Microsoft Will Save Windows Phone

Microsoft has released a statement today saying that it plans on acquiring the mobile app development startup Xamarin for an undisclosed sum. The reason behind Microsoft aquiring Xamarin is so that Microsoft would have a tool for building mobile apps that can work across iOS, Android, and Windows phones. Xamarin, which has 15,000 customers, including large brand names like Coca-Cola and JetBlue, allows developers to code in a single programming language while designing an app to look native to each platform. Xamarin also offers a way for developers to test those apps using thousands of cloud-hosted devices.

"We have had a longstanding relationship with Xamarin," writes Scott Guthrie, Microsoft's executive vice president of the company's cloud and enterprise group, in a blog post. "With today’s acquisition announcement we will be taking this work much further to make our world class developer tools and services even better with deeper integration and seamless mobile app dev experiences."

Microsoft has spent the better part of the last two years establishing itself on mobile as a maker of apps for competitors' platforms. The goal is to create users of Windows and Office software on every device out there — including iPhones, iPads, and Android phones — as a way to drive subscriptions to its cloud-based products and rope more people into Microsoft's ecosystem. At last year's Microsoft Build conference, the company announced an ambitious initiative to help developers port iOS and Android apps to Windows 10. While that effort, code named Project Astoria, hasn't fully panned out quite yet, the acquisition of Xamarin should help Microsoft offer similar development tools for making cross-platform apps from the start. This way, Microsoft might finally get Android and iOS apps on their own failing Windows Phone platform, and rapidly boost their mobile market share, something that has been tough for them due to their rather small app store.

-311 words

Siri On the Mac

          Windows has had its companion for a long time. She's a nice lady. If you're ever bored at work, give her a ring! She'll tell ya a funny joke, and maybe even squeeze a small chuckle out of you. Her name is Cortana, and she is your personal assistant. She'll answer any question, and even recite a song or two. All it takes is a quick,"Hey Cortana!" and her icon in the lower left will blip to life, ready to accommodate any of your needs. She started on Windows phone, and made her way to the PC after a year or two. Speaking of which, Google Now, Google's twist on voice assistants, started on mobile as well, before quickly migrating to Google's Chromebooks and their fleet of internet users by means of Googling things on the PC in the browser with Chrome. Well, now its time for another voice assistant to grow up, and that, is Siri.

           Siri was introduced on the iPhone 4s way back 5 years ago on iOS 5, and has, since then remained locked on the mobile platform. But it may have finally come time to unleash the power of Siri on Apple's desktop platform. Its rumored that in the next Mac OS X release, Apple will finally unite its mobile and desktop search assistant, so that "Hey Siri" can respond to everything you need, on any platform...that is, aside from Android and Windows. But don't feel sad if you run a different platform. Google Now and Cortana will keep you plenty satisfied with their offerings. :)

-262 words

LG vs. Samsung at MWC

          Mobile World Congress always holds some of the greatest breakthroughs in technology, similar to its bigger brother CES (Consumer Electrionics Show), but unlike CES, it tends to focus more on, well, the mobile side of things, namely smartphones, but also virtual reality as of late. This year, at MWC 2016, there was technology from many companies, with Alcatel, HTC, Huawei, LG and Samsung, being the largest stars. But in all reality, LG and Samsung seemed to captivate the largest presence of all of them, and they seemed to be directly taking shots at each other.
          Samsung took to the stage with the Galaxy S7 and S7 Edge, both with similar looks to their fathers before them. However, Samsung didn't just release the same phone. In both phones, they expanded the battery capacity to lengthen battery life, improved the cameras to allow for faster focusing and better low-light performance than the iPhone, adding a micro-SD card slot for up to 200GB of expansion, and added waterproofing to the mix, something many people felt nostalgic for when leaving the Galaxy S5. There were other minor changes, such as making the camera bump on the back even smaller, and only creating a 32GB capacity due to the micro-SD card slot (reduces cost), both certainly welcome changes, but overall, there were just the big four.
           LG, on the other hand, went all-out with their LG G5. Take Apple's slogan of "the only thing that has changed is everything," and apply it to the G5, and the slogan will actually make sense (yeah, just stop the propaganda BS, Apple. Please.). Because everything has changed by the G5, if you haven't figured that out by now. The whole body has been redesigned. The internals have all been redesigned. The cameras have been redesigned completely. There wasn't a single part of this  phone that was left untouched.
          Lets start with the cameras. There are three of them. A new high resolution 8MP on the front is cool, but on the back is where the magic happens. There, two cameras can be seen; an 8MP wide-angle lens, and a 16MP 4:3 lens for normal photos. The beauty of it is, that the phone can take both high-resolution photos, as well as wide photos, all in one snap, while phones such as the iPhone or almost any other phone require you to downsize the resolution to get a wider aspect ratio.
          The LG G5 also moved its volume buttons to the front, while switching out its power button on the back for a circular fingerprint sensor similar to that on Huawei's Nexus 6P. Speaking of which, it also followed in the direction of the Nexus 6P with its solid metal construction, a surprise to many that has seen all of LG's previous G flagships. While many thought this would do away with removable batteries and SD cards, they were quickly surprised. To their shock, the bottom of the phone is removable, allowing the battery to be quickly swapped out, but also other additional modules to be added, such as a camera module with an extended battery, or a high-fidelity audio speaker DAC, improving speaker and headphone quality. The SIM slot on the phone has also been lengthened to allow for an SD card to be inserted alongside the nano-SIM card. So if anything, other than the loss of custom back plates (thinking of you, sexy, sleek wood), LG added on to their already expandable phones, to make them one of the first truly modular phones.
          So while Samsung spent the time to review user criticism to refine its already great product, LG took leaps and bounds and released a completely revised product. While both phones look awesome, and personally, I would choose the LG G5, I also think that, given a year, LG will revise their current modular offerings and mechanism for their LG G6. So if you can wait a year, go for a later phone, because they will certainly be refined, as the mobile market typically does. However, right now, I think both phones are phenomenal, and you can't go wrong with either one in 2016.

-690 words

Top 3 Coolest Robots

3. The Schaft robot is an award winning robot by Google presented in the 2013 DARPA Robotics challenge. A humanoid robot, Schaft could perform several autonomous tasks, able to navigate disaster areas and work with any tools and materials at hand. With the strength of 10 average people, the Schaft robot is able to lift and clear heavy debris during rescue operations. This conventional robot, with its long arms and squat torso, weighs 209 lbs and is 4’10” high, capable of moving at a speed of 2km/hr. Operating drills, manipulating safety valves, and turning a doorknob are some of the skills many other robots cannot handle, but that this robot has mastered.



2. An automated car created by the Stanford Racing Team from Stanford University, Stanley is one of the best automated cars, even winning the 2005 DARPA Grand Challenge and its $2 million prize. Stanley was specially designed for the 132 mile DARPA Grand Challenge course in California’s Mohave Desert (where it had to self-drive itself through the 132 miles). Stanley could analyze the terrain, and its GPS system helped in position sensing. Stanley is currently showcased at the Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum.



1. Created in 2005 by Boston Dynamics, the NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory, and the Harvard University Concord Field Station, the BigDog is the most advanced rough terrain robot on earth. Designed to serve military uses, the machine is around 3 feet long, 2.5 feet tall, and weighs 240 pounds, The robot can move on difficult terrain at a speed of four miles per hour, and is able to carry up to 340 pound of weight, navigating with its onboard LIDAR and stereo vision systems. This robot has also been renovated and updated with modifications that enhance its power and locomotive features, and is quite amazing to watch when it is kicked or body-slammed from the side, or put on slick ice. Its stability system allows it to balance, even when two of its legs go out from underneath it, and is a great feat considering how top-heavy this beast of a "horse" is!

Sources: http://www.therichest.com/business/technology/the-coolest-robots-in-the-world/?view=all
-350 words

Samsung Galaxy S7 and LG G5 Event

           On Sunday, a spectacular event be underway. For the first time, two of the largest phone makers will hold their tech events, and unveil two of the best handsets set for sale in 2016. Normally, these dates fall independently of each other, but this year will be a special treat with a 2-in-1. It'll be hard for me to watch both live at the same time! But that fact aside, Samsung will actually announce several devices, namely their Galaxy S7, S7 +, S7 Edge, and S7 Edge +, while LG will unveil for sure the LG G5, but maybe also another device or two. Perhaps even a tablet. Many predict that Samsung will unveil a new battery technology that will easily allow two days of battery life, with a relatively similar body style to its previous phone form factor. Meanwhile, it is rumored that LG will completely revamp its G5, with a new body that removes the rear volume and lock button, relocating them to the sides like most smartphones, but replace them with a Nexus 6P-like fingerprint scanner on the back center of the device. Its also rumored to replace it single camera with a dual camera set up, something that, interestingly enough, is rumored to be on the iPhone 7 or 7s. However, all of this is speculation up to this point, and I guess we'll have to wait just a few more days to see what these devices have to offer. It will be quite a day, and the pressure will be on to see which phone will be crowned king at the end of the day!

-268 words

The Encryption Debate

          Previously, I wrote about the laws that are in the process of being reviewed by Congress to ban states from holding the power of enforcing encryption banning. What this would mean, if passed, would be that encryption cannot be banned, unless it is banned at a national level. However, while encryption is not yet banned in any state, it has not stopped the government and the FBI from pressuring big tech giants such as Apple or Google from creating a "backdoor" into their phones, a way that would allow only the FBI or government to get access to locked down data on phones with passwords or fingerprints for security. It has created a large debate over whether these tech companies should bend to the will of the government and potentially sacrifice user data.
          The main reason this pressure has arisen has been due to the terrorist attack on San Bernardino, California. On December 2, 2015, 14 people were killed and 22 were seriously injured in a terrorist attack in San Bernardino, California, which consisted of a mass shooting and an attempted bombing. While the government has many of the suspects in custody, the government has little right to prosecute them without a little more evidence, and have reason to believe that more people behind the shooting and attempted bombing are still out on the streets, roaming free, preparing for more terror. However, they believe that the secrets to finding the other to-be suspects and sending the suspects to jail lies in the encrypted data of the terrorist's iPhone. However, the phone is encrypted, and Apple has denied being able to access the phone's data, since they do not know the password or have the fingerprint. This has gotten the FBI thinking, however, and thus, since neither the FBI or Apple has access to a locked phone, the FBI believes that Apple should put in a backdoor to all future iPhones (it could even work on older iPhones, with a simple software update), allowing any government agency and Apple to access data if a person had been accused of breaking the law or causing massive terror in the future.
           This sounds like a smart move in terms of putting terrorists in jail, but others argue that the government putting pressure on Apple like this is abusing the relationship that the government and businesses have. Some believe that it is too democratic to force a business to change its practices and compromise the data of millions, if not, billions of users, for the benefit of one nation. Advocates of vetoing such a policy would also think that it is violating our rights as protected citizens with protected property, but as I pointed out in my previous blog, the legal game has become much more complex with the introduction of encryption, and the amendments were written in a time where the hardest to find evidence was in a tiny safe hidden in the floor boards that could be cut open, but is no longer applicable when it comes to data on a phone that is inevitably locked down with 1's and 0's.
           What has changed since my last blog post has been the statements of Apple in this continuing debate. In a public letter, signed by Apple CEO Tim Cook and published Tuesday, warns that,

"A backdoor to the iPhone would be something we consider too dangerous to create. The government is asking Apple to hack our own users and undermine decades of security advancements that protect our customers -- including tens of millions of American citizens -- from sophisticated hackers and cyber criminals," the letter said. "Such a move would be an unprecedented step, threatening the security of Apple's customers. No reasonable person would find that acceptable."

           Clearly, Apple has made its decision: it has sided with protecting users' privacy from its own government and hackers against protecting the world from terrorist attacks. Well, its clearly not as simple as that, but I side with Apple on this one. While I have nothing to hide, I think that we have not come this far as a society, for one person in this world to exploit billions of devices with one backdoor. I would rather have one terrorist escape, than the whole world's data be compromised because the United States government wanted to read someone's emails.
         Google has also come out in the last 24 hours on Twitter, with Google's CEO Sundar Pichai stating:

"Important post by @tim_cook. Forcing companies to enable hacking could compromise users’ privacy. We know that law enforcement and intelligence agencies face significant challenges in protecting the public against crime and terrorism. We build secure products to keep your information safe and we give law enforcement access to data based on valid legal orders. But that’s wholly different than requiring companies to enable hacking of customer devices & data. Could be a troubling precedent. Looking forward to a thoughtful and open discussion on this important issue."

           I think both Apple and Google have taken awesome outlooks on this issue. If a government need access to a device, and its for perfectly legal reasons, and the company can do it, so be it, help a court case. But requiring a company to open up millions, if not, billions, of devices, is outrageous and dangerous, and asks us all to give up even more privacy in our lives.

-897 words

Imact of Image Editing on Youths

          People feel the need to be perfect. To be the best. To be good at something. And a lot of times, to be seen as worthwhile, you need to be seen as amazing to your peers. Unfortunately, many people tie this to also looking amazing. Looking perfect. The image of what is perfect varies person to person, however,  many people still agree a face free from blemishes, acne, and uneven skin tones is favorable. It was one thing when a minor amount of people could use Photoshop to edit photos, but in the 21st century, everyone with access to a smartphone can clear up bemishes in the touch of a button, and now there is rarely a close-up selfie posted that hasn't been touched up in some form or another. Even doing it manually, I was able to touch up this photo of myself in a matter of minutes.

          But at what point is image editing hurtful? Will all the young children that grow up these days be brainwashed into striving for "perfection"? Well, there will be the people that don't care. But overall, I think technology given to the extremely young youth will, and is, very poisonous. Just watching my generation grow up with phones from 5th grade onward is sad to watch, but those were the days of brick phones. Smartphones will continue to hurt self images, and also hurt our social world. Everyone will always post Snapchat stories of how their life is so much fun. And girls will post their "perfect" selfies. Just don't believe the internet: its always hiding the truth somehow. While I like to be blemish free, it personally doesn't hurt me, but there are others that feel different unfortunately.

-287 words

The Difficult YouTube Model

          People change. People and their interests change, rather. Who a person fundamentally changes throughout time. Just think about where you were 10 years ago. Who your friends were, what your passions were. For most people, a lot of change can occur in a decade, and while I am young, I can admit that a lot has changed between when I was 7, and when I was 17! But what if I wasn't allowed to change growing up? What if people yelled at me, called me names, got furious by my act of growing up? I would feel a sense of being shamed. I would feel like what I was doing was wrong, but I would also feel wrong not pursuing what I felt was right in my life.
          This is how PewDiePie feels right now. For those what are unaware, PewDiePie is the largest YouTuber on...well, YouTube. He made $7 million dollars off the platform last year, but when he started making video game videos back in 2006, he never anticipated he would be so famous one day. He was just an average Joe, looking to just share some fun with the internet. But thats what he still does to this day. Or, at least, is trying.
          You see, PewDiePie is loyal to his fans. However, over the last 10 years, his taste for video games, and the vulgar humor, has changed. His fans, however, still want the same thing that he had years ago. So while PewDiePie wants to change how he runs his career and life, the people on the internet rebel against such change. Millions of people do. That type of pressure would be too much for me. Its enough when my sister, or someone at school says something I'm doing is stupid, but to have millions of people actively commenting, saying that they don't like what you're doing would be extremely hurtful. Paraphrasing PewDiePie's explanation video, PewDiePie stated that it wasn't just mean trolls telling him they want change. It was his actual fans. The people he cared about most. So what does one do in this predicament, where the internet dictates how you live your life? Would you bend to the will of millions of people, or continue living your life the way that makes you the happiest? At what point did YouTube change from a video viewing platform, to a social media that dictates one's life?

-403 words

End the End of Encryption?

Encryption is built into almost every phone being produced these days. Its in Apple's iPhone. Its in almost every new Android phone as well, and it keeps prying eyes off of your data, should someone take your phone and it has a password on it. An encryption key is needed to decrypt the data, which the smartphone manufacturers do not possess.

But imagine not being able to buy an iPhone in your state because the device's data is protected by encryption. A couple of Congressmen are trying to make sure that can't happen.

The Encrypt Act of 2016, short for Ensuring National Constitutional Rights of Your Private Telecommunications Act, would deny states the power to block the sale of encrypted smartphones or to require that manufacturers equip their phones with a back door to access private data. The bill will be introduced to Congress next week.

The bill comes as lawmakers and Silicon Valley tech giants are trying to figure out how to compromise on device encryption. Some law enforcement officials have spoken out against the increased use of encryption on phones. They argue that data stored on phones could be useful in investigations against ordinary criminals, as well as suspected terrorists. Manufacturers state that a person's data belongs to them, and that, if they were to remove encryption or allow a backdoor in, that people would be concerned that the government would be abusing its power against the people and corporations. My personal stance on this is that, yes, the constitution does say that private property should be protected. But that was 200 years ago, where a letter and a house was visible and physical. Nowadays, gigabytes upon terabytes can be hidden under a password. Where a police force used to need to search a warehouse to find a paper copy of illegal transactions, now those are hidden in a computer, and because its encrypted, NO ONE but the owner can see the files.

The bill is a reaction to proposals from New York and California, which would ban encrypted smartphones in their respective states and fine manufacturers of such phones. Assuming those proposals were turned into law, smartphone companies would be required to enable decryption of data on phones made after 2017.

Trying to enforce smartphone encryption on a state level would be a confusing and difficult process though. According to FBI agent Lieu,"Having 50 states with 50 different encryption back doors standards or bans is a recipe for disaster for American privacy and competitiveness. This conversation belongs at the national level, where we can find a solution that protects the privacy rights of Americans and does not create additional vulnerabilities."

Companies such as Apple have been accused of equipping their phones with back doors, openings coded into software that let law enforcement bypass security measures. Apple CEO Tim Cook has rebutted those claims and argued against the use of back doors. Last month, Cook called on the Obama administration to issue a statement defending the use of unbreakable encryption.

The Encrypt Act covers any computer hardware, computer software, electronic device or online service, not just phones. While I personally like encryption, and I am proud to have an encrypted phone and computer (any computer that isn't encrypted, even I can get into. Five minutes tops, and all of the files of an encrypted computer (even one with a login password) would begin the copying process to my computer. Trust me. I've done it. Several times.). While I don't think we should ban encryption, and I think a backdoor does open some rights issues and what no, I do believe that I care more about criminals getting caught over privacy. If a criminal hides logs to all of the women he had illegally trafficked in a safe, the police could open that safe. Most people would agree to that. But just because its on his computer or on his phone, he should be let free? That's why, I am glad that an end to the end of encryption is a positive outlook if it happens, but I think there should be something in place.

-687 words

Error 53

           Apple is nutorious for controlling things. Its just who they are. People can depend on that fact. They hate jailbreakers. They hate thickness. They hate SD card slots and removable batteries. And they hate not being in control. Apple, please see a therapist about this control obsession. Really, its turning you into a major dick.
          I used to think it was bad. I thought I knew you better. I thought the death of Jobs would have been an intervention to you, but unfortunately, you haven't woken up. You've actually gotten worse. And Error 53 is just taking it too far.

         For those of you unaware of the latest ordeal, Error 53 results from people replacing their screens on their iPhones. However, the problem isn't from faulty screens or cheap Chinese parts, and doesn't even have much to do with the display in the first place; it has to do with the TouchID system.
        You see, if a person cracks their screen, the entire front display (inlcluding the glass, display panel, and TouchID (home) button) is one single assembly, meaning the user has to replace everything just to replace the glass. However, after the user has replaced their screen, which involves switching TouchID sensors as well, the phone works. Its not until a software update that was released this week that makes any repaired iPhones 100% bricked and useless, with "Error 53" bright on the screen, as the phone detected a fingerprint scanner change. With a simple software update, thousands of expensive $650+ iPhones became useless paperweights.
          Now, Apple has responded and stated that this is to prevent hackers from finding exploits in the TouchID system and exploiting them (instead of plugging in the fingerprint scanner, they could plug in a computer that might be able to crack it somehow, though completely unlikely due to encryption.) Therefore, Apple requires users to have Apple, and only Apple, can replace the screen. So goodbye small-shop electronic repair shops. You've lost your largest customer. Sorry consumer, you're subjected to a monopoly policy. And Apple, c'mon, lighten up.

-343 words

Online Voting: Great in Theory, Needs Time

          I'm a fan of the internet. I think it can be used for great things. I also think that it has the potential to bring about a rise in the number of people that vote. Instead of dealing with poling centers, a person can just pull out their smartphone, enter their SS, Name, and Driver's license, and check a box to vote. It would be amazing if it existed. But it would also be a disaster.

          The reason being, we are not yet there with security implementations of the internet. Almost any website is hackable, and if the website is one that controls the outcome of America's elections, many groups, or even evil corporate businesses, could launch attacks and either destroy the results of the election, or worse, change who becomes president. And recent proof of voting-related sites being insecure have surface. An improperly maintained database on the website of the Iowa Republican party had voting records for two million Iowans leaked. The database was part of a feature on the site that allowed Iowa voters to check their registration and closest caucus site. Unfortunately, poor security practice made the database accessible through a basic scan of the website's source code. The website fixed the issue after being notified by the Journal and it's unclear whether anyone accessed or downloaded the database. Still, leaving it available represents a significant security breach for the site. While the records were only consisting of a person's name, contact information, and past elections they've voted in, and nothing like who a person voted for remains private, its just an example of many where websites and systems run by the government can, and will, be hacked. Especially if it involves the election of the president. We aren't ready for online voting.

-296 words

What Should Be the Cost of a Smartphone?

          Products tend to have a tendency to come down in price over time. This is mainly due to two reasons. One, because a new product will replace it, causing demand to lower, and two, the technology becomes cheaper to manufacture when sold in large bulk (it costs X dollars to design the product, Y dollars in parts and assembly, and Z dollars in building or converting factory lines to produce the goods. Over time, X and Z will be a one-time large payment, why Y, the cost of just building the product with no new engineering and no new factories, remains a lower constant.) Therefore, given a year of sales, a smartphone will typically drop in price to promote the sale of its remaining stock, in preparation of the newest, latest and greatest smartphone to roll off the fresh assembly line.
         In terms of price, there are many things to consider when determining the price of a smartphone. In fact, it gets so complicated, that  I would honestly hate being the head of a company such as Samsung. The reason being, there's just so many things to analyze. Take this example:
          A Samsung Galaxy S6 costs $650. It costs $275 in parts to build the phone (fact). It costs $500 million to design the S6. It also costs $45 million in advertising each year. So, in all, it costs around $550 million to make a Galaxy S6, and $350 to sell a phone (boxes, shipping, etc). So to break even, if Samsung made $100 on each phone, selling it at $650, then they would need to sell 1.83 million phones to break even. Not too shabby. BUT STOP!!
          Before you start getting too excited, remember several things. One, most phones are sold through the carriers, which means the companies such as US Cellular or Verizon are taking a chunk of that profit for themselves. Next, and this is a big one, is software updates and going through the FCC. The Federal Communication Commission is like the devil to smartphone makers, but its in place to make sure manufacturers of gadgets follow rules, such as radiation transmittance of smartphones. So yay to safety! But a revise from the FCC saying,"Hey, Samsung! Whatcha doing, this doesn't pass our rules!" results in HUGE, expensive revises in the product, and then whole new stages of product testing after the software teams rework things for different hardware changes. Anyone that is an engineer is able to vouch how returning to the drawing board can slow things down and rack up expenses. Then, there is this thing called long-term support. It costs millions upon millions each year to deliver software updates to phones, up to 2-3 years after they have been released. This requires hiring a team of engineers dedicated to a 2 year phone to release software updates that take months to implement and test, and then requires sending to the phone carriers such a Verizon for them to test, and sending to Google to verify that it is allowed to be rolled out. Again, this can result in being sent back to that dreadful drawing board. Also, phones break, its a fact. So if a phone fails within 1 year, Samsung has to pay to fix that device for free if it is found to be a manufacturing fault.
          So lets take a big step back. Remember that $275 in parts and assembly costs of the phone? And that $650 price tag? Yeah, its there for a reason, and while it is higher than it should be for profit reasons, it is not just a 225% markup for nothing. There are other costs associated with the product.
         But this brings me to the question of this article? What should the price of a smartphone be? How is it determined? For example, Samsung could sell the S6 at $375 and make $25 profit! Would this not lead to increased sales, and then increased profit? Well, no, sadly. This $25 profit would be 8% of the profit they made earlier, so they would have to sell 12 times as many phones to make the same amount of profit! If they didn't sell 12 times the phones, which, mind you, would actually require 12 times as many assembly plants, so even if there were enough people to buy the phone, Samsung would go broke trying to build enough (and there are barely enough people on this planet to buy that many). So to keep investors happy, and to not sink and crush Samsung's quarterly/annual profits, Samsung cannot lower their price to $375. However, they could go and stop advertising their phones, which would reduct the cost of making a phone by a few bucks...but then, would anyone buy the phone? Or should they put more technology into the phone to try to sell it in a better way with propaganda? Or reduce useless features to save a few bucks? Leading into that, should they make their phone as thin as the iPhone, or make it a few more mm thicker to beat the battery life of iPhone? Will consumers even care, or will they just continue to buy the iPhone? Also, if Samsung were to lower the cost of their smartphone lower than the iPhone, would less people buy it because people see Samsung as a "cheap" brand and the expensive brands as a nice luxury?
         So many decisions....so, then, what should the cost of a smartphone be? Well, several companies such as Huawei, Motorola(known as Lenovo as of 2016), Xiaomi, Asus, and OnePlus, have decided to sell phones near market cost in large bulk, to try to change these logistics. They all commonly have very aggressive budgets, and only make small margins off of each phone in comparison to Apple. Motorola sells their flagship phone for an insane $400, Asus sells theirs for $300. OnePlus for $370, Huawei for $450, and so on. The pattern is, they all sell for anywhere from 1/2 off or more from their more expensive counterparts, and almost each brand has a phone that is even more cheaper that still offer great performance and great specs. However, there are companies like Blu, an American company, that sells phones cheaper than all of the others, with smartphones ranging from $60-$200! Yes, I could go out and buy 11 of Blu's cheapest smartphone, or one Samsung Galaxy S6! Now, granted the $60 phone is not ideal for photo taking or up-to-date software or gaming, but is actually functional and can browse the web, etc, is quite amazing to me. My guess is that they make maybe $3 off the device, as Amazon still needs to make their profit share off of that $60! Razor thin margins indeed.
         So what should smartphones be priced at? Well, that is tough, because inexpensive smartphones come off as "cheap", while expensive phones like the iPhone come off as luxury, something to pay a premium for. And if everyone sells their phones at low, razor-thin margins, they will all go broke, as people will still buy the iPhone. Apple is the name-brand, and all others priced below it are cheap, and all others priced above it are overpriced stupidly. In the end, I believe Apple dictates the prices of smartphones, and as long as they own the majority in the US, it will stay that way.

-1228 words