I talked about the FBI attempting to force Apple to unlock their iPhone for them, but now it seems like the FBI doesn't need that anymore. That's because they've allegedly hacked the encryption on the iPhone themselves, and are already agreeing to help Arkansas prosecutors hack their iPhone as well. While we don't know exactly how the FBI hacked the iPhone, we do know one thing. If it can be done to one, it can be done to them all. Most people aren't against the government having the ability to get into their homes if they're breaking the law (and for probable reason) but this isn't just one phone. Imagine the government making a master key that can unlock every person's house door. What if it got stolen? What if a corrupt official were to use it without probable cause? These kinds of questions are what are being raised about the technique the FBI used to hack the iPhone.

Not only is this bad news for us, but it's also bad news for Apple. Now there is a security issue in their phones, which can cause people to not buy them. This is the government directly getting in the way of free enterprise. If the government keeps this all-access key instead of giving it up to Apple to fix, I can only see Apple retaliating. For a country that is so lucky to have so many tech giants' headquarters reside, it sure is odd that our government is so against technological progress.

Thankfully, the government probably won't have use for this vulnerability for much longer. Since it's almost inevitable that an exploit like this will not stay a secret, it will eventually get leaked and make its way back to Apple. Still, when so many iPhones will stay in evidence, unupdated, it begs the question of just how many iPhones local and federal governments will have access to.

Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.  - Benjamin Franklin

Image source: Forbes 

A few days ago, Apple's event shocked millions with more amazing innovation. Just kidding. Apple's "Let us loop you in" press event was a failure of the highest caliber. First of all, they announced the iPhone 4—I mean, the iPhone SE. No doubt you've heard of it, with every iPhone Apple announces making national news due to the exclusivity of its platform. Nevertheless, design-wise, the phone is reverting Apple back to 2010. Sure, it updated it with Touch ID and some new specs, but who cares? In an ever-evolving smartphone world, companies should be trying to be new and innovative, not going back to six years ago. Coupled with this, Apple announced the iPad Pro, something literally everyone was expecting. It's a bigger iPad. That's basically it.

Apple has shown in the last few years to not be a pursuer of innovation, but one of greed. Apple knows that it can release and re-release whatever it wants and it will not suffer a significant loss in sales. And when it does take chances, say, with the Macbook, it's a massive failure. Near-mobile specs and thinness that sacrifices usefulness? Yeah, that sounds like a great laptop. But with Apple's demographic, as long as it comes in a pretty color and boasts a new "thinness" nobody will care. Why is this?

Apple's advertising and brand revolves around the "magic" of "it just works." Apple hides its specs behind buzzwords such as "Retina" which causes users to become too trusting in the brand. When Apple is "magic" and other brands are "nerdy tech" it isn't a competition between what phone is better. It doesn't matter if one phone has the processing power of four iPhones, as long as Apple can say it has the "The most advanced chip ever in a smartphone," the vast majority of consumers will not care. Apple knows all of this and exploits this. It uses this as an excuse to not innovate. 3D touch was a cool concept, but in practice, nothing more than a novelty. I think that in the past few years not only has Apple been lacking in innovation, but it has become a one trick pony.

I have no doubt the iPhone SE and the iPad Pro will sell like hot cakes. That's the kind of consumers Apple panders to. I just hope that Apple will see that it doesn't have to use repeat designs and uninnovative tactics. You're one of the biggest tech companies in the world! Do something with what you have.

You must have been living under a rock if you haven't heard about this by now, but just in case Patrick Star is reading this, I'll explain what happened.

Last December there was a terrorist attack in San Bernardino, California. This attack resulted in 14 deaths and 22 injuries. Now, the courts have ruled that Apple has to help the FBI and the United States government hack into the perpetrator's iPhone. Apple has rightfully opposed this ruling, citing the security issues that can and will result from them doing this.

Apple has the capability to do this. Encryption is a word commonly thrown around, but few outside of the tech industry really understand what it means. Encryption is when data, in this case the user data on an iPhone, is scrambled in a way that it becomes unreadable without a specific key. Without the key, it is virtually impossible for anyone but the best hackers to break that encryption. Once the encryption algorithm is broken, any device using the same algorithm can be easily broken as well. What the FBI wants Apple to do is create a custom iOS update that they're going to install on this specific iPhone that will decrypt its data. That's great, right? It's only for one iPhone. Wrong.

With this piece of software that the FBI wants Apple to create, it not only allows the FBI to unlock anyone's iPhone, but it creates a backdoor that anyone will soon be able to access. If that software is leaked in any way, there is no way to tell how widespread it could get. Creating a backdoor is not just leaving it open for one person, it leaves iPhones vulnerable to everyone. When this happens, iPhones become completely insecure. The whole point of computer security is to completely close any gaps in the security. If there's even one gap, it can and will be exploited. Intentionally creating a flaw as large as this one can only have terrible consequences.

I'm not saying that it's not important that this phone doesn't get hacked, but there are a few things to consider. One, it is not Apple's responsibility to provide the FBI with the tools to hack its secure devices. And two, if they do, it will completely destroy Apple's reputation as a company that values security. Because of this, Tim Cook, Apple's CEO, has written a public letter to its customers on this topic of encryption. (Here.) I completely support Apple taking a stand against a court who obviously doesn't understand the repercussions of this order.

Why is Apple considering ditching the headphone jack on the next iPhone? Space. Apple is all about fitting the most stuff into the smallest amount of space. When you consider the amount of space inside an iPhone dedicated to the large headphone jack, it's actually quite a lot. Whether this space could be used to make the battery bigger or add more features, it doesn't really matter. If Apple goes through with this, I won't be surprised due to the decisions they made with the new Macbook. Most likely instead of a headphone jack, the next iPhone could just use the Thunderbolt connector. This isn't only bad for headphone manufacturers, it's even worse for the consumer. If you want to be able to use your old headphones, you'll have to buy an adapter. Headphone manufacturers will have to spend more money creating two different versions to fit iPhones, increasing the overall cost. Oh, and forget about charging your phone and listening to music at the same time without an adapter as well. I can't see this decision being good for Apple in any way, but I also think they can get away with it like they did with the adoption of the Thunderbolt port and the use of a single USB-C port on the Macbook. I suppose we'll just have to wait and see if they go through with it, and if they do, see what kind of backlash they receive.

Source: Forbes

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.

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.

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 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

We all know of those people who say iPhones suck, or that Android sucks and iPhones are way better in every way. This isn't true at all. Neither sides paint the full picture. To understand both sides of the argument, you have to understand the pros and cons of both sides as well as what both sides' goals are.

Apple and Google have completely different methods of obtaining profit. Apple is primarily a hardware company, meaning they obtain their profit from selling iPhones, Macs, etc. On the other side of the coin, Google is primarily a software and advertising company. They make their money from the most possible people using their software, collecting data, and selling advertisements. What does this have to do with iOS v. Android? Well, many of the arguments against Apple is that iOS is such a closed system and they never release any of their apps for Android. Reason being, they want people to buy their products for their OS. If they released iMessage for Android, they would lose a lot of money due to people no-longer buying their hardware to use it. Google, on the other hand, releases almost all their apps for iOS and Android because they want people using their software to sell ads. Both companies have different business models, so it's unfair to dock either side for what they choose to do in that department.

Customization is also a major talking point, but again, both companies have different audiences. Apple focuses on the common user, making iOS less customizable, but at the same time easier to use. Android tries to strike more of a balance between customization and simplicity, but ends up missing the common user at some points.

Being locked inside a certain ecosystem can cause users to refuse to change sides. For example, iOS users use iMessage, iCloud, iTunes, etc. and there is no way they're going to just abandon all that to try something new because some random person on the Internet told them to. Android users are ingrained in Google's ecosystem as well. Neither side is going to get the other side to change their opinion if they're already ingrained in the OS.

So next time you see an iOS user that refuses to acknowledge Android as a legitimate option, or vise-versa, remember that you probably aren't going to change their mind and it's just a waste of time to argue with them. iOS and Android both have their respective audiences and goals, so who cares what anyone else uses as long as you can still use your preferred option?

Image source: ThinkApps