple Watch, with the Pebble Steel, Moto 360 and the original iPod Nano with wristband (clockwise from top left).

Sarah Tew

In a field of fewer alternatives, the Apple Watch's consistent addition of new features and ongoing performance improvements has made it the best option. It's Apple's commitment to gradual improvements that has made it a stand-out watch now, especially compared to the struggles of Google's Wear OS.

The Apple Watch is still an iPhone accessory. And it's still not an essential product. But it's become a really fluid and useful device, one with lots of key upgrades that work, and one that's a lot easier to use.

What's the best smartwatch now? The Apple Watch. That doesn't mean I don't want to see improvements: battery life, sleep tracking, a watch face store and most importantly, Android support and true standalone function. If the last five years are any indication, Apple will tackle these problems on its own... time.


Source

Tags:

Apple Watch: It's Been 5 Years Since My Original Review, And It Holds Up


Apple watch it s been 5 years since my original review and reflect apple watch it s been 5 years since you passed apple watch it s been 5 years since you ve apple watch it s been 5 years since i met apple watch it s been 5 years jamie foxx apple watch it s been 5000 years apple watch it s been 50 years meme apple watch it s been a long day lyrics apple watch series 8
Apple Watch: It's been 5 years since my original review, and it holds up


Apple Watch: It's been 5 years since my original review, and it holds up

I'd love to say that when I first put on the Apple Watch, I'd never seen anything like it before. But of course, that's not true. By late 2014 I'd been surrounded by smartwatches for a few years. So when Apple announced it was making its own watch, my thought (as so often with Apple) was: finally.

The first smartwatch I reviewed at CNET was the Martian Passport, an analog watch that could make phone calls. It sounds so primitive now, but it was cool in early 2013. The Pebble Watch followed, and the Steel version became my favorite: It was like a Casio watch turned into a useful little pager-assistant. It was simple and had long battery life, and it was great.

There were others, too: Samsung's first smartwatches were ambitious (a camera?). Google's first Android Wear watches arrived in 2014. Meanwhile, there were Fitbits and Jawbone trackers galore.

I say this to lay the groundwork for the Apple Watch and what its impact was. Like the iPhone wasn't the first smartphone, the Apple Watch wasn't the first smartwatch... but it made the biggest footprint. It was another step validating that a world of wearables was here to stay. 

I was able to wear the Apple Watch a month before it went on sale. I spent a ton of time with it, getting used to both how it handled phone calls, and the activity tracking rings. I looked at my heart rate measurements. I accidentally ordered an Xbox One with an early Amazon app.

The Watch was, much like the first iPhone, sometimes feature-limited. But it also had some features that already stood out.

My original review was updated a year later, which you can read here. Some parts have changed, clearly, and Apple has updated the OS. But I'll comment on what I wrote then, and how I felt, and how that's evolved. Quotes from the original review are in italics.

apple-event-apple-watch-edition-5597.jpg

The gold Apple Watch, way back when.

James Martin/CNET

An excellent design, with luxury overtones

Apple wants you to think of the Apple Watch as fine jewelry. Maybe that's a stretch, but in terms of craftsmanship, there isn't a more elegantly made piece of wearable tech. Look at the Apple Watch from a distance, and it might appear unremarkable in its rectangular simplicity compared with bolder, circular Android Wear watches. It's clearly a revamped sort of iPod Nano. But get closer, and you can see the seamless, excellent construction.

The first Apple Watch came in aluminum, steel and ramped all the way up to a gold model costing more than $10,000. Compared to other smartwatches, it screamed luxury.

Certain touches felt luxurious, too: the fine-feeling Digital Crown, which spun ever so smoothly like a real watch part, for instance. The OLED display, which was a first for an Apple product, looked crisp and bright.

The most amazing part, maybe, were the watch bands. Apple created a really nice series of specially designed straps, from a steel link to a clever magnetic Milanese mesh that were extremely expensive and impressively engineered. 

Its watch face designs were great, too, and they integrated some information from the iPhone that aimed to add at-a-glance ease of use. There was a Mickey Mouse watch face that danced! The Solar face showing sunrise and sunset, and the astronomy face that showed planetary alignments and moon phases, felt like magic. I wanted more, but Apple's assortment of watch faces was limited, and it didn't allow for third-party watch face design. That's still the case now.

A lot of the Apple Watch reminded me of the strides Apple began with the iPod Nano, which also had watch mode... and a Mickey Mouse watch face.

chronometer-92.jpg
Sarah Tew

New technologies at first: fantastic haptics, a force-sensitive display

All Apple Watches have a new S1 processor made by Apple, that "taptic" haptic engine and a force-sensitive and very bright OLED display, which is differently sized on the 38mm and 42mm models. The watch has its own accelerometer, gyrometer and heart-rate monitor, but no onboard GPS. It uses Bluetooth 4.0 and 802.11b/g/n 2.4GHz Wi-Fi to connect to your phone or your home network. There's a built-in speaker and microphone, but no headphone jack.

As I wore the watch on the first day, I felt a rippling buzz and a metallic ping: one of my credit card payments showed up as a message. Apple's "Taptic Engine" and a built-in speaker convey both a range of advanced taps and vibrations, plus sounds. Unlike the buzz in a phone or most wearables, these haptics feel sharper: a single tap, or a ripple of them, or thumps.

Sometimes the feelings are too subtle: I don't know if I felt them or imagined them. My wrists might be numbed from too many smart devices. I set my alerts to "prominent" and got sharper nudges on my wrist.

The first watch introduced some ideas that eventually made their way to other iPhones. A "taptic engine" delivered on some amazingly refined vibration effects, ranging from a purr to a ping to a gentle tap. These were way ahead of what anybody else was doing -- and they weren't just a gimmick. The notification types associated with unique vibrations felt distinct. Sometimes, the vibrating taps on the first Watch weren't as powerful as I wanted. But with later updates, the haptics made parts of the interface seem real: virtual wheels, clicking as if moving with invisible gears.

The more advanced haptics made their way to the iPhone next, making us used to them now. Other phones, game consoles like the Nintendo Switch, and VR accessories, have evolved haptics since, but the Apple Watch was the first mainstream device that upped the haptics game.

Force Touch was another wild idea: Apple made its watch display force-sensitive, meaning a deeper press could work like pushing a button. Though this idea was refined further into 3D Touch on the iPhone 6S, 3D Touch was a technology that never became as necessary as expected, and current iPhone models have dropped the pressure-sensitive display tech completely.

The Apple Watch still has Force Touch, though, and I think it always will.

chronometer-55.jpg

Digital Touch: I never used it much after that.

Sarah Tew

Lots of features. Too many features?

As you can see, this is a lot of stuff. Did I have fun using the watch? Yes, mostly, but there are so many features that I felt a little lost at times. There are so many ways to interact: swiping, touching, pressing harder into the display, a button and a clickable digital crown-wheel. Plus, there's Siri. Do I swipe, or click, or force touch or speak? Sometimes I didn't know where an app menu was. Or, I'd find getting back to an app I just had open would require an annoying series of crown clicks, swiping through apps, then opening the app again.

There's a reason I used the word "complicated" to describe my feelings using that first Apple Watch. Setting up bits of information, called complications, was slow and not always intuitive. Apps took a while to load, and were sometimes so slow that it was easier to check my phone instead. Quick glances and notifications, and phone calls, were fine. Apple Pay on the watch was clever, but would I use it? I wished the watch had more battery life.

I didn't like the overcomplicated feel. The design of the OS, and the card-like swappable mini-view apps that used to be on the Watch like a dock, changed over time. It's gotten better since.

Storing music on the watch, while it took a while to sync, was easier than attempts on Samsung Gear or Android Wear. Of course, I had to hunt for a good pair of Bluetooth headphones to connect with the watch.

Today I still forget to dive into and make the most of the apps on the watch. I just dusted off Walkie Talkie: it's cool. There's noise monitoring. One app lets me remote control my iPhone camera, which has been a huge help for my stay-at-home self-shot videos. The Remote app helps me when I lose the Apple TV remote every other day. 

Third-party apps, and the grid of options? It turns out I don't use them much at all. I don't dig down deep into the layers of functions. I prefer what's on the surface: watch faces, and their readouts. But I've come to appreciate the watch's surprising number of options and settings. It's better than not having them at all.

river-chronometer-42.jpg

The rings were the beginning.

Sarah Tew/CNET

Fitness: The ring idea was just the beginning

The Apple Watch doesn't work any fitness miracles that the rest of the wearable world hasn't already invented, and it doesn't ship with any new magical sensors that change the game. But the Apple-made integrated fitness apps, Activity and Workout, are far and away the best fitness apps on any existing smartwatch that isn't a dedicated "fitness watch" (Samsung Gear, Android Wear, Pebble and the like). A clever three-ring method of tracking daily activity, which simultaneously measures and rewards daily calorie burn, active exercise and standing up, feels like a fusion of rewards and metrics seen on the Nike FuelBand, Jawbone Up, Fitbit and others. 

I appreciated Apple's complete-the-ring motivational activity tracker, which felt inspired by wearables like the Nike FuelBand (not surprising, since Apple's head of fitness, Jay Blahnik, arrived from Nike). For the red ring's daily goals, it's great. It felt too easy to complete the blue Stand ring, and it still does.

There are tons of fitness advancements Apple has made on the Watch in the last five years: GPS, resting heart rate, workout controls, social sharing, third-party app integration, swimming, modes for accessibility, activity trends -- and I haven't even discussed Apple's massive health aspirations like adding ECG, checking for falls, monitoring elevated or irregular heart rate or women's health tracking. There is some form of coaching and motivation, too. But I'd still love to see more of that. I hit a wall when trying to be fit, and there's only so much watches seem to help.

The first Apple Watch was more of a Fitbit. Now, it's more of a health companion. Those two worlds still feel like they need to dovetail and grow. There are missing features, too, like sleep tracking, which feels like the inevitable next step.

chronometer-85.jpg

You still need an iPhone, just like in 2015.

Sarah Tew

It was, and still is, an iPhone accessory

Much like most other smartwatches, the Apple Watch isn't a standalone device -- it's a phone accessory. Android Wear, Samsung Gear, Pebble and others work the same way. But here, you must own an iPhone 5 or later to use the Watch. A few Apple Watch functions work away from the phone, but the watch primarily works alongside the phone as an extension, a second screen and basically another part of your iOS experience. It's a symbiote.

One thing I noted back then was that you needed an iPhone to use the Apple Watch. Unlike other wearables that can pair with Android or iOS, or even sync with a computer, the Apple Watch was always designed to live symbiotically with the iPhone.

That's still the case now. Even with independent cellular options, and an on-watch App Store, you can't use the Watch without pairing to an iPhone. And it still won't work with Android. It's a shame, because a fully standalone watch could be a really helpful tool for many people who don't have iPhones, and it could even be a phone alternative (for kids, maybe).

Apple's AirPods created a gadget trinity where the Watch, the iPhone and AirPods can all work seamlessly together. But that trinity is an expensive one. The entry price of the Apple Watch has dropped, at least. But it feels like an extension of the iPhone more than its own device, even now.

41-apple-watch-series-5

The Apple Watch Series 5: much better, with a few similarities.

Sarah Tew/CNET

Today: the best watch in a war of attrition

You don't need an Apple Watch. In many ways, it's a toy: an amazing little do-it-all, a clever invention, a possibly time-saving companion, a wrist-worn assistant. It's also mostly a phone accessory for now. In the months and years to come, that may change: with Apple's assortment of iPads, Macs, Apple TV and who knows what else to come, the watch could end up being a remote and accessory to many things. Maybe it'll be the key to unlock a world of smart appliances, cars and connected places. In that type of world, a smartwatch could end up feeling utterly essential.

I think back to what the Apple Watch was competing against back then: Jawbone, Pebble, Fitbit, Google's Android Wear, Samsung's watches, the Microsoft Band. A lot of competitors are gone now. Fitbit was acquired by Google. Samsung still has watches. Garmin makes lots of dedicated fitness watches. There are still plenty of more affordable relative newcomers, too.

chronometer-113.jpg

The original Apple Watch, with the Pebble Steel, Moto 360 and the original iPod Nano with wristband (clockwise from top left).

Sarah Tew

In a field of fewer alternatives, the Apple Watch's consistent addition of new features and ongoing performance improvements has made it the best option. It's Apple's commitment to gradual improvements that has made it a stand-out watch now, especially compared to the struggles of Google's Wear OS.

The Apple Watch is still an iPhone accessory. And it's still not an essential product. But it's become a really fluid and useful device, one with lots of key upgrades that work, and one that's a lot easier to use.

What's the best smartwatch now? The Apple Watch. That doesn't mean I don't want to see improvements: battery life, sleep tracking, a watch face store and most importantly, Android support and true standalone function. If the last five years are any indication, Apple will tackle these problems on its own... time.


Source

Don't Swap Your Gas-Guzzler For An Electric Vehicle To Avoid High Fuel Prices


Electric guitar electric electric bike electrician electric scooter dont swap shop don t swap horses in midstream dont swap in midstream don t swap horses in the middle of the stream donut swap don t swallow your gum t shirt don t swallow my heart alligator girl don t sway don t swallow gum don taylor don tapscott don trump news don thompson don trump jr twitter don tpn

Don't Swap Your Gas-Guzzler for an Electric Vehicle to Avoid High Fuel Prices


Don't Swap Your Gas-Guzzler for an Electric Vehicle to Avoid High Fuel Prices

This story is part of Plugged In, CNET's hub for all things EV and the future of electrified mobility. From vehicle reviews to helpful hints and the latest industry news, we've got you covered.

There are plenty of great reasons to consider an electric vehicle. They usually offer stellar performance, they're smooth and quiet to drive, you can do much of your "refueling" at home (meaning you never have to visit a gas station unless you need snacks or a bathroom break) and they have zero tailpipe emissions. But despite their considerable advantages, EVs still aren't for everyone, and they don't always make the most economic sense.

If you tow earth-moving equipment or haul gravel for a living, you're probably going to want a heavy duty diesel-powered pickup, because today's EVs aren't going to cut it. Likewise, if you reside in an apartment and don't have a parking space, much less a garage with a Level 2 charger, an electric vehicle may be a hard sell. But what if you're looking for relief from high fuel prices? EVs cost way less to "refuel," though they are often quite expensive upfront.

Let's say you own a midrange, Lariat-trim, 2022 Ford F-150 with four-wheel drive, the lovely 2.7-liter EcoBoost twin-turbocharged V6 and a standard 10-speed automatic transmission, a popular pickup configuration in the US. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, this big bad truck stickers at up to 19 mpg city, 24 mpg highway and 21 mpg combined; frightening figures compared to a Toyota Prius, but everything is relative. For a full-size truck, this rig is actually quite economical.

Electric vehicles offer instant torque for speedy acceleration. 

Nick Miotke/CNET

But what does it cost to fuel this full-size truck each year? Well, let's do a little math to figure it out. (Scary, I know!) According to AAA, at the time of writing the national average price for a gallon of regular-grade gasoline is about $4.24. This varies wildly from state to state: In California, the per-gallon price is around $5.88; on the opposite coast in Maryland, it's a much more reasonable $3.80. As reported by insurance comparison site The Zebra, Americans drive an average of 14,263 miles each year. To keep things simple, let's round up and say you travel 15,000 miles annually in your F-150 and average 21 mpg doing so (the EPA estimate). Dividing 15,000 by 21 means you're burning about 714 gallons of dinosaur juice per year. There are myriad variables on top of that, but we can simply multiply 714 by 4.24, which works out to an annual fuel bill of about $3,028. Ouch.

Now let's compare that traditional, combustion-powered pickup to the exciting, all-electric F-150 Lightning. In midrange XLT trim with the extended-range battery pack, this truck offers an estimated 320 miles of range. As for efficiency, this version of the Lightning should return 78 mpge city and 63 mpge highway, scores that result in a combined rating of 70 mpge. For reference, mpge is a way of quantifying how much energy is in a gallon of gasoline; it works out to about 33.7 kilowatt-hours of electricity.

Next, according to the Energy Information Administration, the national average residential cost of electricity in the US was 13.72 cents per kWh in January 2022; we'll round up and say 14 cents per kWh. The Lightning's large battery pack clocks in at a husky 131 kilowatt-hours, so multiplying that by 0.14 means it would cost about $18.34 to completely recharge this truck from 0 to 100%. This is not something most people will ever do, because who wants to roll up to a charger with zero range? (Also, if you use public chargers, you'll probably be paying a lot more for the privilege.) Still, this is illustrative of how affordable it is to run an EV.

The Kia EV6 is one of our favorite new electric vehicles.

Antuan Goodwin/CNET

But now let's calculate how much it costs to run the Lightning for a year. We could base this off the EPA's estimated 48 kWh/100-mile efficiency figure, but let's do it just like we did with the standard F-150 above. Taking 15,000 miles per year and dividing that by 70 mpge, the combined "fuel economy" rating of this vehicle, gets you 214 "gallons" of electricity. Next, multiply 214 by 33.7, the equivalent number of kWh per gallon of gasoline and you get about 7,221 kWh. Multiply that figure by $0.14 and the result is roughly $1,011 in electricity per year. This is very close to the EPA's estimate of $950.

So, if it costs $3,028 to run the conventionally powered F-150 15,000 miles each year and just $1,011 to power the Lightning, the all-electric model is only one-third as expensive. The annual difference is a not insubstantial $2,017. What could you do with an extra two grand each year?

Combustion vs. Electric


2022 Ford F-150 Lariat 2022 Ford F-150 Lightning XLT 2022 Honda Accord Sport 2022 Kia EV6 Wind
Vehicle Details 4WD, crew-cab body, 2.7-liter twin-turbo V6, 5.5-foot bed 4WD, crew-cab body, 5.5-foot bed, 131-kWh long-range battery FWD, 1.5-liter turbo-four, continuously variable transmission RWD, 77.4-kWh long-range battery
Range (miles) Up to 546 320 Up to 488 310
City Efficiency (mpg or mpge) 19 78 30 134
Highway Efficiency (mpg or mpge) 24 63 38 101
Combined Efficiency (mpg or mpge) 21 70 33 117
EPA kWh/100 miles N/A 48 N/A 29
As-Tested Price $56,020 $74,269 $31,085 $48,255
Estimated Annual Fuel/Electricity Cost to Drive 15,000 Miles $3,028 $1,011 $1,929 $605

What about payback (and I don't mean revenge) time? Well, that XLT-trim Lighting with the big battery and no options starts at $74,269, including $1,795 in destination fees. That's certainly pricey, but the top-shelf Platinum model is far richer, kicking off at nearly 93 grand. As for our old-fashioned Ford F-150 (a midrange, Lariat trim, crew-cab model with a 5.5-foot bed, four-wheel-drive and the standard equipment group), it stickers for around $56,020, also including $1,795 for delivery. Subtracting $56,020 from $74,269 means the Lightning is a whopping $18,249 pricier, more than the cost of a new Nissan Versa sedan.

Next, dividing the price delta between these trucks by the annual fuel/electricity cost difference means you'd have to own the Lightning for about nine years for your "fuel" savings to make up the price difference, though if you get a more expensive model, a higher-trim F-150 or the same variant with more options, the payback period compared to that all-electric Lighting will be shorter.

Not surprisingly, it's the same story with smaller vehicles. Take the lovely Kia EV6, for instance. This stylish and spacious hatchback is a great choice for folks that want to downsize from a truck and save a big chunk of change in the process. A long-range, Wind-trim, rear-drive EV6 offers 310 miles of range and stickers at 134 miles per gallon equivalent city, 101 mpge highway and 117 mpge combined. Calculating the EV6's efficiency like we did with the Lightning above reveals that the electricity needed to run this vehicle for 15,000 miles should cost around $605 per year, which is very close to the EPA's estimate of $550.

Despite the myriad benefits of owning an EV, sometimes it still makes more sense to keep your combustion-powered vehicle.

Steven Ewing/CNET

Comparing our miserly EV6 to a midrange Honda Accord Sport sedan, which is far more efficient than an F-150, is similarly revealing. With a 1.5-liter turbocharged four-cylinder engine, a continuously variable transmission and a combined fuel economy rating of 33 mpg, you'd be spending about $1,928 on fuel to drive this Honda for 15,000 miles... nearly 3.2 times more than the Kia. However, including destination and delivery, the Accord is far cheaper at a totally reasonable $31,085 compared to the EV6's $48,255 price tag. It's a difference of $17,170, which is slightly less than the delta between the standard F-150 and the Lightning. 

Dividing that figure by $1,323, the annual price difference of running the Accord compared to the Kia, works out to a payback period of nearly 13 years. In this case, it may make more sense to keep on driving the Accord even if you nearly faint every time you fill the tank.

The entirety of this discussion presupposes you're focused on prioritizing personal finances above all other concerns. But there's a bigger picture to consider: We haven't even discussed the negative environmental impact that burning fossil fuels or digging up rare earth minerals has on climate change, let alone the many and varied downstream costs that come home to roost societally as a result. Those sorts of long-term communal costs are clearly beyond the scope of this article, but they deserve to be considered.

At the end of the day, there are plenty of great reasons to get an electric vehicle, but if you're thinking about swapping your internal combustion-powered car or truck for a new EV just to save money at the pump, make sure to do the math first -- especially if your current ride is paid for -- because plugging in and making a change may not make economic sense for you, even with fuel prices in the stratosphere.


Source

Best Subcompact SUV For 2022


Best subcompact suv 2022 rankings best subcompact suv for seniors best subcompact suv for mountains best subcompact suv for towing best subcompact suv for off road best subcompact suv 2022 best subcompact cars 2022 best subcompact 9mm
Best Subcompact SUV for 2022


Best Subcompact SUV for 2022

Bigger doesn't always mean better. Despite being seen by many as affordable mass-market machinery, subcompact SUVs can provide everything a growing family needs at a great value. It's not the largest market at the moment, but the growing appeal means that more competitors are showing up every year.

Whether you're looking for something fancy, something efficient or something simply good, these are our choices for the best subcompact SUVs your money can buy. It's also worth noting that some of these subcompacts may be larger than others, but rest assured: Everything we mention here is quite small.

Hyundai

For years now, the Hyundai Kona has remained one of our absolute favorite small SUVs. And despite an influx of new competition, the Kona still stands out as one of the best subcompact vehicles available for purchase.

There isn't just one reason, either. The Kona drives superbly, whether with its tiniest engine or the honkin' turbo four-pot in the Kona N. There's also an electric variant available for those ready to embrace EVs. For its price, styling and build quality are surprisingly high. We could keep going, too. It's a great value.

Emme Hall/Roadshow

Step aside, Kona; you're not the only high-quality game in town anymore. Even though the Kona has long been one of our top choices for a subcompact SUV, Japanese automaker Mazda has a new offering that gives the Kona a serious run for its money.

The CX-30 packs an excellent powertrain by way of an optional turbocharged I4 producing 250 horsepower and 320 pound-feet of torque, which makes it pretty darn sprightly for something this small. And it does that engine justice by virtue of being a great car to drive. Sure, the infotainment system leaves a bit to be desired, but excellent styling and driving characteristics make the CX-30 a proper value. 

Jon Wong/Roadshow

There aren't many small luxury SUVs on sale, but of the few choices on offer, Audi's subcompact Q3 crossover leaves the best impression.

The Audi Q3 grew a bit in its second generation, but dimensions only tell part of the story. Build quality and style are top-notch, and the infotainment system standard on every Q3 is one of our favorites across the entire car industry. It may not win many races, but it'll definitely look the best when it arrives. And with a starting price well below the average new-car transaction price, the Q3 is a good way to break into a luxury marque without breaking your wallet in two.

Hyundai

The Hyundai Kona is traditionally a pretty sedate mass-market crossover, but not in this form. The Hyundai Kona N is a kick in the pants in a segment that doesn't generally offer this kind of experience.

The Kona N gets its power from a turbocharged 2.0-liter I4 making 276 hp and 289 lb-ft, which is sent to the front wheels by way of an eight-speed dual-clutch transmission. It's loaded with all sorts of fun tricks, like overboost, racing-game-inspired cabin tech and a variable exhaust tone. It's a beast.

Kia

Electrified subcompacts aren't quite ubiquitous yet. But that's good for the Kia Niro, because its many variants have a lock on the market until enough competitors arise.

The Kia Niro Hybrid is a standard gas-electric hybrid sandwiched into a capacious hatchback body. It isn't exactly powerful, nor does it love to get tossed around, but that's not the point of the car; instead, it's going to keep you away from gas stations for longer and provide a ride that's comfortable with tech that's easy to use. What's not to like? 

Kia

Plug-in hybrids allow buyers to go electric with the comforting backup of a proper gas engine. There are even fewer PHEVs in this segment than there are hybrids, but again, that's a good thing for Kia.

The Kia Niro Plug-In Hybrid takes the same formula as the standard hybrid and adds a 8.9-kilowatt-hour lithium-ion battery. That might not sound like much, but it allows for about 26 miles of electric driving at a time, which could cover a commute. And, like every other Niro variant, the car wrapped around that powertrain is pretty darn good.

Volvo

The Volvo C40 Recharge is the automaker's first full battery-electric vehicle, although many, many more are on the way. Yet, despite being a first effort of sorts, our time with the Recharge proves this feels nothing like a first attempt.

Relying on a 78-kWh battery and a pair of electric motors, this tiny SUV offers up an impressive 408 hp and 487 lb-ft, with 60 mph arriving in 4.5 seconds. Volvo expects this little guy to get around 225 miles on a charge, which isn't as much as some competitors, but the whole experience is polished in a way that, say, a Hyundai Kona isn't.

Read our 2022 Volvo C40 Recharge Pure Electric review.

Hyundai

Some of these cars on this list are easier to pick than others. This category was simple, because we didn't have to pick a favorite, the US government did.

The EPA rates the Hyundai Kona as more efficient than any other non-electrified subcompact SUV, with an estimated fuel economy of 30 mpg city and 35 mpg highway. Then again, this little utility vehicle is all about thrift, making just 147 hp from its 2.0-liter inline-4. Its CVT is smooth, and the interior quality is higher than what you'd maybe expect from one of the least expensive vehicles on sale today.

Kia

With the average new-car transaction price shooting well past $40,000 this year, it's no surprise that so many people are clamoring for a new car that's not going to break your wallet in half. Well, friends, you're in luck, because the Kia Soul exists, and it's great.

The 2022 Kia Soul starts at $20,545 including $1,175 for destination, making it one of the most affordable new cars on the market. And it's a good one, too, offering about 33 mpg highway and a standard 8-inch infotainment system with Apple CarPlay and Android Auto. Throw another $900 into the mix and you can fit the Soul with every active and passive safety system Kia offers. Not a bad deal!

Jon Wong/Roadshow

There are plenty of fine subcompact products from the usual players in the luxury game, like BMW and Mercedes-Benz. But none of them looks like a million bucks as much as a Range Rover Evoque does, especially now, when its latest refresh puts its looks closer to the big-boy Range Rover than ever before.

That counts both inside and out, too. The Evoque is full of clean lines and minimal visual clutter. Most of the center stack is a screen, and the seats can be outfitted with the same soft Windsor leather we enjoy on far more expensive Land Rover products. It's hard to find a plusher subcompact SUV than this one.

Craig Cole/Roadshow

You won't be tackling Moab in any subcompact, because the wild hardware required isn't really available in this segment. That said, if you do plan on tackling some trails and maybe finding a more remote place to camp, and you need something small for the task, the Subaru Crosstrek is a pretty good way to get there.

The Crosstrek isn't really a subcompact, but it's small and we're rounding down. All-wheel drive is standard, as is 8.7 inches of ground clearance, the latter of which should be pretty important in the event of a few stray rocks on the trail. In addition to being small and fordable, the Crosstrek has an attractive cabin and some impressive on-road efficiency, meaning it won't be totally annoying to pilot once you're back on solid ground.

Read our 2021 Subaru Crosstrek review.

Emme Hall/Roadshow

A few of these categories don't have a clear winner. Since automakers share so much of their tech between their vehicles these days, it only felt right to talk about our favorite tech-laden cars as a group.

In this category, Hyundai and Kia reign supreme. When their vehicles don't include the full suite of active and passive safety systems, those upgrades are often available for a low price. Nearly all their vehicles across the price spectrum come standard with Apple CarPlay and Android Auto, but if you do prefer the in-house interface, these automakers have one of the best infotainment systems on offer today. These are easy cars to recommend for tech aficionados.

Craig Cole/Roadshow

Again, we have a tie. Automakers have offered long warranty periods as a way to offer buyers peace of mind for a longer stretch of time, which these days can often extend to a full decade.

Mitsubishi, Hyundai and Kia all offer impressive warranties. In terms of bumper-to-bumper coverage, all three offer a 5-year, 60,000-mile warranty. All three also give the buyer a 10-year, 100,000-mile warranty for the powertrain. It's never fun calling the dealership, but knowing you're protected against unforeseen costs can help soften the blow.

Craig Cole/Roadshow

This category would have had a different winner a few months ago. Prior to the release of VW's latest SUV, the subcompact with the most cargo room was the Kia Seltos. But now, thanks to some clever packaging, the Volkswagen Taos has taken the crown.

Despite its diminutive frame, the VW Taos offers nearly 28 cubic feet of cargo space with all seats up. That number jumps even higher to 66 cubes once that second row is folded down. Simply put, that's a ton of capacity. The number shrinks a bit if you opt for all-wheel drive, given the extra hardware required to get those wheels to move, but the Taos is a hard act to beat either way.

Read our 2022 Volkswagen Taos review.

Tim Stevens/Roadshow

You're not going to be towing horse trailers or entire double-wides with a subcompact SUV, but some of these little utes are able to tow a couple thousand pounds, which should help you get more of your stuff around town.

The Jeep Renegade, Kia Seltos and Mazda CX-30 are all capable of towing 2,000 pounds, but that's not the highest figure among small SUVs. Volvo has them all beat, with the XC40 SUV offering an impressive 3,500-pound tow rating. Need to get a race car across town? Now you can, and you don't have to buy something the size of a small apartment building to make it happen.

Craig Cole/Roadshow

Most vehicles these days carry the same kinds of active and passive safety systems -- forward collision warning, lane-departure warning, all that good stuff. Which is why, to settle this category, we went straight to the experts at the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. According to their figures, the Mazda CX-30 reigns supreme in safety.

Safety is more than the sum of the aforementioned tech systems. In every crash test, the CX-30 achieved the IIHS' top rating of Good. It also received full marks for vehicle-to-vehicle and vehicle-to-pedestrian crash protection. Surprisingly, what puts the CX-30 ahead of its rivals, however barely, is its child-seat LATCH system, which the IIHS rated Good+ thanks to its ease of use.


Comparison of the best subcompact SUVs for 2022

Category Name Base Engine Output Fuel Economy (mpg, city/hwy/combined) Base Price
Best subcompact SUV Hyundai Kona 2.0-liter I4 147 hp / 132 lb-ft 30 / 35 / 32 $22,545
Best subcompact SUV runner-up Mazda CX-30 2.5-liter I4 186 hp / 186 lb-ft 25 / 33 / 28 $23,425
Best subcompact luxury SUV Audi Q3 2.0-liter I4 turbo 228 hp / 258 lb-ft 22 / 30 / 25 $37,595
Best subcompact performance SUV Hyundai Kona N 2.0-liter I4 turbo 276 hp / 289 lb-ft 20 / 27 / 23 $35,445
Best subcompact hybrid SUV Kia Niro Hybrid 1.6-liter I4 104 hp / 109 lb-ft 51 / 46 / 49 $25,945
Best subcompact plug-in hybrid SUV Kia Niro Plug-In Hybrid 1.6-liter I4 139 hp / 195 lb-ft 105 MPGe $30,845
Best subcompact electric SUV Volvo C40 Recharge Dual electric motor 408 hp / 487 lb-ft TBD $59,845
Best subcompact SUV for fuel economy Hyundai Kona 2.0-liter I4 147 hp / 132 lb-ft 30 / 35 / 32 $22,545
Best affordable subcompact SUV Kia Soul 2.0-liter I4 147 hp / 132 lb-ft 28 / 33 / 30 $20,545
Best subcompact SUV if money is no object Land Rover Range Rover Evoque 2.0-liter I4 turbo 246 hp / 269 lb-ft 20 / 27 / 22 $46,050
Best subcompact SUV for off-roading Subaru Crosstrek 2.0-liter H4 152 hp / 145 lb-ft 28 / 33 / 30 $23,820
Best subcompact SUV for cargo space Volkswagen Taos 1.5-liter I4 turbo 158 hp / 184 lb-ft 28 / 36 / 31 $24,690
Best subcompact SUV for towing Volvo XC40 2.0-liter I4 turbo 187 hp / 221 lb-ft 23 / 32 / 26 $36,195
Best subcompact SUV for safety Mazda CX-30 2.5-liter I4 186 hp / 186 lb-ft 25 / 33 / 28 $23,425

How we made our list

We drove them, of course! Over the past year, and for many years prior, Roadshow's editors have evaluated the entire new-car spectrum, which gives us all the context we need to figure out which cars are best for you, dear consumer. We have decades of collective experience in determining what provides the best value, and those efforts have led to the list you're reading right now.

Of course, it bears mentioning that this list shouldn't be taken as canon. Your experience matters most, so take these recommendations to your local dealerships and get to test driving. Once you've actually had some time with a car, you'll be in a better place to make a decision that takes your interests and preferences into account. And don't forget to take the above prices with a grain of salt; haggling is, for better or worse, still part of the buying experience for most people.


Source

Search This Blog

Menu Halaman Statis

close