33 items found for your search. If no results were found please broaden your search.
(02/28/18 9:44pm)
by Joe Bursley
The latest premium smartphone from Samsung, the S9 and the S9+, were announced on Sunday, February 25th. Many people were expecting a follow-up to the groundbreaking S8 phones from last year, as well as a “rival” to the iPhone X, because every phone needs to be compared to Apple and not the other way around—obviously. After an explosive year for smartphones, there were many skeptics believing that Samsung would be unable provide an innovative and amazing new phone that would live up to the hype set by the previous year. After watching the official release video, I have one thing to say to those skeptics: You were right.
The Samsung S9’s best and most prideful feature is the camera; in fact, the tagline for the new flagship device is “The Camera. Reimagined.” In my opinion, this outranks “Bigger than bigger” for worst phone tagline ever. If you’ve read my critiques of the iPhone 8 and X or the Google Pixel 2, you know that super-fancy camera technology does not sell me a phone. That being said, I understand that in today’s selfie culture, high-end cameras are a vital consideration for smart devices. But, come on. I’m not the first person to point out that this new phone is the Galaxy S8 with a nicer camera. Samsung has tried for years to break into Apple’s iron grip on THE “selfie” phone, but now they are just being obtuse about it.
I knock the fancy camera, but to be fair, this is actually a slick piece of hardware. The camera features a dual-aperture option on the rear 12MP camera, allowing the camera to adjust to different light levels just like the human eye. Since most other phones only have one aperture setting, they instead change the shutter speed and light sensitivity of the picture for digital camera work. Samsung has also improved the slow-motion video to a stunning 960 FPS, and added their very own somehow creepier AR emojis to rival the Animojis of the latest iPhone.
Samsung also is working with their personal assistant, Bixby, and utilizing AR to superimpose live translations of foreign words (fitting, since Samsung is a Korean company marketing primarily in the US), supposedly show calories in food, and give live updates of the weather and location information directly in the camera app using Bixby Vision.
Outside of the camera, there doesn’t seem to be much going for the S9, other than that it operates on Android 8 Oreo until this fall when Google releases Android 9 P-something (my guess is something with peanut butter or pie...peanut butter pie?). Overall, the body and hardware specs remain almost the same as the S8, only slightly shorter and fatter. 18.5:9 aspect ratio on a curved Infinity display, SD/microSD card slot and (thank the heavens) headphone jack, USB-C charging port—the only key differences I can see are the repositioned fingerprint sensor (underneath the camera lens instead of next to it) and dual speakers at the top and bottom for stereo sound. Oh, and a “lilac pink” color option is available. Needless to say, I think I and many people were expecting more innovation for this smartphone.
Samsung isn’t the only phone company struggling with this issue; I critiqued Apple for the not-so innovative iPhone 8, which was practically a glass iPhone 7. In fact, there has been growing criticism for the “marginal” improvements from high-end phone companies over the last few years. It seems as though the market is moving faster than the pace of innovation in the smart device world. The only phones that typically stand out are those mid-range phones with fancy gimmicks employed to sell an otherwise average phone: Moto Z mods, Caterpillar’s thermal-imaging phone (why is Caterpillar even selling smartphones?), and the LG Flex all had fancy selling points that never caught on to the mainstream.
What all does this mean for consumers and the smartphone market as a whole? Well, for one thing, it means you shouldn’t feel the need to upgrade your phone every year or every other year because the minor technology improvements likely won’t justify the hefty price tag associated. For instance, when I upgraded from my 2013 Samsung S4 to the 2016 Google Pixel, I jumped forwards in technology and OS versions by a significant amount. It’s now been about 17 months since the first Google Pixel was introduced, and the flagship phones that have been released—including the iPhone 7, iPhone 8, iPhone X, Samsung S8, and Google Pixel 2—I haven’t seen as significant a leap in technology as I did previously. So, if you buy a new iPhone every other year, maybe you don’t need to. That extra cash could go towards any number of other purchases.
Smartphone manufacturers that don’t have mobs of people lining up for the latest and greatest phone will likely have to shift their strategies for both marketing and developing new phones. There has been talk about flexible smart phones, and I’m quite disappointed we didn’t see the rumored Galaxy X released here. Perhaps they are waiting until later in the year for a foldable Galaxy Note. Regardless if we, as consumers, refuse to buy phones that aren’t innovative and groundbreaking, then these companies will be forced to develop phones that are.
(01/25/18 10:00am)
By Joe Bursley
Back in my day, walking into a store, grabbing food, and walking straight out without paying at a cash register was considered “stealing.” However, in the modern world of 2018, this action will now be considered “technology-assisted consumerism,” or something else that Silicon Valley marketers come up with.
On Monday, January 22nd, Amazon officially opened their first physical store location in Seattle, named Amazon Go. This brick-and-mortar grocery store will do away with traditional cashiers and baggers, offering shoppers to instead take what they need to buy and leave, automatically being charged as they walk out of the store. The only requirement is that customers download the Amazon Go app and scan it at one of the turnstile-like kiosks as they enter the store. Smart devices throughout the store like cameras and sensors keep track of who is buying what, then all the items a customer purchases will automatically be charged to their Amazon account as they leave the store with groceries. This allows consumers to avoid waiting in long checkout lines and enables Amazon to compete in the one retail market they were lacking: food.
The technology is still in the testing phase, and often runs into difficulty accounting for human error, like most technology. Instances where hoards of people checkout at the same time, people putting back items in the wrong shelf space, and people generally just being problematic has hindered the store’s release, which was originally announced in December 2016 and planned to open early 2017. Now, a year later, the store has become a reality.
The Amazon Go marketplace is just the most prominent tale of Silicon Valley looking to redefine the traditional brick-and-mortar landscape. With companies like Amazon allowing consumers to shop for virtually everything without even leaving the bedroom, traditional store outlets such as Sears, Macy’s, and Best Buy have either needed to upgrade to the Internet or die trying. Hundreds of old-fashioned stores have been closing across the nation in the last few years, unable to keep up with the likes of Silicon Valley. Amazon, which started out selling books online in the 1990’s, now has their own bookstores to compete with Barnes & Noble and… well, I guess just Barnes & Noble. That, in addition to their buyout of Whole Foods last summer and the opening of the Amazon Go store, Amazon is quite literally giving old-fashioned stores a run for their money. With so many retail spaces being made available, it’s no wonder Silicon Valley has decided to sink its teeth into the physical marketplace even further.
In order to compete for storefront attention, Apple has announced their new “Town Square” store model that may end up replacing the traditional Apple Stores. The first of these new storefronts opened in October of last year in Chicago, combining the typical product selling of an Apple Store with new community resources, such as conference rooms, classes for coding and other experience-driven opportunities, and green spaces to entice the community-focused Millennial generation that has “killed brick and mortar,” according to multiple online articles. So, imagine a Starbucks, but with even less coffee and triple the amount of Apple products, where you still pay way too much for what you buy.
Google isn’t one to be left out, although their strategy is a bit different and even confusing, as they always seem to be. Google apparently prefers to open pop-up stores around the country in order to promote their latest products, such as the Pixel line of phones and their smart home devices, but they have yet to create a permanent and concrete – or, should I say, brick-and-mortar – storefront to sell products through. But, I’m sure once Amazon and Apple popularize it, Google will eventually catch up.
All this being said, I can only imagine a day in the near future where I drive in my Google driverless car to the Amazon Go or Whole Foods, pick up my gluten-free, dairy-free, GMO-free kale burgers, walk right out, drive over to the Apple Town Square to see people buying the iPhone Z, laugh at them, then charge up my electric self-driving car and pay for it using AndroidPay. That is Silicon Valley’s oligopolistic dreamscape right there, and it could be a reality sooner than we might think.
Sources: The Washington Post, The New York Times, Forbes, LinkedIn, Twice, Byte
Images: Business Insider, The Verge
(01/25/18 5:00am)
Back in my day, walking into a store, grabbing food, and walking straight out without paying at a cash register was considered “stealing.” However, in the modern world of 2018, this action will now be considered “technology-assisted consumerism,” or something else that Silicon Valley marketers come up with.
(01/15/18 6:29am)
(01/10/18 8:36pm)
We’re back with a new episode of Animation A-Team! This week we head back in time to an era that only 90s kids remember and reminisce about classic Nick Toons. What made the cartoons of our childhood so good? How come today’s cartoons fall short? Do we want reboots simply because of nostalgia, or because there are more stories to tell? All this and more by your Animation A-Team.
(12/30/17 8:30pm)
My family has a recent tradition of going to the movie theater on Christmas Eve if we aren’t already traveling for the holidays. With most stores and restaurants closed or only open for limited hours on Christmas Eve, going to see a movie is a great way to spend the day waiting to open Christmas presents the next morning. Last year, there were a number of excellent films out in theaters to watch around the holidays: Moana, Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them, Rogue One: A Star Wars Story, and Collateral Beauty, just to name a few. I had suggested some of these titles to my family for our Christmas Eve viewing pleasure. However, my younger sister, who was only 16 at the time, suggested that we go see the R-rated Office Christmas Party as a family. And, to my disbelief, my parents somehow decided that was an acceptable option for our family outing. Two hours later, my sister and I endured an extremely awkward car ride home, where our parents commented on “how much R-rated films get away with these days.”
(12/22/17 10:00am)
by Joe Bursley
My family has a recent tradition of going to the movie theater on Christmas Eve if we aren’t already traveling for the holidays. With most stores and restaurants closed or only open for limited hours on Christmas Eve, going to see a movie is a great way to spend the day waiting to open Christmas presents the next morning. Last year, there were a number of excellent films out in theaters to watch around the holidays: Moana, Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them, Rogue One: A Star Wars Story, and Collateral Beauty, just to name a few. I had suggested some of these titles to my family for our Christmas Eve viewing pleasure. However, my younger sister, who was only 16 at the time, suggested that we go see the R-rated Office Christmas Party as a family. And, to my disbelief, my parents somehow decided that was an acceptable option for our family outing. Two hours later, my sister and I endured an extremely awkward car ride home, where our parents commented on “how much R-rated films get away with these days.”
Determined to not let that mistake happen again, I’m compiling a list of good-natured films that are out this holiday season that you won’t be ashamed to watch with your parents and/or younger siblings. You could choose to deviate from this list and watch something outside of traditional family fare, but let my story above serve as your sole warning.
(11/21/17 3:00pm)
by Joe Bursley
There seems to be an entire decade’s worth of pop culture that will only ever be remembered by those born into the decade. Despite my parents spending much more time in the 1990s than I did, only I will be able to remember any of it. Having been born in 1999, I am technically designated a “90s kid.” It is an almost universally-accepted truth that from approximately 1987-2004 we lived in a period of wonderful, creative, diverse entertainment existed like no other. From the Disney Animation Renaissance, to the explosion of Nicktoons, to a dozen or so cult classic movies, the rich media of the 90s that many of us grew up with will, sadly, never be achieved in quite the same vein. That, however, won’t stop Hollywood from trying.
https://twitter.com/ByteBSU/status/927534448316477440
In recent years, Tinseltown has made a point of trying to revive older properties in the form of constant film and television reboots, revivals, sequels, or adaptations. Disney currently is on a quest to remake nearly every successful animated movie as a live action adaptation within the next decade. Dora the Explorer is getting a gritty live action movie, unsurprisingly helmed by Michael Bay. Similarly, the Transformers expanded universe (a phrase for which I have the utmost hatred) is creating a nostalgia/merchandising monstrosity. It’s important to note that this is happening all across the industry, but the question is why?
Reanimated Animation
Given the Hey Arnold! The Jungle Movie coming out this Thanksgiving, I’m going to begin with the world of animation. Along with the Hey Arnold! movie, Nickelodeon and Viacom are producing a Rocko’s Modern Life film and an Invader Zim film within the next year or two. The teaser trailers aired during San Diego Comic Con this past summer. Many hope these movies are a sign that Nickelodeon is returning to its roots of Splat-era NickToons. This hope is further supported by TeenNick’s primetime programming block, NickSplat. NickSplat airs classic 90s and early 2000s Nickelodeon shows from 11 PM to 6 AM every evening, along with occasional original bumpers and special programming. I’ve indulged myself a few times and watched the program back when it was just called The Splat and began at 10 PM. While the shows are typically limited to select episodes of Rugrats, Hey Arnold!, Rocket Power, and Rocko’s Modern Life, occasionally other 90s shows are aired as specials. I recall a promotion in which Double Dare and Double Dare 2000 episodes were specifically aired with bumpers starring Marc Summers, the show's original host. Nickelodeon certainly seems to be trying to recapture their former glory, but they aren’t the only children’s entertainment media doing so.
https://twitter.com/marshall_law13/status/930115233804374016
Cartoon Network and Disney have also been dabbling in the nostalgia waters recently. Cartoon Network infamously rebooted Teen Titans and The Powerpuff Girls into tone-deaf, humiliating shadows of the original cartoons that fans enjoyed. I won’t say much about Teen Titans GO! (yuck) or Powerpuff Girls 2016 (double yuck) here, because of the extent to which CN dropped the ball. A failed attempt at nostalgia, however, still has the words “attempt at nostalgia” in the phrase. Ironically, Disney has never really been a powerful force in the TV animation industry – despite the fact that the company brought cartoons to the mainstream back in the 1930s. In recent years, however, after the success of Phineas and Ferb, Gravity Falls, and Star vs. the Forces of Evil, as well as Nick and CN proving they know how to run good cartoons into the ground (cough, Steven Universe, cough), Disney XD has become a well-matched competitor in children’s entertainment. This year, Disney XD premiered their Ducktales 2017 reboot 30 years after the original Ducktales cartoon first aired. This show, drawing elements from the original series, Carl Barks’ Scroog McDuck comics, and the overarching Duck-universe (a phrase I never anticipated I would ever write), has been quite entertaining. This is another example of taking a successful, well-liked property from decades ago and rebooting it for nostalgia's sake – although it was much better handled than CN’s Teen Titans GO! (again, yuck).
https://twitter.com/sheisalbum/status/929766743727312896
The "Disney Renaissance" Renaissance
Disney is also reviving nearly their entire catalog of successful animated movies as live action marvels. This started with the 101 Dalmatians movies of the early 2000s, but has accelerated rapidly with Tim Burton’s Alice in Wonderland, Maleficent, Cinderella, The Jungle Book, and Beauty and the Beast – which went so far as to auto-tune Emma Watson as Belle to sell tickets. Disney has four movies slated for the next two years and 21 adaptations total announced for the coming years. This includes the recently announced Lion King live action movie (it’s going to have one less human actor than The Jungle Book which only had one human actor to begin with), a Cruella de Vil spin off from the 101 Dalmatians, and back-to-back Peter Pan and Tinkerbell movies. Heck, they're even remaking The Sword in the Stone – a movie that I can almost guarantee nobody is petitioning to see a reboot of.
Many other movies premiering soon or currently in production are just gritty remakes of classic properties. This began with 80s media, but has encroached into 90s entertainment. The Transformers expanded universe doesn’t need to be a thing; it already has five movies too many and more on the way. Apparently, there is talk of a Transformers/G.I. Joe crossover movie. Somebody already made the mistake of letting Michael Bay ruin the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, and now he’s got his grubby little paws on an upcoming Dora the Explorer movie. In 2015 we saw reboots of Star Wars, Star Trek, Jurassic Park, and Terminator. 2016 then brought us the cringe-worthy gender-bent Ghostbusters movie. This year we’ve already seen Power Rangers, Blade Runner, The Mummy, and freaking Baywatch all get movies. In a few weeks we’re getting Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson, Kevin Hart, Jack Black, and Kevin Jonas in a Jumanji reboot. When will enough be enough for these vultures?
Why we still watch
There’s a reason Hollywood keeps rehashing older properties with little grace or tact; it’s green and rhymes with “honey.” These properties have an established base of fans and have had success in the past – even before good CGI was a thing. Why waste time coming up with an original idea when you can just add explosions to Transformers, or Power Rangers, or Baywatch? There is a reason, after the success of Iron Man in 2008, we’re getting nine superhero movies in 2018 alone (of which I will probably end up watching many). There is a reason Disney paid a metric butt-ton of money for Lucasfilm in order to make another trilogy and a Han Solo spin-off movie without the real Han Solo. There’s a reason we're getting a gender-bent Ocean’s Eleven reboot next year. The reason Hollywood keeps doing this is that we as consumers have spoken with our wallets and told them it’s basically okay.
https://twitter.com/TheWacoKid6/status/931221133210345473
I’m not here to rip on adaptations and remakes. I enjoy many of these movies just like the rest of the population (except Transformers, which makes me gag). I do, however, share some of the concerns being raised by many in the new media entertainment sphere. CinemaSins Jeremy, for instance, goes on a terrific and entertaining rant about Disney announcing a live action Winnie the Pooh remake. Too much of a good thing is a bad thing. Movie adaptations and remakes can be good on occasion, but they shouldn’t be the norm for all blockbusters coming out in the next few years. I love a Hey Arnold! movie and a Ducktales reboot series, but I hope that CN, Nick, and Disney don’t become stagnant and comfortable just remaking old properties to satisfy 90s kids.
https://twitter.com/WeAre90sKids/status/930539082219913216
What 90s kids enjoyed so much about this era, what many of them are really nostalgic for is the diversity and creativity that all the different shows and movies offered. There was a mix of good and bad shows and plenty of cringe-worthy movies for every Jurassic Park or Fight Club, but the amount of content enabled that to exist and persist throughout the 90s into the early 2000s. When there is a lack of diverse, original content, most of the entertainment is either bad or, at best, just okay. Dwindling summer blockbuster revenues have shown that we haven’t had a truly good movie for a while. Superhero movie fatigue is already setting in with even the most dedicated comic book fans. Even new properties just don’t resonate with audiences the same way they did a twenty years ago, as we still talk about them to this day. The problem with rebooting old nostalgia instead of creating new properties is that, in twenty years from now, there won’t be anything nostalgic to remake. Perhaps then Hollywood will start to create original content for future generations to be nostalgic about.
Sources: Polygon, YouTube, Byte, Insider, SlashFilm, Movie Pilot, IMDB, Fortune, Disney Wikia, KnowYourMeme, Den of Geek, Taste of Cinema,
Images: Twitter, Collider, IndieWire
(11/19/17 8:09pm)
I remember practically being raised by Nickelodeon cartoons. Not to say anything against my parents, but Nicktoons, as they were often referred to, were a very prominent figure in my adolescent years growing up. From '90s cartoons like Rugrats, The Wild Thornberrys, and Hey Arnold! to cartoons of the early 2000s, such as ChalkZone, Danny Phantom, and Avatar: The Last Airbender¸ classic Nickelodeon cartoons bring a wave of nostalgia that, sadly, contrasts sharply with the current state of Nickelodeon. There are only five cartoons currently listed as regular programming on Nickelodeon today: Welcome to the Wayne, Bunsen is a Beast, The Loud House, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, and of course, Spongebob Squarepants. While these shows have varying levels of quality (I’ve enjoyed a few episodes of The Loud House, and Spongebob is reportedly much better in season 9 now that the original script writers have returned), it’s safe to say that Nickelodeon is nowhere near the cartoon powerhouse it was back at the turn of the millennium.
(11/18/17 10:20pm)
By Joe Bursley
I remember practically being raised by Nickelodeon cartoons. Not to say anything against my parents, but Nicktoons, as they were often referred to, were a very prominent figure in my adolescent years growing up. From '90s cartoons like Rugrats, The Wild Thornberrys, and Hey Arnold! to cartoons of the early 2000s, such as ChalkZone, Danny Phantom, and Avatar: The Last Airbender¸ classic Nickelodeon cartoons bring a wave of nostalgia that, sadly, contrasts sharply with the current state of Nickelodeon. There are only five cartoons currently listed as regular programming on Nickelodeon today: Welcome to the Wayne, Bunsen is a Beast, The Loud House, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, and of course, Spongebob Squarepants. While these shows have varying levels of quality (I’ve enjoyed a few episodes of The Loud House, and Spongebob is reportedly much better in season 9 now that the original script writers have returned), it’s safe to say that Nickelodeon is nowhere near the cartoon powerhouse it was back at the turn of the millennium.
Many “cartoon connoisseurs” like to blame the amazing success of Spongebob Squarepants on the decline of all other cartoons on the channel, as well as a general shift away from TV animation during the mid-2000s (remember Cartoon Network even went through the infamous "CN Real" phase). While I don’t think this is entirely inaccurate, this theory fails to look at the big picture.
The theory goes something like this: Nickelodeon had lots of great cartoon programming from the 90s and early 2000s. Then, Spongebob Squarepants was greenlit and became an instant hit. The popularity of the first three seasons and the first movie have even encapsulated meme culture. Nickelodeon saw how insanely marketable and popular the yellow square became, and began milking it for all it’s worth. The channel even refused to let the show die after the original creator, Stephen Hillenburg, departed from the show after creating the standard 60 episodes and the theatrical movie. Stephen returned in 2014 to work on the second movie, Sponge Out of Water, and has since helped bring back some quality to the show. But throughout the period between the two movies, Spongebob sank to critical lows in terms of quality and humor, though still maintaining its massive popularity. As Spongebob’s popularity grew, other Nicktoons slowly grew unpopular or ended naturally after exhausting their creative material. Unfortunately, Nickelodeon was hesitant to greenlight and/or maintain other shows that didn’t live up to the hype that Spongebob created. This led to the infamous story of Adventure Time being pitched to the channel’s Random Cartoons! block twice, before eventually becoming a hit on the Carton Network.
https://twitter.com/micah_wave/status/931957215421968384
As I said before, this theory has some merits. Spongebob’s popularity certainly did initiate a revolution in Nickelodeon that lacked creativity or risk-taking (see the change from Nickelodeon Studios pre- and post-2005). But what this fails to recognize is the general trend towards live-action children’s sitcoms that now permeate Nickelodeon. And the primary producer for these live-action “comedies” is none other than Dan Schneider himself.
Dan Schneider is now more infamous than Butch Hartman at Nickelodeon Studios, sitting as the executive producer for classic comedy hits such as Drake & Josh, Zoey 101, The Amanda Show, and All That. Currently, Schneider has two shows airing on Nickelodeon, with a third coming in 2018. Schneider has created/produced 11 total shows for Nickelodeon in the past two decades.
Now Nickelodeon has always had live-action shows in its repertoire, and actually started out as primarily live-action programming before the explosion of cartoons that persisted in the 90s that made Nick a household name. Schneider helped produce some of these hit comedies, such as All That, Kenan & Kel, and The Amanda Show. But during the early-mid 2000s is when his prominence at the Nickelodeon Studios began to grow, along the same time as the Nicktoons began to decline. Schneider and his production company, Schneider’s Bakery, began working on Drake and Josh, Zoey 101, iCarly, and Victorious between 2004 and 2010.
https://twitter.com/bvorwerk/status/928330280502546433
Now, correlation doesn’t necessarily equal causation, and I’m not insinuating that Dan Schneider made it his mission to replace the Nicktoons atmosphere with his decreasingly-funny “kidcoms”. However, I can easily imagine an environment where Nickelodeon is so focused on making a quick buck that they go with shows they feel comfortable airing that are less risky. That is why they stuck with Spongebob for so long and greenlit fewer cartoons, and it also explains Schneider’s prominent rise as a tried-and-true live action producer. Nickelodeon has now dug itself into a hole, relying too much on “cheap” and “safe” entertainment, allowing competitors like Cartoon Network and Disney XD to dominate in the cartoon industry, with breakout hits like Adventure Time, Steven Universe, Gravity Falls, and Star vs. the Forces of Evil. Without a major change in direction, Nickelodeon may never revive the success of the Splat-era Nicktoons. But what catalyst could incite such a drastic change?
Well, as it turns out, Dan Schneider.
This is based off of mostly rumors, of which there are multiple and are not necessarily unfounded. An article from Redstate reports that the next big Hollywood sex scandal after the revelations of Harvey Weinstein and Kevin Spacey could be surrounding Schneider and his time at Nickelodeon Studios. Rumors about alleged foot fetishes, hiding more than his fair share of sexual innuendos in his show scripts, all the way to possibly being the biological father of Jamie Lynn Spears’ child. There are even suggestions that executives higher up in the Nickelodeon and Viacom chain helped legally cover for Schneider whenever allegations became court cases. Again, most of these claims are just rumors, but we’re starting to see a trend of behaviors like that of the Harvey Weinstein rumors that turned out to be true. As Redstate reports:
If Schneider is the monster people seem to believe he is, some things do fall into place. Jamie Lynn Spears was on track to eclipse her older sister in fame when she dropped out of Hollywood in “disgrace” because of her unplanned pregnancy. To this day she has never said a word about the real father of her child (and kudos to her for bringing her baby into the world). Amanda Bynes is an extremely gifted performer but tragically lost contact with reality for a while. She went on a now infamous twitter rant blaming her parents for basically making her a prostitute. It makes a lot more sense when you put it in the context of a Dan Schneider.
If these rumors turn out to be true - and I’m not claiming they are pure fact or fiction - it would be devastating for Schneider and Nickelodeon. Nickelodeon would likely have to hastily dissociate from Schneider, similar to how Netflix handled House of Cards after Kevin Spacey’s allegations came to light and he basically admitted they were true. This would leave Nickelodeon in a tough situation, having relied so much on shows created and produced by Schneider in recent years. In order to successfully rebrand, similar to how Subway rebranded after Jared’s scandal came to light, it would be in Nickelodeon’s best interest to move back towards Nicktoons. They likely wouldn’t kill off Spongebob, but it could usher in a new wave of Nicktoons as Nickelodeon and Viacom work to move away from Schneider’s scandal…. IF all these rumors turn out true. These Dan Schneider rumors could be headline news if they are substantiated, unless Schneider releases a statement claiming to be gay, in which all bets are off.
https://twitter.com/matte_bIack/status/829974085203431424
Even if they aren’t substantiated, I think Nick should still begin moving back towards cartoons. Having a diverse palette of shows would help protect Nick in the event of another big scandal, instead of the channel trying to play clean-up in the aftermath of a big story breaking. It would also signify to many fans of the Splat-era golden Nicktoons that Nickelodeon is working to restore itself to its former glory. Nickelodeon already appears to be heading in that direction, with TV movies of Hey Arnold!, Rocko’s Modern Life, and Invader ZIM being released in the next year or two, as well as the success of TeenNick’s primetime programming block NickSplat, which airs old 90’s shows and Nicktoons between 11 PM and 6 AM. But Hollywood’s trend into nostalgia territory is a discussion for another time….
Sources: Wikipedia, Reddit, Toonzone, KnowYourMeme, Imgur, RedState, The New York Times, CNN, Reuters, Polygon, and NickSplat
Images: Twitter, Youtube, TV Series Finale, the Sam and Cat Wikia
(10/15/17 1:00pm)
I’ve written previously about Apple’s latest smartphone release and how it dropped the ball from Android. I’ve been an Android user since I got my first Samsung S4 in high school and switched to the Google Pixel over this summer. I considered waiting a few months for the Google Pixel 2 which just released October 4th. I’m glad I didn’t. While in some ways the Pixel 2 is an improvement upon the Pixel released the fall of last year, its release is more akin to that of the iPhone 7 and iPhone 8, where most of the substance remains the same. Compared to other high-end phones released in 2017 like the iPhone X and the Samsung Galaxy S8 and Note 8, the Pixel 2 doesn’t quite measure up.
(10/13/17 7:30pm)
by Joe Bursley
I’ve written previously about Apple’s latest smartphone release and how it dropped the ball from Android. I’ve been an Android user since I got my first Samsung S4 in high school and switched to the Google Pixel over this summer. I considered waiting a few months for the Google Pixel 2 which just released October 4th. I’m glad I didn’t. While in some ways the Pixel 2 is an improvement upon the Pixel released the fall of last year, its release is more akin to that of the iPhone 7 and iPhone 8, where most of the substance remains the same. Compared to other high-end phones released in 2017 like the iPhone X and the Samsung Galaxy S8 and Note 8, the Pixel 2 doesn’t quite measure up.
Clearly Good
Both the Pixel 2 and its big brother, the Pixel 2 XL, have an impressive 4 GB of RAM, identical to that of the first line of Pixels. This is also similar to the Galaxy S8 and other Android phones released in the past two years. Sadly, Apple's iPhones have never reached above 3 GB even with the newest iPhone X. Four GB of RAM is a good amount of processing power, and I realistically can’t imagine a phone needing more than that. That said, the most notable high-end phones with more RAM are the Galaxy Note 8 and the OnePlus 3, 3T and 5.
As far as pixel density goes, the Pixel 2 boasts 1080p resolution and 441 ppi, while the 2 XL has 2880x1440 resolution and a beastly 538 ppi. This is higher than the iPhone X’s 452.63 poi and lower than the Galaxy S8 at 571 ppi. Pixel density and resolution affects the clarity and sharpness of the screen imagery. This is a pretty important spec to consider if you’re looking to upgrade.
Both of the new Pixels feature front-facing speakers and OLED displays, although this has become standard on Android phones. They also sport something called “Active Edge" that allows one to squeeze the sides of the phone to trigger certain actions; the default action here is Google Assistant, once again integrated directly into the Pixel brand of phones. The Google Assistant is Google’s answer to the likes of Apple’s Siri, Amazon’s Alexa, and I guess you could even count Samsung’s Bixby (though I wouldn’t), with the added benefit of accessing the power of Google’s search engine for information. If your phone lacks a personal assistant or you’re just sick and tired of Siri constantly turning on in the middle of a lecture hall, the Google Assistant is a great option.
[caption id="" align="aligncenter" width="1280"] Image from YouTube[/caption]
Even from a camera non-enthusiast like myself, the Pixel 2's cameras are spectacular and are clearly what Google wants to stand out as with their previous phones. I won’t get into too many specifics, but the rating is based off of DxOMark, an independent organization that sets image quality standards for phones and cameras, which gave the Pixels their (then) highest rating of 90 for image quality. This year, the top contenders were the iPhone 8 Plus and Samsung Note 8 tied at 94 – that is, until the Google Pixel 2 received a record-setting overall score of 98. Google is also integrating their new feature Google Lens into the new Pixel 2 and 2 XL, which allows Google Assistant to identify objects and show information just by pointing the phone’s camera at something. This is more focused on software instead of hardware, but is still only applicable to phones using Google Assistant – which is almost exclusively the Pixel phones at this point in time.
The phone’s home screen will get rid of the annoying, inconvenient search and weather widgets permanently fixed at the top, and replace it with an equally inconvenient “at a glance” widget, supposedly connecting with your calendar and planning apps for constant reminders of what you have to do. The search widget, meanwhile, will be permanently affixed to the bottom of the screen between the app drawer and the Android soft keys. Presumably, this is meant to increase search volume and ease of access, but I usually just like opening the Chrome app.
[caption id="" align="alignleft" width="320"] Image from Lifehacker[/caption]
The Pixel 2 and Pixel 2 XL will support an always-on display that shows quick notifications and the time without waking the entire screen – a benefit of an OLED display. They're also using always-on microphones to recognize and display the music you are listening to, whether you're in a coffee shop or listening to the radio when a song comes on that you just have to know.
Kinda Okay
[caption id="" align="alignnone" width="980"] Image from droidlife[/caption]
The Pixel 2 and Pixel 2 XL only offer 64 and 128 GB storage options – a limit for which I also criticized Apple. This may be the direction toward which the market is headed, but I personally like to have my options open for storage space, including the optional microSD card. Google does, however, offer unlimited storage for photos and videos in their Google Photos cloud system; so that’s okay. If you like to use SIM cards for ever-expanding storage, as many Android enthusiasts do, then you’re out of luck with the Pixel 2.
Despite having great pixel density and display resolution, the Google Pixel 2 once again has annoyingly large bezels on top and bottom, identical to the Pixel and Pixel XL from last year. In an age with Samsung’s “Infinity Display” and Apple’s almost-bezel-free iPhone X, the added space to the phone’s front without increased screen size seems bulky and unnecessary. The Pixel 2 XL improves on this, minimizing the bezels and bringing the phone’s screen almost to the edge of the phone, but it still falls short of what consumers are looking for in a smartphone this year.
[caption id="" align="alignnone" width="1200"] Image from Android Central[/caption]
The Pixel 2 is 5 inches, just like the first Pixel, and the two are indistinguishable from the front. (I’ll comment on Google’s "unique" design choices below) The Pixel 2 XL is a full 6 inches. This, compared to last year’s 5.5-inch Pixel XL, makes the screen more impressive as it takes up so much of the front face.
While the camera is certainly great, it does come with a cost: the camera lens has gotten larger. It now juts out from the back of the phone and creates a slight but noticeable bump on the back. This isn’t too much of an issue, but it is aesthetically irksome from a design standpoint. Last year’s Pixel has the camera embedded in the phone. This meant that the back of the phone was completely smooth (except for the fingerprint scanner).
Speaking of which, the Google Pixel 2 and 2 XL continue the trend of placing the fingerprint scanner on the back of the phone instead of down on the front where a home button would be located. I’ve personally found this much more convenient when holding on to the phone in my hand, using my index finger to unlock my phone quickly. It is, however, quite inconvenient when the phone is laying down flat on a table. Double tapping to wake my Pixel and using the password to unlock my phone can often be cumbersome and unresponsive, but perhaps the Pixel 2 will be more receptive to those gestures.
[caption id="" align="alignnone" width="1024"] Image from DroidHolic[/caption]
Google is also adding augmented reality stickers that can be applied to pictures and videos, including third-party brands like Star Wars and Stranger Things. And I won’t even beat around the bush here: they are also copying Apple’s Live Photos function, calling it “Motion Photos.”
[caption id="" align="aligncenter" width="600"] Image from Redmond Pie[/caption]
I’ll discuss design more below, but I almost like what Google is doing with its color scheme. I mean, the Pixel 2 has three color options, with “Just Black,” “Clearly White,” and “Kinda Blue”, which is a more metallic grey/slate color. This is in contrast to last year’s “Quite Black,” “Very Silver,” and the limited edition “Really Blue” that was a very vibrant and bold...well, it was “really blue.” I wish they would offer other color options (perhaps from the Red/Yellow/Green/Blue combination of colors that just screams “Google”) as I feel it would help people personalize their phones more, but I understand it is risky and expensive from a manufacturing and distribution standpoint. Still, it’s refreshing to see a deviation from the standard blacks and silvers we always see. A lot of the design of the Pixels seems simplistic and pragmatic, as opposed to the “awe-inspiring” flashiness of the Galaxy or iPhone lines. Google seems to be focusing more on usability than looks with their new phones. If you like the aesthetic and uniformity of Galaxies and iPhones, the Pixel 2 certainly seems like the “ugly duckling” among the high-end phones.
Google has taken an interesting stance on pricing that is certainly going to set itself apart from the market: this year’s Pixel 2 starts at $649, the same starting price as last year’s Pixel. Prices will vary depending on what storage options and size you choose as well as payment plans through Verizon, but in a world where top-end phones now cost $800-$1000, Google’s pricing is certainly enticing for users looking to upgrade this year. In addition, if you buy through the Google Store, you can receive up to $410 on a new Pixel 2 by trading in your old phone to upgrade.
Just Ugly
First things first, Google got rid of the headphone jack. Everyone speculated they would, and they did. Instead of a headphone jack they are offering Google Pixel Buds, which are wireless headphones with the Google Assistant built in. I’m not mad; I’m just very disappointed.
Finally, on to the design of the Pixel 2 and Pixel 2 XL. The Pixel designs have always been a point of contention among users and critics since last year’s phones offered the “metal and glass” mix, seen here. While it certainly is distinctive (for those who don’t have an opaque case), the design received mixed reviews at best with many simply asking “why?” in regard to Google’s choice. The Pixel 2 doesn’t scrap the design entirely, although the glass rectangle is smaller and no longer encompasses the fingerprint sensor on the back. Google, however, takes its bold design choice even further with the “Black and White” option for the Pixel 2 XL, which covers the top part of the phone with glass and leaves the rest a bright white.
[caption id="" align="alignnone" width="800"] Image from Forbes[/caption]
The contrast is stark, but that doesn’t even compare to the bright orange power button on the side of the phone. The “Kinda Blue” color scheme also has a bright teal power button, though this is less noticeable with the overall blue hue. I’m honestly baffled by what Google did here and I was even a fan of the original two-toned mixed material design from the first Pixel. I just don’t know why they felt it necessary to create a BLACK AND WHITE phone design and then add an ORANGE power button. Perhaps Google just wanted to be THAT phone. Maybe it’s part of a marketing campaign for Android 8.0 Oreo. Or, hey, the phone debuted at the start of October; maybe the black, white, and orange is just Google trying to be spooky for Halloween. Again, those who like their phones smart and pretty will probably dislike the Pixels for this reason alone.
https://twitter.com/SonicDahMario/status/915623337753182209
Overall, Google’s phone is an admirable second attempt to break into the premium smartphone market. While the design is certainly questionable, many of the features appear to be what was lacking from the Google Pixel last year with improvements primarily in the software department. If you’re already using a Google Pixel or any phone from 2016, you don’t need to worry about upgrading. It will be best to wait until the Google Pixel 3 and you’ll probably still be able to get money for a trade-in at that point. If, however, you’re in the market to buy or upgrade to a new smartphone after a few years and you don’t mind the “unique” design choices and the lack of a headphone jack, the Pixel 2 is a great contender at a modest price that won't break the bank. Just please, don’t buy the Black & White design.
Sources: Byte, Google, DxOMark, The Verge, Engadget, Google, 9to5google, Android Central, Extreme Tech
Images: Softpedia News, YouTube, Lifehacker, droidlife, Android Central, droidholic, Redmond Pie, Forbes, Twitter
(09/26/17 12:00pm)
I’ve never been one to take a bite out of Apple. My first smartphone was the Samsung Galaxy S4, and I just upgraded this summer to the Google Pixel. While I will admit that Apple products have their place in the technology market and showcase some good key features, I don’t believe they’ve ever really lived up to the hype surrounding their phones and computers. However, with the news of the latest iPhones being released, I decided to tune in, watch the release, and give my take on the iPhone release from the perspective of an Android fanboy.