backtop

Print 59 comment(s) - last by jimbojimbo.. on Sep 14 at 3:02 PM
Survey respondents were willing to pay a 12% premium over a normal vehicle for a plug-in hybrid

Reducing our national dependence on foreign oil is big on the agenda of many in the government including President Obama. Some consumers are also looking for ways to reduce their gas bills while producing less pollution as well.

One key vehicle technology that can meet the needs of the government and consumers are hybrid automobiles that get better fuel economy and produce significantly less pollution. A new survey conducted by Pike Research on the willingness of consumers to purchase plug-in hybrid vehicles has been conducted and the results were recently published.

According to the survey, 48% of those polled would be extremely or very interested in purchasing a plug-in hybrid vehicle. 65% of those surveyed would be willing to pay a 12% premium to get a plug-in hybrid vehicle over what they would pay for a traditional vehicle. The survey also found that 82% of those who responded to the survey drive 40 miles or less per day with an average driving distance of 27 miles.

One key item that is cited by survey respondent as being important for considering a plug-in hybrid are workplace, private, and public vehicle recharge stations. According to the survey, 79% would also be willing to pay for a fast charge outlet for their home. However, the amount they are willing to pay is not in line with industry expectations. Exactly what the consumers are willing to pay and what the industry expects them to pay is not mentioned.

The real key to buying a plug-in hybrid for many consumers is low price. The average driver will not pay $87,000 for a plug in Fisker hybrid, but will consider an $25,000 plug-in Prius hybrid. The survey was web based and included 1,041 U.S. consumers.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
This is great
By Spacy on 9/11/2009 10:30:40 AM , Rating: 5
I love the idea of placing even a small portion of our energy consumption needs at night as you can do in a Hybrid. In Canada the power generation industry has to shut off or idle a large portion of our production capabilities because of no demand at night but gets over loaded for the day time. Now lets just hope that the people who buy this wont start charging it when the first get home from there 9-5 job. It well help the industry I work in to utilize more power production at night and less gas needs during the day thereby reducing our energy demands on foreign oil




RE: This is great
By omnicronx on 9/11/09, Rating: -1
RE: This is great
By kattanna on 9/11/2009 10:49:52 AM , Rating: 5
thats incorrect.

while there are always baseline load plants running 24/7 there are also peak load plants that only come on line during the peak load times of the day, and shut down after peak loads. and as such they are much more expansive to operate then baseline plants.


RE: This is great
By randomposter on 9/11/2009 10:57:35 AM , Rating: 5
In addition to being more expensive per kw/h, peak load plants are typically also more polluting than their base load counterparts. And I'm not just talking CO2 emissions but things like mercury, particulate, NOx, SOx, etc.


RE: This is great
By johnsonx on 9/11/2009 11:59:21 AM , Rating: 2
Not only that but even within a single power plant there are load points that are more efficient than others. Power plants have multiple generators, and each individual unit has an efficiency curve. To meet a given load, they have to decide how many generators to run and at what load on each generator. If additional power is needed do they bring up another generator, or run the existing ones a little above their peak efficiencies?


RE: This is great
By Samus on 9/11/2009 5:34:03 PM , Rating: 2
hey spacy, sounds like the utilities up there just need to tell the pot growers to run their lights at night ;)


RE: This is great
By Iaiken on 9/11/2009 1:47:51 PM , Rating: 4
Seriously? Are you retarded?

I used to work at the IESO (formerly IMO (formerly the Ontario Hydro control center)), who are responsible for controlling who generates what (according to demand and bidding) and monitoring the grid. At night, many of the Generation stations are spooled down to the bare minimum or even shut down for the night. For the most part, the only stations that run 24/7 are Bruce, Pickering, Darlington and Niagara with all others either being on standby or shut down until early morning.

If you are interested in finding out more please see:

http://www.ieso.ca/

In their public reports you can see all of the dispatch requests, which shows you who is generating how much and when.

And please, in the future, don't make statements that are just outright untrue... On one hand you'll be looked at as ignorant, on the other you will be looked at as an outright liar... Neither is good.


RE: This is great
By The0ne on 9/11/2009 2:19:26 PM , Rating: 2
Thank God I'm not alone in thinking along the same line. He's off to Google, which in this case is a good thing. I usually just comment on experiences I know of first hand and avoid those I really don't have much info on even if I did Google them. It's just not a good idea to spout your opinions on something you JUST Googled *roll eyes*


RE: This is great
By Alexstarfire on 9/11/2009 4:39:37 PM , Rating: 2
I watched a show on the discovery, or perhaps science, channel on it. The way the power grid is set up, at least in the US, is HORRIBLE. It's almost a surprise things just don't asplode on a regular basis. Seems quite silly to me that we have to power down plants for the night, or even parts of the day, just because we don't need the power. We need to find a way to store this power so that during the peak usage we don't end up short. Should help with efficiencies too since you could operate at the most efficient point most of the time, because of the energy stored during off peak times.

I'm not sure how one would go about modifying the power grid to do such a thing though, even if we had the technology. Too many things need to be changed and/or brought up-to-date.


RE: This is great
By The0ne on 9/11/2009 5:54:14 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, they are. When CA had their energy crisis a few years back a lot info surfaced regarding the power grid, where they came from, who owns them, and so forth. I'm not up to date on the matter but I haven't heard anything, big, that has been done to prevent this other than going with another company to get the power from. Shrug.

What this means is that once electric vehicles and products do that off where and how are we going to deal with this. We're still on energy alert now. What has SDG&E done to supplant the future increase in energy usage from vehicles and such? I've no idea...that's why I'm very curious and convern about the Honda/SDG&E project.


RE: This is great
By 67STANG on 9/12/2009 2:46:58 AM , Rating: 2
Except for the fact that California's "crisis" was not caused by lack of power generation within the state. It had to do with corrupt utilities selling off California's power to neighboring states for higher profits, and shutting off the local power when they didn't have enough after the sale. Then there was Enron...

You can thank both of those factors for the infamous "rolling blackouts".


RE: This is great
By The0ne on 9/14/2009 2:21:09 AM , Rating: 2
That was the main problem yes but ultimately it is a CA crisis. If it weren't we, as state citizens, wouldn't be troubled :D

And like I said before, I haven't heard of any dramatic changes that would fix this crisis issue. Dark days ago I presume.


RE: This is great
By Oregonian2 on 9/12/2009 5:47:08 PM , Rating: 2
Depends how you look at it. They maybe do what you suggest. They store the "extra" energy in the form of fuel that the shutdown plants use. They then convert that stored energy back into something useful by running the plant's generators.

Keep in mind that any "stored" energy isn't electrons floating in an energy cloud directly usable on the grid. Any stored power will have to be converted back into a form suitable for grid-use, and that will not be 100% efficient.

There also is the issue of the generators being inherently up/down. This is an issue with the increasingly popular wind generators (being built en masse in Eastern Oregon) who's power output comes and goes with the wind. Locally, the wind folk are charged a surcharge on their power (with their complete agreement) to have their variability compensated for by those in control of the grid.


RE: This is great
By JediJeb on 9/11/2009 10:47:24 AM , Rating: 3
A group of people that are being forgotten here are those that work third shift. If you work third shift from 11pm to 8am or similar times, you probably won't be able to use off peak power to recharge your vehicle. Are these people doomed to pay more to recharge their vehicles or would some special consideration be given due to shift worked?

It may not be that large a group of people, but so far every claim I have read about plug in vehicles being so much lower cost have been based on charging at lower cost off peak hours. Also not everyone has reduced prices at off peak hours, were I live you get charged the same for electricity no matter what time it is when you use it.


RE: This is great
By kfonda on 9/11/2009 12:15:21 PM , Rating: 3
Not to mention the fact that if everyone is charging their cars at night it will no longer be off peak. Has anyone calculated what kind of load the charging will put on the grid? That many cars added to the system may be more than it can handle.


RE: This is great
By The0ne on 9/11/2009 1:24:52 PM , Rating: 2
I don't think that math is out there yet and if they were are not correct. San Diego SD&E and Honda Leaf will be on test soon and hopefully they will have numbers afterward. I'm very concern because Solcal is lacking in water and energy.


RE: This is great
By mars2k on 9/11/2009 11:12:40 AM , Rating: 2
Wow guys,so negative. This survey has a small sample because research firms like this don't post surveys in the way you are thinking. This wasn't put up on a high traffic comercial site but rather a dedicated site for scientific surveys. The participants are drawn from a pool of folks who have been asked to take the surveys. They get asked to participate based on their demographic information. The results are trusted not so much because the pool size but rather its quality.

All that said the article is about car buying trends and how receptive people who actually buy cars feel about new technology. Good news overall.


RE: This is great
By Maxima2k2se on 9/11/2009 11:22:03 AM , Rating: 1
Well if the surveys aren't meant to represent a huge population of people then the titles shouldn't not imply that they do. 48% of "consumers" and 42% of "Americans". It is misleading. Then again that is probably the purpose.


RE: This is great
By Spuke on 9/11/2009 5:56:43 PM , Rating: 3
The survey (executive summary...you have to pay for the entire study) also said that 34% of the respondents are somewhat interested/somewhat disinterested in PHEV's. The author combined the Extremely interested (22%) and Very Interested (26%)together. Also,
quote:
Conversely, the “green consumer” behavioral group was significantly more interested in PHEVs than the average respondent in our survey. This group includes selfidentified environmentalists and those who regularly purchase organic and environmentally-friendly consumer products.

The summary didn't say what percentage of the results were from this group. The summary said that the "great majority" would be willing to pay for a recharging outlet at home but would pay no more than $250 for one. Pike's Research (the group performing the survey) says that 1st gen fast recharge outlets may cost from $500 to $800.

quote:
However, willingness to pay for such fast charging outlets was limited. The great majority of respondents interested in fast charging were willing to pay $250 or less for this upgrade; however, Pike Research’s analysis indicates that the first generation of residential fast charging outlets will cost between $500 and $800.


RE: This is great
By Spuke on 9/11/2009 5:59:35 PM , Rating: 2
Some more:
quote:
SCOPE OF STUDY
Pike Research has prepared this report to provide participants involved in the automotive market with a study of consumer demand for PHEVs and their associated charging infrastructure. Its major objective is to objectively assess levels of consumer interest in PHEVs and electrical charging, along with willingness to pay for these products and an evaluation of key attitudes and behavior that are relevant to this market. Great care was taken in constructing a survey questionnaire that would yield the most accurate and unbiased results possible. However, it should be noted that consumers often have difficulty providing survey responses that will accurately predict their purchase behavior for products that have not yet been introduced in the market.

SURVEY METHODOLOGY
Pike Research conducted a web-based survey of 1,041 U.S. consumers during 2Q 2009 using a structured online questionnaire. The survey invitation was sent to a nationally-representative and demographically-balanced sample of consumers who are members of a large online panel, and respondents were offered a chance to win prizes in exchange for their participation. The margin of error for these survey results is +/- 3 percent with a 95 percent confidence interval.


RE: This is great
By Fritzr on 9/13/2009 7:29:42 AM , Rating: 2
The survey company selects a sample group that will be representative of the larger population they are surveying. In this case they would have screened the survey takers to ensure that they represented a cross section of the average American population.

A properly selected random group of survey takers can be relied on to provide answers very close to what a full poll of the entire population would give. 1 or 2 thousand surveys give a very high accuracy for a national survey.

Selecting a sample group is a science & the professional polling companies work hard to ensure accuracy.


RE: This is great
By Spuke on 9/14/2009 12:44:01 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
The survey company selects a sample group that will be representative of the larger population they are surveying.
Unfortunately, because of the following quote, I think the results of this survey are NOT representative of the larger population. The majority of the population are NOT environmentalists.

quote:
Conversely, the “green consumer” behavioral group was significantly more interested in PHEVs than the average respondent in our survey. This group includes selfidentified environmentalists and those who regularly purchase organic and environmentally-friendly consumer products.


RE: This is great
By Spookster on 9/11/2009 3:44:29 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
by Spacy on September 11, 2009 at 10:30 AM

I love the idea of placing even a small portion of our energy consumption needs at night as you can do in a Hybrid. In Canada the power generation industry has to shut off or idle a large portion of our production capabilities because of no demand at night but gets over loaded for the day time. Now lets just hope that the people who buy this wont start charging it when the first get home from there 9-5 job. It well help the industry I work in to utilize more power production at night and less gas needs during the day thereby reducing our energy demands on foreign oil


Could create a device that allows the person to select a delay before charging begins. Kind of like how dishwashers have the option of a 2/4/8 hour delay before it begins washing. That way when you get home you can plug in your car and hit the delay so it doesn't begin charging until later on that night.


RE: This is great
By MadMan007 on 9/11/2009 10:19:54 PM , Rating: 2
I think tech like timing loads to flatten out demand is part of 'smart grid.'


RE: This is great
By jimbojimbo on 9/14/2009 2:51:26 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
lets just hope that the people who buy this wont start charging it when the first get home from there 9-5 job
The general habbit will be to plug in right after getting home otherwise they would forget. You can expect a HUGE spike during the prime time hours as it charges then nothing at all during the middle of the night when it's done charging.


1,041
By computergeek485 on 9/11/2009 10:23:29 AM , Rating: 2
Wow that is a bold statement to make with such an incredibly small amount of people. It might be a realistic statement if it were 100,000 people.




RE: 1,041
By BuckinBottoms on 9/11/2009 10:26:57 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
The survey was web based

So much for that survey...

Why would you put such a survey on such a lowly site that can only get a 1000 votes? That's a terrible base for any survey's statistics to be accurate for a nation of 300 million.


RE: 1,041
By Jedi2155 on 9/11/2009 11:03:02 AM , Rating: 2
I won't entirely dismissed web based surveys as there are a number of research places that does their research entirely web based. They aren't the simple Polls you see on a typical site with one question, but usually take about 15 minutes+ complete. Usually rewarding the survey taking with a cash incentive as well.

I've been a part of survey's in the past and they usually are quite detailed.


RE: 1,041
By invidious on 9/11/2009 1:38:02 PM , Rating: 2
Put the same survey on multiple websites and you will get different results depending on the biases enherant to the people the website attacts. For this reason web based surveys are inherantly flawed and should absolutely be dismissed quickly.


RE: 1,041
By ArcliteHawaii on 9/11/2009 8:18:05 PM , Rating: 3
EXACTLY . The issue isn't with the numbers of participants. In a truly random sample, 1000 people is more than enough to provide representation of opinion of a group of 100,000 or 300,000,000 with a margin of error of 3-5%. As counter intuitive as it is, that's statistics.

The trick of course is to get a truly random sample . Even though this was web-based, we don't know if the sample was randomly chosen or not. Pike Research is staffed with professionals, so we could make the assumption of some attempt and random selection. Even so, there's inherent bias since only people who go online could have taken the survey.


RE: 1,041
By MadMan007 on 9/11/2009 10:21:27 PM , Rating: 2
So you think this survey was like a pop-up or ad-driven survey? Puh-lease.


RE: 1,041
By SublimeSimplicity on 9/11/2009 10:26:31 AM , Rating: 2
Not to mention web-based... meaning it precluded people who are already leery of things being plugged-in.


RE: 1,041
By Maxima2k2se on 9/11/2009 10:58:24 AM , Rating: 1
Ya lol 1,041 people surveyed = 42% of Americans = EPIC FAIL.


RE: 1,041
By ArcliteHawaii on 9/11/2009 8:22:45 PM , Rating: 4
If it is an epic fail, it has nothing to do with the number surveyed. Statistics is a type of mathematics. Political surveys typically number in the high hundreds or a bit over 1000 participants and accurately gauge the national mood on any candidate or issue within a small margin of error. It just has to be done correctly. Whether this one was or not can only be known if Pike Research releases it's methodology.


RE: 1,041
By Suomynona on 9/11/2009 11:00:59 AM , Rating: 5
The problem isn't the number of participants, it's the fact that it's not a representative sample of car buyers. You can get plenty of useful data out of a sample of 1000 people if you do it right, as opposed to just doing an internet survey.


I'm cheap.
By Schrag4 on 9/11/2009 12:26:20 PM , Rating: 2
I would pay a slight premium (12% might be reasonable) if the long term costs vs a plain'ol ICE vehicle is squarely in my favor. However, I cringe at paying even 15k for ANY vehicle. How soon do you guys think it will be before I can find a reliable, just-a-few-years-old Prius for under 10k? To me, a vehicle the size of a Prius isn't worth even that much (considering you can get a 3 year old car about the same size for between 6k and 8k used). I don't care about how 'cool' a vehicle is. I just care about what I can do with it (move my family of 5 on occassion, and 22 mile round-trip commute) and how much it costs to own and operate.




RE: I'm cheap.
By JediJeb on 9/11/2009 1:34:21 PM , Rating: 2
I am a member of this crowd also. I understand there is a lot of R&D to be covered in the first models, but I don't think you will see hybrids or EVs take off untill there are plenty in the $20k-$25k price range with a good supply of used ones also in the lower price ranges.

Also for me I am one who doesn't trade vehicles often. The least amount of time I owned a vehicle so far has been seven years. That was the one I got when I graduated high school, a used 1979 Mustang and it lasted me through 6 years of college and into my first job. I traded it in for $700 and actually think I ripped the dealer off on it because it was totally worn out. I still own the 88 ranger I traded it for in 91, and the 96 F150 that I bought in 96, so my newest vehicle is now 13 years old. I am waiting to see if these hybrids and EVs will last for 10+ years and over 200,000 miles before I purchase one. No use buying one if they don't last.


RE: I'm cheap.
By randomposter on 9/11/2009 2:00:09 PM , Rating: 2
Are you sure you're comparing the same sized cars? The Prius has 94 cu.ft passenger volume and 22cu.ft luggage capacity. The Camry has 101 cu.ft and 15 cu.ft. The Accord has 101 cu.ft and 14 cu.ft.

I don't see any of those cars going for $6-8k used.


RE: I'm cheap.
By Schrag4 on 9/11/2009 2:53:17 PM , Rating: 1
Are you serious? A couple of years ago I got my 2002 Oldsmobile Intrigue for around 7k. According to cardsdirect (the first website I stumbled onto), it has 99 cu ft interior and 16.3 cu ft cargo. It does just what I said - it gets me to work and back with no problems and I can even move my whole family in it if necessary. Why would I be limited to a Camry or an Accord?


RE: I'm cheap.
By MadMan007 on 9/11/2009 10:24:25 PM , Rating: 2
He probably selected cars of likely comparable quality. I'm glad your Olds works for you but...


RE: I'm cheap.
By lightfoot on 9/11/2009 3:25:03 PM , Rating: 3
Toyotas and Hondas typically have better resale values which are a boon for the original owners, but a curse for any future owners, especially if they intend to drive the car into its grave. They (Toyotas and Hondas) tend to be overpriced on the used car market, and only marginally better in terms of reliability.

Initial quality means precisely squat on the used car market.


RE: I'm cheap.
By randomposter on 9/11/2009 3:53:50 PM , Rating: 2
My experience has been that Toyotas are like the rolling undead of the automotive world. Long after they reached the point where I stopped giving a shit about them and began to neglect basic maintenance, they just kept going and going and going. Can't speak to Honda in this regard, and my experience with other import makes has been a mixed bag.

Of course this was quite a few years ago - when I used to literally drive my cars into the ground - and current model Toyotas (etc.) may be built differently.


42 ?
By kattanna on 9/11/2009 10:30:33 AM , Rating: 1
while 42 maybe the the answer to everything, the survey says 48% not 42% like the articles title says




RE: 42 ?
By andrinoaa on 9/11/2009 5:48:03 PM , Rating: 2
Why are you guys so smug in your "manufactured" intelligence. Surely the survey is only suggesting the bloody obvious that the tide is turning from monster SUVs to energy efficient cars. NO MORE, NO LESS. ( I like 42 , lol )


RE: 42 ?
By Spuke on 9/11/2009 6:11:19 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Why are you guys so smug in your "manufactured" intelligence.
If you gave me this survey I would answer the questions given. And depending on how the questions are worded it might seem I have an interest too. Frankly, I find the tech interesting but that doesn't translate to a purchase. To quote Pike's Research:
quote:
Great care was taken in constructing a survey questionnaire that would yield the most accurate and unbiased results possible. However, it should be noted that consumers often have difficulty providing survey responses that will accurately predict their purchase behavior for products that have not yet been introduced in the market.

So people could SAY, "yeah I'm REALLY interested in buying a PHEV and installing a home recharge station" and then go out an buy a Chevy Tahoe. LOL!


RE: 42 ?
By brandonicus on 9/11/2009 7:14:46 PM , Rating: 2
Eh just a simple typo... because as you know the 2 and 8 keys are way to close together. I wouldn't expect a fix, that would cost dailytech countless man hours piled on top of millions of dollars. :)


In related news......
By theapparition on 9/11/09, Rating: 0
RE: In related news......
By randomposter on 9/11/2009 10:29:59 AM , Rating: 1
Ooooh, how impressive! Hurling mindless insults at people because their opinions differ from your own. Do you feel like a big man now?


RE: In related news......
By AEvangel on 9/11/2009 10:50:16 AM , Rating: 1
Yeah specially since we know that the # is way higher then just 42%.


RE: In related news......
By andrinoaa on 9/12/2009 8:17:45 PM , Rating: 2
The number 42 is a RUNNING GAG in "the hitch hikers guide to the galaxy" The number 42 is the " meaning of everything". Ha ha ha, and you thought it had some meaningful statistical value!
You need to get sarcasm.


RE: In related news......
By jimbojimbo on 9/14/2009 3:02:33 PM , Rating: 2
and you need to learn that not everything is sarcastic.


stop ignoring the broken record
By invidious on 9/11/2009 1:31:59 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
One key vehicle technology that can meet the needs of the government and consumers are hybrid automobiles that get better fuel economy and produce significantly less pollution.
You must have some magical "electricity trees" that produces electricity for your car without causing polution. I've gotta get me one of those so I can be a smug hippie too.




By matt0401 on 9/11/2009 3:08:46 PM , Rating: 2
You're joking right? I don't see how anyone could be so stupid.


Diesel
By plonk420 on 9/11/2009 2:38:53 PM , Rating: 3
i'm more interested in "new" Diesels (that somehow make it thru the (stupidly?) strict American standards...




What's So Hot About Hybrids?
By Machinegear on 9/11/2009 10:59:57 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
those surveyed would be willing to pay a 12% premium to get a plug-in hybrid vehicle over what they would pay for a traditional vehicle.


This conclusion makes me think people are interested in the uniqueness of a gas/electric car verses the mileage benefits possibly realized by driving a fuel efficient vehicle.

If I were take this conclusion as fact, then people are willing to pay 12% more for a hybrid that possibly gets fewer MPG than a 'traditional' vehicle? I doubt it. (*Think turbo diesel.*) People are actually interested in fuel efficiencies; not what's under the hood (or bonnet for my UK friends). In general people will pay a little more upfront in fixed costs (the car) to reduce their future variable costs (gas prices).

Stats seems to be a hard subject for many folks.




48%
By lightfoot on 9/11/2009 3:05:56 PM , Rating: 2
Is this the same 48% who also cares about what Brittany Spears is doing at any given moment?

And they say that they are willing to pay a 12% premium, but I doubt that you could even find 48% of the population willing to pay the base price for a conventional new car, much less a premium price on a new car.




Not I.
By ummduh on 9/11/2009 10:49:50 PM , Rating: 2
Not willing to buy one at any cost.

What I DO want, however, is a TDI that isn't a Volkswagon or german.

Focus TDI would rule IMO.




Efficiency
By Liberatorn on 9/13/2009 2:49:42 AM , Rating: 2
I'm no expert here but it seems that any operation that can run at optimum level 24/7 is superior to any operation that only operates on the 9-5 schedule. If you were the owner of a business that paid a fixed per month rate of rent wouldn't you would rather have your output going evenly all day every day rather than huge spikes and valleys?? I'm not generally in favor of pie-in-the-sky dreamer technology but the idea of utilizing otherwise wasted power generation resources sounds like a good idea to me.




42%? No...really?
By EricMartello on 9/13/2009 5:11:04 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Survey Shows 42% of Americans Interested in Plug-in Hybrids


Population of USA ~305 million.
42% of 305 million is 128 million.

quote:
The survey was web based and included 1,041 U.S. consumers


Slightly misleading, eh?

and...

LOLgrade3mathLOL

The correct title should read "42% of Americans Surveyed..."




"We are going to continue to work with them to make sure they understand the reality of the Internet.  A lot of these people don't have Ph.Ds, and they don't have a degree in computer science." -- RIM co-CEO Michael Lazaridis











botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki