Shine a light

Making things green and sustainable is usually an expensive process, but in some cases, the price of technology is dropping so quickly that it’s actually more cost-effective. LEDs are a good example.

I was an intern at the Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation a couple summers ago, and one of the projects they undertook was replacing the incandescent bulbs of their streetlights with LED bulbs. (For some reason, the state parks system owns streetlights in Boston.) Even with the cost of installation and new materials, the agency’s electricity bill was reduced so dramatically that it made a return on its investment within the year.

There are other advantages to LEDs. For one, they last longer, which cuts down on the manpower and time to replace burnt out bulbs. Also, LEDs burn out slowly rather than going out completely, which is much safer when used in traffic lights.

Why isn’t every city doing this?

Currently, New York is testing LEDs, and even considering a redesign of the pole. NYTimes.com's Bits blog has a good summary of the advantages:

Not only will the city reduce its power usage 25 to 30 percent, but the bulbs will last 50,000 to 70,000 hours. Today’s sodium lamps are rated at 24,000 hours, which means at that point half of them are dead. The L.E.D. life rating actually means that the bulb will drop below 70 percent of its original brightness after 50,000 hours or so.

Some critics complain that LEDs don’t have the warm glow of an incandescent bulb. Whatever. It still might be a few years until LEDs become inexpensive enough to light our homes, but in the meantime, there’s no reason they shouldn’t light our streets.

Blackberry vs. iPhone, in the office

Ars Technica, my favorite tech-related news source, ran a sharp piece by Don Reisinger titled "How RIM Can Stop the iPhone Onslaught." The headline is on the emphatic side, but the point is clear: will businesses swap their Blackberrys for iPhones?

People who know me recognize my affinity for Apple products, but it’s not an allegiance. I just think that in many areas Apple makes the best tech goods. But here, I think RIM is positioned to make the better smartphone for businesses.

Apple’s main, built-in audience is consumers of personal electronics. They’ve captured that market pretty handily (people are still trying to make "iPod killers"), and expansion into enterprise is a new but inevitable step. The recent introduction of enterprise-focused features on the iPhone, namely interfacing with Microsoft Exchange, shows that Steve Jobs is edging into RIM’s market.

But unlike the iPhone, the Blackberry isn’t designed to be fun. It’s designed to be serious.

I think RIM has potential to better satisfy enterprise needs, and not just because it uses a physical QWERTY keyboard (though that’s important too). Every model of the Blackberry is geared specifically for businesses, which allows the experience to remain (excuse the pun) strictly business.

If RIM keeps their products focused, it’ll force consumers to answer a single question when they go smartphone shopping: business or pleasure?

This will drive a hard wedge into Apple’s ability to penetrate the enterprise market.

What Reisinger understands is that while RIM has several key advantages – physical keyboard, battery life, carrier independence – future versions of the Blackberry will have to innovate to keep up with the iPhone. American companies often create a winning product and sit on it for years. Tech companies are notorious for letting their breadwinners go obsolete (cough, Palm Pilot).

Reisinger’s best suggestion is for RIM to open a competing App Store. It’ll be hard to beat Apple’s software user experience, especially with iTunes integration, but I don’t think it’s asking too much to offer a worthy rival.

Hopefully, RIM doesn’t innovate in the wrong direction either. Matching Apple’s "fun" features toe to toe, RIM doesn’t stand a chance and, even worse, will worsen the user experience in places where the Blackberry already succeeds. (Another common misstep: more features means better product.)

I think the Blackberry is still at a huge advantage in the workplace. It’s got a QWERTY keyboard (not as sexy as touchscreen typing, but far more efficient), a loyal base of customers (Crackberry addicts), and most importantly, an association with business itself. As popular as the iPhone is for the college-aged, I see as many students with new Blackberrys, usually in the hands of business majors and other kids "serious" about their career.

Admittedly, I’ve spent more time with the iPhone than the Blackberry, but really, that says more about me than the smartphones.