Are Screen Protectors a Racket?

Imagine a salesman is pitching a iPhone screen protector that's made from the same military grade material used on helicopter blades and space shuttles and has self-healing properties. This thin piece of plastic film can be yours for only $25-50 -- would you call BULLSHIT?

I would.

In a $2 billion cell phone case market that I have already deemed a racket, Zagg makes such claims with their nano-memory technology.

I'd like more detail about these "features" because slapping nano on a gimmicky name and defining it as "visible as a very subtle texture in the surface of the film" is a shameless attempt at jargon marketing. True to bullshit, it sounds good initially but comes undone upon closer examination. First, it's not nano if you can see it. Nano refers to nanotechnology or nanomolecular i.e. one billionth of a meter. Zagg says and I paraphrase that the nano-memory technology make it

1. self-healing
2. pliable and flexible for corner coverage
3. easy to install
4. drop-resistant
5. glare-resistant orange peel texture.

1. Self-healing plastics actually DO exist, thanks to a layered polymer. I question whether Zagg uses this technology and whether Zagg itself is military-grade. 3M has the market cornered on aerospace polyurethane tape which costs $3000 for 36 yards or $2/ sq. inch. XPEL makes self-healing paint-protection kits for cars for $29-$700, $29 for the luggage area which I take to mean the strip next to the trunk opening (still a larger area than a phone screen). Granted these are different products with more layers and different uses but I think Zagg is piggybacking on this concept. According to their wiki, Zagg began in 2005 in a backyard shed in Salt Lake City selling iPod screens- that's not a military-grade background.
2. Any screen should cover the corner if they cut it to the right size- what does the subtle texture and molecules have to do with it?
3. Best Buy charges $7.99 for installation so how easy can it be?
4. "Improved grip makes it easier to hang onto your expensive gadgets." So the screen has nothing to do with surviving the drop- this is really just no-slip grip.
5. This is the one component that actually refers to the texture though orange peel is not nano because as I said before, one can see it.

So after breaking down this poor copy and researching their roots, I'm skeptical of Zagg. Amazon reviews raise concern as well.

Most screens these days are made from chemically treated glass to be scratch resistant so is the screen protector necessary?

To scratch the screen, the object must be harder than the screen. Such is the science of hardness. Many helpful videos show that keys, knives, and razor blades WILL NOT scratch the screen. This helpful video shows that a nail file and a dremel WILL scratch the screen. Diamonds probably will too so never carry your iphone in your pocket full of diamonds.

Essentially, scratches are not the issue. The video shows that the screen can prevent the glass from breaking in a 15-foot drop. So the biggest benefit of the screen protector is the impact-resistance which is hardly promoted. Why does a thin screen protector do a better job protecting against a fall than some of the bulky silicone and plastic cases that are marketed specifically for that purpose (meant for a 6-foot drop)?

Let's look at laminated glass used in windshields. A resin bond between two layers of glass increases strength and keeps the shards together when cracked. I'm no expert but I imagine the extra strength comes from the resin bond and layers allowing energy to disperse through the whole windshield. Bullet-proof glass takes this concept to the next level by layering and laminating polycarbonate plastic between glass. Here's Mythbusters take.

How about a screen protector making an iPhone bullet-resistant? Clearplex, a Utah-based windshield screen manufacturer made a huge splash with their clever ads. Outside of stopping bullets, there are no outrageous claims- just a screen that's clearer and smoother than Zagg. However, there must be a reason he used a shotgun shell instead of a bullet- perhaps less force from the dispersed buckshot. Also the covered iPhone had only one mark from buckshot but the uncovered had several, why is that?

Here's a rundown of some popular cases based on scouring Amazon and forums:

Clearplex- not many reviews out there but durability, feel and clarity seem to be a plus. There was one bad review that said the edges were not cut properly and peeled up which is a huge issue.
Zagg- sticky feel and orange peel texture are bad, annoying to install but some swear by it
Moshi- because I don't like the idea of bubbles, lint and the wet install, I thought dry install would be good but this one leaves a rainbow haze which is bad
3M- thick and reduces screen clarity so no go
Spigen SGP Glas.tR- rates well but 4mm of glass on top of glass seems stupid, is it just me?
Buff Labs- nice video but may have to buy on ebay and I avoid that for certain goods
Belkin- dry application and totally clear according to 3/3 five-star reviews on Amazon.

It comes down to Clearplex and Belkin with each around $15 though Belkin is a 3-pack. I'm intimidated by the wet application of Clearplex but I don't know if Belkin would have the same impact protection. Is it a special material that protects or is it the nature of laminated glass?

When I was 10 or so, I bought a Fisher Space Pen that could write upside-down and underwater. I put the crappy hotel pen to the same tests and it could also write upside-down and underwater. Go figure. Americans spent millions developing the space pen- Russians used a pencil.

What do I use?

I'm rocking leather case from PreserveTheWord on Etsy (roughman with teal stitch) and I love it! It's handsome and I like the feel.

I went by the Apple store to browse screen protectors and a "genius" rubbed her screen with her metal ring to show me it doesn't need a protector. While I appreciated her honesty at trying to get me NOT to buy something, I explained that I don't need scratch protection and I'm more concerned with impact and stray bullets. My laminated glass discourse may have been lost on her.

Maybe I'll just keep it naked in the leather case, like going commando with leather chaps...

The Cell Phone Case Racket

I have never liked the idea of protective cases or covers (except for cars and that's only when not in use) but for a small, fumble-able phone that acts like and costs as much as a cheap computer; these cases are a widely-accepted necessity. More like a necessary evil but most people bought into the craze and now celebrate them as decoration. Why? What good is a thin, clean design if it's covered up with a fat and ugly case?

And why is a simple plastic case $30? Or rubber or silicon or a mix for $40? This is a racket! It was a $2.1 billion industry in 2009.

I'd rather my phone go naked but just in case...

I found a website called Monoprice where cases cost about what one would expect- $3 for a basic rubber and plastic and $7 for a leather wallet type. Monoprice is known for affordable cables and good $10 headphones.

Why and how do they sell products closer to cost?

  

Sunglasses- To Buy or Not To Buy

I have been noncommittally in the market for a pair of sunglasses for several years now since I don't really wear the clunky Bottega Venettas my grandma rescued from the discount bin at the optometrist. (Nice leather case but not my style anyway). I don't have many occasions to wear sunglasses but who does- style trumps function in eyewear these days.

Ever since seeing my mom wearing slick black Ray-Bans in my baby photos, I've always wanted a pair. My dad emailed me about a $69 one-day sale on eBay for wayfarers but it just didn't feel right. No matter what presidents and celebs sport them, Ray-Bans are now too ubiquitous to be cool (the prevalence of cap and gown grads in wayfarers comes to mind). I also don't like the logo on the lens and frame which promotes the brand while "elevating" the user, but such is the nature of brands.

I thought about holding out for folding Persols because I misremembered that my mom had a pair of those too. Then I saw a piece on 60 Minutes about an Italian company named Luxottica that designs, manufactures, or outright owns just about every brand name/designer sunglass make like Ray Ban, Persol, Oakley, Prada, DG, Tiffany, and on. They also own Sunglass Hut, Target optical, Peale Vision, and vision-care company EyeMed so they control production, distribution, and even some prescription. This means they control the price. The 60 Minutes segment may be one-sided but it made some good points despite the fact that Lesley Stahl bugs me. She was very soft on Barney Frank but asked pointed questions of Luxottica CEO Andrea Guerra. Stahl's monopoly allegations aside, Guerra consistently oozed insincerity and that rubbed me the wrong way.  

I'm not saying Luxottica doesn't make a quality product; I just don't think it worth what they charge and the CEO did not instill buyer confidence. Is Luxottica a monopoly or just a dominant business with a good product and model? I can't tell you but I'd rather skip the price-fixing and support an indie.

I asked google "sunglasses not owned by Luxottica" and came to this forum which started with a question from a guy also interested in Ray-Bans and Persols. There were many recommendations- Randolph Engineering, Maui Jim, American Optical, Mykita, Derome Berrener, Orgreen, Dita, 999.9, Facial Index, Salt, Reiz, Cutler and Gross. Many of them imitated the wayfarers and had the all-too trendy minimalist black helvetica or gothic on white site design.

I particularly liked Warby and Parker which was mentioned in the segment. It's presentation reminded me of Bonobos or Frank and Oak and it has a compassionate consumerism ethos similar to Toms.

Whatever I decide to buy, I guess it can wait...

A('s) Box Office Blunder

For someone who doesn't like baseball anymore (another story), even I LOVE this A’s team. It’s easy to be dissatisfied with an organization run by an owner set on cutting costs and relocating; but when great baseball sprouts from a group of rookie contracters and castoffs that earns the MLB’s smallest payroll- I notice.

Well, my best friend did. I thought it was another AAA team posing as major-leaguers while stuck in the Wolfe-Beane relocation purgatory. My friend convinced me this band of underdogs was special- something to prove with nothing to lose. He was so sure that he bought tickets to the final 31 home games- and so began the Anti-Movement Movement to keep the A’s in Oakland. This is the bizarre tale not of A’s success, but of that purchase.

With 81 home games, 31 games is over a third of a season and costs over $800 for a pair of bleacher seats- no small investment. One would imagine that such a large order would come with a discount.

My friend asked a ticket sales representative about a package. With the intonation and slow nod of a seedy salesman who wants to be your bro, the rep said, “Yeaaahhh, I can’t get you tickets for this season but what I can do is put you on our waiting list for 2013 season tickets, with a deposit." But that's next year, I want tickets for this year! "Yeaahhh, we’re kinda focusing on next year.”

What?! The A’s are playing their best baseball since 2006, the time is now! Wouldn’t a Playoff Push Package be a good way to promote the current success and boost sales? Instead of asking for contact info to follow up with lame calls (which my friend didn't answer), shouldn’t the rep ask (or at least pretend to ask) a supervisor if they can offer group pricing or some other discount or added value for someone making such a large purchase. How long would that take? That awareness could go a long way in showing the customer he matters.

Confused but undeterred, my friend went to the ticket window and ordered. The ticket ops lady said, “So are you like a real fan or a bandwagoner?” Really?!

Good tactic- belittle a customer and challenge his fandom just as he is about to drop $800. The problem is 1) he didn’t think it was sarcasm and 2) if it was, then it wasn’t funny 3) as much as I love sarcasm, it has no place in sales. How about a sincere “thank you for your support, is there anything else I can do for you”? If one must joke, why not say “welcome aboard the bandwagon” followed by a chuckle. Even that may be pushing it.

The sad part is that the A’s have enough trouble attracting fans without the employees scaring off the ones who do show. I can't judge the ticket sales office on this single experience, but I will say that there’s only one first impression and two staffers shit the bed. To all the A's sales reps- please sell some tickets with integrity and help keep the A's in Oakland.

Although the ticket sales office may have missed an opportunity to properly serve a loyal customer and promote one of the best second half finishes imaginable, the story of the regular season ends well. Vegas had the A’s winning 71 games but they caught lightning in a bottle with pitching (2nd in AL with 3.48 ERA, best since 1990), homeruns (led ML with 112 after All-Star break), 14 walk-off wins, and the Bernie.

I recommend the ticket sales office sell playoff tickets to the bandwagoners lining up for 2013 season tickets.

Made In Europe, Shipped From China = FAKE

My cousin bought FAKE Babolat Pro Hurricane Tour from tennis.cn and Luxilon Big Banger ALU Power from lixingjun2010 on eBay. He said they had 100% positive feedback with 100+ sales. I investigated and found that a dummy bidder nishiki82 accounts for most of the sales and same-day positive feedback.

The string labels and barcodes are convincing and match the real stuff. However, the string broke after five minutes of play, raising suspicion of its authenticity. Other than playing, the best way to verify authenticity (in this particular case) is the packaging. Both had the same package that features a series of ridges (about 4 mm wide) connecting the label pallet in the center to the curved ring that holds the string. See images. The authentic reels do not have these ridges. These packages were also cut roughly around the edges.

Quality of counterfeit varies by case. Here are other sellers - wilsonluxilon, wilsonblx, sohusports, tennisone, 163sports

Overall, if something is made in Europe but shipped from China, PROBABLY FAKE!

2012 NFL Mock Draft

1. IND - Andrew Luck, QB, Stanford

2. WAS - Robert Griffin III, QB, Baylor

3. MIN- Matt Kalil, OT, USC

4. CLE - Trent Richardson, RB, Alambama

5. TB - Morris Claiborne, CB, LSU

6. STL - Justin Blackmon, WR, Oklahoma State

7. JAC - Whitney Mercilus, DE, Illinois

8. MIA - Melvin Ingram, DE, South Carolina

9. CAR - Luke Kuechly, LB, Boston College

10. BUF - Stephon Gilmore, CB, South Carolina

11. KC - Mark Barron, SS, Alabama

12. SEA - Dontari Poe, DT, Memphis

13. ARI - David DeCastro, G, Stanford

14. DAL - Michael Brockers, DT, LSU

15. PHI - Quinton Coples, DE, North Carolina

16. NYJ- Michael Floyd, WR, Notre Dame

17. CIN - Dre Kirpatrick, CB, Alabama

18. SD - Riley Reiff, OT, Iowa

19. CHI - Chandler Jones, DE, Syracuse

20. TEN - Stephen Hill, WR, Georgia Tech

21. CIN - Cordy Glenn, G/T, Georgia

22. CLE - Ryan Tannehill, QB, Texas A & M

23. DET - Jonathan Martin, OT, Stanford

24. PIT - Dont’a Hightower, LB, Alabama

25. DEN - Kendall Reyes, DT, Connecticut

26. HOU - Coby Fleener, TE, Stanford

27. NE - Courtney Upshaw, OLB, Alabama

28. GB - Shea McClellen, Boise St. 

29. BAL - Kevin Zeitler, G, Wisconsin

30. SF - Nick Perry, DE, USC

31. NE - Harrison Smith, S, Notre Dame

32. NYG- Doug Martin, RB, Boise State

Kony 2012: Scrutiny Good, 5150 Bad

It's ironic that just as the news media began touting (and scrutinizing) the undeniably polished and poignant Kony 2012 social media campaign, the campaign's figurehead, Jason Russell, incited a PR crisis with a nude public meltdown. Russell's campaign centers around bringing Joseph Kony, a villainous warlord, to justice by making him internationally infamous with a doc, poster kits, and celeb support. The "all pub is good pub" tactic comes to a screeching halt when a leader who should maintain his image and credibility ends up on TMZ pounding the pavement in the nude. Full story.

Also, the group's spending practices and motives were called into question for producing videos like this, which was removed from the Invisible Children site.

Donors allegedly had connections with anti-gay groups.

Despite harsh criticism and strong accusations of foul play, it was still an impressive demonstration of the power of social media.

How will Invisible Children handle it all?