Huawei Nexus 6P: Full Review

When I first saw the initial leaks of the Nexus 6P, I was unimpressed and almost entirely set on getting the 5X as my next device. That was true, at least, until Google announced the prices and specs of these phones. The Nexus 6P is a much better bang for your buck, and I'd consider it the best possible smartphone on the market right now.

The fingerprint sensor, called Nexus Imprint, is insanely fast and accurate. Having it on the back may be an interesting change for people who are used to having it on the home button like Apple and Samsung, but personally, I like it on the back better. My finger naturally reaches it when I pick it out of my pocket and a lot of the time it's already unlocked when I bring it up to my face. To unlock from a tap of the fingerprint sensor, it takes just around one second. I timed it. When it is unlocked it directly goes past the lock screen, which is really handy.

The front facing speakers are another high point I thought I'd never use. I'm really used to using headphones all the time, but a few days ago I sure was glad I had these speakers when my friends asked someone to play some music and I knew my phone could produce the best and loudest sound.

The camera may not have the most megapixels, having a modest 12.3. But it does definitely get the job done by having a much larger pixel than other phones. When the pixels the camera takes are larger, this means it can let more light in. The result is better low-light pictures and all pictures are more vibrant. This is the best phone camera I've ever owned.

...

The metal body feels incredibly premium. I have absolutely no complaints there. I chose to get the graphite model, and my only complaint about it is that the black sort of hides the diamond cut edges of it. In pictures, the aluminium model looks much nicer there. The reason I chose to get the graphite version instead of any other color is because I thought it would look better with a dbrand skin. I feel like a skin or case is required with this phone, because the metal is fairly thin and dents easily. That combined with the slippery surface makes for a bad combination for drops. 

The battery definitely gets the job done. Whether it's better or worse than my OnePlus One which was famous for its great battery life, I cannot say. It definitely gets me through the day with at least 4 hours of screen-on time. I've only had one issue with the battery life, and that was caused by a Google Play services bug which caused it to keep my device awake. Weird, but not unheard of. A reinstallation of Play services fixed the issue. Marshmallow's Doze and App Standby features can result in completely flat lines of battery usage over hours of non-use. 

I don't know whether it's Marshmallow, the phone, or a combination of the two, but the 6P is incredibly fast and smooth. I've never used a phone this fast before. Marshmallow's added animation refines what Lollipop set out to do and makes the experience much smoother. When I first got the phone I ran a quick AnTuTu benchmark, with the 6P earning 70924. While that isn't the best ranking around, it sure stacks up to the competition.

I'm incredibly happy with this phone, and I have to say, the fact that it's a Nexus is the best thing about it. I didn't get Nexus Protect, but the ability to have your phone protected for 2 accidental drops is incredibly comforting for those who do. One week after I purchased my 6P, the price dropped $50 on the Google Store. I wasn't worried, because I knew Google Nexus had a famous reputation for keeping their customers happy. From giving price change refunds to repairing Nexus 5 screens for free, Nexus has had a long history of great customer service. Sure enough, one five minute online chat with customer support resulted in $50 being refunded. I didn't have to do anything except message them. They even wished me a merry Christmas! If only every company could be this good to their customers.

Overall, I give the Huawei Nexus 6P a 10/10. There isn't much wrong with this phone. Newest possible clean software, well sufficient specifications, nifty features such as the fingerprint sensor, and the Nexus brand makes this a phone anyone would love to have. It's a pleasant experience for both the techie and the common buyer. If you're looking for a new phone, definitely consider the Nexus 6P, which is now $50 off on the Google Store!

Buy

Quest for a Rootless Experience

I've been rooted since the early days of my Nexus 4. It's just been a way of life for me. Why change it? Well, I got to wondering. Maybe all the things I'm doing to my phone don't really need to be done. Do you know how many bugs, crashes, and headaches have resulted from my tinkering? A lot. And now that I've had the opportunity to start fresh again thanks to my new Nexus 6P, I'm going to try the stock route. No root. No ROMs. Locked bootloader. But how will I survive without the root apps I've come to love?

First issue was battery life. I used apps like Greenify to help my battery in previous phones, but thankfully, Marshmallow already has me covered there. Although Greenify does indeed make Marshmallow's Doze feature better, you don't need root to use it! (You can find my post about that here.) Doze and app standby introduced in Marshmallow do many of the things root apps tried to do in Lollipop.

Second, I missed some features from my custom ROM days. Namely, the ability to skip tracks using the volume keys while the display is off. This is super handy when I'm driving or when I don't want to pull it out of my pocket just to change the song. I spent all day looking for solutions. There were many solutions for rooted devices, for sure. Many threads ending with "just flash a custom ROM!" Thank God for app developers, because as they say, there's an app for that. The app Pocket Skip Track does exactly what I was looking for. Sure, it requires root to have the "hold-down" method of changing songs, but you can still activate it with a single press or double press, which is good enough for me.

As for customization? Marshmallow has more of that than ever before. Sure, there are still a bunch of things you can't customize without root, but there sure is a lot you can do. If you hold down the settings icon under your quick settings, you'll see it begins to spin. Hold it down long enough and you'll unlock the "secret" System UI Tuner. This allows you to rearrange your quick settings, show a battery percentage, and disable status bar icons. Features included in many custom ROMs. That and a nice launcher like Nova is good enough for me.

Lastly, Tasker. I wrongly placed Tasker in my best root apps list. There are some functions that require root, but most of them don't. I honestly never knew this until after I tried to use it rootless. Many of my profiles could just be transferred over! No worries. Awesome profiles like having my phone go silent at school, automatically connect to bluetooth, enable auto-rotate in certain apps, and go silent when face down make Tasker one of the most powerful non-root apps. Period.

Point is, there's a lot you can do without root that you wouldn't expect. It just takes a little more work. Whether I'll stay on the rootless side depends. There are many things you can't achieve without root. Many things to miss out on. But I'll try to stick with it, if only to prove a point.

Rootless 'Aggressive Doze' from Greenify Saves Battery on Android 6.0 Devices

I assumed with the introduction of Android Marhsmallow's battery improvements, I wouldn't need Greenify anymore. After all, what could they do that Doze hasn't already done? The Greenify developer has been on top of updates, trying to keep his app relevant across versions. The new "Aggressive Doze" feature is another one of Greenify's amazing attempts to keep your battery full. Doze is a feature introduced in Android 6.0, which drastically lowers the amount of background processes used when the device is asleep. In order for Doze to activate, your device has to be immobile on a flat surface for quite a long time. (Some sources say around an hour.) Greenify's Aggressive Doze causes Doze to, well, act more aggressively. It shuts off extra sensors while in Doze mode and activates as soon as your device is immobile and the screen is off. Some users report excellent standby time. Others report crippling bugs. But the most interesting part? It's available without rooting your device.

Now, I haven't done too much testing, but on the surface it seems awesome. I've tested the most recent Beta 3 version and, strangely, it felt like it had more bugs than the Beta 1 version. Beta 3 caused the system time to lag behind the actual time or freeze after entering Doze mode for a while. Beta 1 hasn't had this problem. Here is a little battery graph (which should be taken with a grain of salt. This is only one trial.) that describes my experience turning it on half way through the day. (Beta 1)

The red line is a line of best fit describing how the graph would look, roughly, if I continued without activating Aggressive Doze. The green line is a prediction of the graph continuing with Aggressive Doze enabled. Like I said, these results are in no way scientific, but you can clearly see a difference in battery life here.

A few issues are to be expected. For example, only apps that use high priority Google Cloud Messaging will be able to break through Doze mode and wake the device. Some apps don't support this. Luckily, you can disable battery enhancements through Android's settings for specific apps if you find this issue. Aggressive Doze is an experimental feature and should be treated as such, but still, it's amazing such things can be accomplished without root. 

Apple Sets New Lows with Its New 'Smart' Battery Case

Battery cases have been around since battery life became a problem, aka since the conception of smartphones. They can be useful for when you want that extra bit of juice but don't want to carry around a power brick. Apple just recently decided that they would jump on this, announcing a battery case for their iPhone in response to the lackluster reviews of the iPhone 6s's battery. But unfortunately, it's one of Apple's biggest design, engineering, and product failures ever. (Right up there with the Apple Watch and MacBook 2015.)

This new battery case has been infamous for its ugly hump on the back. Instead of rounding it out to match the width and height of the phone, Apple went for a "pop-out" approach similar to what they did with the iPhone 6s camera. Something not big enough? Let's just have it stick out the back instead of having a flush surface! That's not the only design issue, though. Apple also made the absolutely stupid decision of having an LED light inside the case to tell if it's charging. What use is that? Are you going to take your phone out of the case to make sure it's charging?

The battery case doesn't even match up to its competition. It won't even provide a full 100% charge, and you can't decide when it activates. The only thing that makes the case good is the ability to see the battery level on your iPhone, since it coordinates with the OS. This is once again Apple using its exclusive hold over their OS to sell their product.

Once again, it's $99! For a case! Even if it did what it's supposed to, that's hugely steep. You can get better ones, that actually fill your whole battery, for below $20 on Amazon. What is Apple doing? Does it just know people will buy it because it's Apple? This case is for people who don't want to think about anything, and just buy something that works. Even if that's over $80 more for a worse product. Apple's recent decisions have been like icebergs, and frankly, I can't wait to watch Apple sink.

Why I Just Upgraded to the Nexus 6P

That's right. Today I purchased the Huawei Nexus 6P for just over $500. (If this price seems odd to you, you should probably read my "Your 'Free' Smartphone Isn't Free, and Why You Should Buy Unlocked" post.) This is going to be replacing my OnePlus One, and seeing how competitive that phone was in the "last generation" of flagship smartphones, I'm going to be comparing it to the Nexus 6P in terms of features and specifications. The OnePlus One should serve as an example for the last generation of smartphones compared to the best of today. You should also be expecting a full review of the Nexus 6P as early as next week.

Comment from discussion [MKBHD] Pictures taken from the Nexus 6P.

First, the Nexus 6P has an amazing latest-gen Samsung Quad HD AMOLED display. If that's a lot of gibberish to you, let me explain. Samsung makes some of the best displays in the smartphone industry. Amazing colors, high DPI, the best technology. Quad HD (1440p) is 33%  higher resolution than the common 1080p found on the OnePlus One. OnePlus's 1080p display is also IPS LCD, which is generally considered worse than AMOLED. What makes AMOLED special is the fact that blacks are as pure as they can be. When a pixel is black on an AMOLED display, it is actually turned completely off. This makes for rich blacks and also saves battery.

The Nexus 6P's camera has been, surprisingly, heavily acclaimed by pretty much everyone. This is a huge change from the previous camera-related infamy of the Nexus brand. In fact, the camera is so good, it has climbed to the #3 ranked smartphone camera on dxomark.com. While it only has 12.3 megapixels, those pixels are considerably larger than most smartphone cameras.

The larger the pixels are, the more light is collected. This allows for better pictures all around. The 6P has been praised for its amazing low light performance, likely thanks to those large pixels. So while the 6P may not have the most megapixels, it sure takes some amazing pictures. It also has laser autofocus, which makes for quick and accurate focusing on objects. The OnePlus One, on the other hand, lacks this. It also has much worse low light performance.

The OnePlus One's build quality was praised for feeling good in the hand at a low price. Unfortunately, this just doesn't match up to the all metal build of the Nexus 6P. The OnePlus One had a new material called sandstone black, which had a unique texture to it. Problem was, it wore off fast and attracted lots of dirt. Not only that, but the "metal" edges around the One aren't even real metal. They're painted plastic. Talk about a let down. I've chipped mine from dropping it in one corner, revealing the very un-premium material underneath. The Nexus 6P has an all metal unibody, making it feel much more premium than anything else.

Source

Time to move on to things the 6P has that the One simply lacks. A fingerprint sensor, for one, is a major selling point to me. We unlock our phones dozens if not hundreds of times per day, I think it is a good investment to save that portion of your time from entering in passcodes. Not only does it have one, it's apparently ridiculously fast. (I'll confirm this when I test it.) The 6P also comes equipped with a USB-C port, which is considered to be the new standard in ports. It's also fast charging compatible, meaning you can get it from 0 to 100% in a flash.

Last but certainly not least, is the simple fact that this is a Nexus. You already know my disdain for OnePlus if you've read my first post, but if you don't want to read it, let me summarize it for you: It's just a bad company. They've been making terrible decisions since their inception. Nexus is a trusted brand owned by Google that delivers software updates as soon as they're available. OnePlus is a brand with infamous customer service and extremely slow and fragmented software updates. The choice here is simple. The Nexus 6P will be an amazing upgrade for me, and I can't wait to get my hands on it and review it here.

Unsourced images are from Google's official press event or the Nexus website.

Computer Literacy

I've found much of what makes computers possible isn't appreciated or understood by the general public. I'm going to help you understand some basic elements and terms of modern computers that are necessary in daily life.

Interface

Pixel: A tiny square on your display that only shows one color at a time.
Resolution: The amount of pixels something is. A general computer monitor is around 1920x1080 pixels, the more pixels the clearer your picture will be. Popular resolutions include, in order of largeness: 480p, 720p, 1080p, and 4K. There are resolutions different from these as well.
Bitmap: An image created out of specific pixel placement. A bitmap will look blurry if it is stretched out at a larger size than it was created.
Vector: An image created out of equations. These are generally simple and flat, used namely for icons. No matter what size they are stretched, they will always display as clearly as the resolution of the display allows.

Software

Operating System/OS: The underlying software that your computer runs. Desktop OS's include Windows, OS X, and Linux. Mobile OS's include Android, iOS, and Windows Phone.

Kernel: The software that allows the OS to communicate with the hardware. Decides sensitivity of touch input, how much power should be used for different tasks, etc.

Program: Coded object on a computer meant to preform a specific function.

Browser: A program that renders websites.

Hardware

Motherboard: Allows communication from all the different parts of the computer.

CPU/Processor: Preforms arithmetic functions.

GPU/Graphics card: Renders graphical interfaces.

RAM/Memory: Temporary memory of the computer. Holds things short term.

HDD/Hard drive: Stores large amounts of data for indefinite amounts of time. Uses moving parts, so it may be slower.

SSD/Solid state drive: Similar to HDD, but much faster. SSD's have no moving parts and are usually much more expensive.

Image source: American Museum of Science and Energy Oak Ridge Tennessee

Technology in Music

Technology in music is often seen as a bad thing from people who don't understand it. You'll frequently find people of the opinion that auto-tune and computer generated sounds becoming popular is something that destroys music as an art form. This simply isn't true.

Electronic music is at the highest point it's ever been in history, and while there is a fair share of uncreative dance music, in order to believe it is all like that you have to be willingly ignorant of the beautiful music created of this genre. I'll use Porter Robinson as an example. He started his career producing dance music to be played at popular festivals. Typical stuff to get people going. Over the past few years he has transitioned into using his talent in a more creative way, making music with meaning and experimental genre mixing. A great example of his transition is in his song Fellow Feeling, which describes his opinion on how popular electronic music sounds ugly to him. "Hear what I hear" preceding the industrial and "ugly" chorus, saying the ugliness will all die out, are all talking about mainstream electronic music. If it sounds ugly, that's because it's supposed to contrast with the beauty at the beginning.

Electronic music isn't only EDM. Dance music has its place. People want to get pumped up, but to think that all music made with a computer is made without creativity is ridiculous. If anything, electronic music requires more creativity than standard music production. Designing the individual sounds, combined with the infinite possibilities allowed with a computer makes it one of the most creative outlets music has ever had. 

Many other genres have also been heavily influenced by electronic music, namely pop, R&B, and alternative. Similar to electronic music, there is music of this genre meant to get people pumped up, but there is also music made with beauty and meaning. Below are just a few examples of what can be done from each genre.

Technology has opened up new doors for music and to undermine that by calling all electronically-influenced music talentless is an insult to artists everywhere. Amazing music is constantly getting released, and it's more accessible than ever thanks to services like YouTube, SoundCloud, Spotify, and more. Technology has not only made music better, but more accessible for everyone. 

Even Adobe Doesn't Want Flash Around Anymore

Adobe Flash dominated much of the web just a few short years ago. YouTube, advertisements, games, animations, and even random website banners used Flash because it was easy. Just two years ago I took a web design class through my high school that taught using Flash as a website banner to be acceptable. (That whole class was a mess, still using tables, but I digress.) Flash is a resource hog and a security risk to everyone. When HTML5 became heavily adopted as an alternative to Flash, it was clear what was going to win between them. Flash requires security updates, it's slow, it crashes, and isn't supported on mobile devices. For the web to be what it is, everyone needs to be able to access it quickly and efficiently. Flash is holding that back.

Adobe announced last night that it is finally acknowledging that Flash is falling behind its competitors, and suggests users switch to HTML5. Along with this, Adobe is renaming its Flash Professional CC application to Animate CC, indicating that it's trying to move away from the Flash branding and instead focus on general animation. While this isn't completely deprecating Flash, it's a step in the right direction. Hopefully soon Adobe will begin working with Google and Microsoft not just to deliver security updates for Flash, but to remove it from the web completely. Of course, this is up to developers, but I think some anti-Flash propaganda could easily persuade developers to not use it. There are already some trying to do this, such as Occupy Flash, which aim to increase public awareness against Flash and get them to disable it in their browsers.

Source: The Verge

Smartwatches: Best Bang for Your Buck?

Smartwatches have been a thing for a few years now but they haven't become standard or useful up until recently. Companies like Pebble, Google, and Apple all began making smartwatches with the hope of expanding the wearable market. Pebble, a company brought up through the crowd-funding site Kickstarter, ended up raising over $10 million through private donations in order to build their first e-paper smartwatch back in 2012. Since then, Pebble has released a color e-paper watch, Android has released Android Wear, and Apple has released the Apple Watch. But are any of these actually worth almost the price of a flagship smartphone? Which one is the best? Which one is the worst?

The Apple Watch is probably the most heard of smartwatch in the average population. That's... unfortunate to say the least. The Apple Watch is probably the worst smartwatch I can think of at the moment. The design looks at least 2-3 generations behind, it only works with iPhones, it's as expensive as an iPhone, and you can't even get custom watch faces! Honestly, the fact that Apple is even selling a $17,000 version of this watch just proves that Apple knows how ridiculous this is. Buying a non-upgradable piece of tech for more than $1,500 is just incredible to me. It'll be outdated in a year and you just wasted thousands of dollars. Even the lowest priced Apple Watch, which is $349, is still grossly overpriced for what it does.

Android Wear watches have some better customizability and functionality, as well as some much better designed watches. The Moto 360 and the LG Watch Urbane both provide luxurious looking round watches for about the price as the lowest Apple Watch. They also work on both Android and iOS. Unfortunately, I would still not spend this much money on an Android Wear watch. It's just too much for what they do.

Honestly, the only smartwatch at the moment I would even consider worth the price would be any variation of the Pebble. The original Pebble is black and white e-paper with the Pebble Time coming in a higher resolution colored e-paper screen. They're about half the price of Android Wear watches or Apple Watches for the highest priced models. They can be anywhere between $70-$250. What sets the Pebble apart isn't just the prices, but the e-paper display allows for long battery life and constant screentime. Both Android Wear and Apple use screens similar to their phones, meaning they suck up a lot of battery life. E-ink displays only use power when they change. A static image will not use any power at all. This allows the Pebble's display to be on 24/7 and keep its battery a lot longer. So while the display may look less impressive and isn't touchscreen, I'd say the trade-off is worth it.

Personally, I'm going to wait until smartwatches become a little more useful before I invest in them. They're still in their infant stages, and I can't wait to see what they become, but for now they just aren't worth it. If you do want a smartwatch now, however, I would go with the Pebble Time. It provides the best functionality to price ratio.

Google Streaming Apps

The other day Google introduced the ability to stream apps using Google Search. This basically gives you the ability to search for hotels for example, and not only check search results in the Google app, but also see them in a hotels app you don't even have installed. Google does this by running the app on their end and streaming an interactive video to your device of the app.

This isn't only useful for the user, but it helps promote apps that might otherwise be ignored. If you like the app you're streaming, it'd be easy to find it in the Play Store and download it. This supports the developers. Google is making it easier for people to find apps that might be useful to them, and for developers to share their apps through more than just screenshots.

Could this be the first step in a whole new direction for Android apps? I've talked about the possibility of combining Chrome OS and Android, but what if Google was already doing something very Chrome OS-esque with Android, such as making applications not local content, but actually stored in the cloud? Picture your apps working like websites work, you don't actually have this website downloaded on your computer at all times. It's downloaded when you need it and cached if you view it frequently. The same could be done with applications, but less in a video format and more in a website-esque format. Personally, I would love it if Google rolled this out slowly. Start with the ability to "preview" apps on the Play Store, and have them streamed to your device so you can see if you like it and download it. Second, allow the ability to save cloud apps to your device for quick access. Basically like a shortcut to a website. And lastly, have the ability to do this extended to all apps. I'm not saying I want all my apps to be this way. There are certainly benefits to having the app locally on your device. That's why I'd love for this to be an optional feature, maybe having it ask you whether you'd like to "save" it or "install" it.

Google has always been known to focus on cloud storage and shy away from local storage. Chromebooks, for example, rely almost entirely on the internet to access your content. I wouldn't want Android to go this extreme, but I would like it as an option to save storage.

Headphone Quality Guide: What Makes Beats 'Bad'

There are a few things that make headphones objectively good headphones, and there are also personal preferences that shouldn't be ignored either. Headphones "sounding good" to you is a combination of comfort, clarity, distortion, isolation, and frequency response. Some of these are personal preferences, but some of them can be objectively good or bad. I would even argue my opinion of a flat frequency response to be superior to other opinions.

I'll start off by explaining what is good and what is bad with headphones. Clarity is probably one of the most important aspects, meaning that sounds are reproduced with little distortion. This is great for everyone. If your headphones aren't very clear, you're not going to hear many of the subtler sounds in a song. Something similar to clarity is the frequency response. This dictates how headphones reproduce highs, lows, and mids. Really deep and low sounds register low on a frequency scale, and highs registering higher. Some headphones, such as Beats by Dre, over-represent the lows and highs while disregarding the mids. In order to get an accurate frequency response, no section should be represented more than another. The sounds should all be about equal. This makes Beats great to listen to bumping music, but you're going to be missing out on subtler sounds in the middle. Many people prefer an over-representation of bass, but you don't need to buy bad headphones to get that. Buying headphones with a more flat frequency response will allow you to adjust the individual frequency levels using software on your computer or phone instead of being stuck with roughly the same frequency levels no matter what you're listening to.

Many people dislike Beats because of their price and how popular they are for what they do. This is understandable, as Beats spends most of its money on advertising. When you're paying double the price for Beats, you're really paying them to advertise. It's genius for them, but bad for the consumer. Try to look into less popular brands, because usually they use almost all your money to develop better headphones instead of spending it on advertising and design. Not to say design isn't important, but you shouldn't be willing to sacrifice design for sound quality.

My headphones? I use Audio-Technica M50s. They're largely considered by the audiophile community as a good entrance set of headphones, as they're fairly cheap with great sound reproduction.

When looking for headphones, I'd suggest not looking at Amazon, Best Buy, or any common stores. I'd check audiophile blogs. They listen to tons of brands of headphones every day and know what sounds good and what doesn't. They're truly passionate about how their music sounds and they aren't going to recommend something that isn't perfect. So if you care about what your headphones sound like, walk on the path less traveled. You may be surprised in what you find.

Top image source: Head-Fi

The Ethics of Internet Piracy

Piracy is not a victimless crime.

Or at least, that's what the government and copyright protection organisations want you to think. But is that really true? Of course, piracy isn't paying for something that would normally cost money, but there are a lot of factors to consider if it is actually harming anyone. In many cases, people pirate content they would not purchase anyway. Whether because they physically cannot due to region locks or inability to pay for it, or they just didn't think it was worth it, some people would not spend $9.99 on that movie no matter what. Them pirating the movie does not change the end result for the creators of that movie because they wouldn't have bought it anyway. In the end, it may even be beneficial to the movie creators because they could have a new fan that recommends the movie to those who are capable of buying it.

"But there are people who pirate and just don't want to spend any money! It's not because they can't, they're just cheap and stealing from the rightful profits of content creators!" is what you might think. It's reasonable to think this way, but study after study after study have proven that pirates actually spend more money on online media than any other group. Lots of pirates consider piracy to be a "trial" of something, and if they like it they will buy it. Compare that to if piracy didn't exist. They would have no way to try it and would instead move on with their lives and pursue other interests.

In fact, both the film industry and music industry have been growing in terms of profits over the past decade. Piracy isn't the end for entertainment, as much as the government and media want to make you think it is. Organisations like the MPAA seek to increase their already giant profits by preventing people from consuming what creators make. Piracy doesn't stop income, nor does it harm anyone. It isn't even clear if "stopping" piracy, if even possible, would have a positive or negative effect on the industry. Either way, it doesn't matter. Piracy cannot be stopped, so it's about time organisations stopped wasting their money trying to stop it and instead created better content for pirates to want to spend their money on.

Sources: Click the hyperlinked text in the post to view sources.

App Review: YouTube Music

YouTube Music marks YouTube's breakout into getting serious about music. It includes many useful features that make it a serious free music competitor to services like Spotify, especially when a YouTube Red subscription also includes a Google Play Music subscription.

YouTube is already pretty great at creating custom stations based on my listening habits because I've used YouTube for listening to music videos for as long as YouTube was a thing, and who doesn't? YouTube is the place to look up music videos. These custom stations are sorted by genre and listening habits, and I have to say, they work pretty well. I'm not used to all the sides of the music spectrum I listen to being blended together in one radio station. Electronic, pop, and J-pop are all blended together into some awesome stations. You can even customize the variety of genres included in each station, from less, to balanced, to more. To top it all off, you can even thumbs up or down songs that come up in these stations in order to get YouTube Music to know more about what you like and what you don't like. Also, because of YouTube's huge audience, they're is able to give some pretty awesome trending songs so you always stay up to date with trending artists.

One of the best features included in YouTube Music is the ability to not only watch videos, you can toggle a switch in the top-right to swap over to music mode. This saves data and works very well when you don't plan to watch the video and just want to listen to some music. This feature is made much better when you're a YouTube Red subscriber and have the ability to listen to music in the background while using other apps, as well as the ability to listen with your phone locked.

The interface is gorgeous. It's well designed following Google's material principal, and as far as I can see the interface changes depending on the dominant color in the thumbnail. It's easy to navigate using gestures to minimize the music video page and open the side menu.

YouTube Music is currently available for download on Android, iOS, and on browsers everywhere.

Image source: Tech Crunch

Google Is Linux's Only Hope

Linux is an operating system just like Windows or Apple's OS X that runs on Macs. It's the underlying software that runs any computer. Linux is an open-source OS that allows anyone to modify and distribute it. This has resulted in tons of "distros" or distributions of different types of Linux. Some of the most popular ones include Ubuntu, Elementary OS, Debian, Arch Linux, Fedora, and more. While all these distros use Linux as a base, they are largely different in terms of their capabilities, interface, and basically everything about them. This is a major problem in the world of Linux that prevents it from becoming as big as it can be.

Not to say there aren't big companies that use Linux. Android is based off of Linux and is currently the most popular mobile OS in the world. Steam, Valve's desktop gaming platform, has launched a distro of Linux called Steam OS centered around playing games. These are successful uses of Linux because the creators of them were already big before entering the world of Linux. If you're a new player trying to get a foot in the door, it's going to be very difficult for your distro to even get a glance when competing against all the other distros out there.

I'm going to compare Linux to Android, because even though Android is based off of Linux it has basically taken a name of its own. Android is based off of AOSP, or Android Open Source Project. This is the core of Android and, just like Linux, anyone can modify and distribute it as they please. The reason most versions of Android you see are so similar is because Google's apps are not free to use. The Google Play Store, Maps, Google Now, and basically any other Google app are not included in AOSP. People must get their custom version of Android approved by Google in order to use their apps. They don't have to do this, of course, but nobody's going to buy an Android phone that doesn't have the Google Play Store. My point is, Linux does not have a nexus like this. (See what I did there?) All the Linux distros are wildly different and not very consumer focused because they don't have a central point to develop and stem from.

In order for Linux to gain footing in desktop OS statistics, which are currently at just over 1% by the way, they're going to need an already established company to come in and create an open source desktop OS like Android. Google has already made Chrome OS, but that isn't good enough. Google has confirmed to be working on combining Chrome OS and Android into a central desktop OS, which frankly, can't come soon enough. A desktop version of Android that behaves like a desktop OS should would expand the world of Linux and, frankly, change the desktop environment completely.

One of the major things that prevents people from using Linux is the lack of ability to use Windows or OS X applications. This is a major setback. This means no Photoshop, no Microsoft Office, and very little games. Sure, you can emulate some of these in Wine, but the result is a much worse version than the original and it only works half the time. For Linux to gain application developers, they're going to need a bigger market share. If Google can bring Android's already lush market to Linux, this would increase the adoption rate and hopefully get developers to make applications for Linux. This is assuming that Google wouldn't close off the OS completely, just like how you have the ability to install Android apps outside of the Google Play Store.

Really, Google is Linux's only hope. Without their intervention I really don't see Linux expanding much more than it has. Linux startups have been proven to not work out well, probably due to lack of applications. Google has the resources, the framework, the apps, and the popularity to make Linux prosper.

Sources: Tech Republic, Net Market Share
Image source: Engadget

What to Look for When Buying a New Phone or Tablet

So you're looking to buy a new device. That's awesome and exciting! The problem is a lot of people don't know what to look for. If you don't want to get stuck with a device that disappoints you, or one that you regret buying, keep reading.

The first major point you want to consider when buying a new device is the software. I know, you probably don't think about this as much as the branding but it's important. Whether you want iOS or Android, and which skin inside of Android you prefer. Each manufacturer has a different skin they apply over Android. Samsung has Touchwiz, HTC has Sense, and LG has its own UI. Personally, I'd consider any skin worse than stock Android which can usually only be found on Google Nexus devices and kind of on Motorola flagships. Check out the latest versions of the software you're looking at and see how they compare to stock.

Second, check out how well that software runs on the hardware. How fast is it, is it prone to hiccups, etc. Also, make sure your manufacturer is known to give prompt updates. When the next version of the OS comes out, make sure they are known to give your phone the update quickly and efficiently. Obviously the best brands for this would be Apple and Google's Nexus, as both of them directly make the software.

Last but not least, check out the design, size, and feel of the phone. Also check out any features they may have that distinguishes them from other devices. Fingerprint scanner? How nice is the screen? What about the materials it's made of? These can all play major factors in how much you'll like the device you're getting. Price also revolves around this, so make sure it's within your price range and see how much price matters to you. (See: Your 'Free' Smartphone Isn't Free, and Why You Should Buy Unlocked)

You'll see a lot of people worry about the specs of the phone such as the RAM and CPU. And while these are important, most major flagships now-a-days already have good enough specs that it doesn't matter the majority of the time. Consider these things last. After you've considered all of the things above, you should be able to see what device would be the best option for you.

Image Source: Gadarena

Google+: Good Idea, Failed Execution

When Google+ launched in 2011, I was one of the first users. Originally, you  could only join if someone else invited you. There were discussions of its superiority over Facebook, how nice it is to arrange people into circles, and excitement for the future of the social network. Like many social networks, however, Google+'s minute of fame ended when it was released from the chains of private beta. The world saw it, and while there was a general consensus that it was good, there weren't many incentives to switch from Facebook and other social networks.

Google's first mistake with Google+ was the decision to, one, name it Google+. The name is clunky and seems like an upgraded version of Google instead of a separate social network. But perhaps the most catastrophic mistake was the decision to force Google+ upon all Google and YouTube users. You could not have a Google or YouTube account without at least having an associating Google+ page. When the update rolled out to YouTube, many YouTubers were in shock. There were comment section revolts over the Google dictators forcing users to make a Google+ to comment. Simply put, users do not like being forced to use a service. This created a general discontent with Google+ that caused people to hate it without even using it. Google+ was good, but its decision to force itself upon the users of its other sub-companies is what caused its downfall.

Google+ has realized its mistakes, finally. They have announced the partition of Google+ in many different ways, but still keeping the service. Just in the past year Google has announced that Google Photos will be disassociated from Google+ and become its own service without the need for Google+. YouTube has also changed to allow accounts without a Google+ profile, and comments are no longer automatically shared to Google+. Even Hangouts, a service that made Google+ awesome for talking to friends, has branched out of Google+ and can now be used without a Google+ account.

Unfortunately these backtracks cannot save Google+. Almost every Google user has a Google+ account, but there's no incentive for them to find their friends on it or use it actively. Discontent created with the forcefulness of Google+'s launch prevents friends from recommending it as their main social network, and as a result, it will not ever grow to what they hoped. Some people do use Google+, but most of what I see on there is Android and Google related blogs. You won't find many common people using it to be with friends or family. Google+ had a chance to create an amazing social network, as many people already use Google daily. Unfortunately, that was never realized.

Image source: Lifehacker

Machine Labor, AI, and the Technological Singularity

Technology is developing faster now than ever before, increasing speed exponentially. Inventions like the telephone, computers, and the Internet make sharing information quicker and more convenient than ever. This is the definition of collective intelligence, when individuals connect with each other to create a network of intelligence. But this can only take us so far, right? What happens when we create something smarter than us? What happens when machines take over?

First of all, this isn't science fiction. This is happening right now. People program machines that perform specific tasks, mainly in manufacturing. These are taking many people's real jobs right now. CGP Grey made an amazing video talking about the social and economic consequences of machines taking over human labor. To summarize, a robot can take your job no matter what it is. This doesn't necessarily have to be a bad thing, it's just another economic revolution similar to the industrial revolution. There will be problems because we don't know how to deal with it, but we will eventually. The better prepared we are the easier the transition will be.

Many companies are currently working on software that doesn't just perform specific tasks, but actually learns. This is the growing field of artificial intelligence, which aims to create software that gets better over time through learning from its mistakes. Just yesterday Google announced an update to Gmail which can read an email and provide three contextually generated responses to that email. This seems simple at first, but when you consider that this is a machine generating human-like responses to human input, and then learning to get better, it's really incredible.

But at what point does a machine generating a human-like response turn into actual thought and feeling? After all, the human brain is just like one incredibly intricate computer. The Turing Test, proposed by Alan Turing in 1950 aims to answer that question. The test is simple, a human compares the answers of a machine and a human and tries to reliably tell which one is the machine's answer. If the judge cannot reliably tell that one is the machine, it passes the test. So far, no AI has passed the test, but who knows just how much more learning an AI has to do to reach this status? It's inevitable.

The evolution of technology will not stop there. When I say evolution, I don't mean the biological definition. Evolution is extremely slow, taking thousands and thousands of years for there to be a major difference. Technology is advancing much faster than the rate of biological evolution. Eventually there will be the invention of an AI that sees flaws in itself and constantly improves, or creates other copies of itself that also improves themselves. This exponential explosion of AI-powered technological improvement is known as the technological singularity. The intelligence of such machines could grow to such a scale that humans would no longer be able to keep up, and be drowned out by the intense superiority of the constantly improving AI. There's no way to tell what humanity's role in this situation would be. All that's known is that by developing artificial intelligence, this conclusion is inevitable. The only questions are when, and if the AI will see us favorably.

While the chances of all of these happening are high so long as we continue at the rate of progress we're at, there's no telling whether they will be beneficial or not. I, for one, welcome our robot overlords.

Sources: Telegraph, CBC, Wikipedia

Stop Using Ugly Cases and Plastic Screen Protectors

Lots of people use phone cases, and I mean a lot. Most of the smartphones you see around have some form of protection on them. Honestly though, that makes me kind of sad. When phone manufacturers spend months and years working on a design that looks amazing and it functional, slapping a case over it is kind of insulting to those manufacturers. Case manufacturers spend maybe a week at most trying to fit a case over the phone, but they don't dilly dally about the design. They just make sure it works and that it isn't totally ugly. I want my phone to feel how it is meant to. I don't want to add extra thickness just because I'm afraid I might drop it some day. I'd rather enjoy my phone, not play on the safe side and deal with an ugly, rubber case every day.

The number one reason people buy cases is because they feel like it'll protect the phone. And while this may be true in some aspects, I believe the negatives outweigh the positives. Unless you're getting one of those giant Otterbox cases, your phone is going to get damaged when you drop it whether you have a case on it or not. There are more subtle things you can do to protect your phone without ruining the intended design, such as getting a skin or a tempered glass screen protector.

Skins add virtually no thickness while protecting your premium phone from scratches, some dents, as well as adding grip to help prevent you from dropping it. Best of all, there's tons of different options. Skins are more of an extension of your style rather than something you deal with because you want protection. I recommend dbrand (pictured above) for their awesome build quality, customization, and spot-on dimensions.

If you don't want a skin, almost everyone has a screen protector of some sort, right? I can't deny the usefulness of screen protectors, but stop wasting your money on the cheap plastic ones that ruin the feel of the phone and the quality of the screen! Tempered glass screen protectors are basically an extension of your phone screen, feeling even better than your screen. Good ones have oleophobic coatings, meaning they resist fingerprints and oil. The glass they use is extremely hard, hitting 9H on Moh's scale of hardness. Most people won't even notice you have a screen protector on, but it protects your screen even better than plastic ones. Many claim they can even help protect your screen when it is dropped, because the screen protector will break first and displace some of the energy, protecting your screen.

So in conclusion, get rid of that ugly rubber case and plastic screen protector. Stop insulting your phone manufacturer who spent months working on that design only for you to slap some rubber over it. Instead, start using awesomely designed skins and precise tempered glass screen protectors to enhance your phone's design instead of degrade it.

Image source: Amazon, dbrand

Skype Is Dead, Long Live Discord

I've used Skype for many years in order to communicate with friends. Text chat mostly, with some voice on occasion. I started to hate the direction Microsoft was taking Skype, with ads everywhere and a gross interface. Eventually I decided I'd had enough, and looked elsewhere. What I found isn't just a Skype alternative, it's much better. Let's make one thing clear, however. Discord is not the same as Skype. There is no video chat and it isn't aimed at just anyone. Discord advertises itself as a chat client for gamers.

If you're familiar with TeamSpeak, Discord is much like if TeamSpeak and Skype had a baby. Users don't have to pay for their own servers, yet there's powerful options for channels, roles, moderation, and aesthetics. Links can be embedded into the chat, so you can see a little preview of whatever the link has. If you send an image or gif, it is embedded into the chat as well. With the latest update, this is even true for YouTube and Vimeo videos. Some other nifty features include the ability to search for gifs on giphy and post them directly inside the client, custom role colors, Twitch integration, and more. Discord has been very punctual in responding to user requests and giving constant updates for the better.

Discord is also smooth and fast. Voice chat is high quality with automatic noise reduction and a whole slew of other improvements to voice quality. When updates are released, there is a non-obtrusive update icon at the top and clicking it simply relaunches with a new update. There are clients for Windows, OSX, iOS, Android, and even a web interface. 

The only reason I would even consider using Skype now is for video chat, but then again there is Google Hangouts for that. Discord makes it easy and enjoyable to talk to friends online. Discord is powerful, yet easy to use and get the hang of. If you're using Skype or any other service to communicate with your friends, especially if you're a gamer, consider switching to this amazing startup service that listens to its users.

Source: Discord

Nintendo's Situation: The Wii U Failure and App Announcement

Nintendo led the revolution in video games with the release of the NES in 1983. Since then, there's been many ups and downs for the company. Lately, however, Nintendo has been falling behind the competition. Xbox and Playstation lead in terms of users and developers. Today Nintendo announced details, albeit very few details, about its upcoming smartphone game. Is this a last resort on Nintendo's part to gain more revenue? Or is it a natural progression? Is it even a bad thing?


I'll start off by saying Nintendo isn't in danger of going out of business any time soon. From years of success the company has built up $10.5 billion in savings. They could take a $257 million loss every year and still be in business until 2075 through selling its intellectual property. But while Nintendo isn't in danger of going out of business, I can't help but want them to succeed.

Now, that isn't to say Nintendo doesn't deserve what it's getting at least a little bit. The Wii U isn't the best for third party developers. Naming it "Wii U" even though it's hardly related to the Wii at all makes it seem like outdated hardware instead of a new console. A lack of users created a lack of developers and ended up making an endless cycle that makes it really hard to want a Wii U. Thankfully, Nintendo does make some awesome games. Splatoon is a title I've been putting tons of hours into since this summer, all because Nintendo continued to update it at a steady rate. One game does not make up for the lack of third party developers, however. Nintendo has also been remaking its old titles lately instead of making new ones, with releases including Wind Waker HD, Ocarina of Time 3D, and Majora's Mask 3D. These kind of releases would be great if they were accompanied by new titles, but they're not. Consistently, at least.

Nintendo's announcement of a smartphone game today is only a natural step now that people aren't buying their consoles. Nintendo makes good games, but releasing them exclusively for their own consoles really limits their market. It may have worked before, but after Xbox and Playstation took over the market, there's no way Nintendo can keep up without major changes. They'll have to really grab developers attention with their next console, but in the meantime, a few apps for platforms people already have will get them some more revenue.

Sources: Wii U Daily, Engadget, Nintendo

What Can HTC Do to Not Become the next BlackBerry?

HTC's sales have taken a nosedive, and for good reason. HTC revolutionized what we can call a premium smartphone with the introduction of the all-metal HTC One M7 back in 2013. Unfortunately since then HTC has done everything but revolutionize. "If it ain't broken, don't fix it." is HTC's motto. The HTC One M8 and M9 have both been mild upgrades, with similar designs. Before the M9's release, leaked renders showed an amazing design upgrade. Everyone, myself included, was excited for this. Unfortunately it was dead wrong, the M9 ending up barely different aesthetically to the M8. I believe their lack of sales are due to an unwillingness to adapt to the changing smartphone market, similar to BlackBerry back in the day.

Leaked HTC One M9 renders which were dead wrong.

When HTC does choose to make some changes, they aren't good ones. HTC's flagships have been criticized for using experimental "ultrapixel" technology, which in the end delivered worse photos than traditional counterparts. Sense, HTC's skin over Android, has been updated with BlinkFeed, a sorry excuse for a news source plastered over your home screen. BlinkFeed even includes advertisements, which is ridiculous. What other trustworthy smartphone manufacturer has advertisements enabled by default on the homescreen?

The real HTC One M9.

Ultimately, HTC has to release something like the leaked M9 to gain back any footing in the smartphone industry that they've lost. They need to create a better interface which doesn't revolve around exploiting their customers for advertising, or better yet, adopt a stock-like feel like what Motorola has done. If HTC is really serious about gaining traction, they'll release a phone like this for a competitive price around the cost of a Huawei Nexus 6P. ($499) Otherwise, I just can't see HTC climbing its way back to the top.

Sources: Ars Technica, HTC

The Battle of Android Twitter Apps (Twitter v. Falcon Pro v. Fenix)

Twitter allows you to connect with friends and celebrities from all around the world in short bits at a time. Thankfully, you have choice in how you use it. Twitter offers an API, which is tech talk for something that allows third-party developers to tap into their platform. This API is what allows for many third party clients to prosper on Android.

Most Twitter users don't even know there's other Twitter apps. When I pull out my third-party app, most people are confused on how I'm using Twitter on such a different interface. The default Twitter app has some awesome features, such as "While you were away" which gives you the best tweets that happened while you weren't there, Highlights which does something similar, and the newly introduced Moments for news around the world. There's not much wrong with the default Twitter app, other than I feel it is pretty cluttered. What people you follow favorite is mixed in with your timeline along with ads. Notifications are a whole other screen away as opposed to a swipe away. There's little customization in the interface. All these things add up to something that is good, but not as good as it could be.

Falcon Pro 2 was famous for reaching Twitter's token limit, that is the amount of people allowed to use it according to Twitter, in a very short amount of time. Eventually, it had to shut down purely because of its sheer popularity not allowing the developer to add on new users. The tokens were reset many times, and eventually it was pulled off the Play Store. Fast forward a bit, and the developer releases Falcon Pro 3. I considered it the first material design Twitter app that worked fairly well. It was missing a lot at launch, but that was okay, because I expected it to be updated. It was, for a few months. Updates came in fairly regularly. But then the developer was hired by the Twitter for Android team themselves, and development pretty much ceased. Bugs wouldn't get fixed. Promised features took forever to add, if added at all. I was an avid user up until recently, when I decided to give Fenix another try.

I gave up Fenix for Falcon Pro 3 when material design became the standard. At the time, Fenix did not have material design yet. It was a must-have. Having gotten tired of Falcon Pro, I switched back a few days ago. It is now fully material, keeping many of the features from the original version. Unlike Falcon Pro, Fenix did not sacrifice functionality for material. Fenix is fully customizable with dark, light, and black themes, as well as many different accent colors. Fenix has a ton of other settings, so I encourage you to check it out. Swipe in from the right to tweet quickly, Tweet Marker saves your position across devices.

So in conclusion, I recommend Fenix completely. It was far ahead of pre-material apps, and now that it's material, there's nothing holding it back. It looks great, has awesome functions, and is completely customizable. Unfortunately, it is quite pricey at $5.49. You'd be best to wait for a sale or try to build up money using Google Opinion Rewards.

Image credit: Fenix for Twitter

YouTube Red: Greedy Only at First Glace

Yesterday Google announced a new service related to YouTube and music, called YouTube Red. YouTube Red is $9.99/mo for no ads on YouTube videos across devices, background playback on mobile, and the ability to save videos for viewing offline. What most people who have issue with it think is that $9.99/mo is very steep for what you get. That's understandable, except Google is downplaying the fact that it comes with a subscription to Google Play Music.

Google Play Music is a Spotify and Apple Music competitor I wrote about in my post The Battle of Online Music Streaming. Previously, Google Play Music subscribers had no ads exclusively on verified music videos. Background playback was promised, but it wasn't ever stable. With the introduction of YouTube Red, this only adds more value to Google Play Music. Personally, because I am a Play Music subscriber, I will get YouTube Red for free when it launches. That's incredibly generous of Google to combine them.

Google also announced the launch of the YouTube Music app, which isn't exclusive to Red subscribers. It's basically a YouTube app which is optimized for music and background playback. If you don't have a Red subscription, however, you will see ads before videos and videos will not play in the background.

If you aren't interested in a music service such as Google Play Music, $9.99/mo is definitely too much. Google should have branded YouTube Red and Google Play Music closer together in order to signify what a great deal you're getting having them both, as well as offer the option to get YouTube Red exclusively for a cheaper price. When Google puts them in their own separate packages, you're really only seeing half the deal on each website. It's incredibly bad marketing, but really great for users if you know what a good deal looks like. Hopefully this is just another step into offering a theorized "Google Unlimited" service, which would give access to music, books, videos, and maybe even apps all through a monthly price. While Google hasn't shown plans to unite all of these under one roof, having Play Music and YouTube Red subscriptions mirror each-other shows promise. Here's to hoping in the future Google expands on what Spotify started, with the idea of unlimited entertainment.

Image source: YouTube

Best Apps for Rooted Devices

Rooting your device can have a lot of upsides, including some amazing apps that aren't possible to use without root access. If you're curious about what rooting your device means, I've put up an Intro to Root post to introduce you to what it means to root. Click the name of any of the apps to be taken to their Google Play page or other place to download them. Some of these apps are paid, so if you're low on money, check out my latest tip about getting free Google Play credit.

AdAway

AdAway is a simple ad blocking app which modifies your device's host file. The host file decides what connections to let through and which to block. AdAway adds many popular ad hosting sites to this list, causing your device to not let the connection through. It's simple, effective, automatically updating, and easy.

CF.lumen

CF.lumen is an app made by the creator of SuperSU, Chainfire. If you've heard of f.lux on PC, this is a similar variant for Android. (Although I'd argue it has even more features and customization.) CF.lumen allows you to apply a reddish tint to your screen at certain times of the day, namely at night. This is useful because research shows that exposure to blue light before you try to go to sleep keeps you awake. Adding the red hue leads to better sleeping patterns. While there are many apps that have similar functionality, CF.lumen is the only f.lux-like app I've run across that allows you to take screenshots without also capturing the red hue. (Some drivers only.) CF.lumen is also Tasker compatible.

Tasker

I've talked extensively about Tasker in a previous post, but here's a quick rundown. Tasker allows you to fully automate most aspects of your device. It allows you to basically program new function into your device through a simple interface, and frankly, I couldn't live without it.

Greenify

Greenify aims to provide better battery life by hibernating apps in the background when you aren't using them. If an app such as Facebook causes your device to run slow or keeps your device awake, you can have Greenify automatically hibernate it, causing it to use much less battery life until you open it again.

Titanium Backup

Titanium Backup's interface may be a little outdated, but it still functions perfectly. The goal of Titanium Backup is to backup both your apps and your app's data, allowing you to restore them across ROM installs or resets. It has automatic backups to the cloud, certain tools for clearing app data and disconnecting/connecting apps to the Google Play store, and more.

Xposed Framework

The Xposed Framework doesn't provide any functionality on its own. It's a framework which allows other apps to do things otherwise impossible for them without it. It requires some pretty complicated installation on Android 5.0 and above, so read up if your device is compatible before you install. It opens the door to any of the apps below on this list. Apps below require Xposed to work or function fully.

[Xposed] Amplify

Amplify is a battery saving app similar to Greenify, except it works on a different scale. While Greenify hibernates specific apps, Amplify limits certain wakelocks. Apps cause wakelocks when they want to wake your device up from sleep to complete an action. Sometimes, wakelocks can go out of control, preventing your device from entering sleep and drastically lowering battery life. Amplify makes it so these wakelocks are limited or stopped completely.

[Xposed] GravityBox

GravityBox is a simple app which aims to tweak aspects of stock AOSP. If you have anything other than stock Android, it most likely will not work. GravityBox is famous for providing many of the same features of custom ROMs without the need to install a new ROM.

Quick Tip: Free Credit for Google Play

While you may pay $4.00 for coffee without thinking, paying $1.99 for an app seems a little steep in today's society. Thankfully, I haven't actually had to pay my own money for apps in a long time thanks to Google Opinion Rewards. Simply put, Google Opinion Rewards is an app directly made by Google, so you know it's trustworthy. It will ask you 1-5 question surveys that take less than a minute to complete every week or so. You'll just get a notification that there's a new survey available, and once completed, anywhere between $0.10 and $1.00 will be added to your Google Play balance. These add up fairly quickly, causing myself to not have paid for an app in months. Check it out!

Google Opinion Rewards


Image source: Droid Life

Net Neutrality: The What, Who, and Why?

In order to understand what a lack of net neutrality can do to society as a whole, I'll have to first explain what it is. To put simply, net neutrality is the concept of Internet service providers treating all content across the web equally. It's what keeps all websites running at nearly the same speed, as long as they keep their servers healthy. Without net neutrality, it's possible for us to see plans like the image I used above. The image is fake, thankfully, but it could be extremely possible if net neutrality isn't enforced.

Verizon and Comcast made headlines in 2014 for requiring Netflix to pay them in order to deliver their service at the same speed as the rest of the Internet. Verizon and Comcast's logic was that since Netflix is taking up so much of their bandwidth, Netflix should pay a fee in order to give it to customers at a fair rate. When you think about it, shouldn't Verizon and Comcast be happy that Netflix is giving them more business? If their customers want faster Internet to watch their Netflix shows, Verizon and Comcast will end up selling more plans, building faster lines, and making this better for everyone! The only problem is, big ISPs don't think that way. They'd rather sacrifice what's best for customers and small businesses in order to make more money. They control the roads that your data is travelling on, so they want to set up toll booths for certain websites. What happens when a Netflix competitor starts up and can't afford to pay ISPs to deliver their content at the same speed as Netflix? They'd lose all their business. Lack of net neutrality creates monopolies across the board.

Thankfully, net neutrality has been a major talking point in politics the past few years. Organizations like Fight for the Future aim to increase awareness and prevent bills violating net neutrality from being passed. Democrats such has Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have been major supporters of net neutrality, aiming to increase regulation and set up stern rules which would outlaw violations. Unfortunately, not all politicians are in favor of this. Republican Ted Cruz has gone on record against net neutrality. On Facebook he said, "It puts the government in charge of determining Internet pricing, terms of service, and what types of products and services can be delivered, leading to fewer choices, fewer opportunities, and higher prices for consumers,"

"Net Neutrality" is Obamacare for the Internet; the Internet should not operate at the speed of government.

— Senator Ted Cruz (@SenTedCruz) November 10, 2014

Throwing around anti-Democrat buzzwords such as "Obamacare for the Internet" just shows how ignorant he truly is about the subject. The government regulating what ISPs can do isn't going to limit choice or opportunities, it's going to increase them by letting small online businesses grow. Without it, we're going to allow major ISPs to become an even larger monopoly than they already are.

Sources: Time, CNBC, Verge

The Battle of Online Music Streaming (Spotify v. Apple Music v. Google Play)

If you love music like I do, then chances are you've looked into a service like Spotify. Spotify is definitely one of the most popular online music streaming services, but does that make it the best? I'm going to break down some top features of three different music streaming platforms and help you make the decision that helps you listen to the most music.

Starting with Spotify, Spotify pioneered the online streaming model as we know it today. Unlimited music for a monthly price wasn't always a common idea, many record labels refusing to let their music be a part of Spotify's library. Thankfully, as Spotify grew, record labels had less of a say in whether they should join up. Spotify has a free listening tier, meaning you can listen to as much music as you want with some restrictions and advertisements. Beyond that, like the two other competitors, the premium option is $9.99/mo. Spotify once had the largest library out of the competition, but thanks to the growing market and competition, that isn't as true anymore with all three competitors I'm talking about having about equal libraries; around 30 million songs. Some notable features Spotify has include the ability to match the pace of your running to the beat of a song, and listening synced across devices. Spotify does not do well with local files, however. To sync your files it must download them from one device to another. There is no online streaming of local files.

When Apple Music was announced, many considered it the "Spotify killer." After all, why would you use Spotify when you have a built-in app on your phone that does the exact same thing? With Apple's music connections, it wasn't too hard to create a service that rivals Spotify. Apple Music does basically the same thing as Spotify, with the inclusion of Beats One radio and the fact that it syncs with your iTunes library. Apple Music has a 3 month free trial, but beyond that it's $9.99/mo.

Personally, I choose Google Play Music over all the competition. While "Google Play Music Unlimited" may not roll off the tongue, it is definitely the best option in my opinion. Mood radio, material design, an amazing web interface, and the ability to upload your own songs all make for the best overall experience. You can also re-arrange your queue of songs, see what's coming up, and share playlists. The best feature for me is the ability to upload up to 50,000 of your own songs to Google's servers to listen to anywhere. So if a song isn't in their library, you can upload it yourself and listen to it on the web, your phone, and anywhere else. Google Play Music allows free users to upload their own music and listen to radio stations for free. Unlimited, which unlocks the whole library, is $9.99/mo.

So just because Spotify is the most popular doesn't mean it's the best. If the features like running sync matter to you, it may be. But if being able to upload your own music is more important, Google Play or Apple Music would be the best for you.

Apple's MacBook 2015: What Were They Thinking?

Apple hoped to make a splash in the laptop market this year with the introduction of the new MacBook. Not Air or Pro, just "Macbook." Unfortunately for Apple, they cut all the wrong corners in order to make it seem better than it actually is. This makes sense for Apple's core audience, as most Apple users don't care about the specifications of what they're buying. All they know is that it's made by Apple, has Apple software, and it works.

I'll start off with what they compromised in order to get a thinner design. Apple chose to use an Intel Core M CPU, which is basically a tablet CPU. It has low power consumption, meaning longer battery life, but it has bad performance. The same can be said about its graphics card, again sacrificing performance for battery life and thinness. Other bad specifications is a 480p webcam, which is completely undesired in a modern laptop in the age of FaceTime and Skype.

But one of the absolute worst decisions with Apple's new MacBook is the choice to only include one port. That's right. One. For charging, data transfer, everything. If you want to charge your MacBook and use a USB drive at the same time, you're going to need a large, clunky adapter to do both. No CD drive is understandable to save space, but there is no excuse for not including at least one more port on the opposite side. On the bright side, Apple chose to use USB 3.1, a new industry standard which offers for faster data transfer. If only Apple would have added more than one.

Apple sacrificed performance and usability in the hopes that its new MacBook's thinness and style will convince its users to buy it. They're probably right. All these issues could be forgiven, if the new MacBook didn't cost as much as a MacBook Pro, which has much better specs for the exact same price. So if you are thinking about getting a MacBook, do yourself a favor and buy the MacBook Pro. It may not be quite as thin, or quite as stylish, but it'll last much longer and do your tasks much more efficiently.

Image source: Twitter @MKBHD