Comments

I think these cheap, high-tech GPS units are great and make a joke of paying $1000 or $2000 extra when buying a new car, only to have a less sophisticated unit that doesn't have the latest in features like live traffic ... and you can put this in your pocket for when you're traveling by foot, taxi, bus, plane, rental car, etc. I think car makers need to partner with companies like Garmin or any of the big GPS markers and make in-car "Nav" function like a docking station for these units. Touchscreen, voice directions, street name reading, automatic updates on road-works, etc. Really, I think they need to work with companies like Google to have a G-Phone dock into the car, sync with the nearest wifi or 3G cell data account, download the route, check live traffic, re-route accordingly, etc. Google has redefined "search" now it's built a phone OS and a PC browser, so next I guess it builds the software for cars and home automation? Please! Please! I've been doing this as a "geek" since the late 90's (first with Ricochet and later with simple laptops, cellular phone data services, etc.) I just want it to get smaller (as the actress said to the bishop) so it's more convenient and "just works" ... I guess that means we wait for Apple to do it! : ) Google, get going!

This review seems to need at least one rewrite. For example, please explain "93%" and let's insert a space between "watt" and "amplifier." And what does "better than the average Bluetooth headpiece" mean? Does this mean an "above average" headset is better than this visor clip-on? I'd also like you to clarify the innuendo "still hanging on our visor" -- does this mean Wired kept the review unit or purchased one for a corporate car or just that the reviewer arbitrarily snagged the review unit as a perk? (Which would make the question about value a little absurd.) Wouldn't it make sense to compare this to other visor clip-on units previously tested? I'm just one consumer, but I have a junk box with two bluetooth ear-piece units (useless junk) from Motorola, the wired kind "in the box" from Apple (functional, but messy) as well as a stereo headset with boom mic from Logitech (illegal for road use and requires "geek" setup skills to use it's rather arcane features and functionality) as well as a Motorola visor clip-on bluetooth handsfree (which is pretty damn good, but still not good enough for a relaxed conversation or an important client call) and my current favorite solution is just to stop the car and focus on the conversation if it's important, otherwise, it can wait. Multi-tasking isn't as important as not dying and not killing someone. After all, the thing that makes a driver distracted and dangerous is not physically holding the phone to their ear, it's their attention to the conversation. If you're going to have a phone call of more than "I'm a bit late" or "Got milk?" then just don't do it at 80 mph ... even if you're a product tester for Wired. : ) By the way, I enjoy a "conversational" writing style for a review, but not when it's vague, ambiguous and generally not helpful, especially when testing consumer products where a more thorough and specific review will separate the expensive doodads from the worthwhile gadgets.

I have a little experience as a private pilot and I've been (slowly) shopping for an affordable light aircraft -- for recreation, not for necessary transport (meaning I'd never have to fly in poor weather) but I'd really prefer to have something that can be a legitimate SUV alternative (carrying two adults, two kids, some gear, luggage, etc.) That's too much for a small Cessna, but I fly a Piper Cherokee II. With attention to weight and balance, and only two small children, it has ample performance and runs quite cheaply with a comprehensive maintenance schedule and everything in 100% condition at all times. Entry-level flight is all about simplicity and this particular airplane is anything but simple. Looking at other recent (last five years) attempts at personal flight, the continuing problem is complexity. Tilt-rotors and all manner of quirky ideas to make a "sky car," well, YouTube is full of videos of all kinds of tilt-rotors etc. and not one of them is by any measure a safe aircraft, let alone suitable for amateurs and recreational flight. These semi-ultralight "toys" like the Searay and this Icon A5 compete more with say a glider or a high-end ultra-light -- they have no range, limited licensing, etc. Lots of fun, but a bit of a novelty unless you become hooked. It's not as if you can say "Hey, I think I'll go fly for an hour" ... that would mean at least an hour to get going and surely an hour to pack up and clean up give or take travel time, coordinating with an airstrip or launching at a lake, etc. And imagine the first time you land and inadvertently hit a wake and take blue water straight over the cowl and douse the engine. In California, operating this kind of aircraft is not entirely convenient. And you have to budget on a tow vehicle and a trailer on top of the base price. That's an expensive start-up proposition. Personally, I'm lucky enough to have a garage with a couple of $150K+ toys that I enjoy as often as possible. A boat sits idly at the dry storage costing me depreciation. I'm hoping to add a light aircraft to the depreciation schedule. And all these toys tend to depreciate, or if they're "investment grade" then you have the hesitation in using them for fear of jeopardizing the investment and so on. It's a tricky business trying to get people to part with their money for toys more than a few times -- fool me once, as they say. While the operating and maintenance costs are quite high even on a 10-30 year-old light aircraft, the resale values are strong. And if you are an avid pilot, buying a new aircraft and "renting" it back to a school or charter for select pilots to use (not students!) can really help balance the budget. Conversely, I hesitate to spend upwards of $100K on something that would very likely be all but unsalable. I talked once of twice with this company, Icon, once or twice to encourage them to instead "lease" the plane and help owners form cooperatives to lease a plane between say three owners -- a relatively small up-front amount (which would in fact be the entire profit margin) and then a lease program with a low or zero balance after say five years. At that point, the plane might be "owned" and have equity or it might be a write-off and just be returned to the vendor perhaps as a way to defray the cost of taking a newer model. This would put the plane in the realm of a golf club equity membership and it would be affordable to a much, much broader market, especially of early-adopters, since the real challenge is to build up a user base of avid pilots, not a handful of wealthy types and their impulse purchases left to get dusty in a hangar somewhere or sold off at pennies on he dollar once the cachet and novelty is gone. So for me, the "value proposition" is: * four seats plus luggage * range for moderate recreational flying * lease program with resale value * "country club" financial model of operating costs * shared ownership with say two others It seems to make sense to me that the Icon A5 would start at a high price. It's undeniably a modern, almost futuristic seaplane. And I'm sure they've done their research, tested pricing and they're starting high -- after all, why start low? If they don't get 100% sales projections, they can adjust accordingly. By comparison, the Searay is something you might have seen landing on a lake in Alaska 50 years ago. It looks "flimsy" like a much older aircraft and it has the "function over form" appearance. The Searay will appeal to some pilots more than others. The appearance of the Icon surely has much broader appeal aesthetically, though I imagine most seasoned pilots and engineers would be looking at the complexity and the details and wondering just how airworthy it is, just how safe it is and how reliable it would be. I can't imagine surviving wind sheer in either craft or the insidious icing problems around lakes. I think all these planes are waiting on the compact turbines to come into price range. And for the money, I think the Icon had to start out with a compact, fuel-efficient turbine. Maybe they just couldn't wait. Of course, given how poorly most people drive cars, I'm not keen to see those same people flying.