Skip to main content

Features That Would Bring Me Back to iPhone

I’ve used many smartphone operating systems from iOS to Android to Windows Phone to BlackBerry to Windows Mobile. The one I miss the most is Windows Phone because although iPhone revolutionized the way we use phones, Microsoft’s Metro UI improved on Apple’s stale experience. Live tiles and unique design elements helped Windows Phone bring a daily smile to my face. Unfortunately, no one else bought one, so I had to go elsewhere for my smartphone needs. While I respect iOS, Android is my daily driver for many reasons. This doesn’t mean I haven’t considered iOS, in fact with the new iPhone SE with flagship specs at a nice price, it’s made me wonder what life would be like on the other side of the fence.

However, if I were to switch, here’s a few things Apple needs to add first:
  • RCS Messaging: iMessage offers a rich communications service built-in to Apple devices so users don’t have to deal with garbage SMS. Luckily, there’s an eventual successor to SMS called RCS, or Rich Communication Services, which offers similar features to iMessage. While iMessage has the advantage of being encrypted, there’s still no reason Apple shouldn’t support RCS.
  • USB-C: Much like iMessage was created out of necessity for a better messaging service, the Lightning port was created because, at the time, there was no port like it. Most other devices were using Micro USB, and while it was small for thin devices, the port breaks easily, and isn’t reversible. So, Apple made something better. Until USB-C came out, and Apple has adopted it for basically every other device. The MacBooks only have USB-C ports, and the iPad Pro adopted it. Apple knew when to give up on ADB, SCSI, and FireWire, why can’t they give up on Lightning? It would be the most Apple thing if all their devices used USB-C. I understand it would be annoying to the Apple users who have to switch to yet another cable, but they can borrow one of my many USB-C cables.
  • Better Home Screen: I like having widgets on my home screen, such as the clock, weather, calendar, and my grocery list in Google Keep. You can’t do that on iOS. You can barely adjust exactly how you want apps to be positioned, and you better like Apple’s apps on the home screen, because you can’t delete them. Android has an app drawer where they all live, and the only apps and widgets on the home screen are what you want.
  • More Customization: In addition to a better home screen, it would be nice if iOS allowed for greater customization in general. On Android, I can install a whole different launcher if I don’t like exactly how the home screen operates. I can set default applications if I don’t like the default mail client or web browser the phone came with. Anything I can think of, I can change, and if I can’t, I’ll find a phone that will. I’m not asking for Apple to allow me to root an iPhone, but it would be nice if I had a bit more freedom to tweak things.

Apple has a lot of good points too, like owning the hardware and the software for the best performance in the business. This whole ownership allows apps like Snapchat to simply run better because there’s only one camera an iPhone will have, so developers tend to have a better time developing for iOS. It also means there’s only one way to get apps on an iOS device and that’s after they’ve been verified through the App Store, so iOS devices are very secure. However, it’s Apple’s way or the highway. There are no other options if you want to run iOS. Which means because I find the notch on the iPhone ugly, my only other option is an SE, which is priced right, but just too small for my liking. Perhaps if Apple adopts more open practices, and puts a USB-C port on the new iPhones, I’d consider it. Until then, in its current state, for now I will stick with Android.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Pluto TV: Viacom's Different Answer to Streaming

First, Some Context and History All the major media conglomerates are beginning to reign in their content from Netflix, Hulu, and Amazon, and are bringing them to their own streaming services for maximum profits. AT&T, who owns WarnerMedia, Comcast, who owns NBCUniversal, and Disney, who also own Marvel and 21st Century Fox, have all announced that they are developing their own streaming services to house all of their valuable content available for a monthly fee. Want to watch Friends? You'll have to subscribe to AT&T's thing. Want to watch The Office? You'll also have to subscribe to Comcast's thing. They'll both probably cost around $10 a month, and you're also going to want Disney+, the home to Marvel. All of these companies are taking a non-linear subscription approach to delivering content, something that we first fell in love with when Netflix introduced their instant streaming service back when they were better known for delivering DVDs through …

Why I Cancelled YouTube TV

I made an article a week or so ago in defense of YouTube TV’s price increase, a stance I still stand by. Many users online are understandably upset about the new price, and that’s reasonable. Some articles are taking the discussion a bit further by suggesting that the price increase betrays the initial goal of YouTube TV and cord-cutting as a whole by offering content at remarkably low prices, which I disagree with.

YouTube TV’s goal was to make live TV better, and they succeeded. The service is generally regarded as the best online live TV service because it has the local channels, the guide is customizable, the DVR is at least as good as a traditional DVR in functionality (something no other online live TV service can say) and gives you unlimited storage with individual recordings lasting for 9 months, and the experience is at least as good as your cable service and probably even better. I call that a success.

The problem comes with the channel lineup. The service initially cost $35, …

Will the ViacomCBS and Disney/Fox Merger Affect Cable TV Prices?

Yes it will, but the reason I ask this question is not from a traditional cable TV perspective, but from a vMVPD, like Sling, and YouTube TV for example.
With Sling, they have three base packages: Sling Blue, Sling Orange, and Sling Blue+Orange. Once upon a time, the difference was essentially if you want Disney channels like ESPN, Freeform, and Disney Channel, those were on Sling Orange, and Sling Blue had the Fox and Comcast channels. Or get both Orange and Blue. Also, the Viacom channels were included on either package, but the CBS channels weren't. Now that it's 2020, the combined entity that is ViacomCBS has stated they have some renewals this year, especially with vMVPDs, which is what made me question how a service like Sling will change, seeing that Disney now owns the FX networks, will they move into the Sling Orange package? Seeing that CBS's cable channels aren't on Sling, will ViacomCBS force their carriage with their renewal? How will this affect the pric…