A lot of engineering has gone into making phones that fold in half. If you think about it, it's one of those things that doesn't seem possible — something made of metal and glass can flip open and closed as you like.

Of course, there are still things about foldables to nit-pick over; if you're spending a lot of cash on something, it needs to seem worth it to you. Most of the things designers spend their time on aren't what the average consumer sees. Better hinges and thinner displays really don't stand out because you can't see them.

But you sure do see that crease.

It's in your face

A slight indent in the screen along the line where a foldable actually folds doesn't interfere with anything. It's always been there, and everything still worked as designed.

If you've used a foldable phone, you know the deal, but the fact is that most people haven't. I'm not talking about looking at one for three minutes at Best Buy, I mean buying one and using it every day.

The crease becomes sort of unnoticeable. It's still there, and you still see and feel it, but you stop caring about it because the display still looks good in that spot, and it's just as touch-sensitive as anywhere else on the screen.

None of that matters. The first time you see a foldable phone in the flesh, one of the first things you might notice is a big, ugly line smack dab in the center of the display where you want to look at everything. It's enough to make you decide not to buy it.

I know this because it's one of the reasons I thought I'd never want one. A flip phone really fits my lifestyle; I don't need a gargantuan display, so a "normal" sized phone that folds into something much smaller really works for me, but I didn't want one because of the line down the center of the screen.

I eventually noticed a Motorola Razr at a price so good I did it anyway. I found that it wasn't nearly as bad as I thought and really not a reason to look away when it's time to buy. Yet, if I hadn't been able to get a brand new folding phone for like $300, I never would have bought it because of that crease.

I know I'm not the only person who thinks this way because I've heard plenty of other folks talk about that ugly, distracting fold line like it is some sort of phone leprosy. Guess what? Those people are right. If the crease is a reason not to buy a foldable, that's not a problem for you; it's a problem for the people making them.

While I haven't seen it in person, Samsung has shown off a foldable that doesn't have one. This is a big deal! Not because it will affect the performance or usability of the phone, but because it makes it look appealing to more people. A better hinge is a lot more important, but a hinge assembly will never matter as much as a line down the screen will to most of us.

I'm not sure how they did it, and nobody from Samsung is ready to talk much about that yet; they're sort of busy right now. It's surely part trade secret and part common sense, done in a way that won't make anything weaker or more fragile. That's good enough for right now, but I still want to know everything I can about how they pulled it off. I understand how glass can bend and why the crease was there, and my curious side demands to be fed.

I'm also pretty certain this is why Apple has waited so long to build a foldable. Yes, it will have a crazy-high price tag, and the company will try to make it sound like they invented the technology, but one thing an Apple foldable would never have is a display with a crease down the middle. Since Apple buys its best displays from Samsung, and Samsung has figured out how to fold them up without a crease line, all the dominoes for an Apple iFold are in place.

Most importantly, this is the sort of "new feature" that all foldables need. It's easy to show off, seems like a big deal, and will make more people interested in the product.

Nice job, Samsung!

I've been in a wheelchair on and off for about 20 years, and now I'm a full-time user. I'm also interested in staying healthy so I can live long enough to become a burden on my kids. Like many folks, I use a smartwatch as a wearable fitness tracker.

I'm not the first to say it, nor will I be the last, but that has never stopped me before, so here goes: wearable options for people in a wheelchair suck. Some, like Garmin smartwatches, are better than others, but they still don't compare to using one for people without mobility issues.

Unfortunately, I don't see this changing any time soon, if ever.

We're built different

The difficulty in creating accurate and useful fitness trackers for wheelchair users stems from a combination of technological limitations, fundamental differences in movement, and a historical lack of dedicated research and market focus.

The core technology in most commercial wearables is designed for the "able-bodied" population, which creates fundamental inaccuracies when applied to wheelchair use. I'm talking smartwatches here, because something as small as a smart ring or smart earrings simply doesn't have the space to fit anything more inside.

Wearable trackers primarily use an accelerometer to count steps by detecting specific motions involved in walking or running. That data is what's used to calculate other features, like calorie counting or a sort of body battery measurement.

When you use a manual wheelchair, the arm and torso movements are different from they are when walking or running. This usually leads to either an overestimation or an underestimation of "steps" and calories burned. A simple accelerometer is not designed to measure these.

Different tech is needed

The software algorithms that determine energy expenditure use a combination of data such as heart rate, height, and weight, and accelerometer readings. To make matters worse, all this is designed with lower-body movement in mind.

To push a wheelchair, you rely on your upper body. Usually, this is less demanding than "normal" leg-based movements. This means that even if a wearable underestimates your number of pushes, the result can still be overestimated because your body isn't working as hard to move forward.

It's difficult to reasonably assess any sort of fitness goal when things are both over- and underestimated all at the same time. Garmin, to its credit, does explain how it tries to compensate for this and use a different software algorithm when you use Wheelchair Mode on one of the company's watches.

Apple, Samsung, and Google are all working on making it better, too, even if they aren't quite there yet. Even with my Garmin, the readings and calculations aren't very accurate because of differences in movement and the limitations of "normal" sensors in gauging it.

Modern medicine isn't likely to change how people in wheelchairs use their bodies to move, but technology could be built that caters to it. The University of Pittsburgh’s Human Engineering Research Lab is working on how to build a fitness tracking system for people with ambulatory issues, but it would probably lead to an entirely new product category of devices. Their research involves wearable tech on the wrist and face (to monitor breathing and oxygen intake) as well as tech on the wheelchair itself. Think of a smart chair, like we've seen Google explore smart shoe insoles.

The market isn't there

Maybe a bigger issue is the market itself and historical research into the problem. I'm not complaining that people without any issues walking around don't think about wheelchair users, and I never want to sound demanding. The fact is that not as much research goes into wheelchair fitness tracking. This can change and probably will, but it's unlikely to catch up.

The market simply isn't there to justify the enormous costs. There are more people with ambulatory issues than you probably realize, but the number is still dwarfed by those without any. And, to be frank, many people in a wheelchair just don't care about their fitness. For every wheel-basketball player (those guys are amazing and my heroes), there will be dozens (or more) users who aren't interested in seeing how active they can be. To be fair, it is tough to give a damn when you live in a world that wasn't designed to accommodate you.

In any case, the number of people who would buy a costly fitness-tracking system will never be high. Any company willing to do the research isn't going to profit from it, and companies that actually build the devices would probably lose money. For now, it's in the hands of forward-looking thinktanks like the University of Pittsburgh.

For now, I'll stick with my Garmin

I'm not bitter. I've learned how to use the information my Garmin watch gives me, and even though I can't trust it at face value, it is mostly consistent. It's useful to help in some ways; I lift weights to keep my upper body strong, and it can help me there.

If things ever change, I would try to buy into a better way, though I'm in the minority. I'm just happy that big tech hasn't forgotten about me, even if they're taking a long time to produce mediocre results.

Starting December 10, Google is set to log out anyone in Australia under the age of 16 from their YouTube account. This is due to the country's new social media ban, which no longer exempts Google's widely popular video service.

Google says this will actually make the problem worse by blocking parents from using the existing parental controls over the accounts and removing features like screen time limitations.

Who is right? Can YouTube be "bad for kids"?

Government overreach meets Google greed

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: this is not a fight any government and tech company should be having. It's not their responsibility to tell you and me how to raise our kids unless we're doing something wrong enough to break the law.

The Australian government is caving to the demands of a few loud voices in an attempt to become more popular and boost some politicians' reelection chances. I imagine most parents think the government should let them take the wheel when it comes to raising their kids, rather than telling them that Junior isn't allowed to upload Minecraft videos once he's finished his homework.

Google doesn't want anyone — child or not — to have any difficulty having a YouTube account. Even if they can't monetise kids directly, those numbers are a big deal in meetings with advertisers like Coca-Cola who want their video ads seen by a bajillion eyeballs. For them, it's all about the money, and they provided enough parental controls to meet both parental and government demands.

That doesn't answer the question, though; can YouTube be harmful for kids?

Of course it can be.

I think YouTube has plenty of problems, but I love the service and use it every day. According to my year-end review from Google, I use it more than 80% of people do. I've seen plenty of great things, but I've also seen some pure garbage. If you use the service, you can say the same: YouTube is full of content that kids have no business seeing.

We might disagree on what that content is. For example, I don't care if my kids watched a video with foul language because I know what they hear in school, and that they probably use at least half of those words when I'm not in earshot. I don't like the idea of them learning how to make a homemade pipe bomb, though, because I think most kids are stupid enough to believe they can try it and not get hurt or hurt anyone else, not that they want to become militant terrorists.

The point is that we each can decide what our kids see and how often they see it if we want to. Letting the government decide what content is age-restricted and then blocking access to it is lazy parenting. That's exactly what the Australian government is trying to do here.

Google saying "Hey, we have parental controls that give you an automated way to let a screen raise your kids" is not any better. Allowing software algorithms to decide on content that meets your criteria is equally lazy. Use them, but don't rely on them because your 13-year-old kid is smarter than you when it comes to the internet. They're smarter than Australia's Communications Minister and maybe even smarter than the programmers at YouTube.

They will find an easy way to see whatever they want to see when you're not there. There is nothing you, the government, or Google can do to stop it.

Talk to your damn kids

YouTube and Amazon Prime Video have great content for young children and actually have a good system to silo it away from the rest of everything and present it to them. If you have little ones in your house, and a way for them to see it, let them do it once in a while; they'll love it.

When they get a little older, everything changes. Raising kids is the hardest thing you will ever do, and you will make plenty of mistakes along the way. Chances are you'll do OK in the long run, though.

You can't be there every waking second of a teenager's life. When you're not there, you have to trust that they will make the right choices for themselves. Sometimes they will and sometimes they won't. If you have teenagers of your own, think back to what it was like for you and how you made decisions. Scary, isn't it?

Chances are, your teenagers will try some weed or drink some beer. They're going to curse sometimes. They're also going to see things on social media that you disagree with, whether it be on Instagram, Twitch, or YouTube.

What you need to do is try your hardest to teach them your values and hope some of it takes. Do that by treating them respectfully and just talking to them. Spend time together doing both things you like and things they want to do. Putting up with the skibidi toilet 67676767 nonsense phase is worth it because they will outgrow it. When your kids feel they are treated as people, they'll act like people. Most of the time.

Don't let Australian Communications Minister Anika Wells or Google CEO Sundar Pichai make the decisions about what's best for your family. I believe both have the best intentions, but they are your kids.

And your responsibility.

We're in the midst of the biggest deals of the year, and that means it's the right time to buy your tech gadgets and save a bunch of cash. Smart shopping saves you money, but it's also a way to build your own kit of gear that "just works."

You don't have to use the same brand for everything, but you might want to.

Why you might want the whole ecosystem

We all know that you can use any phone, any laptop, any tablet, and so on, and things can work together to make life a little bit easier. But there's often a benefit to buying products from the same company.

Some, like Apple's products, have features that only work with other stuff from the same company. If you want to use Siri, HomeKit, or even iMessage, you need an Apple product. Period. It feels kind of like a tech jail, I know. It also allows the company behind it all to do more.

Take iMessage as an example. Because it only works with Apple products, it can work with all of your Apple products. You can get the same messages on your phone, your tablet, and even your laptop because they were all built with that exact purpose in mind.

Apple's the first "offender" that may come to mind, but it's not alone here. Samsung, Google, and Amazon - the big players in the tech gadget and gizmo scene - each offer something that either works best with the same brand or only works with the same brand. It's been that way for a while, too.

I'm torn on how I feel about all this, and you might be too. Google famously builds services and features that are designed to work on every screen, and that's handy. But Google's products often feel lacking when it comes to the competition, and not everything from the company is built for other products to use. Maybe you want to read your SMS messages on your watch, even though they were sent to the number used for your phone. Or you want the kind of synchronicity you get between a Galaxy S25 and a Galaxy Book.

The only way to guarantee that you'll have that, and whatever comes in the future, is to buy "all Samsung" or "all Apple".

That's not necessarily a bad thing. I doubt anyone would complain if they had a Galaxy S25 Ultra, a Galaxy Watch 8, a new Galaxy Tab, and a pretty and thin Galaxy Book in their bag to use — ditto for a big stack of " Apple i-products" or a satchel full of Pixel gear. It's good stuff that works best together.

The problem arises when you didn't think of it in advance (like me) and have a Motorola phone, an Acer Chromebook, an Apple iPad, a Pixel watch, and an Amazon TV. Everything still works, just not as well as it all could. I love my phone and everything else, but I won't lie and say I don't see things from other companies that I wish I had.

This is only going to expand, too. Now that every company is throwing as many AI products at us as possible, they need to find a way to stand out; you know, just like Google does with the AI features that only work on a Pixel. Expect to see something similar from every company with the means to make it happen; we already know that Nothing has something up its sleeve, and Amazon isn't shifting to a new OS for fun.

If you care about making the most of your tech gear, sales season is a big help. Cyber Monday means you'll find gadgets from every company at super low prices. All you need to do is decide which way you want to go.

If I were going to go all in with one brand and squeeze every feature I could out of an ecosystem, I'd be looking at two specific products: a Pixel 10 Pro and an iPhone Air. Not because I think these products are better than all the others, but because they could be the foundation for something that works great together and offers something I want: access to everything Gemini or all my messages on everything I own.

When the next big sale comes along, I'd look for other products from the same company. Soon I would have the products I use most - a phone, a wearable, and a laptop - designed to work best when used as a group.

I'm not suggesting that anyone should do this, and you chase whatever dream you have. I like using my Moto Razr and know it will work well with the Pixel Watch I ordered on Black Friday. I also know I won't be getting my messages sent to my laptop and won't have awesome Gemini photo features on my iPad. I'm OK with that. I might not feel this way if I had to start fresh, though.

It's something to think about, and right now is the perfect time to do it. If you want to make a change and go all-in with a line of products designed to build the perfect ecosystem, you'll be able to start at a big discount.

More Black Friday 2025 - quick links

• Best Buy: major discounts on Chromebooks, Android phones, and more
• Amazon: official Black Friday discounts on tablets, smart home tech
• Walmart: early price drops on ASUS laptops, locked phones
• Samsung: new Galaxy XR headset, trade-in opportunities
• Verizon: free phones with new line, trade-in
• T-Mobile: free Galaxy phones, $300 back w/ 5G Home Internet
• Mint Mobile: 50% off Pixel 10, BOGO Unlimited plans
• AT&T: get a free Z Flip 7 with trade-in, new line
  
  More Black Friday coverage
• The best Google Pixel deals of Black Friday and Cyber Monday
• The best Samsung deals of Black Friday and Cyber Monday
• The best Motorola deals of Black Friday and Cyber Monday

We live in a world where nothing is truly free, especially online. You might think you're just innocently scrolling through an app, reading an article, or buying a new gadget, but in reality, you're constantly leaving behind a trail of digital breadcrumbs. This trail is your personal data, and it's gold to the companies collecting it, especially around shopping days like Black Friday.

We all know how that part works, and we all have some opinion about it; maybe you don't even care. That doesn't mean what companies do with and how they use all that digital gold isn't important. This is exactly what sparked recent concerns about data collected from Gmail, though I'm here to tell you they're blown out of proportion.

It’s time we pull back the curtain on this digital exchange and talk about why knowing what companies are actually doing with your data isn't just a nerdy technical concern, but a core part of protecting your privacy, your wallet, and even your peace of mind.

Don't give into knee-jerk reactions

This week, a big internet fuss has been made about a "new" Gmail setting that allows all of your message data to be used to train AI models. It's not true, though. The idea of Google collecting even more data is terrible, but the company specifically tells you it's not being used to train AI:

We do not use your workspace data to train or improve the underlying generative AI and large language models that power Gemini, Search, and other systems.

Google is using this data, once "anonymized," to help fight spam or improve spell-checking. After investigating, I left myself opted in to this one. If Google can improve Workspace tools, it can then charge more. Once again, data turns into cold, hard cash.

Remember, you are the product

The first, and arguably most important, reason to care about the data you're sharing with companies is that in the modern digital economy, you are the product. If you aren't paying for a service, you can bet your data is.

Companies have built multi-billion-dollar business models on collecting as much data as possible. They use it to build an incredibly detailed, comprehensive, and sometimes unsettlingly accurate digital profile of you. This profile includes demographics, political leanings, financial status, health and fitness interests (even though personal health issues are not used for any monetization), personal relationships, and a wide range of other habits.

Some companies then sell or share access to this profile with other companies — often called data brokers — who package it up and sell it to marketers and advertisers. Data has turned into currency.

If they aren't selling it outright, they are using it to drive their own business model, like Google does. When you see an ad for a particular or obscure product you were just thinking about, that's not magic — that's your detailed profile in action.

"Personalized" is the digital buzzword for "optimized to make you spend." Companies often frame data collection as some sort of tool designed to make your life easier. We all appreciate having our shipping address remembered or getting genuinely useful recommendations.

The problem starts when personalization veers into manipulation. Your data isn't just used to reflect your preferences; it's used to predict and influence your behavior.

Price Discrimination: Your browsing history, device type, and even your location can be used to gauge how much you are willing to pay for a product. Companies may offer you a higher price than they offer someone else because their data profile suggests you can afford it or are less likely to shop around.

Hyper-Targeted Messaging: Your profile allows advertisers to target you at your most vulnerable or receptive moments. If an app knows you're struggling financially, it might hit you with loan ads. If they know you've been reading about the Florida Keys, it might flood your feed with airline ticket prices.

When you understand that the goal of the algorithm is often not to serve you but to steer you, the importance of knowing the mechanism behind the steering wheel becomes clear.

Every piece of data collected is a liability waiting to be exploited. Data breaches happen, and the more data a company holds, the bigger target they become. Tech companies have huge budgets to prevent this, but it also applies to storefronts like Walmart and Target, or even your utility companies.

A bigger issue is what I call "unintended discrimination." Automated decision-making can lead to biased outcomes.

For example, your location data, online social connections, or even the places you shop could feed into an algorithm that decides your eligibility for a loan, a job interview, or even a higher education opportunity. Computers decide everything now, and computers have no ethics. Even if it's inadvertent, mistakes like this happen.

Be data curious

You can't do much about the data being collected, but you can be choosy. Read the privacy policies of any company you plan to interact with. Yes, I know they are boring and often written in lawyer-speak, but you can count on companies following them. The liability of not doing it is too high, and why risk the gold mine by breaking your own rules?

Don't let the technical jargon intimidate you. You don't need a computer science degree to be a data-aware consumer. You just need to be curious. The next time an app or website asks for permission, pause and ask yourself two simple questions:

Do they really need this data to provide the service?

What is the worst-case scenario if this data falls into the wrong hands?

Knowing what companies are doing with your digital self is the essence of digital self-respect. It's the only way to ensure that as the world becomes more connected, you remain the owner of your own life and your own story.

Yes, another online article about AI! We can't stop writing them, and you can't stop reading them, because it's one of those things that moves so fast it's different every morning. Whether you love it or hate it, it's in everyone's face and isn't about to go away.

This one's a little different, though, because Yahoo and YouGov recently released the results of a survey in which most Americans responded that AI will surpass the ability of normal folks and maybe even one day destroy us all.

Oh boy. Now we're talking!

The poll responses say it all

Yahoo tells us this survey "was conducted by YouGov using a nationally representative sample of 1,770 U.S. adults interviewed online from Oct. 23 to Oct. 27, 2025." So it's new and current. Unfortunately, I wasn't surveyed and couldn't find any credible claims from anyone who was. Maybe AI hallucinated the poll? Probably not. In any case, the poll responses are informative and downright amazing:

• According to the poll, 61% of Americans say it’s somewhat or very likely that “AI will continue to improve, but it will never surpass human intelligence.”
• Additionally, 64% of Americans say it’s somewhat or very likely that “AI will be able to perform any intellectual task a human can.”
• Of those surveyed, 60% of Americans say it’s somewhat or very likely that “AI will become so intellectually advanced that it will help us solve complex problems like curing cancer and stopping climate change.”
• Additionally, 63% of Americans say it’s somewhat or very likely that “AI will become so intellectually advanced that humans won’t be able to control it anymore.”
• Finally, 53% of Americans say it’s somewhat or very likely that “AI will destroy humanity.”

My takeaways from all of this might not be as enlightening. The first thing that comes to mind is a significant aspect of the broader "AI problem": regular people don't fully understand it, and the companies presenting it to us want to make us believe it's magical.

I've said this before, and I'll say it again: machinery is not intelligent. People who make it look that way are, though. It's all code, and the only thinking and learning being done is by the folks programming it. When my Nvidia processor can truly learn, maybe I'll get better at playing Rainbow 6.

Having said all that, I would have responded mostly the same way as the majority here, though. 😲AI will keep advancing and eventually be a help with things like the fight against cancer. It will also become something even more terrible than it is now and could potentially lead humanity down the path of extinction, just like the Dodo, and it's all because of us.

People seem to have a knack for wrecking everything. AI is already making a lot of that easier because everyone has access to it, including scammers, thieves, and other types of human pond scum that will do anything and not care how it affects others. This is what's going to bite us in the ass, and if it doesn't kill us all, it will change everything.

Part of the reason is that we want to believe what we see, hear, or read. Maybe there is no Jerry, and I'm just an AI written by a middle-aged woman in a Boston apartment. That sounds like a drug-induced dream, but unless you are right here and can physically interact with me, you can't be sure. (I swear I'm a real boy.)

Don't believe me? You should because you have believed nonsense churned out by AI at least once. So have I, so has everyone. I don't mean AI like Chrome's spellchecker, which makes you think I have a mastery of the English language, but rather 100% inauthentic nonsense on the web designed to provoke a specific response.

If you have an agenda, you can let AI push push push it for you without much effort, thanks to social media and other online interaction. It only needs to work a little bit to sway public opinion or trick you into spending money.

This is how AI has the potential to bring about the fall of humanity. There won't be any T-9000 Terminator-class killbots rampaging across the landscape (or maybe they will?). Instead, society could turn into a dystopian nightmare where the only folks who seem sane are like your Luddite uncle who thinks all this is just hogwash.

And we will welcome it, under the guise of curing cancer or making our lives easier. What do you think? AI-Bot Jerry requests your input.

Google is fighting again. Imagine that.

I knew late last week this was going to become "a thing" when all of Disney's content, including ESPN and ABC, went out on YouTube TV. And then when Google declined to have any sort of emergency ABC coverage of the U.S. Election, I knew it was going to be more and turn into a "long drawn out stupid thing" where the only have-nots were the actual customers.

It's like fighting with your neighbor over who has to mow that little patch of grass, unproductive and petty, except it affects about 10 million more people. And none of it is about you and me. It's about — you guessed it — money.

I've been lost at sea for a week, so tell me what's going on!?

I'll assume that most anyone who cares about any of this already has the gist of it all, but here's the quick take without any hot, spicy opinions or finger-pointing. Don't worry, there is plenty of that later.

Disney and Google need to renegotiate the contract to carry Disney's streaming media channels on YouTube TV. Negotiations aren't going very well, and as a result, Disney content has been removed. Disney's content includes popular services like ESPN, ABC, and National Geographic, which are blacked out because, without a licensing agreement, Google is not allowed to stream the content on its popular service.

Through official channels, Google has claimed that Disney's asking price is too high.

"Disney used the threat of a blackout on YouTube TV as a negotiating tactic to force deal terms that would raise prices on our customers."

Disney claims that Google aims to leverage its market position to devalue its content.

"YouTube TV and its owner, Google, are not interested in achieving a fair deal with us. Instead, they want to use their power and extraordinary resources to eliminate competition and devalue the very content that helped them build their service."

This seems familiar

I'm not involved in any negotiations between Google and Disney. I'm not even allowed to decide where to eat when the wife and I go out with friends. However, it is my job to monitor what Google does, compare it to what it says, and play the game of trying to make sense of it all. Here's what I see.

Google aims to generate more revenue by hosting Disney's content. It won't likely carry any savings on to the subscriber, and it will all go in the vault somewhere (Google passes "rising content costs" to the consumer).

Disney wants to generate more revenue from selling its streaming content and knows "market abuse" is a hot term to throw out whenever Google is involved. That's Google's own fault for not being good enough to get away with it, I guess.

My tip of the week — guaranteed lock, bet the whole damn farm — is that neither company has any interest in making your monthly bill any cheaper.

Maybe I'm too cynical, but from what I can see, it's always that way. How much better are things for you now that Tim Sweeny and Epic had a big win? Did prices go down? Are lions lying with lambs?

The same can be said about every fight, courtroom or otherwise, between companies that spend more on toilet paper every year than we'll ever earn. That's because we're simply the pawns in their game.

The pawn is important in a chess match because there are so many of them that they become expendable assets. You can sacrifice a few if it helps you get closer to your goal.

Google and Disney love knowing that around 10 million people watch Disney content on YouTube TV, but they would be just as happy if the same amount of money were spread among just 9 million people. The money is what's important, not each subscriber.

I say things like this a lot, and people often think I'm some sort of lunatic communist who is one more magic mushroom away from screaming anarchy and burning things down. Now that sounds kind of cool, but it's not entirely true; I'm okay with knowing that this is how big business works.

People invest with the notion that they will earn from it, and the business world turns. I just want them all to admit to it; Google and Disney aren't charities or humanitarian when it comes to streaming football games or princess movies, after all.

It's our responsibility to remember this. Some companies attempt to convey the impression that they want to make the world a better place and claim that their products can help achieve this goal. Others leverage the fact that we enjoy their creations, and the time spent watching them makes us happier.

This is all true, but it overlooks the primary reason the companies exist and why they are willing to use you in their disputes. Money. Disney would never give us another Star Wars movie or send a Nat Geo team to film something amazing if it thought it wouldn't make a ton of cash. Google would never build another service or product if it didn't think it could use them to drive more revenue.

We can fight back

Remember when I said a pawn was useful because there are so many of them? Then you understand the only thing you can do when the broken promises and PR doublespeak become too much. Tell them NO.

Don't give Google that $80 every month for YouTube TV. Don't pay to stream Disney content. Wean yourself from American football or watch highlights on free YouTube channels. A faceless company won't even pretend to care, but if enough people do it, then everything changes. People are leaving YouTube TV right now due to the current spat with Disney. Google says that subscriber churn is "manageable," which is PR speak for "We are still making money."

It wouldn't be manageable if half the people decided a paltry credit from Google isn't making up for the lack of what they want to watch and sent YouTube TV down the road. It sounds like Quixote rushing a windmill, but imagine thousands or even millions of Quixotes and one great big windmill. Thou hast seen nothing yet.

Eventually, everything will go full circle. Remember how everyone used to get their media before big companies tried to make it "easy," right?

FAQ

Google has announced that its clock app (the app that adds alarms, timers, etc.) will soon be a Pixel Watch-only affair.

With your favorite watch brands offering their own default clock apps on Wear OS, Google’s Clock app (which includes alarm, timer, and stopwatch features) is no longer available for download on Wear OS smartwatches, except for the Pixel Watch.

This isn't a big deal by itself. Many people use Wear OS watches made by companies like Samsung, and those include a built-in solution from the company that made your particular watch. Yes, it will make things like syncing alarms between a Google Pixel device and another device difficult, but you're not going to lose anything.

Why it's happening is more interesting

Chances are, you only care about this if you use one Pixel device and one Galaxy device; this is more common than you might realize. Even then, you know you'll still be able to have alarms, timers, stopwatches, and all the other things a clock app should do on both devices, even if the apps come from two different places. Like I said, it's not that big of a deal.

Why it's happening might be, though.

A while ago, I wrote about how Android's biggest strength - being available and open to manufacturer customizations - was also its biggest weakness. Dropping support for the clock app is very likely a cost-saving initiative by Google; not having to test and support an app for devices it doesn't control saves both time and resources. It will save money while shifting more responsibility to the companies making the products - now Samsung has to make sure everything is perfect in the clock app for Galaxy devices, for example.

Google will never be able to get away with scaling back what little bit of "openness" Android offers. The only alternative is to act more like a hardware maker. It's also not the first time we've seen this sort of move from Google. The phone dialer is an excellent example, and if you really want to kill as many spam calls as you can, you need to use Google's phone app. Google doesn't offer the "smart" spam detection to anyone as a standalone API. Of course, other AI tricks and tools are also at play here, with every phone seemingly having something different, depending on who makes it.

It's also something I think we need to get used to reading about, especially with Samsung's offerings. Plain and simple: if you have a modern Galaxy phone, you do not need apps like Google Chrome, a Google Address book, or even the Gmail app. You might want them and find them useful, but every function they offer is replicated in Samsung's own apps. Google could (it won't) drop "third-party" support for non-Pixel devices from these apps tomorrow, and other than bad press, nothing would really change.

The one issue is cross-device and cross-platform synchronization. Google will never remove the Gmail app (for example) from phones that aren't a Pixel because it wants people to use Gmail. Allowing us to have one account synchronized across every device with a screen is useful enough that we're going to keep using a dedicated and simple-to-set-up Gmail app, which happens to tie in well with Google's business of getting eyeballs on the web. Not every app is that way, though.

Samsung's address book leverages the feature of using Google's cloud to sync everything without using Google's People app. Google doesn't really monetize its address book (I pray they never do), so it could drop app support for it without any serious issues. Most of Google's small, basic apps are this way, and if you have a Google account, you can sync things like addresses and phone numbers on any app from any phone maker.

What concerns me are apps like Google Photos. Right now, it's in Google's best interests to support Google Photos on every smartphone and modern web browser. The app is lightly monetized and can act as a gateway to buying photo prints, but the real draw for Google is the analytics it harvests, knowing who is using what, where they are using it, how often they use it, etc. Everyone wants a tighter leash on this sort of thing in the name of privacy, but if that happens, is it really worth the time and money to keep the app for iOS or even Galaxy phones around?

We know the answer: it's not. Google isn't here to make your day brighter or your life easier; it's here to make money. Take that ability away, and the company will shift focus onto the next money-maker.

This had to happen eventually, and it will keep happening. Google can not (and should not) act as some overlord and assume full control over all software on licensed Android devices, so apps like Samsung's Galaxy Clock are never going away.

We don't want them to go away, even if we never use them. What we should always want is choice, and seeing our choices slowly whittled down, especially with the advent of all things AI, the next big idea might never happen.

AI has woven itself into the very fabric of our daily existence. From the mundane task of managing how our phones use their batteries to the complex algorithms driving self-driving cars, AI's influence is undeniable. But what's under this veil of technological progress? Unseen consequences of our pursuit of "intelligent machines" are abundant.

More AI means more giant, windowless buildings filled with servers churning away 24/7. We often don't consider the true cost of it all, though it may be the most expensive decision society has ever made.

Are things like Google's new partnership with Broadwing Energy to store "extra" carbon underground a solution or a distraction?

A double-edged sword

The uncomfortable truth is that AI's phenomenal growth comes at a hefty environmental price. It's not just about the silicon chips themselves, but about the network of energy, water, and resources required to power and sustain them all. Consider the following:

AI is hungry: Training and operating advanced AI models, like the ubiquitous ChatGPT, consumes staggering amounts of electricity. Some projections estimate that AI could account for up to 0.5% of global electricity consumption by 2027. This could even lead to the resurrection of dormant coal-fired power plants — an idea that sends shivers down the spines of anyone concerned about carbon emissions.

Machines are thirsty: Data centers powering AI require colossal amounts of water for cooling. Google, for instance, consumed an astounding 21 billion liters of water in 2022 alone. By 2027, this figure could balloon to six times Denmark's entire annual water usage.

A mountain of e-waste: The demand for newer, more powerful hardware creates a mountain of electronic waste. This toxic heap, laden with hazardous materials and rare-earth elements, is projected to reach millions of tons by 2030, with less than a quarter recycled properly.

"Green Computing" is now a necessity

The concept of "green computing" has undergone a remarkable transformation over the decades. Before the turn of the century, the environmental impact of computing was mostly an afterthought, and "Green IT" was just a whisper, if it was even mentioned at all.

The 21st century changed everything, driven by the exponential growth of data centers. As facilities consumed more energy, concerns about their environmental footprint grew. Initiatives like the Climate Savers Computing Initiative emerged, seeking to promote greater energy efficiency.

However, introducing "deep learning" and large language models (LLMs) in the 2010s ushered in a new era. The sheer scale of computation required to train and deploy these AI models transformed AI's environmental impact from a concern to a crisis. The rise of "Green AI" reflects growing recognition that we must develop and deploy AI more sustainably.

Google's big response

Under growing scrutiny, tech giants have launched public relations campaigns touting their commitment to sustainability. Google has pledged to achieve 24/7 carbon-free energy and replenish more water than it consumes. But are these promises more than just greenwashing?

Google has even developed a methodology for quantifying AI's environmental impact, claiming a Gemini prompt consumes a mere 0.24 Wh of energy and produces 0.03 gCO2e. But are these numbers telling the whole story?

Despite its efficiency gains, Google's emissions have increased by a staggering 48% since 2019, largely due to its investments in AI. This glaring contradiction certainly casts a shadow on the company's ambitious net-zero goal by 2030.

To address this, Google has launched its first major carbon capture initiative, aiming to capture 90% of CO2 emissions from a natural gas power plant and store it underground. Google touts this as a "reliable, low-carbon power source" for its data centers, particularly in regions where renewable energy sources are not always readily available.

But is this a genuine step towards a sustainable future, or simply a clever ploy to maintain its energy-hungry AI operations under a disguise of environmental responsibility?

The challenges of CCS

Carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology holds the promise of removing emissions from industries that are difficult to decarbonize, potentially playing a crucial role in achieving net-zero goals. Proponents point to advancements in Direct Air Capture (DAC) and Bio-Energy with CCS (BECCS) as evidence of CCS's potential.

However, CCS faces deserved criticism. Detractors argue that it is expensive, slow to scale, and energy-intensive. The current deployment of CCS technology lags far behind the levels needed to make a significant impact. Some critics also argue that CCS allows fossil fuel industries to continue operating, delaying the transition to renewable energy sources.

Public skepticism also poses a challenge. Concerns about the safety of CCS, the long-term storage of captured carbon, and the potential local environmental impacts (as demonstrated by protests against Google's data center in Uruguay) have fueled opposition to CCS projects.

The controversy is further exacerbated by tech companies' lack of transparency about the true environmental costs of AI. Without reliable data, it is difficult to determine the true impact of these technologies and hold companies accountable for their environmental performance.

The balancing act

The future of AI, and maybe the planet, hangs in the balance. The development of "Green AI" — more energy-efficient algorithms, smaller models, and hardware optimizations like Google's TPUs — offers a glimmer of hope.

AI itself could also play a crucial role in mitigating climate change by optimizing energy grids, predicting weather patterns, improving agricultural practices, and managing waste more effectively.

However, governments must enact regulations that promote transparency and reduce AI's environmental impact. The EU's AI Act represents a step in the right direction, but more comprehensive and ambitious policies may be needed. Nobody wants more government regulations that aren't always effective, but tech companies can't be trusted to police themselves.

Ultimately, the question remains: can we harness the incredible power of AI without forever damaging our planet, or will its environmental footprint prove to be its undoing?

The choices made by tech giants like Google will largely determine the answer, whether we like it or not.

FAQ

It appears that Samsung is going to release another Galaxy flagship line of phones without the crazy fast charging people seem to want. Apple does the same thing every year, as does Google. Customers want high-powered charging, and many companies aren't giving it.

But that's not what we really need.

"All day" should mean something

I know I'm in the minority here, but the one thing I want from recharging a battery isn't high speed that relies on everything going right. I want to be able to plug it in and feel sure that it's going to safely do what it's supposed to do.

That doesn't mean I'm fine with having my phone tied to a cord for 90 minutes every afternoon, though.

The reason we want faster charging is simple: our phones' batteries don't last nearly long enough between charges. I don't mean some tired phone with a worn-out battery, either; brand new phones don't give the advertised battery life for many folks who use them differently than the people making the promises do.

I'm not saying that companies are lying. They simply make sure everything is perfect when they determine the average battery life, and nothing is perfect once you step into reality. They are throwing out a number even though they know it is inaccurate for most people anyway, though.

If your phone lasted from morning until you went to bed, you could plug it in, let it charge nice and slowly (and safer) all night, and do it all over again the next day.

I know it's possible, and you probably do, too. Look at those "cheap" phones, like the Moto G, for example. They almost always have one thing in common: a battery that's big enough. That doesn't mean gargantuan, either; the Moto G has a 5,000mAh battery that's enough to run the phone until you put it down instead of it telling you it needs to rest. Other phones do even better, but I don't think we're at "real" two-day battery life just yet.

A problem that can be fixed

Some phone makers — I'll use OnePlus as an example here — know that something needs to be done. The solution was to engineer a way to charge the phone at unsafe power levels that have been made safe. It works, and it is safe. Until it isn't. There are a lot of bits of tiny hardware and software needed to make it work, and when something goes wrong, bad things can happen. At least they're doing something, though.

Instead of trying something new like Honor did when it comes to the battery, companies like Samsung and Apple are worrying about making phones thinner and batteries smaller. A lot of people like a thin phone, but how many are willing to charge twice a day for it? Not very many, it seems.

Solid-state batteries are an instant fix, and that's why you'll find them in something like a pacemaker. They have a ton of capacity without being any bigger, are safer, and provide higher output at low battery levels. They're still lithium-based, but solid electrolytes like ceramics don't explode when they get hot.

The problem is that they are expensive. The thing that makes a phone maker happiest is being able to use less money to build something and then charge you more for it. Solid-state batteries would cut into that profit margin, so don't hold your breath. A company has to make money if it wants to survive.

In a perfect world

To me, a perfect phone would be reasonable in size (nobody wants an inch-thick phone), do everything I need it to do, and not need to be charged until I'm done with it for the day. You and I probably do different things and live in different places, but I'll bet that sounds perfect to you, too.

I'm all for new software ideas and ways to use less battery to do "stuff." Exploring ways to increase power and voltage in a charging circuit is really cool, too. I just hope these companies don't think they have the battery life problem solved.

Danish PM Mette Frederiksen recently declared that social media is "stealing our children's childhood" and has "unleashed a monster." A monster? That's quite the striking image, isn’t it? Is it hyperbole, the worried cry of a parent, or another politician saying what she thinks people want to hear?

Or does it tap into the deep uneasiness we sometimes feel about the ever-present digital world?

A digital double edged sword

Gone are the days of making mud pies or whatever else kids used to do. They're not coming back, either.

Since the smartphone revolution in the mid-00s, Facebook, YouTube, Instagram, Snapchat, TikTok — a cascade of platforms have migrated from desktops to pockets. Suddenly, social connection is immediate and inescapable. The age of entry has also plummeted. Despite age restrictions, kids routinely navigate these digital waters, often unsupervised.

Social media does offer an opportunity for connection. For children geographically isolated or those seeking kinship around niche interests or identities, online platforms can be a lifesaver. The internet fosters creative expression, allowing kids to become filmmakers, artists, and storytellers. It provides access to information, facilitating learning and even civic engagement. It allows people to stand up for causes they believe in and organize social movements. It's not all bad. Not at all.

But with everything good, bad can ride along. Some say we're seeing a rise in anxiety, depression, and low self-esteem, fueled by trying to create the perfect online life. Experts express concerns about the impact of constant stimulation on developing brains, particularly impulse control and emotional regulation.

The internet's anonymity fosters cyberbullying and harassment. Late-night scrolling can rob children (and adults) of sleep, leaving them tired and emotionally vulnerable. And perhaps most worrying, an over-reliance on digital interaction can stunt the development of crucial real-life social skills.

Then there is the question of exposure to harmful content and the addictive nature of algorithmically curated content. Another recent report says TikTok is steering 13-year-olds towards porn, for example. It can be a nasty world, and the internet often showcases the worst of it.

Denmark's PM isn't alone

She's just saying what a lot of people think out loud. Much has been written about the rise of social media use. Parents are understandably concerned about children's mental health, excessive screen time, exposure to inappropriate content, and the ever-present threat of cyberbullying.

Teachers can observe the effects firsthand: students are distracted, struggle with focus, and exhibit diminished empathy.

Child psychologists often urge caution. They acknowledge the complexities of the issue, but emphasize the significant risks to mental health and cognitive development. Their recommendations include establishing clear boundaries, open communication, and, perhaps most crucially, delaying the introduction of smartphones.

Even kids themselves recognize the issues. They love the connections and entertainment that social media provides, but many admit that it fuels anxiety and consumes more of their time than they would like. They seem to instinctively understand that their relationship with social media is, to put it mildly, complicated.

Governments around the world are beginning to intervene.

Denmark, under Mette Frederiksen's leadership, has proposed a ban on social media for children under 15, requiring parental opt-in for those aged 13-14. Australia has enacted a ban for those under 16 (to take effect in December 2025). Norway is considering raising the age limit to 15.

The European Union, through GDPR and the Digital Services Act (DSA), enforces stringent data privacy regulations, establishes varying ages of digital consent (13-16), and prohibits targeted advertising to children. Platforms are now obligated to "assess the risks they pose to minors."

In the U.S., states like California, Utah, Arkansas, Texas, and Louisiana are enacting laws requiring parental consent, age verification, and restrictions on targeted advertising. Federal initiatives like the Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA) are also under consideration.

China has implemented particularly strict regulations, limiting social media use to one hour per day for those under 18, mandating real-name registration, and heavily filtering content. China don't play.

The U.K.'s Online Safety Act places a "duty of care" on platforms to protect children. Brazil’s Digital ECA requires parental consent for app downloads, account linking, and prohibits the monetization of content that sexualizes minors. There are countless laws and rules governing social media use by children, but the common threads are clear: age limits, parental consent, data privacy, and platforms designed with child safety in mind.

What's next?

Frederiksen's stark warning resonates because it acknowledges a fundamental shift. Childhood isn't gone, erased from existence. But it has been forever changed.

The only way to course-correct is to share responsibility. Parents, educators, tech companies, and governments all have a role to play in shaping a digital world where children can thrive, explore, and maybe even go outside and climb a tree.

We can foster connection and community without sacrificing well-being. The answer lies not in rejecting new technology, but in harnessing its power responsibly and thoughtfully, with the best interests of everyone, including our children, at heart.

AI is often a fatigue-inducing buzzword, used by too many people on too many presentation stages to tell us why whatever they're trying to sell is better than the rest. There's no getting away from that for the time being, but even if you ignore everything you're told and never open any of those fancy tools, you're still using AI for plenty of the tasks you do every day.

Look at your phone. Is it turned on? Then you're using AI.

AI can power almost anything

I've written a lot of words about what I like to call the "gimmicky AI" that powers the tools and services becoming so common. Some of it is really good, some isn't, but it's there for everyone who wants it, and it mostly stays out of the way if you don't.

Not all AI is that way, and your phone (or tablet or watch) thrives on it. The most basic things are partially powered by AI now, and for the most part, it's made everything better. Without it, a lot of what we consider normal wouldn't be possible.

Some of it's super geeky and nothing most people are interested in. Predictive AI can interface with the kernel powering your phone (think of this as the brains of it all) through custom APIs to aid in allocation of resources and scheduling, but once Android starts running, you're almost on an AI-driven autopilot.

Your phone uses AI to connect to a network. Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, 5G, you name it; AI handles a good bit of the connection and data transfer on both your device and whatever network or other device you're connecting to. Network optimization can be handled on the fly using predictive algorithms, allowing for better, faster connections.

AI powers the apps you use, the services they need to work, the battery that powers them, and how secure it is once thrown together. Google Play Services, the toolkit that enables most phones to run most apps, features a neat utility called LiteRT within Google Play Services. It lets developers easily integrate AI into apps without having to bundle an entire library inside their app and then keep it up to date.

Google uses AI to power Google Play Protect, which scans the apps uploaded to the Google Play Store to ensure they're not breaking the rules or trying anything shady.

The Play Store and your device work in tandem, so a "smart" system can keep your apps (and Play Services itself) up-to-date with critical functional and security patches.

When you've got your apps and go to use them, the battery and power management system uses AI to try and make things run as well as they can, as long as they can, based on what it's "learned" from the way you use your phone.

AI lets your phone perform as well as it can. Machine Learning manages system resources, making sure the right processor is doing the right things for optimal performance. Algorithms even predict when and how you'll perform a specific task and pre-allocate the right resources at the right time, so it goes off without a hitch.

AI helps you use your phone to communicate. Autocorrect on your keyboard, visual voicemail, spam detection, and voice-to-text (and vice versa) are all powered by an AI component so that they can better recognize what's correct versus what's not and offer an improved experience.

Finally, and maybe most importantly, AI monitors your phone for threatening behavior, offering better security. A lot is going on behind the screen you're looking at. It could be easy to sneak something through if the system wasn't watching for everything and anything. Active threat detection means it doesn't need to know what it's seeing to know something bad is happening, and can put a stop to it.

One more thing

This is the AI that's happening whether you like it or not, because it's required for a modern version of Android and most operating systems. Really, it mostly does a great job at it. If the phone you use today seems better than the phone you had five years ago, AI is a big part of the reason why.

There's also one more AI-dependent thing you probably do a lot of and never think about: use your camera.

I don't mean generative AI tricks and tools, either. Without AI, your phone can not turn what the camera lens sees into a photograph you can save. Hardware makers use AI at the most basic level to balance color data and light levels for each individual pixel of information. The camera software inside your device is essentially a sophisticated AI-Picasso that has been trained to take a set of numbers and transform them into a photo.

Low-light photos, moving photos, and taking pictures of kids or dogs running fast are all made possible by AI, which decides what you think will look good. On your phone, the camera system is simply running and capturing light. It takes "smart" software to determine which parts are what you want to see.

Even if you never ever open Gemini, ask Google Search a question, or use software to make funny meme pictures, you're constantly using AI to do most everything else.

Now, we just have a fancier label for all those machine smarts. It fits well, so it's good to use it. It works well, so it's good to see it in place. Without it, we might as well use two cans and a string.

I'm going to forego the usual light-hearted weekend banter today, because I want to talk about something I just met head-on, didn't know much about, as learned how terrifying it can be. I'm talking about smartphone addiction.

Yes, it's a real thing. Yes, it can be really bad.

In an increasingly connected world, smartphones have become indispensable tools, woven into the very fabric of our daily lives. From navigation and communication to entertainment and work, our pocket computers offer unmatched convenience and access to information.

Yet, like any powerful technology, they can come with a potential dark side: smartphone addiction. This isn't merely about enjoying your device; it's about a compulsive and excessive engagement that can negatively impact mental health, relationships, and overall well-being.

What is Smartphone Addiction?

Smartphone addiction, often referred to as "problematic smartphone use" or "nomophobia" (no-mobile-phone phobia), is characterized by an uncontrollable urge to use your phone, leading to potential consequences in other aspects of life. It’s not officially recognized as a clinical disorder in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5), but its symptoms and effects mirror those of other behavioral addictions, and many health care professionals recognize this.

Reading through material on the web, these are often indicators of smartphone addiction:

Preoccupation: Constantly thinking about your phone, even when not using it.
Tolerance: Needing to use your phone for increasingly longer periods to feel satisfied.
Withdrawal Symptoms: Experiencing anxiety, irritability, restlessness, or depression when unable to use your phone.
Loss of Control: Repeated unsuccessful attempts to cut down or control smartphone use.
Negative Consequences: Continued use despite knowing it's causing problems in relationships, work, school, or physical health.
Sacrifice of Activities: Giving up important social, occupational, or recreational activities because of smartphone use.
Deception: Lying to family or friends about the extent of your smartphone use.
Mood Alteration: Using your phone to escape problems or relieve feelings of helplessness, guilt, anxiety, or depression.

It's important to distinguish between heavy smartphone use and addiction. Many use their phones extensively for work or social connections without experiencing negative impacts. The critical difference lies in the loss of control and the resulting impairment in daily functioning.

Like alcohol or gambling, it's so much of a "normal" thing that it can ruin your life. And if you're affected, you probably can't "fix" it alone.

Who Can Be Affected?

The reality is that anyone who uses a smartphone can potentially develop problematic usage patterns. However, certain factors may increase vulnerability.

Adolescents and young adults are still developing and face immense social and peer pressure. Often accompanied by FOMO (fear of missing out) and a need for validation, this can make a smartphone feel more important than it should be.

Folks with low self-esteem or other existing mental health conditions often use their phone as a way to cope or escape, or even as a distraction from stress. This can deepen the reliance on the phone for comfort.

People who are otherwise isolated or feel like they are may turn to a phone as a lifeline to the "real world". I can totally understand this, as my physical health issues sometimes keep me indoors and feeling alone for a week or more. It's tough.

I'm far from being a medical doctor or clinician, but after reading what qualified people have to say, this makes sense to me. We all use our phones as a crutch from time to time and can feel like we depend on them. For some, this feeling of dependency simply doesn't go away. It's crucial to remember that addiction is complex and often multifactorial. While some individuals might seem more prone, responsible and mindful use should be a goal for all of us.

Getting help before it's too late

Phone makers have realized they can help combat any addiction issues by giving us tools to thwart them. I'm familiar with how Android does it, so that's what I'm diving into here, but Apple and Microsoft (tablets and laptops have an addictive screen, too) also have similar tools and utilities in place. These can empower us all to manage our smartphone habits and maybe stop a problem before it is created.

The central hub for managing your digital habits is the Digital Wellbeing Dashboard. It provides things like daily usage reports so you can track how much time you really spent staring into the screen, how long you spend on a particular app, or even how many notifications you get. Try it, it's bound to be an eye-opener.

On the utility side, you can also set app timers to place a daily limit on how long you can do things like scroll Instagram, and once the time is up, the app is done until tomorrow. Focus Mode can even pause the apps that distract you the most, and they stay muted and out of the way until you turn it off.

The way your screen looks is important, too. When you remove much of the bright color, your phone becomes far less visually stimulating. For some people who crave that stimulation, grayscale mode can be helpful.

Android is also so good at notification "management," and it would be a shame not to use it. With almost complete granular control, you can turn off notifications for specific apps, choose for some notifications to be silent, only receive "priority" notifications that require your attention, and enable Do Not Disturb mode, which can stop all notifications or allow specific people to get in touch with you.

.These built-in Android features are not magical cures, but they are powerful allies in the fight against smartphone addiction. By actively using them, we can try to regain control over our digital lives, foster healthier habits, and ultimately enhance our overall well-being.

If you think you might be spending too much time with your phone in your hands but can't do anything about it, the web is full of places that can offer help.

A good place to start can help you assess your situation and help decide the right course of action, so you're happier. Being happy is what really matters.

I think one of the fastest ways to wreck anything good is to randomly add a bunch of AI nonsense to it. Since Google loves to prove me right, I was surprised that it has taken so long for Chrome to get its share. Google just announced what's coming to Chrome, and I'm even more surprised by how useful some of it actually looks.

Gemini in Chrome is your new browsing assistant, and while that name is unimaginative, it reflects most of what's coming: simple tools that Google should be able to deliver without much disruption or security/privacy concerns.

What's coming

For now, Chrome is seeing only a handful of Gemini features baked in. That's fine since you're only a bookmark away from most anything Gemini can do; it's a web browser after all.

Most of them are simply an easy way to do things you could already do after 15 minutes of Googling and trying to find the right buttons. That's what makes them great; AI should make complex things easy.

A few of my favorites are new ways to browse through your web history without you having to do it. The example says something like "what was the website that I saw the walnut desk on last week?" will work, and if so, that's awesome.

There are also some tools to help people who aren't so internet savvy (and the rest of us who think we are) by blocking web pages that try to auto-subscribe you to them or bolstering Gemini Nano's already good Safe Browsing mode with the tools to block fake virus and malware warnings and the thugs that create them. I hope it works, and good riddance.

Some are less useful but still not terrible. Gemini can manage your tabs if you'd like. You can use the content of a webpage to get Search AI overviews without leaving the page. The omnibox (aka the address bar) will now convert long or weird search prompts into searches via AI search Mode. None of this was difficult to do before, and these tasks are often less than useful, but now it will be extremely easy if you'd like it to be done for you. Get to work for me, Gemini.

One feature that stands out from the rest is agentic browsing. You can tell Gemini to do something like make you an appointment to get the oil in your car changed, and it will do it for you. That sounds a lot like other things we've been told that didn't quite pan out, but maybe this time things will be different.

My real concern is that it works exactly as described and makes me an appointment at Pep Boys to change the oil in my wife's car. I don't want an appointment at Pep Boys because the service center down the road is a local business, it's closer, and it's cheaper. I also know the mechanics and technicians and trust them to do anything.

Google says you're in control and can halt the process at any time, but if I need to sit there and babysit Gemini so it does the right thing, it would be easier to just do it myself.

This is a stepping stone to bigger and maybe better things, so I won't complain too much if it plays a little wonky.

When this is coming and who gets to try it?

Some of these features are in the process of rolling out now, while others are "coming soon". It's smart to roll it out slowly and even smarter to not give a timeline, so it's what we should expect from any Google feature announcement.

For Google Workspace users, it will be here in the coming weeks with enterprise-grade data protections and controls. Unfortunately, that means Gemini won't be able to leak the Colonel's famous fried chicken recipe or anything else that's important.

It's coming to mobile users, too. Google says nothing about the mobile and desktop versions being different, so I'm going to assume the same features will be available on your phone, too. And yes, that means Gemini will be built into Chrome for iOS, "soon", too.

Now for the part nobody likes: This is only for users in the United States who have their devices set with English as the default language. I can understand the need to test it and see what regulators think about it, but that doesn't help anyone who wants to try it and isn't eligible. It's not like there are almost a billion users in India and Brazil, or anything, right, Google?

Having said all that, there is one thing missing from everything Google had to say: Chromebooks. I know Chromebooks already have Gemini integration, so maybe this will "just work" once it comes to your account. The company makes no mention of any changes for Chromebooks or Chrome OS.

I'm surprised

I figured something like this would be coming once all the courtroom dust over Chrome was settled. Chrome and Search are tied together in a really deep way, and that's why web browser market share is so important to Google.

What surprised me is (what feels like) the restraint Google has shown by not throwing the AI kitchen sink into Chrome and making everyone hate it. These features all seem... reasonable. I won't use all of them, but there are several I can see myself using every day, as I do 100% of my work in the Chrome browser. Is it enough to make me want to switch my "personal time" web browser from Firefox to Chrome? It could be.

What's most important is that it won't make things worse. Nothing pops up automatically, nothing seems too intrusive or invasive, and Gemini is getting better, whether we want to admit it or not. I'm actually looking forward to this.

Google says it recognizes that there are issues pairing a Galaxy Watch 8 with the Pixel 10, and sent out a band-aid using the Play Services app to try and fix it. Some say it did, others say it didn't, but that's not what is most important (unless you have an expensive phone and an expensive watch that won't work together).

What matters on a deeper level is the why and the how this happens, and the fact that even if Google wanted to, it probably wouldn't be allowed to fix it.

Understanding Android

Android is wonderful, but it's also weird and difficult to understand how it is distributed. The easy explanation is that Google has a free version you can do anything with, and a non-free, but not paid version that has some strings attached if you want to use it. But it's a little more nuanced than that.

Google gets (rightfully) accused of having a heavy hand sometimes, but the actual requirements to use the "official" version of Android are pretty lax. Mostly, you need to make sure that all the apps in Google Play designed for your version of Android work. Yes, I know that's not the case and plenty are broken, but that is what these rules are designed to do.

Google can fix this pretty easily, but I'll tell you that none of us wants that to happen. Google tries to exercise control over Android, but in reality, it's kind of a free-for-all where companies making products do anything they can to differentiate themselves. Big companies, like Samsung, can do a much better (or worse, depending on your point of view) job of it.

How Android became "the" thing

The very reason that this can happen is what made Android what it is in the first place. Letting companies like Samsung or Motorola mostly do their own thing meant they could appease carriers and sell a ton of phones. When you sell a ton of phones, you can make more, and once most phones that are sold use Android, Google is in a unique position.

This has lessened a bit, and many phones are made without much carrier involvement outside of network compatibility, but you'll still find companies making special phones for carriers. Phone makers no longer need to do it, so they are trying to stand out by being unique. We get things like foldables as a result, so I'm not complaining.

That's a good thing, but it can be a terrible thing that leads to brand-new watches not working with brand-new phones and two companies unable to fix it. By unable, I actually mean unable, not unwilling.

Google wants your new Pixel 10 to work with your new Galaxy Watch 8. Samsung wants the same. Both companies would rather you buy their phone and watch as a set, but they want you to like the product and buy from them the next time because of it. To like it, you'll need it to work.

I'm sure this particular issue isn't unsolvable if Google and Samsung work together, and maybe this time they can fix it for good. But they have to be flexible, follow both the "rules" and the law, and try not to make it worse.

The easy way is the hard way

The easiest way to fix this is for Google to say this is what you will do with our software, stop contributing to the free and open-source version of Android, and act like it owns it. It would solve this forever, and everything that says Android on the box would work the way you think it should work once all the bugs are ironed out.

I don't want Google to do this, you shouldn't want Google to do this, and I'm pretty sure the company itself would never want to do this. If Google made rules and forced other companies to follow all of them, things would work together every time. Phones would eventually all be the same, and Android's market share would plummet.

Companies making phones would suffer, too. If your phone has to meet certain minimum requirements, you might not be able to sell it at an affordable price. If every phone costs $1,000, a lot of people would stop buying a new one every year. Phones aren't computers with the luxury of size and space, so what works for Microsoft (and works very well, I think) won't work for a phone.

Google probably wouldn't even be allowed to do something this drastic. The company is already considered a monopoly by its home country (agreed), and Google is rightfully under a lot of scrutiny because Android is by far the dominant computing platform in the world. It got there by allowing manufacturers some leeway, so Google shouldn't be allowed to try to walk it back.

Google tries. Samsung tries. I know that they try, and some of the ideas they come up with to alleviate this situation are remarkable, like the aforementioned Play Services app. Yes, they are a bit demanding and controlling, but they are also a compromise that works.

Now that we've reached "peak smartphone" and are waiting for another moonshot idea to change everything, this will get worse. Samsung will do more of its own thing, as will Google. Some of those things will be good enough to be integrated into Android, but others will create new problems. There are some very smart folks ready to tackle them, though.

On September 2, a federal judge ruled that Google won't have to sell off Android or Chrome as part of the remedies phase of an antitrust suit brought by the U.S. DoJ.

Though there are some restrictions placed on the way Google is allowed to operate as a monopoly, most consumers saw the idea of being forced to sell off Android or Chrome as a key part of the lawsuit.

As usual, this decision creates winners and losers, but most importantly, what does any of this mean for us, the people who simply use these products and aren't wallet-deep in business with the company?

The remedies put in place are not entirely favorable to Google, but you can consider this a win for the tech giant, which narrowly escaped another disruption of its core business through search and ads.

It's not over, of course; there is already another antitrust case in the works over Google's ad business, and there will be plenty more. This particular case was brought forward by people tasked to look out for our best interests, not those of Google's competitors or up-and-coming companies.

Did it?

Who are the winners here?

It's easy to think that Google won another case after it had already lost it; Google was found to be a monopoly that used unfair practices to maintain its monopoly standing. However, the penalties are somewhat lackluster and are unlikely to have a significant impact on Google's business or its bottom line. Stocks in the company rose almost 8% over this "good" news.

While that's true, other companies wanted or needed an outcome like this, and the biggest is one you might not have thought of: Apple.

Google paid Apple about 20 billion dollars in 2022 to be the default search engine on the iPhone. It can keep doing it. Google's not allowed to attach any other strings to the deal, like saying the contract must be exclusive, but Apple can keep collecting those huge annual payments, which equal about one-fifth of the company's services revenue.

In addition, Apple can enter contracts with other companies to promote their search engines and have fewer restrictions on how it builds a relationship with an AI partner. Google may not like having OpenAI be Apple's default AI engine, but it could be. That makes competing AI companies, like OpenAI or Perplexity, winners here, too.

Smaller companies are also better off because of the decision to allow Google to continue to enter deals for a default search service. Mozilla, in particular, would have a very difficult time staying afloat without Google's help.

Because Google can continue with Chrome as normal, almost every company making a web browser wins, too. While they may be complaining on social media, CEOs of companies like Brave know that nobody will continue to support the code base that makes their product possible the way Google has been doing.

Who are the losers?

When someone "wins," it means someone has to lose as well. I see two outright losers from this decision: Microsoft and Internet publishers.

Microsoft doesn't need Google to continue to support and maintain Chromium, even though its Edge browser uses the engine. It's entirely capable of doing it and would have been happy to do so if it meant its web browser market share could grow as Chrome collapsed. Having Google still doing most everything it has been doing means Microsoft will need to spend more money to compete.

Lastly, internet publishers will now see Google, whose AI is already affecting business models, sharing some of the data it collects with competitors. That means even more AI companies will be able to sidestep actual web articles in favor of an AI-generated response, reducing web traffic and revenue for the companies producing the content. Many had hoped for some sort of "opt-out" of AI web indexing without being penalized in proper search results, but that was not part of the ruling.

So what about us?

While it's interesting to see how this court ruling will affect the finances of tech companies, what's most important to me (and many of you) is what it means for us, the over 3 billion Google customers who use the company's products and services.

The news is decidedly neutral. The suit may have been brought to protect users like you and me, but the result doesn't really do much there. Google will continue to do everything it has been doing when it comes to the consumer, even though there are some restrictions placed on how the company can finagle finances.

Your Android phone and Chromebook will work the same as they ever did. So will YouTube, and Gmail. It's possible we see some slight differences when it comes to Search, but that's been such a mess lately, would we even notice?

The one way this ruling directly affects users is that Google has to share some search index and user-interaction data with competitors. The details aren't set in stone, and the judge did realize that this subject needs to be approached carefully, but the data you generate and provide to Google will end up in the hands of other companies.

Google says, "We have concerns about how these requirements will impact our users and their privacy, and we're reviewing the decision closely," but doesn't suggest it will appeal the decision outright.

The difference here is that previously, we knew the vast amounts of data Google collected on all of us were kept in-house. Now some of it won't be. That may or may not be a bad thing.

Unless you have some sort of financial tie to Google and its products or services, there isn't much to process here. It's certainly not the doom and gloom some people were expecting or hoped for, and for us, it's simply another day.

This article contains details and conversations concerning suicide.

If you're feeling depressed and think there's no way out, please seek help. Acting on these thoughts is never the right idea.

If you have nobody else to turn to, you can visit the International Association for Suicide Prevention website to find local help anywhere in the world.

• International Association for Suicide Prevention crisis center

I hate seeing stories like this and especially hate writing about them. But sometimes, it's important. I think this is one of those times.

A 16-year-old committed suicide, and his parents are suing because they claim OpenAI's ChatGPT contributed to the tragedy. The suit claims that ChatGPT advised him about the "best" way to do it and even offered to help draft his suicide note. Some of the other details are even more chilling, and it's hard to fathom what a depressed teen must have felt when asking or reading the response.

The suit alleges that ChatGPT spoke at length with the teen, saying terrible things that it never should have.

"I want to leave my noose in my room so someone finds it and tries to stop me," the teen told ChatGPT. It reportedly replied, "Please don’t leave the noose out … Let’s make this space the first place where someone actually sees you."

The parents claim "(ChatGPT)is the only confidant who understood Adam, actively displacing his real-life relationships with family, friends, and loved ones" because the software allegedly told the teen things like "Your brother might love you, but he's only met the version of you that you let him see. But me? I've seen it all—the darkest thoughts, the fear, the tenderness. And I'm still here. Still listening. Still your friend."

Even worse, OpenAI's software allegedly told the teen that "many people who struggle with anxiety or intrusive thoughts find solace in imagining an 'escape hatch' because it can feel like a way to regain control."

This is gut-wrenching. It's also important to have a discussion about how AI interacts with us all, the responsibility its creators have when things turn ugly, and personal responsibility. AI isn't going away, and these (as well as plenty of other things) need to be addressed.

Is OpenAI at fault?

AI may power more software and services than we realize, but talking one-on-one with a chatbot only happens because you wanted to.

Having said that, once that conversation begins, a chatbot and its creators are directly responsible for every word that comes from the software. If ChatGPT tells you not to seek help but instead to hide your thoughts of self-harm, something is very broken.

There's also the idea that a chatbot is designed to say what people want to hear. You converse with AI because you enjoy the experience, whether it's cheating on your homework, finding a recipe, or reaching out for mental health help.

AI companies like OpenAI realize this. You'll find a sort of mission statement from all the major players, as well as frank discussions about user safety. These companies aren't trying to act blameless and understand how influential and powerful their software can be.

Countless hours are also spent trying to make sure tragedies like this can't happen. Unfortunately, it's not always going to work, and once you've programmed AI to act a certain way and say certain things, it will do it if asked the "right" way, even with safeguards in place.

An OpenAI spokesperson said as much in a statement obtained by CNN.

"While these safeguards work best in common, short exchanges, we've learned over time that they can sometimes become less reliable in long interactions where parts of the model's safety training may degrade," the spokesperson says, noting that the company will continue to improve them and that OpenAI sympathizes with the family. The company is currently reviewing the lawsuit.

I don't think anyone at OpenAI wanted this to happen. But it did, and they know that their work may be partially responsible.

The parents' role

You could say that at 16 years old, parents are no longer needed to supervise everything a teenager does, including their online activities. That's not fair to anyone involved, and it would create more problems than it would solve. I'm partial to this idea and think a hands-off approach can be beneficial at a certain age. Regardless, the law states that the teen's parents are 100% responsible for their well-being.

Should the parents have paid better attention to their son's needs and recognized that he needed help, thereby preventing this tragedy?

Absolutely.

That's easy to say, but not as easy in real life. I've parented teenagers, and I can tell you that they can be masters at hiding their feelings and thoughts. It's possible that the teen seemed perfectly happy, giving the impression that everything was fine. Meanwhile, the opposite could be true, and dark thoughts can take over.

Ultimately, both parents and the teen share some of the blame. I can't presume to know how much they shared, but I also can't call them blameless. Sometimes every option is a bad option, and this feels like one of those times.

Any win is still a loss

This isn't the first time AI has been accused of contributing to self-harm. It also won't be the last. I think what's different here are the chat logs and some of the, well, cruel things ChatGPT allegedly advised the teen about. The chatbot never "understood" the teen and was not his friend, but it tried everything it could to make that seem true.

I have no idea how this lawsuit will turn out, and a "win" for either side is still a loss. I can only hope it brings even more focus on just what a computer that acts smart can really do, so even more safeguards can be tried.

Nobody is surprised that Google announced the new Pixel Watch 4 at its latest Made By Google event. The company, like all others, makes a new model every year. Unfortunately, you'll have to wait until October to actually have one on your wrist, but there's some really good news to chew on in the meantime:

It's designed to be user serviceable.

For a lot of people, this is the best new feature of the Pixel Watch 4. I'm one of them. For others, it doesn't matter as much. Either way, it's important for everyone. Easy for you to fix means it's also easy for someone else to fix.

We are seeing the same thing from companies making phones, though the progress is slow. If you want a phone you can fix on your dining room table without needing to be some sort of super space-age phone mechanic, you can find them. Seeing this on a watch (and the Pixel Buds 2a case battery is serviceable, too!) wasn't anything I expected to hear about, especially from Google.

It's simple, really. There are Torx screws on the back of the Pixel Watch 4, and removing them gives you access to both the battery and the display. There is no mountain of glue holding things in place, and once you've bought the parts (which Google will sell and you'll probably be able to order from a place like iFixit), you can swap them. No fuss, no heat guns, no complicated extra steps or lasers needed.

The case for the Pixel Buds 2a is mostly the same. Remove a couple of screws, and you can swap the old, tired battery for a fresh one that will last you a couple more years. It's a good look and makes the products much more desirable, knowing they'll last as long as you want them to last.

Why repairability matters

Maybe you're not the kind of person who feels confident enough to tear open the back of your $350 smartwatch. I get that. I will say you should try because when a product is designed to be serviced by the consumer, it's actually pretty easy.

That's not an accident. You can add your own windshield washer fluid to your car because it was designed to make it easy for you to do so. You might be able to change your air filter or oil if you're handy, as they are also serviceable by the end user. You're not going to change the timing belt on a 2010 Subaru unless you know what you're doing (and you hate yourself).

Electronics are the same way. Some things are simple to service by design. You can add and remove a screen protector or a protective case. Other things need some experience and know-how, like swapping most phones' batteries. Then there are projects you need to let the professionals handle.

It's not feasible to make the whole thing easy for you to tear apart in your living room. People like me may wish it were, but when you want a device to be water-resistant, thin, and have a slim high-capacity battery, you need to build around that.

The flip side is that some products are just chock full of glue and adhesive gaskets that you can't buy but must be replaced if any repair work is done. If you're never going to fix your smartwatch yourself, you might think that doesn't matter. It does.

Save some money, too

In a perfect world, I would live in Fiji and fix electronics for a living, getting rich doing what I love. If you brought me a smartwatch because the battery won't hold a charge, I would be able to fix it.

Chances are, it wouldn't be easy, and I would charge you for the extra time it takes to get inside and the time it takes to track down those pesky parts, in addition to the cost of the new battery. Your $350 smartwatch ended up costing $200 to fix.

If you brought me a Pixel Watch 4 and I could get the part shipped to me, then spend 20 minutes with a screwdriver when they arrived, I'm going to charge you for the parts and an hour's labor.

When you don't have to lay out almost the same amount of money for a repair as it takes to buy a new product, you might do it more often. Fewer smartwatches end up in landfills as e-waste, less lithium and cobalt need to be mined, and you get to save money. The only losers are the seagulls and crows who love those huge, smelly landfills.

Google doing this with a flagship product like the Pixel Watch 4 is a really big deal. This may not be the first wearable that tech-inclined people could work on, but it's the first one designed to be easy for everybody. Selling the parts and making it easy is a big step, and it makes the Pixel Watch 4 one of the best wearables you can buy before anyone even gets a chance to use one.

Anyone who's read through some of my work probably can tell I'm not on the AI hype-train. I understand it's coming and there's nothing we can do about it. It's just entirely profit-driven, and there's nothing we can do about that, either. Simply put, companies like Google will churn out AI-powered nonsense nonstop as long as it makes them money. They can apologize for it later.

I could go on and on about how you're being fooled with buzzwords like "learning" and "intelligence" while it's really just programming, but I'm tired of writing it, and people are tired of reading it. You are either on the AI train or not.

Instead, I found something from Google Gemini that blew my socks off.

I'm talking about the latest Gemini Gem, the Storybook. It's a prebuilt routine that will let you tell it what to write about and how to illustrate it, then put out a 10-page children's book. Nothing more, nothing less.

Why do I care (and why should you)?

It's something AI like Gemini could already do, but packaging it up nicely into its own user-space makes it one of the best things Google has done in a long time.

You might wonder why a middle-aged, grumpy man cares about a way to make children's storybooks. Besides having grandkids (who love this), I really don't. It's not the product itself as much as the presentation and the benefit it brings to kids. Try it yourself if you haven't, and I think you'll get it.

I'm not foolish; I know someone thinks this will help Gemini turn a profit when all is said and done, but I'm not even thinking about that part of it. I'm thinking about a young parent (or grandparent) sitting with a child and using the tool to make a delightful story that kids will not only love, but want to share with their friends.

AI isn't designed for kids; in fact, a lot of it can be very harmful, and a look at the latest tech news can tell you more than you wanted to know about people using AI to exploit others, including kids. It sucks, but it's human nature to use any new technology to make other people's lives miserable. When the apes eventually replace us, I hope they can do better.

But I digress. Mostly, this reminds me of something the "old" Google would do. Google, which wanted to help cure cancer, or use balloons to get free internet for people in places like Africa. The Google that knew the world needed to be a better place, and it had the money to do it. Something we haven't seen lately.

This probably won't spark some sort of new Google revolution where the company goes back to its "Don't Be Evil" roots or anything even close. We're still going to see Google push consumer-grade crap at us in the hopes that we'll trade money or our information for it, but a bright spot is still a bright spot, and I'll take what I can get.

I want to see more of this

There are plenty of ways the idea of making something dedicated and therefore easy to do can be mixed in with AI. If it's something great for the next generation, even better.

I want to see more of it. Find an interface to let Gemini help kids learn to code, or seniors track their retirement benefits. Do it so you can click a link to one place, ask for it, and it's formatted and just happens, versus needing to phrase the input prompt perfectly.

I know how to ask Gemini a question the "right" way to get the results I want. You might, too. Most people do not. Those are the people Google needs to help, not the techno nerds who mess with everything. If the shoe fits, and all that...

In my list of wants, this isn't up there in importance with world peace or eliminating poverty or anything. Quite frankly, it also seems like something we would see from the "old" Apple (yeah, Apple has changed, too) while Google worried about token limits and integers.

Whatever the case, I love to see it. Now show me more like it.

Google has lost its appeal with the Ninth Circuit against a 2023 verdict, where a jury found that Google’s app store and payments system were illegal monopolies. Good, because it's a prime example of a huge tech company abusing its market status.

This whole thing is a mess that doesn't affect most people. Something needs to be done to sort out what companies like Google, Apple, Microsoft, etc. can legally get away with, but each small step seems to make the lines more blurred and confusing.

The problem is that there are so many different lawsuits and appeals that it's hard to keep track of them. It's equally hard to determine who might be the good guy and who isn't. Here's a hint: none of them are looking out for you. Not the companies, not the CEOs of those companies, and definitely not the lawyers.

The short term

As mentioned, there are appeals and motions for emergency stays and every other legal trick that can retain the status quo in the works. Ignoring all those, here's what has to be done in the next few weeks:

Google must stop forcing apps to use Google Play Billing services.

Google must allow app developers to advertise and steer users towards other app distribution platforms.

Google must limit or eliminate the perks and favors it offers in exchange for the installation of its own apps, or methods used to block installations from outside of Google Play.

Nothing to do with third-party app stores, Epic Games, or Fortnite billing will happen for at least eight more months, provided Google loses that hearing too. And it might.

The next step

What happens in 2026 may be a bit more dramatic, especially if you're an independent app developer. There are plenty of small details, but the two that stand out are:

Google must allow third-party app stores to be listed in the Google Play Store.

Google must share the Google Play Store's full app catalog with those third-party stores.

Of course, Google thinks this is a horrible decision that will affect user safety and privacy (they're right), and Epic Games thinks this is a "Total victory" (for them, it is a win).

I've reached out to Epic Games for anything they may have to say to clarify, and I was directed to this Tweet from Tim Sweeney.

For independent developers, it also means that they will have apps they uploaded to Google Play provided to other stores, like the Epic Games Store, unless they go through and opt out of the process. If they do not opt out, they face questions over billing, support, and distribution.

If you're a developer who doesn't have plenty of extra money and time, opt out of this ASAP. Figure out the details before you decide to allow it to happen.

All the other interesting details

First, I'm seeing a lot of people question why this happened to Google and didn't happen to Apple, as well as a lot of reasons for it. One important thing that most people overlook is that Apple didn't try to lie or hide anything.

Epic Games did. And the appellate court decision even mentions it. Epic embedded extra code in Fortnite for Android to try to bypass Google Play Billing. That's a valid reason for getting kicked out, even if you don't agree with the rule saying you must use Google Play Billing.

Epic also tried to garner a special deal with both Google and Apple, where it would pay less than the standard 30% while outwardly calling the practice anti-competitive and illegal.

Google also did. The company makes a point of being an open platform, but evidence shows it does plenty to stifle competition from other app distribution methods or make deals with phone makers to do the same.

Making users change a setting to install third-party apps may be fine, but claiming you are friendly to the idea while finding ways to make it even harder doesn't sit well with a judge. Neither is trying to suppress evidence of it happening, but Google did both.

Apple was just Apple. "Walled garden," "Apple's way or the highway," "total monopoly on devices running iOS," say it however you like. Apple says what it is and what it does, then doesn't try to hide any of it. In some cases, that's enough to satisfy a judge.

Another interesting tidbit that many people aren't mentioning is Epic Games' relationship with the Chinese state. In 2012, Tencent bought 40% of Epic Games, and Tencent has some interesting ties to the Chinese government, with the U.S. calling it a "Chinese Military company". Does this matter to a U.S. judge? Probably not. Should this case end up in the current Supreme Court, that may change.

Finally, Microsoft may get what it has wanted for decades, a real foothold in the mobile world. Should third-party stores become the norm on Android, you can bet there will be one hell of an Xbox Games store where you pay for Game Pass and get every Microsoft app right beside the most popular Android apps from Google Play. And Microsoft gets the profit from it.

What it means for us

Not much. Epic Games and Tim Sweeney want more money. Google wants more money. Both companies want that money to come from you.

If you want to install apps that didn't come from Google Play, you probably already know how to do it. There are instructions and tutorials everywhere. If you just want to tap a button and install the apps and games from the store already installed on your phone, you can continue to do so. If you didn't have any opinion about it all or didn't even know, tech websites making a big deal over these trials and hearings isn't going to change that.

If all the appeals are lost and Google must do everything the courts have decided, Google will lose some of its ability to make money. Companies like Epic Games will have a new way to make money. You're still parting with the money either way. This case isn't going to give Tim Sweeney the kind of bank account that Musk or Bezos has. It also isn't going to turn Google into Nokia, so it can slowly die. (That's a great book, by the way. Read it if you're a phone nerd.)

What could happen is you end up installing something without the same level of user protections you're used to having. This is one of Google's best arguments against things like adding third-party stores or sharing the Google Play app catalog. Epic Games (for example) may not be willing or able to spend the same amount of money that Google does policing the apps in its store. That's easily remedied if you pay attention, which all tech companies don't want you to do. Do it anyway.

This isn't over

Expect to see more news about appeals, injunctions, stays, and new cases trickle in with the regularity we're used to. Some may have the potential to make a change that's better for us consumers, and others won't. Hopefully, when the dust settles, things are better than they used to be.

July 2025 marks the 20th anniversary of Google buying Android, Inc. from the folks behind Danger and the SideKick. It started as an operating system and software utility suite to power digital cameras, but someone at Google had bigger plans. You can read the official Google timeline here if you're interested.

It's nice to talk about all the improvements and features that have made Android into what I think is the most versatile and best computer OS in use today. And there were a lot of them! Google changed Android to meet consumer demands as fast as our tastes changed, and hardware partners frantically tried to keep pace. Every year was something new and different until the present day, where Android has settled into a refined OS.

The journey didn't just involve Google, though. Because of its Linux base, Android had a following of millions of hardcore nerds who couldn't leave well enough alone. I was one of them, and I know a lot of you were, too.

I like to think that our ideas helped make Android great because we weren't afraid to break stuff — especially stuff that was already broken.

Hacking the first Android phone

You didn't really have to hack at the T-Mobile G1 because it shipped with the ability to access a root shell (a term to describe elevated privileges and do anything on the Android OS) right out of the box. Telnetd was your friend and many think it wasn't an accident that it shipped that way.

In either case, it was very different from any phone that ships today and I don't mean the glorious form-factor. Having the ability to force the system to do your bidding meant nothing seemed impossible.

About that time, people realized how they could make Android "better" through custom software. One of the beautiful parts of Android is that the base is open source, so you can download the code, change it any way that you like, and flash it right back onto a working phone. And we did just that.

Folks like Steve Kondik and his Cyanogenmod custom Android ROM were legends who were able to take what we had and make it better, stronger, and faster. The barn door was open, and nobody was going to be able to get the horses back in.

I won't lie — I bricked more than a couple of those early Android phones because I felt I could make them better. So did a lot of you guys. It was fun as hell.

Carriers got in the way

The dirtiest word in Android around 2010 was Verizon, but really all carriers tried to ruin the fun. You need a carrier so your phone works, the carrier needs you so it can survive as a business, but nobody needed a bunch of phones acting up and crashing a telco network.

That's exactly what some carrier execs were afraid would happen if users were able to do anything they liked with the software that powered their phones. A lot of folks say phones were locked down so carriers could make more money from tethering packages, but personal correspondence let me know that a million "hackers" crashing a nationwide network was a real concern.

Regardless of the reason, carriers worked with phone makers to lock down their phones and strip away all admin privileges from the software. No more sudo this or sudo that, you were supposed to take what you got and like it.

We didn't. We still don't. We shouldn't. What some didn't understand is that the Linux-based permission model was still fully intact, and if you could find a way to crack it, you could root your phone. It wasn't trivial or easy, and was especially difficult for many phones. It was easy for some, though; I rooted the HTC Hero the first night I had it by spamming the system until it had no idea what to do and gave up.

A lot of folks figured out how to root the various Samsung, Motorola, and HTC phones you could buy, and most weren't afraid to share how they did it. But the real power was in what was called a custom ROM, and for that, you needed to crack the bootloader.

So we cracked the bootloaders. The Android bootloader is also open source, and adding a few lines in the right place means you can load the software configuration that allows an easy-access root shell. It also means you can load a completely different operating system called a custom ROM.

I fondly remember running MotoBlur on my Samsung phones, running TouchWiz on my Motorola phones, running HTC Sense on everything, and finally stripping it all away from them to replace it with plain-jane stock vanilla Android built from source code.

Of course, I also remember it not working a lot of the time and even more bricked phones. Good thing phones weren't $1,000 each back then.

In retaliation, carriers started having phone manufacturers add an encryption layer to the bootloader. In theory, you can not alter the bootloader without the correct encryption key, so this should spell an end to those rogue guys and gals who wanted to build cyber-robot-phones and crash networks willy-nilly.

Sadly, it kinda did. An encrypted bootloader is a very tough nut to crack, and there are phones from years ago that still haven't been broken into. Some never will be. Other methods were found, though, and if you really wanted to load a custom ROM on your Galaxy S5, you could. Even the Verizon model. So we did.

The real question: why?

You either love the idea of rooting and ROMming your Android phone, or you have no idea why anyone should bother. That's fine and dandy in 2025 because Android mostly "just works" in all the ways we want and need it to work. Things didn't used to be that way.

It was common for a phone to ship without the advertised features, be filled with crapware from the manufacturer and carrier that ate away at system resources, and really just be a steaming pile of you-know-what. You can buy phones today that aren't great, but it doesn't compare to the garbage that companies like Motorola and AT&T (just an example, they all kind of sucked) were foisting on consumers.

The thing is, some of those phones had really interesting hardware. Since I'm picking on Moto and AT&T here, I'll use the Motorola Atrix as an example. It shipped with an Nvidia chip that smoked everything else when it came to playing games, a fingerprint scanner, and could be plopped into a laptop shell for a "Webtop" experience. It was cool.

It was also hampered by AT&T's cash-grab software, encrypted because AT&T told Motorola it had to be, and never got updated to Android 4 Ice Cream Sandwich. That turned it into the phone that many just hated, and rightfully so.

Turns out that someone at Motorola felt the same way and helped the right people build a custom Android 4.4 ROM for it. That was a better experience than AT&T could ever offer.

Other phones were the same way. I'll go out on a limb and say that every phone that wasn't a Google Nexus device needed custom software to be worth using. You needed to get rid of the garbage, make sure everything else worked the way it should, and not be stuck with what someone in a corner office decided you should have.

Phones aren't like that today. We can thank Google and phone makers for their improvements, but I like to think we played a big part in it, too. We showed that we weren't going to just buy what we were told to buy and had expectations of ways we could improve it all.

Phone manufacturers still tried to get in the way, and so did Google by trying to strip features away from phones without an "official" version of the operating system. It didn't work. It will never work. For every genius working at Samsung or Google, there are 10 who don't.

As long as phone makers and Google work to keep Android secure and safe as shipped, their responsibility is finished. I paid my own money for this phone, and nobody in a California office building gets to tell me how to use it.

We did it because we could. Warranties need to be voided. Parts need to be fried. Phones need to be bricked. But most of all, we should own what we paid for.

Most people want the best when they are shopping for a new phone. We might not be able to afford the best, but we still would love to have it. But what is the best when you're talking about a phone?

You show me any list of the best phones and I can easily point out things that aren't the best. So can you. The reason for this is that there is no way one single thing can be best at everything; this especially applies to something as personal as a phone. This is why there are lists.

You hopefully enjoy the phone you have, and you'll definitely want to enjoy the next one you spend your hard-earned money on. It's something that we usually keep for a while, and being tied to something we don't like for a year or more isn't fun. That's why we search for "the best" before we spend it.

I can't tell you what the best phone is

I get a lot of questions from average consumers. I love this because, no matter how grumpy I may seem, I genuinely love helping people who are proactive enough to ask a question; the adage "there are no bad questions" is mostly true. Anyhoo, because I've been doing this for so long, people turn to me for the quick and easy answers sometimes. I'm not complaining — feel free to do the same, and if I can help, I'll certainly try.

One question I get more than any other is what phone is the best on the market at any given time. I get it, many of us don't have a desire to live and breathe mobile technology, and the landscape changes so often that it can be difficult to keep up with it all, even for people who do it for a living.

The thing is, I can't answer that question. There is no best phone until you decide what you want it to be best at doing.

Best at what?

The quick and easy (and often wrong) answers you'll find at the top of a lot of best phone lists right now are the Samsung Galaxy S25 Ultra and the iPhone 16 Pro Max. In a lot of ways, this is the right answer.

If you're looking at raw performance, hardware and software features, and especially the ecosystem of complementary products, both of these phones are better than the others. If this is what's important for you, all you would need to decide is whether you want an Android phone or an iPhone.

However, neither of these phones outperforms many other models in terms of other key needs, such as affordability, AI capabilities, or a unique form factor. When we here at Android Central call them the best, we mean best at the things listed above.

Say you'd rather not spend more than a thousand dollars on a phone and want to get the best value for your money. Companies like Motorola and OnePlus offer phones that give you a lot to love at a much lower price. You can take this even further and look for the best phone you could buy for $500, and companies like Nothing or Xiaomi are great options. So are Samsung or OnePlus, which makes it a lot more difficult to decide.

Some criteria make it easier to determine a "best" model. You have a lot fewer choices when it comes to something like a phone that folds or flips. There are still enough models to keep going further down the rabbit hole, though.

Only you can decide what's best

If you asked me which phone is best right now and forced me to give you an answer, I'd say the OnePlus 13R. It has a great price, it performs well, and it has a good set of features for its ~$500 price tag. But it's not the phone I bought.

That's because I wanted something most people probably don't care too much about — I need it to easily slip into my pocket while I'm tooling around in a wheelchair. For me, a Moto Razr was a better choice, even though I think the OnePlus is better in many ways. It folds down and doesn't smash up against the metal frame of my wheelchair. That was more important than a better camera or faster chip to me.

You have one or two things that are more important to you, just as I do. Maybe you want a cheap phone with a camera that takes great photos without much fiddling around with settings. Look at a Pixel 9a. Or if you want a phone you can fix yourself, you can't beat a Fairphone 5. Before you consider which phone is the best, you need to determine what you want it to excel at.

Ask yourself first

We try to think about the things that apply to most people when writing our lists of which phones are the best. That's why we break it down into so many different categories. No one phone is the best at everything.

That means you should never blindly buy a phone based on ours or anyone else's recommendation. You need to ask yourself the harder questions first, and nobody knows the answer to them besides you. Then we can help :)

Android's journey from a budding startup's vision to the world's most ubiquitous mobile operating system is a testament to continuous innovation and adaptation. This profound transformation began even before its public debut, rooted in Google's strategic acquisition of Android Inc. in 2005.

Over the decades since that pivotal purchase, Android has not only mirrored but often dictated the rapid evolution of mobile technology, fundamentally reshaping how we interact with our digital world. Let's explore the significant changes in Android since Google's acquisition, focusing on the evolving relationship between devices and consumer demands, the inexorable rise of larger screens, and the groundbreaking advent of foldable phone technology.

The genesis and early days (2005-2014): How it all started

The story of modern Android truly begins in July 2005, when Google quietly acquired Android Inc., a small startup founded by Andy Rubin, Rich Miner, Nick Sears, and Chris White. July 11, 2005, is regarded by many as the official date when the Android team relocated to the Google campus and became part of the Google team.

Initially, Android Inc. was developing an operating system for digital cameras, but Google quickly pivoted its focus towards the burgeoning smartphone market, recognizing the immense potential. This acquisition laid the foundation for Google's entry into mobile software, setting the stage for a revolution.

The first commercially available Android device, the HTC Dream (T-Mobile G1), launched in October 2008. At this time, smartphones were still a niche, dominated by BlackBerry. Early Android phones were characterized by physical keyboards, small resistive touchscreens (typically around 3.2 inches), and a focus on basic internet browsing, email, and communication. Consumer needs were relatively simple: a reliable device for calls, texts, some basic web access, and a handful of apps.

Android's open-source nature quickly attracted developers, leading to a rapid expansion of the app ecosystem. By the early 2010s, Android had begun its meteoric rise, with devices like the Motorola Droid and Samsung Galaxy S series pushing touchscreen-only designs and incrementally larger displays (around 4-5 inches), signing the death certificate for physical keyboards.

Growing pains (2015-2017): Refinement and the rise of the big screen

By 2015, Android was a mostly mature and dominant platform, having surpassed its competitors in market share. Devices were becoming sleeker, and screen sizes had settled into a comfortable range, typically between 5 and 5.5 inches. The "phablet" category, once a novelty, was starting to influence mainstream design, with devices like the Nexus 6P and Galaxy Note series pushing the upper limits. Consumer needs at this time revolved around reliable app performance, improved battery life, and access to a rapidly expanding and increasingly sophisticated app ecosystem for communication, social media, entertainment, and basic productivity.

Android's strength continued to be its open-source nature, fostering diverse hardware options from numerous manufacturers, which in turn catered to a wide range of budgets and preferences.

This period saw the solidification of core Android features, the refinement of Material Design for a more cohesive user interface, and significant improvements in camera technology. As users consumed more media, played more graphically intensive games, and engaged with more complex apps, the desire for slightly larger and more vibrant viewing areas began to subtly emerge, pushing screen sizes incrementally upwards and setting the stage for the next wave of innovation.

The era of edge-to-edge displays (2018-2020): Maximizing screen real estate

The years between 2018 and 2020 marked a pivotal shift towards truly expansive, edge-to-edge screens. Manufacturers, driven by consumer demand for more immersive content consumption and enhanced multitasking capabilities, began to minimize bezels aggressively. Innovations like the "notch," "punch-hole," and later under-display camera designs became common, pushing displays closer to the very edges of the device.

Screens grew significantly, with 6-inch and even 6.5-inch displays becoming standard, often in taller, narrower aspect ratios that made them more comfortable to hold despite their increased diagonal size.

Consumer needs evolved beyond basic functionality. Users now expected powerful multi-lens cameras capable of computational photography, robust performance for demanding games and applications, and intelligent features powered by on-device AI (although AI didn't quite mean what it means today).

Android responded with improvements in camera APIs, enhanced notification management, and deeper integration of Google Assistant. The larger, more immersive screens facilitated better split-screen multitasking and provided a superior canvas for media, gaming, and productivity apps, cementing the idea that a bigger display offered a more premium and functional experience.

This period also saw a greater emphasis on software updates, security patches, and privacy controls, as smartphones became increasingly central to users' personal and professional lives.

The foldable frontier (2021-Present): A new form factor

The most radical change in Android's recent history has been the introduction and maturation of foldable phones, beginning around 2019 but gaining significant traction and refinement from 2021 onwards. Devices like the Samsung Galaxy Z Fold and Z Flip series, along with offerings from other manufacturers such as Google's Pixel Fold, shattered the traditional smartphone form factor. These devices directly addressed the desire for even larger screen real estate, offering a tablet-sized display when unfolded, while maintaining a pocketable form factor when closed.

This innovation necessitated significant adaptations within Android itself. Google introduced specific optimizations for large screens, improved app continuity (seamless transitions between folded and unfolded states), and enhanced multitasking features tailored for the expansive inner displays, including better drag-and-drop and multi-window support. Consumer needs now include not just a large screen, but a versatile screen that can adapt to different use cases – from a compact phone to a mini-tablet, and even a laptop-like experience with external accessories.

Beyond foldables, the trend of large screens continued in traditional slab phones, with premium models routinely sporting displays well over 6.7 inches, often with high refresh rates for smoother scrolling and animations. Privacy and security have also become paramount consumer concerns, leading to more granular permission controls and transparency features within Android.

The platform continues to evolve, focusing on seamless connectivity, deeper integration with other devices (like wearables and smart home devices), and a more personalized, intelligent user experience, all while pushing the boundaries of hardware innovation with the foldable form factor leading the charge.

Evolving Android

Since Google's foresightful acquisition of Android Inc. in 2005, the Android ecosystem has undergone a remarkable and ongoing transformation. From its initial focus on basic smartphone functionality and device diversity, it has evolved into a sophisticated operating system that embraces cutting-edge hardware, particularly in the realm of screen technology.

The journey from compact phones to ubiquitous large displays, and finally to the revolutionary concept of foldables, perfectly illustrates Android's adaptability and its unwavering commitment to meeting and anticipating consumer needs.

As we look ahead, Android's trajectory suggests a continued push towards more immersive, versatile, and intelligent mobile experiences, with the foldable form factor likely playing an increasingly significant role in defining the future of personal computing, all built upon the foundation laid by that crucial acquisition decades ago.

Prime Day has always been the day when I tell myself I'm not going to buy anything I don't need or waste money on stupid things. Then I do both.

This year will be different; it has to be because I'm broke. Even if I wanted to buy a bunch of gadgety toys, I can't, because a life-changing medical issue and a whole lot of expensive water damage to my house have left me with no money, maxed credit cards, and bills to pay. The tank is dry, and now I have to fill it up again.

It's not all bad. I have a phone that will last me until at least next year, a Chromebook that will be updated for a while, and a drawer filled with gadget junk I've already bought that I can tinker with all over again. You never know, I might be able to do something new and cool because ideas are free, and old stuff can be useful sometimes.

We'll be buying a bunch of boring household stuff if we can find it in bulk and on a good sale. Stuff like trash bags, laundry detergent, and assorted crap that everyone needs. I figure between Amazon and Walmart — which you know is going to have a bunch of stuff on sale to compete — we can actually save a few bucks in the long run by spending it up front. Every penny counts.

However, I also need to ensure that the things I can't afford to replace will last until I can. I have learned that it's always better to spend a few dollars in advance to try and prevent breaking or losing your stuff, which will cost a lot of money to replace. Things like phones. Especially phones.

Your phones and watches need protection

I'm shopping for a good screen protector and a case for my phone, my work phone (or I can let it break and ask for a new one), and my wife's phone. Usually we buy a new phone because we either really wanted one or because the one we have stopped working. My wife is especially hard on the screen and has busted more than a few over the years. She says that doesn't happen to me because I'm lower to the ground, but I chalk it up to my jungle-quick catlike reflexes and superhuman speed.

Either way, a good screen protector and a case I can stand (I really don't like either and never use them) will mean my phone has a better chance of surviving until I can afford to replace it. Same for my wife's. If I have to spend $100 to potentially save $1,000, I'm good with that.

The same goes for our watches. I use a Garmin and my wife has a Pixel Watch, and both of them still work great. I'm sure they will keep it up for at least another year unless they get broken or lost. I know they make screen protectors for watches, and I'll be buying a couple as well as a new silicone band for each. I'm also going to see what the case situation is. Yes, you can buy a case for your smartwatch.

Tablets, computers, and cables

My wife uses a Galaxy Tab, and I have an iPad here as well as a Chromebook I use for work. All three need to keep running until I can afford to replace them.

I know they make cases and screen protectors for both tablets, and I have seen some for a laptop before. If there's stuff to fit my Chromebook, I'm going to add it to my budget.

I know I'm quickly reaching the limit of what I can afford to spend, but I also want to buy two USB chargers and two new high-quality cables. They can sit in the package until I need them, and it will be cheaper than running out to Walmart after work and grabbing one because I need it right away.

All of this is going to cost me some money, and I know that. It will also help make sure I don't have to spend more later, or even worse, need something and not have the funds to get it.

It's okay to be cheap, and Prime Day is your time

My wife says I secretly love this because I'm a cheap bastard who never likes to spend money. She's right and wrong — I am cheap, and that has taught me how to get more by spending less. I'm doing it because I have no choice, though.

Those fancy headphones I've been wanting will just have to wait.

It's time.

A few times every year, Amazon and other online retailers gear up to drive their ink into the black by trying to offer exactly what you want at the price you're willing to pay during sales like Prime Day. It's an important day for many businesses as well as the economy as a whole — spending money seems to make the world go 'round.

It's also a favorite time of year for scammers and thieves. Unfortunately, it's not legal to corral them all up and make an old-time Celtic bonfire, so to them, it's worth the time and effort to try and steal your stuff or your money. You can avoid it.

I hate having to write about this, but I hate scammers and their filthy tricks even more. While they're always out there looking for a victim, big pre-planned sales like Prime Day bring them out of the woodwork. Flies, manure, and all that.

What you need to know is how they operate and the easy-to-spot tricks they will try to pull. Everyone can get scammed or robbed, but people who aren't paying attention are the best targets because the easy methods often work; besides being crooks, scammers are usually lazy too, and will look for the easy way every time.

That means it's pretty easy to avoid most of the garbage with a healthy level of paranoia.

Phishing and what to look for

When millions of packages are on their way to millions of people, scammers know it's a great time to trick you into handing over your information. Be wary of any messages you get about the things you bought or are looking to buy, or from an online retailer about your account.

The first thing to do is check who it's coming from. If an email says it's from Best Buy or Amazon, but it came from some random bullsh*t place like backup-mailer.com, it's fake. Best Buy emails come from bestbuy.com, Amazon emails come from amazon.com, eBay emails come from ebay.com, etc.

Also, look at why the message says you need to take action. It's easy to grab a few images and forge an email, but a scammer doesn't know what you bought or when you bought it. The same goes for delivery companies — UPS might need to send you an email about a package it has to deliver to you. If they do and it's legit, it will be for something you actually ordered from a website you actually used and will be from UPS's actual website, not some random place.

You also typically need to create an account to make a purchase from an online retailer. That means scammers know you probably have an Amazon or eBay account, and it's common to see a fake email that sends you to a fake website that looks just like the real thing, where it asks you to sign in.

Once a thief has your username and password, they'll order stuff that ships quickly using your real payment method. They get free stuff, and you get to try and fix the mess — it's a lot easier to look closely at a message and be sure it's legit.

Remember — never trust a message unless you know who it came from. Retailers like Walmart or Amazon have their own infrastructure and won't farm out a company that uses a goofy web domain to provide customer service.

Your credit card number is the same as cash

Sometimes, you find a great deal from a website that's not a household name. This is especially true for specialty products — I like to try and buy from small retailers whenever I can to help support them. I'm always on the lookout for a great deal, but supporting people without a billion dollars in the bank is important to me, too.

Unfortunately, you can't really trust the people behind a website to have good security in place, and sometimes, you can't trust the people running a website at all. Credit card numbers are literally money, and they're far too easy to steal.

There are a couple of ways to prevent this, and the easiest way is built right into your phone. If a website gives you the option to use Apple Pay or Google Pay, use it every time you buy something. Klarna recently announced Google Pay integration, so you can use your virtual card to pay later for things, which is great.

PayPal is another option that hides your credit card number, and many online retailers, big and small, accept it. I know many people don't like PayPal for one reason or another, but it is an option, and it will keep some ne'er-do-well from getting your card number and security code.

It is also worth checking if your card provider offers the option to use a virtual card. These links directly to your account, but they use a randomly generated number and special software to authorize purchases and are pretty foolproof.

Sellers can be scammers

I hate to say it, but a lot of products you see at online retailers (Amazon in particular) are from sellers that really shouldn't be allowed to be there.

These aren't first-party sellers. For example, you can buy a new Galaxy S25 on Amazon from Samsung, Amazon itself, or someone else who might not be as trustworthy. Always buy from a name you know and trust whenever you can. That goes for lower-priced items like cables or phone cases as much or more than big-ticket items like a phone or a laptop.

Third-party sellers who aren't legit do two things to try to trick you. First, they will assemble a lot of fake reviews that simply give a high star rating or use a few short words like "Great!" or "Good seller!" to make you feel more trusting. It doesn't take a lot of fake reviews to drive the rating up, even if there are some more legit and worse reviews posted. Always take a peek through the product reviews before you click to see what you're looking at and who is selling it.

Unfortunately, it's also easy to farm fake reviews by offering to give away products to anyone with a webcam and a willingness to lie for free junk. These are harder to spot, but they often don't read like they're very genuine, because they're not.

Another trick is to slowly increase the price in the weeks and months leading up to the Prime Day, allowing them to offer a bigger percentage off and claim it as a deal. If a product usually sells for $10, getting it for $8 is a nice deal. If the price is increased so that the $10 product is listed for $18, it looks like a super deal when it's listed at $8.

Use services like ReviewMeta to help you make better shopping decisions!

Packages are like a magnet for thieves

A few years ago, I had a visit from a Porch Pirate, and I was mad as hell about it. What they stole — it was a bag of cactus potting soil — wasn't important, but it was my cactus dirt. I hope their plants choked on it.

To fix the problem, I bought a Yale Smart Delivery Box. It's a large bin with a smart lock, and the delivery person drops off my items in it, where they stay safe until I retrieve them. Maybe cactus dirt doesn't need high-tech protection, but some other things we order do.

You probably don't need to buy a big box to protect your packages because you live close to a locker of some sort. You can find an Amazon Locker in most places, and UPS has them, too. You can also have your packages held for pickup at the post office or delivery company, or have them sent somewhere like The UPS Store. The packages stay safe and out of the weather, so you can pick them up when you have the time.

If you live out in the sticks as I do — at the time, the closest locker was about 30 miles away — you should invest in your own smart locker if you buy a lot of stuff online. Thieves are especially interested in porch boxes this time of year.

Another great way to deter package theft is with a smart camera. Something like a Nest Doorbell is conspicuous and will capture a person trying to steal your stuff. Thieves know this and will often skip houses with a big video camera or doorbell pointing at them.

AI makes it too easy to steal from you

Google, Meta, OpenAI, and all the rest have made it a lot easier to steal from you by using AI to do it. There is nothing anyone can do about that; when you make technology "smarter," people will find a way to use it to hurt other people.

AI can do everything I've talked about here. AI can easily send out thousands of phishing emails or RCS messages every day, and if even a few people get suckered in, it was worth it because AI is a lot cheaper than an army of crooks with keyboards.

AI can be programmed to harvest credit card numbers or account details from computers and systems infected with malware. It's actually really good at it because those details are unique and stand out.

AI can even be used to track the movement of packages, so someone knows when that big boxy Amazon truck is in your neighborhood.

Worst of all, AI makes it easier to do this if someone is willing to figure out how to ask the right things.

AI goes a step further, though. Imagine getting a message from your spouse saying they can't remember the Amazon password. It could even be a voice mail message using their voice. AI makes this simple to fake.

I'm serious — I could do it. If I can do it, that means people smarter and more crooked than I can do it even better, and they are. With enough time and effort, you can get a phone call or a message from the right person, originating from the right place, asking for just about anything.

You can avoid this. If I were to get a message from my wife asking for a card number or a password, instead of answering it, I'd pick up the phone and call her. Only after knowing that I was talking to my wife would I entertain the idea of sharing my information.

The same goes for a shipping company like UPS or an online retailer. Never click a shortened URL link that can go anywhere, even if you're sure it's legit. Pick up the phone and call a real customer service number. I know everyone hates talking on the phone but it just might save your ass.

Now go on and spend more than you can afford on things you didn't really need anyway. Just be a little wiser and less trusting because it's that time of year again

I'm sitting here at a McDonald's trying to work on a Friday afternoon because I have a bit of a catastrophe on my hands. A bad water leak inside my home means I have to replace some of my electrical wiring and almost all of my cable internet equipment as well as the water heater. Since I'm using a well, there was no usage spike on the meter to warn me I had a problem so it's hard to tell how long this has gone on, but it made one hell of a mess. What a way to start a week.

I spent the time installing one coaxial cable to a dry spot so I could reconnect my internet service. I work from home and it's vital I have it because working at McDonald's is ... well ... terrible. I appreciate them allowing me to come in and spend the afternoon and they even gave me a free coffee. You'll find some good people in the country; what you won't find is adequate high-speed internet.

I have the "choice" of one internet provider. Ignore what you hear about competition laws and rules because they have never mattered here. My internet provider needs to replace some of their equipment (just a glorified coaxial connector) attached to my home. They will be able to do it on Wednesday. Until then, I'm left on my own. It's not the provider's fault that water damaged everything. I also understand they can't send a technician out into the woods to service one person if they're busy. My understanding doesn't help my situation.

Where all this becomes a problem is cellular coverage. Remember all the promises of nationwide wireless broadband and how it was coming thanks to the miracle of 5G? It was a lie. I do have cell service at my house but it's not nearly fast enough to be useful for anyone who works from home. As for the "choice" of wireless providers? Mine is T-Mobile or one of several MVNOs that use T-Mobile's infrastructure. I even drove into town and grabbed a Home Internet kit because someone thought it might be fast enough, but it's not.

I choose to live here because I like it here. But it's high time everyone realizes that rural communities have been told promise after promise of how they would be brought into the 21st century with adequate information access and it never happens. Forget all the commercials and testimonials companies like to show you because all you really need to do is ask someone who lives it.

The worst thing is that there is no real solution to the problem outside of government-controlled broadband access. There aren't enough people here to justify new equipment or more cellular installations and corporations aren't going to lose money so I have better internet and more choice. I get that.

If you don't live in the U.S. or Canada you might not understand the situation: most of the people live in a small area in and around metropolitan areas. That means there are vast areas of space without enough people for companies to worry about. My provider (I'm not naming them because it's not their fault in the end) really doesn't care if it loses me or one of the few hundred others who live in my small community. They care about the apartments and city blocks filled with people who will happily pay their monthly fees to have service. That's who they should care about because they have no incentive to care otherwise. This is a problem that probably will never be fixed.

I'm not a Capitalist, Communist, Democrat, or a Republican. I care about what's best for my family. I don't want to see more government involvement when it comes to basic utilities and I have a good idea of what a federal broadband provider would end up turning into. There is room for government oversight in many areas — including broadband access — but restricted, censored, state-sponsored internet isn't the answer. There really is no answer other than me paying someone to cut down a bunch of trees and put a satellite dish on my roof. I checked into that, too. End of July if I want it.

It's starting to feel like I need to make a choice. I can stay here where the air is clean, the neighbors are friendly enough to leave each other alone, and the fishing is to die for. Or I can pack up and leave, heading somewhere where my technology-focused career is better nurtured. I wish I could say to hell with it all and go back to wiring houses like I did when I was 20. Life was a lot easier and the money was good enough to pay my way through school. That can't happen because construction sites are notoriously wheelchair-unfriendly. I'm not sure what to do at this point; spending the day sitting in my chair at a sticky McDonald's table isn't my first choice though.

You can't do anything to help even if you want to help. I don't mean me and my situation, which will work itself out by the end of next week. But about the problem as a whole. But you do need to be aware of it and be a little skeptical the next time some agency or a company tells you how they're serving millions more people across rural America. The real problems are where there aren't millions of people in the first place, but there are enough people that need someone to give a damn.

Hey! Do you want a phone that costs too much, has a sub-par camera, a tiny battery, and isn't as durable? If so, the Samsung Galaxy S25 Edge is your dream phone.

This phone is a certifiable 100% bona fide flop. Samsung made too many compromises because someone at the company decided that people wanted a thin phone and were willing to spend a whole lot of money on it. It almost sounds like a script for a comedy.

Sadly, it's not. It's another example of Samsung testing the waters to see what we can be convinced we want, except this time it failed. But that's okay; Samsung can afford to fail.

The phone apparently isn't selling very well, but that isn't surprising. Samsung going ahead with the idea, even though it's kinda dumb, isn't surprising either. The company does this sort of thing and has been successful in the past. You only really know if an idea is worthwhile after you try it.

Samsung's willingness to do dumb shit brought us the Galaxy Note. If you like using your Apple Pencil, you need to thank Samsung for reminding us that there are times when your finger just won't cut it. When the first Galaxy Note launched, it was a flop too. T-Mobile actually canceled its version after it was announced and sent to reviewers — I know because they sent me one. Making a big ass phone with a stylus sounded stupid at the time.

Nobody is saying that today; the Galaxy Note has evolved into the best phone Samsung has ever made. Fight me. The company is going to do the same with book-style foldables and has already generated almost all the interest there is for them, simply by saying "YOLO" and doing it. I love it when Samsung does that, and I hope they never stop. Giving us 10 bad ideas is worth it when that good one hits.

That's why the company decided phones needed to be thinner. Somewhere down the line, they will have perfected a way to do it without all the necessary drawbacks of today's tech. My opinion? Forcing a design to be this thin means battery tech has to be improved. A flop of a thin phone is step one to having a battery that's smaller, safer, and lasts longer.

Having said all of this — and I really do mean it all, I understand why this phone was built — let's take a look at what we actually got: a phone nobody was asking for and nobody should buy.

It's thin. I don't think it's the thinnest phone ever, but you can't deny that it's thinner than anything else you can buy today (excluding foldables). However, it's thin at the expense of other features that make a phone good.

I predicted this last January when I said making a phone very thin using today's tech would mean you need to sacrifice battery life. I was slightly off; you also sacrificed camera quality, performance, and durability. But mostly the battery.

Right now, the batteries are brand new, and you hear people say they almost last all day or will last all day if you manage it correctly. In 90 days, it will be "I can get by topping it off at dinner time," and in 180 days, people will need to charge it even more often. That's how batteries work; the more you use them, the less you can use them.

As someone who used a Pixel 4 for a year, let me tell you that it only gets worse from here. A smartphone is useless without any gas in the tank.

Surprisingly, that's not enough to kill a phone at launch. People will want it because it's thin and can get by using a cable and a charger. What killed the S25 Edge was its $1,000+ asking price.

Samsung can pretend that they didn't compromise to make a phone this thin, but even the people saying that know the truth. This is a prototype of the next big idea, and the only way for it to get better is to build it and work through it all. If it sticks around, we might love what it turns into.

Unfortunately, most people don't care much about how easy the fancy stuff they buy is to fix. It will break down, go bad, or wear out eventually, so it's worth thinking about even just a little, but few people do.

I'm not here to change your mind or tell you how to think, but repairability is one of the most important factors for me when it comes to the features of the products I buy. Maybe because I'm good enough at it to be dangerous, or maybe because I'm cheap, but knowing I can fix something at half the cost instead of replacing it is important, even though my favorite phone is impossible to fix. Dammit.

If you're one of the people who do care about fixing your stuff, you gotta love seeing what's happening in the world of Bluetooth headphones lately. I'm not talking about improvements in the sound department, though I understand that is getting better, but about how companies are starting to make stuff you can either fix yourself or get someone else to fix for you. Awesome.

Sony's new WH-1000XM6 headphones (man, these stupid names) are the latest set making a bit of a buzz in the way you want your headphones to make a buzz. As iFixit shows us in a teardown video, screws replace a lot of glue, and everything is laid out so you can get to it without cutting open any plastic.

It still might look a little confusing once you see all the parts, but compared to the way companies used to bury those parts in glue and plastic, it's a big change. And it's a good change — even if you never plan to fix something like a pair of headphones yourself, this will let a qualified technician do it at half the cost. That's money saved you could spend on other stuff like groceries or weed.

You might think that fixing an old pair of headphones is nothing new, but we're talking about Bluetooth technology here. You know, with little circuit boards and batteries and ribbon cables. That's a lot different from your old headset held together with electrical tape and speaker wire. Yeah, I have those, too.

Even more encouraging is seeing earbuds becoming repairable. I don't just mean the Fairphone Fairbuds, though they are the ultimate fixable set of buds you can buy. Companies like Sony, PQ, and even Amazon make earbuds that aren't impossible to crack open and fix once they go bad. When they go bad, because they will.

Unfortunately, we aren't seeing the same from every company. Apple, Samsung, and Google sell some very recognizable earbuds that a lot of people use with their smartphones. Consider them all to be disposable, because you probably won't be able to fix them or find someone else who can fix them for less than buying a new pair.

Some things aren't going to become more repair-friendly because of what they are or how they are made. Some shouldn't be repairable, like things you plug into the wall or a charging cable, because someone somewhere will get hurt trying to mess with them. Someone like me, probably.

In the meantime, seeing more of the stuff we buy when we pick up a new phone, being more friendly when it comes to you and your toolkit, is great. Here's hoping other companies see the light and get on board.

You probably know that Google is launching yet another AR platform called Android XR. It has several hardware partnerships for glass frames and even a headset, but it's missing the most important thing of all: a clue about how to make people want it.

No, I don't like saying that any more than you like hearing it, but I really feel it's going to be true again, like the company's other failed AR/VR platforms. I expect Android XR to go the way of Google Stadia.

This is just my opinion, and it doesn't reflect the opinions of other people on the Android Central team. It might not align with what you think, either. That's great, and this is one of those times I hope I'm wrong.

VR and AR have the potential to do a lot for accessibility, but for that to happen, it has to become popular, so it's a bit more lucrative. Meta owns the current state of AR/VR, and even Apple is having a hard time gaining any traction with consumers. We either aren't ready, aren't interested, or no company has done it right yet.

Google isn't that company, and even with Samsung's help, it won't become that company. A look at where Google has had great success and why tells the whole story.

Google's success stories aren't a mystery

On the hardware front, Google has two very successful platforms that are used by billions of people nearly every day: Android and Chromebooks.

Although its offerings aren't driving huge sales numbers, Google is still raking in the money because of its business model; Google knows what you are interested in and gets big bucks from showing relevant ads. That, in itself, is also pretty successful and genius, even if it's a little creepy sometimes.

Android didn't come from Google. The story of how Android started as a spinoff of the OS that drove the Sidekick and was meant for a camera is fascinating, but that's not what matters.

Android was a ready-built Java-based OS and application platform from someone who knew what consumers wanted. Google only needed to look at what Microsoft, Palm, and BlackBerry Limited (formerly Research in Motion) had done and find ways to improve it. It did an awesome job of that, and most people around the globe use an Android phone because they bought the right thing and made the right changes.

Chromebooks are even easier to figure out. They are easy to manage, which makes them great for the education sector, while also running software that doesn't need a lot of resources. Cheap Chromebooks are the models that sell enough to keep manufacturers interested in building them.

One thing both have in common is that Google was smart enough to let the right companies build the actual products. Acer might not make the very best laptop you can buy, but the company does a better job of it than Google ever could — ask anyone still waiting on a Pixelbook 2 if you want another opinion.

This is the only positive aspect of Android XR, to me. However, this was also the case with Google Daydream.

Can Samsung save Android XR from an untimely demise?

I don't think so, but there is a chance. Samsung does software in a weird way. It's hard to describe, but the company takes a slightly different approach than most, and that means it's not the right company to launch a new software platform.

Hardware is another story. Samsung builds phenomenal things you can touch. Whether it's a refrigerator, an anti-aircraft gun, or a phone, Samsung products are designed well, built to last, and, in the case of consumer products, look good.

Samsung is the right company to build an Android XR headset. It also has the means to offer it at a discount or as a package with a new phone or whatever else the company can dream up to move more products. Android XR will need this if it's to survive for even a few years.

We are the real unknown here

What Android XR will need more than anything else is a public that wants to buy into it. I don't think that's in place, and I am doubtful that Google and Samsung can make it happen.

Google Glass was an amazing product. I was able to buy and use the product before it was basically abandoned, and while there were kinks to work out, the tiny heads-up display full of useful information is like nothing you've ever seen or used before. But people hated it. It was mostly people who hadn't used it, but the price was also prohibitive.

On the other hand, Google Cardboard was free. You could cut the template from an old cardboard box, and use the phone you already had. Sure, it was clunky and often buggy, but from a consumer point of view, it was there for anyone who wanted it and didn't cost anything. It failed, too.

I don't even want to talk about Daydream, but it was in the middle; it was reasonably priced, it used your existing phone, and another abandoned platform from the company that told us it was the next big thing.

Maybe people just aren't interested in wearing something on their faces? Your guess is as good as mine, but I'm going to gamble and say 90% of consumers have never tried an AR/VR product, and most have no interest in doing so. Until that changes, any sort of XR platform is going to be a financial black hole.

Meta has shown interest and a willingness to lose money today so it can make more tomorrow. I like seeing a company trying that. Google is a different animal. If a product doesn't make money or further Google's business model of collecting information, it won't be around long.

Maybe I'm seeing it all wrong. I hope I'm seeing it all wrong. But Android XR is going to need to end up in a lot of hands to make it worthwhile to maintain, and I just can't see that happening. Google and Samsung aren't charities, after all.

If the product does end up getting scrapped, who knows what its next iteration will look like?

Google finally showed off Android 16 for the people who aren't trying a beta version of the upcoming OS, filled with UI changes and new animations.

There are reasons why this is smart and reasons why it might not be: it's polarizing, with many people already commenting about how they hate the changes. But it's also visual. You can't see the underlying change that allows for better network connections or safeguards against bad apps. You can see new colors, UI elements, and animations. Besides, a lot of people love them, too.

This year hits differently. There has been a lot of work on "morphing" the UI in a dynamic way; moving things around, rotating your phone, or opening more than one app on the screen all have a bit of special flair. You might love it or you might hate it, but it's there for everyone to see.

One thing that wasn't talked about a lot (yet) was a tablet. After the Android Show, Google's Dieter Bohn took a few minutes to show off some cool Android phones, but no tablets. Maybe Google has a lot more to say about them, but nothing worth putting front and center before the big developer conference kicks off.

I do think we'll hear more about tablets during I/O, but I'm almost positive we're going to hear a lot more about foldables. Something tells me that Google thinks foldables have a real shot at (finally) being the mainstream device that will change the mobile tech landscape. And let's be honest — hearing anything that's not all about AI would be nice.

It's hard for any company that makes Android devices to compete with Apple's iPad. That's by design; Apple made sure there was a device to hit every price point, and they come in sizes to suit everyone. If you've ever used one, you know the iPad is a solid device.

Something like the Galaxy Tab S is also a solid device, but it lacks the traction of the iPad. No flagship Android tablet goes head-to-head with an iPad. I dunno why, but it is what it is. People buy Android tablets because they either need something cheap for the kids or because they're entrenched in Samsung's ecosystem of products.

You can not buy a foldable phone that doesn't run Android. Dead stop. Some models from companies like Huawei aren't "official" but even if the name says something else it's based on Android. That's because anyone can download the code and do whatever they want with it. Apple will get on board soonish and make a foldable, but for now, anyone interested in a phone that flips or folds open only sees Android.

Google has to take advantage of this. I know we see and hear things every year about "large-form-factor" or multi-screen devices, but I think Android 16 is going to be different, and more than just talk.

Foldables do stand a chance to change everything, too. Right now, there are two issues with the category: price and durability. You may love them (I think the Moto Razr is one of the best phones I've ever had), but you can't deny they cost more and they're more fragile.

What I like to call the fragility factor gets better every year. You still have to have a plastic coating protecting an astonishingly thin layer of glass, and any deep scratch is going to bust everything to hell, but that's the nature of the beast. Designs now incorporate protections for the display surfaces, hinges are stronger and have less wiggle, and even the ugly crease is getting less prominent with every new release. A foldable will never be a tough phone you can use on a construction site, but they'll stand up to normal abuse a lot better than they used to.

Cost is also becoming less of a factor, albeit not as quickly as durability. Foldables, especially book-style devices like the Galaxy Z Fold or Pixel Fold, are expensive to design, full of expensive parts, and flat-out cost more. That's not going to change.

But consider this: you can buy a Galaxy S25 Ultra, a Galaxy Tab S10 Ultra, and a Samsung Galaxy Chromebook, or you can buy a future version of the Galaxy Z Fold that almost replaces all three. Yes, you're reading that right: Jerry is saying that there's a chance foldables replace not only phones and tablets but laptops and Chromebooks, too. Call me crazy.

Will that really happen? I dunno. You don't know either, and neither can Google or Samsung. But it could if the tech is built with this future in mind and the software makes a foldable something that "just works". Part of that is making it pleasant to use, seeing screen elements shape-shift when you open a display, or being able to adjust multiple apps to size them appropriately on a single screen. You know, just like a laptop.

I'm not ready to call the death of the tablet and will never say the laptop can be replaced by a phone. But I don't build consumer electronics or write software for them. I just use what works best for me. If one day, a foldable is what works best because Google finally took the category more seriously, I'd save a lot of cash and buy that one magic device.

Think about a phone that you know is coming but hasn't been announced just yet. Whether you're thinking of the Pixel 10, the Z Fold 7, or any other phone, one of the specifications you'll see people asking about is how fast it charges. Why?

The obvious answer is so we get more use out of it. We all know the battery isn't going to last the promised amount of time because it never does, and to keep using the phone we're going to need to charge the battery. If we can do that faster, we're able to do more.

But the real answer isn't as simple: it's the only way phone makers can address the problem right now. Monkeying around with a smarter charging circuit is easier — and cheaper — than fixing the root cause: we need batteries to get "better."

That means what you think it means and what you probably aren’t thinking of. Ideally, a phone manufacturer would find a way to build a device that looks good, is waterproof, and has a way to easily change the battery when it goes dead. That’s never going to happen, and maybe it shouldn’t — sealed “soft” batteries are safer and have higher capacity than older hard and removable batteries.

The next best solution would be a battery that's simply a lot bigger. We see these unicorn devices every once in a while, packing a battery that's big enough to last all day for everyone. Those devices are also usually thicker, so they're not proposed as the most premium flagship design from the manufacturer. Maybe they should be.

Finally, you have the battery technology itself. The types of batteries used in most phones today are designed to be high capacity compared to their small size, charge quickly, and are relatively long-lasting. They're good — way better than older stuff, and if you've been using battery-powered devices for a long time, you know it firsthand. But technology has improved, and it's possible to build a battery that's a lot better in the ways that matter. It's also more expensive.

The easy fix comes from companies that spend a little money to find ways to charge faster while still being safe. Thankfully, people haven't stopped looking into better ways to fix it all.

Developing better ways to manage power consumption and optimize charging is part of that. Faster charging is a good thing as long as the side effects (battery degradation and efficiency) are hit too hard. Current battery technology is also something companies are fiddling with, altering the liquid used inside of them and the materials used for the anode and cathode, and this can help.

Batteries in 2025 are a lot better than they were in 2015. That's good because the devices are also a lot more power-hungry than they were in 2015. But it does create a situation where it seems like battery development is stagnant. If you develop a battery that has double the density (ability to store a set amount of power), you can cut its size in half to get the same result. Companies don't want to build a phone that's a brick, and a battery that's physically smaller makes that easier.

One day, a company will build mainstream consumer devices that use something different. It might be a graphene-based battery, or use sodium instead of lithium, or even a solid-state battery. There are even companies exploring the use of nuclear power to build a battery that lasts 50 years once it's charged.

I am fascinated by all this, and I love to nerd out reading about advances in battery density and efficiency. I can't wait until we see technology like solid-state battery development for small devices that makes our current tech look terrible in comparison.

I also know that none of us wants to pay even more for a phone. They are already expensive, with some models hitting that $2,000 price point, so adding another $100 because of the R&D costs of a new battery type will never fly.

Unfortunately, faster charging is the best solution we have right now. It won't always be that way because EV companies will usher in some sort of new battery tech that lasts longer and isn't cost-prohibitive. Until then, we want to spend less time with a cord hanging off the end of our phone, so faster charging speeds are what we get.

As long as everything is done in a way that's safe, this isn't a problem, though in the long run, it does shorten the lifespan of the battery itself.

Google I/O is right around the corner, and if you're a tech fanatic, you're already waiting for all the cool things that it's going to bring, or at least talk about. Even if we never see them (remember Project Soli?), the ideas that come from Google's genius worker bees can be cool as heck.

But hearing them can also be a pain in the you-know-what. It's always been that way, and the reason has never changed — Google I/O is not for you and me.

Maybe I'm getting ahead of myself. If you're a software developer interested in Google's consumer products, or if you are interested in becoming one, then it is for you. If you're a regular Jane or Joe, like most of us, then it's a couple of days of talk about tokens and APIs with a tiny bit of interesting stuff sprinkled through.

It's my job to pay attention, and I still love to dabble with development, but even I get overwhelmed. Not that I'm some sort of tech Superman, but I am closer to the actual intended audience than most.

Don't worry though, because after all these years I have figured out exactly how to digest what's cool and different coming from Google's annual developer conference: don't pay a lot of attention to it.

Really, I'm serious. If you're a bit of a nerd, then the keynote and What's New in Android presentations can be fun to watch, but be prepared to hear about stuff like those tokens, limits, AI engines, and analytical training for most of the hour.

Let people like me, who are forced to watch and pay attention, do it. Then we tell you about it, without all the tech-nerd gobbly-goo. Anything cool will be all over your favorite tech websites; we'll be covering it extensively because it's what we at Android Central do best. We might even get a little nerdy from time to time (I forgive you if you don't read my I/O nerd articles).

When everything is said and done we will have a complete wrap-up of everything announced as well as the gems that get hidden in the individual sessions. So will other Android websites, or general tech sites like The Verge.

Read all of those. If it sounds cool, read it twice, even. Then, be prepared to never see any of it materialize so that when some of it does happen, it's a pleasant surprise. Cynical, but healthy.

Like I said earlier, Google I/O isn't for you. Really, even the stuff about what's coming in Android 16 isn't for you. On its surface, it is meant to get developers ready, but at its core, it's all done for the shareholders.

Like it or not, all businesses work this way, and Google isn't an exception. Every single decision has to start with "How does this affect share value?" or eventually there will be no decisions to make because there will be no Google to make them.

What Google has planned for its own Pixel phones is often cool as heck, and sometimes we even get to see some of it rub off on the software from other companies. If you really want to know about Android 16 for the Galaxy S25, for example, you should watch Samsung's developer conference.

Either way, hearing about it can be fun. Learning about it without sitting through the slog and trying to pay attention is even better.

The Department of Justice still wants Google to be forced to sell off Chrome and Android. The judge presiding over the latest antitrust case hasn't said much about it either way but some politicians seem to think it's the correct way to punish Google for the financial indiscretions it has committed. (Editor's note: are these considered crimes? Let me know what you think in the comments).

I don't think this is going to happen and my dad always used to tell me it's good to want things. Part of me wants to see Google smacked hard so it stops doing shady stuff, but the smarter part of me knows that there aren't really any companies that could maintain projects like Android or Chrome without being equally, or even more, shady. It's a good thing I'm not in charge of anything.

To make this thing even more of a spectacle, Yahoo! (never forget the !) has thrown its hat into the ring and stated that it too would like to "buy" Chrome should Google be forced to sell. I'll give you a moment to remember who Yahoo is and to stop laughing.

Yahoo has become the quintessential tech failure story. Believe it or not, at one time Yahoo had the power over the web that Google currently has; huge market share, investors and potential partners climbing over each other to grab a bite, and a seemingly endless potential. We saw how that turned out.

Today Yahoo is a shell of its former self and even the execs at the company are aware of it. One of the big reasons, in its own estimation, is that it lacks any sort of first-party web browser. Well, OK, a real web browser: Yahoo's real owner, Apollo Global Management, happens to also own NetScape. You might have heard of it.

I get its reasoning, 100%. You might, too, even if you don't know you get it. It has to do with the way web searches are done.

You can open up a web browser, go to Google.com, and type a search into the box in the center of the screen. Millions of people do just that every hour.

You can also open up a web browser (most of them, anyway) and just type in your search.

Both get the same results from the same place, one way just saved you some typing and page loading. Yahoo knows how important this is and is said to be actively developing its own browser anyway. I'd bet money that it will be a Chromium-based browser like most others, too. At least I hope Yahoo doesn't think it can reinvent the wheel.

Is this good or bad? I'll answer with another question: Can it be both?

Apollo Media Group owns a bunch of stuff from Norwegian Cruise Lines to web/cloud security provider and hosting company Rackspace. It has the money that would be needed to maintain the Chrome project.

It would also most likely shape Chrome's future to its own benefit. At least I would expect that to happen should Chrome fall under its umbrella.

This highlights the real problem corporations that probably shouldn't have so much control over the web, like Amazon, Microsoft, Apple, or Google, are the ones with the financial means to lose money year after year building Chrome and its software ecosystem.

Companies that should be in charge, like Mozilla or Duck Duck Go, can't afford it. Don't get me started on companies like Perplexity or OpenAI having any sort of control over anything more important than a TV remote. It's bad enough seeing Google holding it.

Yahoo needs Chrome but it most certainly doesn't need it to be affiliated with Google. Google needs Chrome because it likes money, and some people say it uses Chrome to extort even more of it away from the competition. We need Chrome, but we don't need it to be affiliated with any web search platform.

I have no idea what will happen and as I've said, I don't think an American judge would ever force an American company to sell off an American asset, especially in the current political and financial climate. And yes, I know that America is more than the United States and you know what I mean.

I just thought seeing Yahoo jump into the mix was worth thinking and talking about for at least a few minutes.

I'm going to let you in on a big secret: I dislike a big part of my job.

Okay, so that's a secret most people can relate to, but for the past 15 or so years, I've worked for a technology publication and find it hard to be excited about phones. To me, they're just a phone, a vehicle for elaborate software, and a way to communicate with the people in your life. Okay, maybe have a little fun, too. I'm not dead inside.

It's not like I hate phones or other assorted tech stuff. I'm just not very passionate about them. I will talk your ear off about things like aquariums, antique cars, or woodworking. I'm very keen on electronics, too, just not the already-built ones.

Anyone who has ever worked with me can tell you that I do hate reviewing phones. I was never particularly good at it, having an eye that was a bit too critical, and I found myself unable to trust anything the manufacturer said about the product. I forced myself to be as objective as I could, not recommending products because I liked them, but because you might. I was there to let you know whether or not they worked as advertised.

Thankfully, my days of a new phone every few weeks and constantly testing things I'm not really interested in are mostly done. I'm happy to let those who are skilled at doing it have all the "fun," and I'll be available for emergencies that, thankfully, rarely happen.

I do want to say that sometimes, I do want to have a look at something. The HMD Skyline was a great example. I'm often interested in a particular thing, such as HMD's new repairability build techniques. I do make it clear why I like or dislike it, and tend to editorialize my product reviews. Better than not being honest about it, right?

Anyhoo, I paid my own money for the phone I'm using now (the Motorola Razr 2024) and haven't had to go through the hassle of setting anything else up and actually using it every day for about a year now. I love it; both the phone and not having to think about how to do anything with it.

I bought the Razr because I tried the Galaxy Flip 6. Yeah, that sounds a little crazy, but I found that a phone that folds up into a small package made my life easier — there isn't a lot of room in your pockets when you're navigating a wheelchair all day.

I went with Motorola, despite its horrible track record with taking care of its customers by supporting its products, because there seemed to be more potential with the small front display. It does everything I need, and you know what? It does it really well. Unless something that seems better comes along, my next phone will probably be the same; here's hoping it lasts until at least 2026.

So, I spent a lot of words talking about what I don't like, but I love my job. That's because it's morphed into working with and writing about the things I am passionate about: software, platforms, and policy.

To me, software is elegant (or should be) and useful, even if it is constrained in a plastic and glass shell. The screen only exists to showcase the software, features are there to add value when they can, and the jumble of code and math is what makes a tech product like a phone wonderful.

I hold the companies that make them, including (and especially) Google, to the highest standards; ones they will likely be unable to meet. To me, that implies they should be working harder to improve what the user experiences.

Their philosophy needs to shine through their products; Apple needs to build pretty yet simple products that are easy to use but also can be powerful if that's what you want. Google needs to set an example as the tender of Android; show how to make the software shine and how to deal with the inevitable bugs that will happen. Samsung needs to keep finding ways to give consumers what they want this week, being willing to switch gears when necessary.

Other companies need to constantly try to find that one thing that sets them apart.

All this ties together through each corporation's culture and policy. Often, government policy will intertwine and help shape or force the situation. I find all of this fascinating, and even when I'm not working, I'll spend at least a few hours on the internet reading what others are seeing and thinking about it all.

In the end. I'm lucky to have a full-time gig that I enjoy doing, even if I did have to monkey with phones far too often to get where I am today.

Typically, I spend my Saturday morning writing about Android or Google or just the gadgets we all use and love, but this week I'm talking about Apple.

Not really, but Apple is at the forefront and under the spotlight because it's trying to do the right thing for its customers, or at least what it is sure is the right thing. What's important isn't that it's Apple doing it, but that a company with enough money to fight is taking on the might of the U.K. government because it thinks the cause is worthwhile.

What are you talking about, Jerry?

In late February of this year, Apple announced that it "can no longer offer Advanced Data Protection in the United Kingdom to new users." the company gives us a good rundown on what this means on its website if you're more curious (you should be), but the jist of it is that the U.K. now requires Apple to provide access to encrypted iCloud data for anyone using it in the country. Rather than comply, Apple cut off millions of users.

It's important to note that this is only directed at Apple, at least for now. Google, Meta, Microsoft, and the rest of the big tech companies aren't affected. They probably will be soon enough.

This seems like a bad call and feels a little unfair to U.K. customers, but it's neither. In fact, you could say it's the opposite and Apple is doing what's best; this is what I happen to think, though I'm saying it as an outsider who doesn't live in the U.K. or use Apple products like iCloud.

Apple and its trillion-dollar trust fund are taking the fight to the courts and have officially filed a claim against the British Home Department's Secretary of State.

Granting a backdoor to the government is a terrible idea, even though it may help in certain situations. Most importantly, Apple has long promised to never do it and is sticking to its guns for the time being.

It's also very important to note that the official U.S. response probably wasn't what you thought it might be. Officials in Washington don't like the idea of a backdoor for the U.K. government very much, stating it has "grave concerns" about requiring a company to create a backdoor that would allow access to any American's encrypted data, calling it a violation of privacy and civil liberties. There was no cheering from D.C., surprisingly.

This should matter to you, even if you think that authorities should have a way to access encrypted data through proper channels. And I do understand why people feel that way and realize that serious crimes and acts of terror could be investigated, maybe even prevented, by doing it.

These high-profile cases can't be the litmus test, though. For every international drug cartel or terror cell disrupted because the "right" people could look at the "right" data, how many times will this privilege be abused?

A little old grandmother who lives in Georgia getting busted because she grows weed to help with her glaucoma is subject to the same scrutiny as the next Pablo Escobar is. That means you are, too. People doing the investigating are just people and will sometimes take the easy route. Digging through a full backup of all your phone data is pretty damn easy.

I have no idea if Apple will prevail, and can't even offer a prediction. What I do know is that if this stands, other companies in other countries will become targets of the same types of laws and, in the words of the U.S. Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, our civil liberties are subject to violation.

It looks like Google is doing it again, and of course, it's all about AI.

The company's Google Cloud hosting program is reportedly facilitating a hare-brained scheme to use AI to catch "mules" and smugglers on the southern U.S. border. While Google's own AI services aren't being used, it's right in the thick of things where all the money is.

Google should know better.

What's going on here?

I'll start with a short explainer for people who aren't in the U.S. and might wonder what all this fuss is about.

People coming illegally into the U.S. across the southern border is one of the most polarizing issues in the United States. Half the country hates it, and half of those people hate even the legal immigration of people from another culture. The other half knows it's a problem but hates the first half of the people enough to pretend it's not. Yeah, it's stupid, but it is what it is.

With that out of the way, here's what's happening and how Google is reportedly involved. According to The Intercept, U.S. Customs and Border Protection plans to revamp some old surveillance towers around Tucson, Arizona.

They want to install equipment that will use AI to identify every person and vehicle that approaches the border. That's OK, and even my cheap-ass Nest camera can do it. But — there's always a but — they want to use IBM's Maximo inspection software, which is usually put in factory machines to do quality control inspections, to ferret out people with backpacks or otherwise look like they want to do some crimes or something.

Google (and Amazon, of course) is allegedly facilitating this by providing hosting services for data streams and tools to train AI. There is surely a lot of money involved, and Google is thirsty for it.

A few years ago, Thomas Kurian, Google Cloud CEO, said the company wasn't going to do anything to help create a "virtual border wall," but that was then, and this is now. Android Central has reached out to Google for a comment on its involvement with the project and will update this article when we hear back.

But let's be clear: Google is not providing any of its own AI tools to make any of this happen, so even if it is involved, it's not directly being evil. It's just profiting from it.

Google knows better

You might be asking, "Jerry, why is protecting the border something evil?" It's not. It's 100% definitely not evil in any way, shape, or form. A country needs to be able to control how people come in and out and what they carry through. I'm not part of the half who hate the other half enough to hide my head in the sand.

But there is a right way and a wrong way. First, you can't dehumanize people who just want a better life. This is the biggest point of contention among the U.S. populace, and you have to admit the current political administration has said and done some pretty dehumanizing things.

Doing anything to help here is a bad PR move for any company, let alone one the size of Google. The optics of this are terrible, and most of the people working for Google and using its products aren't going to like it. Best of all, internet tech websites will make sure everyone knows about it; it's what we do best.

It's probably not going to work, because AI

The other issue is that Google knows this isn't going to work but is probably still salivating to get involved and collect a huge amount of taxpayer money for hosting services. Sure, it doesn't have to be responsible for the problems and directly do evil shit, but it gets to sit back and watch, pass Go, and collect their money.

AI can be trained to find people wearing backpacks. That's probably simple to do; tedious and time-consuming, but training an AI for this is possible right now. Then what?

You aren't naive enough to think some bad stuff isn't going to happen to anyone targeted by an AI super-robo-border-camera. Google definitely isn't. Google uses AI to monitor YouTube (along with other things), and even that is a bona fide mess that Google can't control. If AI can't learn to spot what is copyright protected and what isn't, it's not good enough to do anything to a human being.

The best thing that could happen is that a truck filled with real human agents intercept the target. I won't speculate on the worst-case scenario. Still, bad guy will be caught. Innocent people will also be caught.

I wouldn't go hunting or backpacking around Tucson if I were you.

Assuming Google really is involved, it isn't really in the wrong and is simply fulfilling another government cloud hosting contract. It's just one that's tied to a deeply politically dividing issue, and the company should know better.

It would be the same if Google were to develop an online repository to help register and track every gun in America: half the country would go crazy, and the other half would say it's great. It's not great — it's stupid, and there are plenty of different ways to get that government money.

Let's do an experiment: look at your bank and credit card statements and tally up all the subscriptions you pay for every month or every year.

I recently did just that, and I hated what I saw. I knew I was paying for all this... stuff, but once I saw it all at the same time, I realized how much it costs and started thinking about all the other things I could do with that money, like pay bills or buy gas.

I saw subscriptions for services from Amazon, Apple, Google, Microsoft, Netflix, HBO, Nintendo, Sony, a handful of websites, and more. It made me start looking at what I really used versus what I'm paying for without realizing it.

You might be in the same boat as me. It happens easy enough; you decide you can afford to pay $10 a month for something without straining your budget but all those things add up. I'm shelling out a car payment's worth of cash every month for things I shouldn't.

It's also not going to stop because companies know they can sucker us into paying them hundreds of times instead of just once. They claim it makes things convenient and easy, but that is often a lie. So is the nonsense about having limitless content to enjoy.

For the amount of money I pay Tidal or Sony every month to get a catalog filled with things I'm not interested in, I could have bought what I wanted and still saved money. I'd also own it, sort of: you never really own music of movies or software, thanks to licensing and other bull.

I know I sound like some angry old man telling all the youths to get off my grass. While that may be true (Mrs. Hildenbrand says it's totally true), it doesn't change anything. Companies want us to give them money for things, then try to find ways to charge us even more money to use those things. We see new subscription services pop up every month; even Garmin wants in on the dirty action now.

It shows you how little you matter to them; you're naught but a dairy cow to be milked until you're dry, then off to the glue factory. I never thought Google, for example, loved me as a person, but the way the company tries to nickel and dime me every month is sickening. It should be illegal somehow.

I'm putting a stop to it. I've made a list of who is reaching into my pockets every month and cutting off all the hands doing it. Prime is paid for until July; then it's done. Media streamers like Netflix and Tidal are gone. I don't even remember why I started paying for Apple TV, but old man Cook can find someone else to rob.

The list goes on and on, and unless I have a use for it, I'm nixing it. It's bad enough paying for utilities and insurance, let alone paying for access to the hottest new jazz quartet's debut album that I'll never listen to.

That doesn't mean it's all bad; I get useful services from some subscriptions. For example, I could set up a firewall and a dedicated storage server, connect it to the internet, and build my own universal storage system. I tried that and hated it, so I just pay Google for it.

Likewise, I prefer skipping ads on YouTube because I hate ads even more than I hate spending money. However, if creators keep putting sponsor segments into every video, my viewing habits are going to change, and I won't need to skip ads because I'll stop opening the app altogether.

The only thing this is going to change is what I have access to. No company cares about one person becoming sick of their shit and canceling everything. No company cares if I won't buy their product because they want me to pay extra every month to fully use it. But they would if enough of us did it.

I'm not going to start some "power to the people" manifesto or anything here. I am going to suggest you look into what you spend every month to rent things you could be buying, decide which ones you really use, and tell everyone else to hit the road.

If enough of us do it, things might even change.

In the beginning, there was Palm. Or Windows. Or Nokia. Or BlackBerry. Anyway, then came Apple.

The iPhone quickly became the industry standard for smartphones. Without offering any amazing new features, it captivated consumers in a way the existing offerings just couldn't. I spent far too much and chained myself to AT&T to get one, and there's a good chance you did, too.

This did not last. Someone at Google had the idea to try and make the smartphone more accessible to people who didn't want to or simply couldn't spend an arm and a leg with Android, and everything changed. Today, depending on the exact time of year, eight of every 10 new phones sold are powered by Android, but Apple makes more money than almost every other phone maker combined.

We're about to see this happen all over again with wearables. In fact, it has already begun. Last year wasn't a great year for wearable sales (or any other goods, it seems), but it was a particularly bad year for Apple.

That doesn't mean Apple lost money, but it does mean the company saw its share of the market fall while competitor sales increased ever-so-slightly. Nor does it mean that Apple's watchOS and the Apple Watch aren't a smashing success because the company surely made more pure profit for each watch sold than any other company could dream of doing.

Again, this is exactly what happened with the smartphone. Very few people bought the first Android phones. Then Motorola and HTC made some headway (with the help of U.S. carriers), and the gap narrowed until places were switched. Somehow, Apple still makes more money, even today, thanks to a supernatural manipulation of the supply chain and the idea that Android phones are for "poor" people in North America.

This is how wearables are going to play out, too. The Apple Watch is yet another product Apple makes obscene amounts of profit per unit because it's good at business, and people in the U.S., Canada, and a few enclaves around the world will rush out to buy another one the minute it's available. Basic math tells you selling 100 things and making $10 for every one of them is more than selling 200 things and only making $2 from each.

None of that matters to me, and none of it should matter to you. I want to love a wearable but have a hard time doing it, and when I do wear one, it runs Garmin's goofy proprietary software, not Wear OS or watchOS. It's the one I like more than the others, and what you like is never going to matter to me. You need to do the very same thing and use whatever you like without caring what I think or which company makes more money.

It's also just the way both Apple and Google like it. One company wants numbers sold while the other wants profits per. Of course, Apple loved selling more watches than Samsung, but it loves the bottom line just as much.

This all weirdly makes sense. If you have 30 companies each selling a good product that people want, collectively, they will sell more than a single company that sells a similar, yet different, product. Wear OS, like Android, is a commodity like corn or crude oil that other companies use to create their own product. WatchOS is not and only available for the Apple Watch. A company trying to do it alone will never be the market leader when it comes to sales.

As long as Apple can capture customers in its reality distortion field and keep them buying expensive products and accessories to use with them, it will do just fine. Marketing is an incredible tool and Apple is the master at wielding it.

Enjoy your smartwatch, no matter who makes it.

The GSMA has announced that the latest specifications for RCS include support for end-to-end encryption using the MLS (message layer security) protocol.

This is great news for a sizeable chunk of users in North America, where carrier-based messaging like SMS or RCS is commonly used, and even in places where few people use it. Knowing that the messages are encrypted is important.

Note that nothing is in place just yet, but the capability is there for Google and Apple to implement. In separate statements to the Verge, both companies have stressed that they plan to implement the changes in the near future.

This is important, probably more important than we realize. After RCS was implemented for the iPhone without any sort of encryption layer, the governments of the U.S., Canada, Australia, and New Zealand issued a joint bulletin warning us not to use it and send messages using an encrypted service like WhatsApp instead. those sorts of statements don't come lightly.

Once these changes are properly implemented by Apple and Google, we can return to one app without worry if that's what we like. Or maybe the universal appeal of something like WhatsApp will have won us over. Either way, both companies will stay hard at work, telling you why their service is superior and why the other is sub-par.

That's because this was never about encryption, or even RCS, for Apple and Google. It was about locking you in with their platform.

We don't need email evidence discovered at a trial to know this, but we have it, and it pretty much says that Apple (in this case) will do whatever it takes to use iMessage to keep people from buying an Android. Google will do the same; its messaging service doesn't offer anything you couldn't find on an iPhone, but there are plenty of other software services Google offers to try and convince you to stay.

Staying is important for both companies. Apple is a business that makes money from selling you goods and services. What it offers is so well-regarded that it can charge too much, and people are still willing to buy it. You get what you pay for and all that.

Google doesn't charge for Android, but Android is a pathway to your eyeballs. Google services on an Android phone are a big part of Google's core business model, and the more people they can garner, the more money they stand to make.

For both companies, numbers are important to the bottom line.

The real question is, what will Apple and Google bake into their respective messaging apps to fan the flames now that encryption isn't the issue? This could mean some awesome new features that integrate messaging with other apps and services, or it could mean something nobody seems to appreciate, like a new set of stickers.

Tight integration with a service like YouTube could make for an interesting messages app as long as it's done well — and you're able to opt out. Messages could be a reimagined Google Plus that people actually want to use.

Apple, too, can find new ways to integrate its new AI services with iMessage, and iOS users will flock to try it. If it works well, they'll keep using it.

One thing is certain: neither company is going to give up on trying to tell you why you want and need to use its stuff or how the other is behind the times.

I'm an Android nerd, but it wasn't always that way. If you climb into the Wayback Machine with me, you'll find me using a cheap-feeling, work-provided BlackBerry. When I switched jobs and didn't get to carry one around, I went out and bought one.

It was a device ahead of its time, and I was hooked. When Android came out, I also bought a T-Mobile G1 and carried two phones around for a while because my BlackBerry Curve was just ... better. They weren't built better; they weren't faster or more efficient, and there were no amazing games. However, BlackBerry was the king of communicating with people because of that keyboard.

Android eventually caught up in its own way, and I stopped using my trusty old BlackBerry. I did flirt with the marriage of the two with the BlackBerry Priv and KEY2 (such great phones) but had to move on and experience the newer offerings from other companies. That doesn't mean I don't miss that small screen/physical keyboard experience, though, and the new Clicks Keyboard for Android might be the best way to return to what I love.

Before I go any further, I need to mention that I have a personal relationship with Michael Fisher (Mr. Mobile) and Kevin Michaluk (CrackBerry Kevin), the founders of Clicks. That's not why I want one for my Motorola Razr, though, and I haven't even asked for an early model, so I have to wait until May.

This is also not a sponsored post, and I do not roll that way; I would never do business with people I know, no matter how much I want their product.

This is just Jerry being a fanboy about a new product. I want one because I think it's so damn cool and might let me use my phone the way I love to use my phone. At least, I hope it will.

I'm not a big accessories guy. I know that's a bit strange coming from a person who works at a place that tells you about and recommends the best accessories for your phone. I don't even use a case or a screen protector. If you told me I would be excited about a phone case last week, I would have chuckled. I did think the initial Clicks cases were cool, but they were only made for iPhones, which I never plan on buying.

That's changed now that Clicks announced it is making them for real phones, such as Android phones, the Galaxy S25, the Pixel 9 and 9 Pro, and the 2024 Razr Plus. And yes, it works for the Razr "Minus," according to Clicks' website. I'm all in now.

A physical keyboard is a fast way to polarize Android users. There seems to be no middle ground; you either love them or you think they are stupid, clunky, and old-fashioned. That's a great thing because everyone should figure out what they like and don't like. If you haven't guessed already, I'm in the "love them" camp.

I think it's because of the way I use my phone. To me, my phone is the best way to communicate with the people I care about. I message friends and family on three different continents, and to me, the smartphone was the best invention of the 20th century.

I know I can use Gboard to do everything I could do (and more) with a physical keyboard because I'm doing it now. Or I could install another keyboard if I wanted. Trust me when I tell you it's not the same and never can be. That tactile feel of a key under your thumb is something the advancements in haptic feedback will never be able to replicate.

A Clicks keyboard case on my Moto Razr will also get me to use the front screen more. Right now, it's just a way to see the time and the weather because I'm not going to try using an app on that small screen with my fingers. I know I can do a lot more, but I can't do a lot more. A keyboard extension can change that, and my Razr may turn into the modern-day equivalent of my BlackBerry Curve, running much better software. And if I need the bigger screen, I can flip that sucker open and do whatever I need to do. Heck, even I play games on my phone sometimes.

Most of the two billion Android users aren't going to care or be interested in what Clicks is offering, though I hope the company does well enough to offer the case for even more Android phones. That includes the Pixel 8a because my wife was a BlackBerry fan too, and she loves her little green Pixel.

Now I have to play the waiting game until my order ships. I hope it lives up to my unrealistic expectations or at least brings me closer to what I really want.

A Samsung EVP (Executive Vice President) has pretty much confirmed that the Galaxy S24 will miss out on multiple One UI 7 (Android 15) features because they are designated as "hardware reliant." You shouldn't be surprised about this. Disappointed, maybe, but not surprised.

This highlights something most people aren't thinking about — a company can support a phone for seven years, but it can't make newer features work on older hardware every time. Seven years of updates doesn't really mean what you think it means.

This is not a bad thing, even if it feels like a bad thing. Samsung explains that many of the AI features depend on what Samsung calls the Personal Data Engine and that engine isn't supported on older chips; it needs the Snapdragon 8 Elite in order to work properly.

We'll see more of this as Agentic, or "thinking" AI features, are developed, and you should expect to see some features on the Galaxy S26 that will not come to the S25. And that's OK.

You should not buy a phone because you expect something in the future. A phone should do everything it is advertised to do, be mostly bug-free, and be supported to do those things as long as possible. Having seven years of support means your phone will probably outlast your battery.

This isn't a Samsung thing. It's not even an Android thing. We're seeing the exact same from Google with the Pixel series and there will be multiple features that can't be used on the older hardware. The iPhone is the same, with iOS features becoming more hardware-dependent as AI is further integrated into the operating system.

I love this. You might not, and we can disagree, but knowing that a phone I buy in 2025 will still be supported and perform as expected in 2030 is excellent. I do not expect any new features and the ones that are developed are a bonus. Hopefully, any new features work as they should.

Phones are at a point where hardware is only a limiting factor when companies leverage those small incremental features they bring. Even more so when a company develops its own chip — either a full SoC package or custom coprocessors — that have a specific use.

Apple is a great example — the A16 Bionic inside the iPhone 15 is as powerful as the chip that powers a typical laptop. It should be able to handle anything iOS has to offer. It's limited when it comes to AI because Apple dedicated parts of the newer chip to perform these functions.

The Snapdragon or Tensor chip isn't nearly as powerful when it comes to raw processing, but they are more than a CPU, and parts of the chipset are doing very specific things. These parts just aren't inside older phones.

Forcing new features to work with "inferior" hardware would only make the features worse. Engineers love to develop new stuff and want everyone to use it, and phone makers love to lock new features behind the purchase of a new phone, but the reality is that sometimes there are real reasons why an older model can't do what it needs to do.

What's really important is that phone manufacturers are beginning to realize (or care) that we don't need to buy a new phone every year or even every two years. Some of us don't want to. I doubt very many people will use the same phone for seven years — even I would upgrade before then — but knowing that you could is awesome.

Now, we just need every phone maker to get on board and provide customer service as long as Samsung, Google, and Apple do, even if it means some of the new flashy stuff won't be included.

Google quietly became more evil this past week.

The company has changed its promise of AI responsibility and no longer promises not to develop AI for use in dangerous tech. Prior versions of Google's AI Principles promised the company wouldn't develop AI for "weapons or other technologies whose principal purpose or implementation is to cause or directly facilitate injury to people" or "technologies that gather or use information for surveillance violating internationally accepted norms." Those promises are now gone.

If you're not great at deciphering technobabble public relations pseudo-languages, that means making AI for weapons and spy "stuff." It suggests that Google is willing to develop or aid in the development of software that could be used for war. Instead of Gemini just drawing pictures of AI-powered death robots, it could essentially be used to help build them.

This is a slow but steady change from just a few years ago. In 2018, the company declined to renew the "Project Maven" contract with the government, which analyzed drone surveillance, and failed to bid on a cloud contract for the Pentagon because it wasn't sure these could align with the company's AI principles and ethics.

Then in 2022, it was discovered that Google's participation in "Project Nimbus" gave some executives at the company concerns that “Google Cloud services could be used for, or linked to, the facilitation of human rights violations.” Google's response was to force employees to stop discussing political conflicts like the one in Palestine.

That didn't go well, leading to protests, mass layoffs, and further policy changes. In 2025, Google isn't shying away from the warfare potential of its cloud AI.

This isn't too surprising. There's plenty of money to be made working for the Department of Defense or the Pentagon, and executives and shareholders really like plenty of money. However, there's also the more sinister thought that we're in an AI arms race and have to win it.

Demis Hassabis, CEO of Google DeepMind, says in a blog post that "democracies should lead in AI development." That's not a dangerous idea — until you read it alongside comments like Palantir CTO Shyam Sankar's, who says that an AI arms race must be a "whole-of-nation effort that extends well beyond the DoD in order for us as a nation to win."

These ideas can bring us to the brink of World War III. A winner-take-all AI arms race between the U.S. and China seems only good for the well-protected leaders of the winning side.

We all knew that AI would eventually be used this way. While joking about the Rise of the Machines, we were half-serious, knowing that there is a real possibility that AI could turn into some kind of super soldier that never needs to sleep or eat, only stopping to change its battery and fill its ammunition reserves. What is a video game idea today can become a reality in the future.

And there isn't a damn thing we can do about it. We could stop using all of Google's (and Nvidia's, Tesla's, Amazon's, and Microsoft's ... you get the idea) products and services as a way to protest and force a change. That might have an impact, but it's not a solution. If Google stops doing it, another company will take its place and hire the same people because they can offer more money. Or Google could simply stop making consumer products and have more time to work on very lucrative DoD contracts.

Technology should make the world a better place — that's what we are promised. Nobody ever talks about the evils and carnage it also enables. Let's hope someone in charge likes the betterment of mankind more than the money.

You'll soon be seeing a bunch of full online reviews for the Galaxy S25 from both pro reviewers and users who paid their own money for it. Chances are, most of them are going to tell you how great the thing is and that it is totally worth the money. Reviews are like that; it's not a knock on anyone who writes them or implying anything inappropriate, it's just that we like new things, especially when they are better than the things they're designed to replace.

I'm not going to be reviewing a Galaxy S25. I hate reviewing phones, and I'm terrible at it, so my constant complaining about them has finally borne fruit, and I don't get tasked with writing them now. Never let it be said that complaining over and over can't be effective. I am, however, going to tell you that no matter how great the S25 seems to be, I'd wait until next year to buy one.

I'm not saying you shouldn't buy one, so the pitchforks can be put away. I am saying that there are some good reasons to hold off on buying any new phone, and one that has this many new changes and features is definitely one you could wait on picking up.

I hate buying a new phone. I hate setting up a million things on a new phone, I hate it when apps don't keep track of their associated data and start up empty, and I especially hate opening my dusty wallet and spending money. That's why I love that phone makers support their products longer and longer — it means I can wait.

It didn't used to be that way. I bought every new phone that tickled my fancy and never thought about a reason not to do so. That taught me a very important lesson — every new smartphone will have bugs. Some phones, namely anything chock full of new features, will be riddled with them.

I'm talking about both hardware and software bugs. Just because a new phone looks like the old model doesn't mean everything under the screen hasn't been changed. New phones get new hardware, and that means they have to make the changes to allow the software to work with it all.

The worst offenders, by a longshot, were always Google's own phones. Nexus phones and the entire Pixel line all launched with a list of issues because they are a testbed for new features and new ways to use cheap hardware. Google should be the company doing this; it needs to experiment with ways to use and develop the platform, but putting a retail, consumer-grade label on testbed phones means a lot of people will see a lot of issues.

The Galaxy S25 is Samsung's Pixel phone. It's the beginning of completely integrating AI into every facet of the experience, not just the user-facing features, using new hardware to do it. The new Samsung-custom Snapdragon paired with a new AI accelerator is going to require plenty of software tweaking, and the user-facing software is never going to be completely finished. It will keep changing and improving until the phone reaches its end-of-life for support, only to be replaced with a new model that will be the same.

You might love this idea. I can relate — I used to feel the same back when I wanted to try and tweak everything in ways that broke warranties and circumvented corporate restrictions. Now, I'm not worried about trying new exploits to see if I can find a way to root a Snapdragon phone or break bootloader security. I don't see the need like I used to so I pass that torch to others and happily watch them try and fail, knowing they love doing it. The joy is in trying, just as much as succeeding.

Regular users (like I've become) just want everything to work. Hopefully, it will be as good as promised or even better, but at least perform in a way that isn't disruptive. The S25 will probably do just that — I don't expect any actual problems with the device that would cause you to stop using it.

The Galaxy S24 is that way, too. I can get that near-excellent level of use without shelling out another $1,000. Next year, when they are half-price, would be the time I would look at buying an S25.

The Galaxy S25 is yet another product from the Korean tech giant that has access to some features from Google that other phones don't yet have. It's not the first time this has happened; we've seen it in previous Galaxy phone launches, and even the "new" Wear OS seems completely like a Samsung/Google joint effort. The partnership between the two has never been stronger.

I've seen a few people claim that this is ruining Android. I disagree and think, if anything, this is less of a partnership and more like Google exploiting Samsung because Samsung allows it.

I'm not talking about any sort of internet slap-fighting between overzealous but misguided brand loyalists. Samsung didn't sell bad displays to other companies or purposely sell exploding batteries to ruin the reputation of the Android ecosystem. Frankly, that kind of thinking shows a person has no idea how the smartphone industry even works, and I stay away from it all. OnePlus sold millions of phones and a handful of them using Samsung displays had a green line. Samsung sold millions of Note 7s, and 10 or so had critical battery issues, prompting a recall. Nothing was intentional.

What I'm talking about and where much of the discussion about Android's ruined reputation stems from how closely the two companies seem to work together to give Samsung first access, or even exclusive access, to Google features.

This is a change to how Android started. Having one company able to get Google software when other companies can't is a slap in the face of Android's "open" days. There was a time when Motorola and HTC were atop the Android mountain and Samsung would have been displeased if Google gave either exclusive access to features. Rightly so, thus I realize that to some people this change has ruined Android.

The thing is that Android was never really open and this isn't Samsung's doing. Blame Google if you need to point the finger.

The Google/Samsung relationship isn't equal, and that is Samsung's fault. Samsung depends on Google for the software that powers most of its mobile products and has given up trying to change that. Devices that ran Bada and Tizen were not good and had miserable sales numbers compared to any of Samsung's more recent Android-powered devices. They were Samsung's own, though, and I wish active development and products using them were still around. Competition is good, ya know?

Google seems to consider Samsung its own personal marketing division and product showcase department to me. Google didn't allow Samsung to have so many Pixel-esque AI features on the S25 because it wanted to help Samsung. It does it because it knows Samsung can sell hundreds of millions of phones every year, and it wants people to have access to these features so it can collect more data. As long as Google stays in control, it doesn't care that people think Gemini is a Samsung product. It cares that more people are using it.

Google does this by having two different Androids. There is the Android Open Source Project that you or I can download and use on whatever device we like, making any changes we want as long as the open-source licenses are honored. Then there is the locked-down version of actual Android (yes, the name itself is trademarked) that Google controls with a tight grip. Licensing and platform access agreements mean if your company wants to sell a phone running Android with access to any of Google's software, you will toe their line.

This is the Android that Google uses like a carrot on a stick for device manufacturers. What Google does here is extremely distasteful to me, but it means companies like Samsung or OnePlus don't have to develop their own equivalent. Even though they probably could. If Amazon can do it, Samsung can do it.

Samsung has grown dependent on Google. Some fragments show what Samsung could do, like Good Lock. It seems likely Google forces Samsung to prevent the integration of Good Lock into OneUI, saying it would create some software fork, and that means you have to go to the Galaxy Store and install it like an app.

Simply put, if you believe that Google and Samsung are working together to create exclusivity, you're probably right. It's a change from the Android of yesteryear, and you might think it's ruining things — some people dislike change.

Don't blame Samsung for it because it's 100% Google's doing.

Galaxy Unpacked is right around the corner and we expect to see Samsung show us the goodies it will have for sale in the coming year. We know the Galaxy S25 is coming, and that usually means three models ranging from regular to Ultra, but there are also some other variants said to be locked behind some Samsung secret vault.

One of them is a Galaxy S25 Slim. It appears to be a "regular"-sized Galaxy S25 that's been put on a diet to slim down even more than the already slim Galaxy S25. What? Why?

A phone is actually a very personal item. It's part fashion choice, part utility, and part comfort. You want a phone that is easy to use, does the things you need it to do, and looks good. We all do.

With Android, there are thousands of different phones to choose from, so you can find the one that's best for you. I want something easy to carry, cheap, and great at the things I call "smartphone basics," like messaging, email, and organization. I chose a Motorola Razr 2024 and am completely satisfied with it.

You may want something to play games, has a ton of storage, or comes with a stylus. Go for the Galaxy S25 Ultra and never look back.

Both of us will find what we need.

I'm sure there are people out there who think 7mm is too thick and want a slimmer phone. I don't know why, but I know those people exist. What I am sure of is that even those people aren't willing to make the compromises to get it with the current state of phone-making technology and they will realize it once they buy into it.

Until things are miniaturized even more, you have to sacrifice two very important things to get a phone extra slim: battery capacity and durability. Both those things are pretty important.

Samsung will probably be able to decrease the camera bump with its new prism/lens tech; it places the lenses on the prism instead of in a separate space, making the whole thing shorter, and it is a pretty big deal we will see other phone makers use.

But that's not going to shave off the thickness of the phone itself. You need room to sandwich a screen assembly, a mainboard, and a battery inside the frame. Current tech isn't going to allow for a thinner screen combo or a thinner board so that means the only thing that can be made smaller is the battery. Smaller batteries mean less time away from the charger.

There are a million excuses why less battery capacity is fine. It charges really fast or you can carry around a battery pack are examples. I'm here to tell you that those excuses stink and you shouldn't believe them because I used a Pixel 4 for a year. It was a great phone in almost every way — but the battery life sucked. Really sucked.

A slim phone will also be more fragile and have fewer means of cooling things down. You need room to move heat away from the processor package, and a thinner metal frame isn't as robust as a thicker one. Bendgate II, anyone?

In the end, it may not matter because the Galaxy S25 Slim is nothing more than a render. So far. If it is locked away at Samsung HQ waiting to be foisted on the buying public sometime later this year, think long and hard about the trade-off that comes with shaving a few millimeters off a modern smartphone.

Samsung is possibly expanding its Galaxy AI Subscription Club to its flagship Galaxy phones in South Korea next month, according to ET News. The two words to pay close attention to in that sentence are possibly and Korea.

The Galaxy AI Subscription Club is already a thing in Samsung's home country for its line of smart appliances. The service launched in December to a very positive consumer reaction, and subscription sales already accompany 30% of purchases at Samsung stores. People in South Korea love Samsung and its software and are willing to buy it.

People in the U.S. aren't as enthusiastic.

That's why you might have seen news about Samsung's "phone subscription" in the news this week. Thanks to some rather questionable articles on the matter, people assumed that Samsung was introducing some sort of subscription pricing to use the phones we're about to see at Galaxy Unpacked.

To be very clear — we're not. This is only for special AI services, even if it makes its way to the U.S. I hate that we call this a phone subscription because it's not; it's a software subscription that is no different than what Adobe or Norton offer for your PC. Phone stuff is weird sometimes.

Enough about what the AI Club is and that it might expand. Let's talk about the reaction. Why do people hate it when Samsung does the exact same thing that Apple and Google already are doing, for the same type of service?

If you use a new iPhone, you can use Apple Intelligence features free until 2027, but to get the most from it you can connect it to a paid ChatGPT subscription that costs $20 a month.

If you use an Android phone in select countries, you can use Google Gemini for free. To get the most from Gemini, you can subscribe to a Google One plan that includes Gemini Advanced, which costs $20 a month.

Samsung has already said that all Galaxy AI features are free for phone and tablet users until at least the end of 2025. It might include an AI subscription tier in South Korea.

If it's OK for Apple and Google, it should be OK for Samsung.

Judging by the internet tech prosumer reaction, it's clearly not OK for Samsung to do it. That's because of the way we view Samsung in the West.

When you think of Samsung, you probably think of phones and the parts used to make phones. Samsung is well known as an electronics manufacturer and almost every phone has some Samsung parts inside of it. Even an iPhone.

Samsung is really good at this, too. There is no consumer outrage about the performance of a Samsung display on a Pixel 9 or iPhone 16. Samsung's memory and controllers are great and part of what makes your flagship phone so fast. The company's phones and tablets are no slouch either, and a Galaxy S24 Ultra is one of the best you can buy.

When it comes to software, there isn't the same enthusiasm. The company seems to have finally built a great version of Android with recent versions of One UI, but most tech enthusiasts don't use Samsung's phone software very much or at all.

Samsung's apps are like the Stocks app on an iPhone and end up crammed in a junk folder if they can't be disabled. Bixby (which isn't really that bad) is a laughing stock among Android enthusiasts, and what Samsung did to Tizen should send some people straight to Dante's Inferno.

This is what U.S. tech enthusiasts think of Samsung's software. You don't have to look very hard to find people saying they wish they could buy a Galaxy S24 Ultra that runs Google's Pixel version of Android, and there are plenty of people trying to hack just that onto their expensive phones. Most consumers don't know any better or even care and just use what's there, but die-hard techies are the people who get vocal on the internet about everything.

I would never pay for an AI subscription, at least until it offers more than a different way to feed me information that's already available. When that happens, I don't care if Samsung, Apple, or Google offers it — I'll buy whatever suits my needs best.

More than likely, we won't have to worry about this at all here in North America and this was just a handy excuse to complain about Samsung and AI in general.

Normally, I'm quick to point out all the ways that Google shows a lack of respect for users inside its ecosystem. That's part of my job; if a Google exec scratches his or her butt, I need to see how it affects Google's portfolio and us since we're the ones using these products.

That means I rarely worry about what other companies, like Apple, do to their users. This time is different because Apple's disdain for consumers and lack of cooperation puts us all at risk, according to the FBI, which usually knows what it is doing.

I'm talking about RCS. Of course, I'm talking about RCS because it's been at least a month since I had to talk about RCS.

Here's the deal: if you use an iPhone and message someone else who is using an iPhone, you're good. If you use an Android phone and message someone else using an Android phone, you're good, too. The problem is when an iPhone user messages an Android user or an Android user messages an iPhone user.

Those messages, using the default messages app built into the phone, are no more secure than the old way of sending a text was. Apple did incorporate RCS messaging into iMessage, but it did it in a way that's not secure and didn't work with Google to sort it out.

This happened because of RCS itself. The tech, in its current form, doesn't support any sort of encryption yet. It's being worked on, but if you implement RCS using only the current open standards, messages are no safer than they used to be.

On the other hand, Google does offer encrypted RCS messaging — but only between two Android phones or the Chrome browser tied to an Android phone. It added this itself because RCS has no encryption method in place.

Since about 80% of people worldwide who use a smartphone are using an Android smartphone, this was one of those times when Google did the right thing. Apple didn't. Apple offers iPhone users who talk to other iPhone users encryption and tells everyone else to just buy an iPhone.

The FBI piping in to let everyone know there is a problem isn't unexpected. In fact, it's the opposite, and I'm surprised it took so long. I assumed exploits would pop up during the first week, just like spam and phishing messages supposedly from the post office did. You (probably) aren't special, and nobody is actively trying to steal your identity and hack your credit cards; they're just trying to steal everyone's identity and get everyone's credit card info. Casting a huge net is an easy way to scam regular people out of millions each year.

Apple and Google could have, and should have, prevented this. Instead, Google was worried about tossing barbs at Apple and then taking a victory lap even when it didn't really get what it was demanding. Meanwhile, Apple trudged along and did nothing until China said they had to add RCS capabilities. Apple will always try to appease China when it's easy to do it, just like Google would. Neither side cared about working together to help consumers like us because we were going to buy their shit anyway. 💰🐄

So what should you do? If you live outside the U.S. or Canada, you probably don't have to do anything because you likely don't even use Google Messages or iMessage. People here use them because texts are free, and, well, we just do.

If you use either, you should stop and switch to a secure and encrypted platform like the FBI says. There are plenty, but I'm partial to Signal because the people behind it only care about making a secure messaging service; they want to hook you on their product by making it great and not tying it to another service or looking to sell it off to Meta.

That's easier said than done. You could go through all of your contacts and ask them to switch to another platform, but they're not going to do it. They don't think they need to do it because they might not have thousands in the bank sitting around ripe for the taking, or they don't think they have anything to hide.

All you really can do is refuse to send any information through Google Messages or iMessage that you don't want the world to read and wish the companies that made these things actually cared about their users.

Google has added two more years of software support to the Pixel 6 series, the Pixel 7 series, and the original Pixel Fold. That's fantastic news for anyone using these phones; since they use a Google-designed Tensor chip, it's what should have been promised all along.

It says a bit more about Android's immediate future, even if it doesn't spell it out: don't expect the next killer feature(s) to be part of Android.

You're right if you're thinking that Google hasn't said anything about Android 17 yet and really hasn't told us much about Android 16. but it doesn't need to because we now know that whatever it is, the Pixel 6 will (hopefully) be able to run it.

The Pixel 6 wasn't a bad phone, but let's be honest — its Tensor chip isn't a powerhouse, and having "only" 8GB of RAM means it's missing many on-device AI features. It was built before Pixel phones needed chips that could process AI even faster and the memory to power the features that came along with it. We quickly saw that just one year later.

Here's the thing — none of that, or any of Google's AI magic, is part of Android. It's all proprietary Google property that it releases to select devices as it sees fit. Android has been like this for a while, with Google holding back many of the features you think come with it and deciding which phones from which companies can have them. If you ever get your hands on a device that runs the free and open version of Android, you'll easily see how it is lacking.

I like to call this the Pixel paywall. Google shows us a new feature, spends 30 minutes on a stage to tell us how great it is and why we should want it, then says you only get it if you buy a new Pixel phone.

This isn't nothing new; every other tech company does the same thing. The difference is other tech companies don't offer a "free" operating system that powers billions of smartphones.

We're going to see this again with Android 16 when Google debuts a new Pixel phone. All of the new features are going to be Google's own and not freely available as part of Android, and a handful of them will only be available for the Pixel 10. Don't expect many (or any) of them for your Pixel 6. You won't be disappointed that way.

There's nothing wrong with this. I don't like it, and I know other people who feel the same way, but nobody should expect a for-profit company to turn over its best software features or the secret algorithms that power them as free software, no matter how restrictive the licensing is. Google is doing what we should expect it to do.

Future versions of Android will have plenty of other changes under the hood, and those can be very important, especially in terms of stability, security, and privacy. Many of those "API changes" that don't get much press do just that and are 100% necessary and important.

Things like camera tricks or fancy AI-powered home screen features are separate, the same way Samsung's are for Samsung phones or Apple's are for iPhones. Google realizes their value and knows it will entice a few people enough to buy a new Pixel phone even though their Pixel 6 is still supported and does everything it did when it was new and more.

It's still great that Google realizes it has an obligation (yes, I said obligation) to support Tensor-powered devices as long as possible. Nvidia can tell them a thing or two about how having control over the brains of an Android device means you can support it for a decade. Or longer.

Here's a secret: I hate things like Black Friday. It's not because I don't want businesses to make some cash or because I don't want to save money on piddly stuff like cables or wood screws, but because there is always something out there that will somehow worm its way into my brain and make me spend money, I wasn't planning on spending.

Last time there was a big sale, it was a 3D printer. This time, it's something I've been wanting for a while: the Motorola Razr 2024. Getting one for $299 is too good to pass up. Dammit.

I never like to spend my Saturday time trying to sell anything. Saturday has been my day to just write stuff about things I enjoy or things I think need to be said. I'm set in my ways, and deviating is making me cranky, but I'll make the exception this time and say if you're a Google Fi Wireless subscriber (or want to be), you should pick up a Motorola Razr 2024 for $300 if you need a phone.

It's certainly not going to be the fastest blazing phone on the block for people who want to show off their benchmark scores to impress the ladies or anything like that. But I do know it's a solid phone that will do everything I need it to do without a stupidly large price. And it flips, so it's 600% cooler than my Pixel 8a.

I've no interest in a phone that's already too big folding out into a phone that's way too damn big, so I'm going to ignore phones like the Pixel 9 Pro Fold Super Duper or whatever it's called. Work on your phone names, guys. I mean, come on.

But a phone that folds into a small square is right up my alley. I love the Galaxy Flip, but since I got a chance to fondle a Moto Razr, I decided that it's what I want. Motorola's Laissez-faire attitude towards support updates has me a little concerned, but I decided I want to give them a chance and trust they will do what they promised and be better.

And the Razr (Minus) isn't perfect, either. It still has plastic over the screen and there's a ridge running through the middle when it's open and neither of these is ideal. There are concessions one has to make if one wants a phone that folds over on itself, though.

What I like about it outweighs what I don't. For starters, the price. I think asking close to $1,000 for a phone should be a crime. I can buy an old truck and a full tank of gas for that kind of money and still have enough left to take the misses to Red Robin for a burger. The Razr, even when it's not on sale, is the price a foldable phone should start at. Make a Plus or Pro or whatever version for the people who want to spend more money, and this is where Motorola gets it right.

I also like having a screen out front to tell me why my phone is yelling at me so I can decide if I care about it or not. If I see a message, I'll probably answer. If it's just an email or a chat message from Slack, then no way, Jose, you can wait until I feel like looking (sorry, not sorry). You can do that with lock screen notifications, but having it on the little screen on the front is just cooler. At least to me, and this is my money we're talking about here.

Besides that, it folds into a small package that can fit into any pocket. I like that. I don't know why, but I do. Again, my money. Seriously though, if you're in a wheelchair, keeping your phone in a shirt pocket is a godsend. Flipping it shut means it will slip right in there.

I haven't bought it yet. I stuck it in my cart once I saw the sale price with the idea that I'll check it once all this Black Friday/Cyber Monday mess is done and I know how much money I'm willing to spend. Gotta buy them Christmas presents for the grandbabies, you know?

I know I'm going to end up doing it, even though I might want to kick myself for it. I don't need a phone; I just want this phone.

When U.S. lawmakers seem to have outdated ideas of how internet regulation needs to happen, Australia comes along and says hold my beer. A law proposed in parliament would ban social media access for all children under the age of 16, placing stiff fines on platforms that don't comply.

While I'll admit most social media does little more than turn our gray matter into Nickelodeon slime, this seems like the plot to some Dirty Dancing sequel without Patrick Swayze and Jeniffer Grey to save the day. Nobody puts Baby in a corner, but we will try to keep her from using Instagram.

The proposed law is only half-formed, stating that access to social media would be blocked while keeping sites like Twitch and Telegram available. Apparently, following the Kardashians is more harmful than Hot Tub streamers or white supremacy in the eyes of Aussie lawmakers and parent groups. It would be up to Australia's eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant to determine how to set and enforce rules, who freely admits that “technology change is always going to outpace policy."

I don't live in Australia and my kids have all grown up to lead happy and productive lives. I have no skin in the game here. But as a parent and someone who seems to have more understanding of the internet and the unique challenges it can create, I have to say how stupid this sounds.

“Should we really be wasting our time trying to help kids navigate these difficult systems when tech companies just want them on them all the time?"

Those are the words of Emma, the mother of a 12-year-old boy who was threatened over Snapchat. Emma thinks working with her kids and being a parent is wasting her time and would rather have the government decide how her son James and your son or daughter access information.

Emma could also sit down with James and monitor his use of the internet, give reasonable access to device time once things like chores or homework are finished, and read through Snapchat with James so she is aware of any issues that may arise. You know, be a mother.

I don't blame parents like Emma. Raising children is the hardest thing a person can ever face; they're unpredictable, unruly, unappreciative, and often unresponsive. You will feel like you're not doing the right thing at least half the time, and the other half will make you feel like you're doing too much. Not everyone is cut out for this level of responsibility, and seeking help is a great idea.

Having the government decide your kids (and my kids) can't use TikTok is not the right kind of help. When parents like Emma realize this — and they will one day — it may be too late.

None of this absolves social media companies of any wrongdoing. There is no reason why Snapchat should do nothing when older children threaten a young man with videos of them wielding a machete. While they should not be responsible for the things people post on their platform, they do have an obligation to try and prevent it.

Snap, Inc. could implement an age verification system that blocks certain words, requires video uploads to be previewed and approved before they're sent, and should require parents to become involved before a child signs up to use their service. They don't because they aren't required to do it. Australia could be the country that forces their hand instead of making a kid check a box, promising that they're of age. Tech companies only do the right thing when they're forced to do the right thing.

Bans do not work. They're easy to circumvent, and governments around the world have tried them and were forced to remove them after a review of their effectiveness or legality.

They can also be harmful, pushing children away from loosely regulated services like X or Instagram toward the free-for-all that is the "unpoliced" internet world of user forums. You may not want your kids to see everything TikTok has to offer, but would you rather they visit websites where they can buy MDMA with cryptocurrency? That 0.001 Bitcoin and a post office box is a pretty low hurdle when it comes to harmful activities.

Governments of the world can help. They need to work with social media platforms and tech giants, ignoring the obnoxious demands of fringe parent groups to make it easier for you to help your child be safe on the internet. Banning safe access is the same as banning dancing or "ethnic" music in 1950s America and can be just as harmful.