Why Over Pay for a Smartphone?

I'd be amiss in my responsibilities if I don't sneak it in that in the midst of all the fanfare and glamour and glitz about flagship devices from top brands that go from anywhere in the region of 150k to 250k+ and which whet the appetite with gizmos and features from here to Timbuktu and which some "big bois and gehs" flaunt about to further increase their desirability, there are considerably comparable devices from extremely competitive Asian manufacturers that have given these top dogs a run for their money in the West and back home in Asia (even giving Apple an iPhone headache with a second consecutive quarter of drop in earnings).

(Wow, that was a mouthful to get in one sentence *dusts shoulder*)

Ehen, where was I? Right, considerably competitive devices, yes.

But, playing on widespread ignorance and just outright nonchalance, these top phone brands and their colluding sales outlets will continue to make a killing of a profit here because of status symbol of this brand or that. While for a fraction of the amounts expended on a Note 7 with an S-pen that'll be redundant for 95% of the time, you can buy 8 other considerably competitive smartphones. For the exact same price of an iPhone 6S plus in Ikeja Village, there are 10 smartphones to be bought that'll give the buyer a competitive advantage.

And just before you say "Chinco" *cough cough*, where do you think these other more expensive brands are mainly made? Probably a little history course will fit into this space. Indulge me.

There was a time when assembled parts in smartphones were quite expensive. Time was when a phone manufacturer couldn't get the right camera components, when the battery units were beyond reach and the glass parts of smaller phone manufacturers were too brittle or the charging ports were too prone to despoliation. It was impossible at some point to Dolby sound and stereo speakers into these devices at a bargain price that'll keep the device cheap, so we got those "Chinco" speakers that could resurrect the dead. And there is a history of absence of innovative in-house Research and Development teams to add features that people will need in their devices even before they knew they needed these features.

Of course. But, the history didn't stop there.

With advanced development of the Android platform and other congruent mobile progresses so much has changed so fast on the smartphone landscape. Manufacturing has innovated so much that assembled parts of phones have not only become more durable but mostly availably affordable. Whether it's a unibody metal casing or glass front-and-back device. Whether it's solid and unshakeable type-B or type-C USB ports. Sony's camera parts are available inexpensively for all manufacturers today who wish to use them. Miniature speakers for devices with advanced performance are commonplace today that some phones are dedicated music smartphones. Different battery components litter the landscape with more and more lesser known brands able to put a lot more mAh per unit than the big dogs and optimise it for longer durations with Android's most recent iterations. Gorilla glass is now the go-to solution for screens and their toughness isn't up for debates. It's there for all comers. And with exceptional use of processor, optimised RAM management, efficient battery performance, advancement in leaps and bounds in speed and compatibility and ever growing play store for apps, Android has removed the need for smaller manufacturers to need in-house R&D departments.

What you get is device manufacturers who are Asian neighbours of the Samsungs, HTCs, LGs, Sonys and Apple assembly-plants unveiling devices that considerably match those brands in features and performance. And since these smaller brands now have to sell in countries that measure standards, they have had to up their game be allowed into the smartphone markets in the West. The little points of differentiation that these top dogs advertise as why their devices are so good and different are minutiae and in some areas not even noticeable to the unaided human eyes nor by normal average daily utility (sometimes needing special equipment to measure them). And for that, they overprice their offerings.

Meanwhile, at the other end of the spectrum are devices that serve the daily purpose of smartphone use admirably and some more. And remain affordable doing that.

(I didn't intend writing this much oo. Choi!!!)

Please, don't mind me. Just give the most recent devices (2016 mostly) from these manufacturers a look. And see for yourself.

1. Xiaomi
2. OnePlus
3. Oppo
4. Honor
5. ZTE
6. Elephone
7. Ulefone
8. Meizu

Enjoy.

img source: Android Headlines

Flagship Killer Alert!

The flagship killers are coming.

If you don't know what "flagships" are when talking about smartphones and their manufacturers and you have no idea how they can be "killed" and are strangely pondering what the term "flagship killer" could possibly imply, do us both a huge favour. Stop reading. Yes, at this point. Just stop.

If you stubbornly persisted though, flagship killers, as a concept, grew from an earlier development of a batch of smartphones that were expected to put to an end to the blazing market lead the revolutionary Apple iPhone had. At that point, they were tagged "iPhone Killers". They ended up being anything but. The iPhone had the first mover advantage, had patented most of the smartphone design language and predominated mobile tech. It was, in fact, in a class all by itself.

Most of that advantage would peter off with the stepping up of a worthy challenger in the Android ecosystem: Samsung. Shedding it's mediocre beginning and entering a long term project of smartphone-market domination, it aped the iPhone dress sense, cloned some of Apple's user experience and encased Android with their in-house interface called TouchWiz. Then, they sold it cheaper than Apple's offerings. Those who wanted an alternative with more openness than the iPhone had found one.

Android rode on this popularity to gain traction in the battle for supremacy in mobile tech. Apple wasn't about to let that happen without a fight. Litigations after litigations brought the duels to the courthouses. To survive, Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs) of Android devices were forced to differentiate themselves, in hardware and software, from everything Apple.

As always, Samsung led that drive. It increased its screen sizes and threw into its flagships all sorts of bells and whistles it felt would sway buyers its way. From sensors that tracked eyeballs to keep the screen awake while the eyes remained on it to heart-rate monitors, whatever they could think of, they jammed into devices that were constantly increasing in size. Then, they became the "Toyota" of smartphones, furnishing buyers with smartphones for all pocket sizes.

Samsung had come of age. It had become an OEM with a flagship that others had to battle. That others had to kill. The Android competition took notice. And borrowing pages from Samsung's playbook, began to develop "flagship killers" to dethrone flagships from Samsung and from Apple.

It wasn't long before the world then added the word "phablet" to it's lexicon as a result. It referred to smartphones that were too big to be called phones but not big enough to be called tablets. These devices were between a "phone" and a "tablet" hence the new classification "phablet".

The buyer-hunger for ever bigger screens was an eye opener for OEMs. Apple however resisted the urge claiming a lot of thought and research for one-handed use of touchscreen phones went into its decision to use the screen size it preferred. Larger phones made the iPhone appear toyish but Apple was obdurate.

The battle raged on. Samsung giving Apple a run for its money. BlackBerry slowly dying. Windows phones looking like relics. The dregs left for the others to contend with.

Phone components became more available and affordable. The tech finally caught up and hardware improved enough to match the processing demands of the software. With its Open Source model, Android grew in leaps and bounds and in some instances overtook Apple in functionality. Apple made do with consistency and premium quality but there came to be a plateauing of growth in what could be offered. It got to the point where the competition was just how to better, in slight incremental proportions, what was already on offer.

Concurrently, Android's conditional free OS allowed inexpensive but less-powered devices from Asian OEMs to flood the middle- and lower-income earning market. Those poorly executed products conspired to give the platform a bad reputation with many concluding that Android as a whole was a terrible OS to be involved with. Among other considerations, this led Google to place emphasis on standards and engineer Android to work as efficiently on the less-powered as it did with flagships.

What that move birthed was phenomenal especially considering the need for low-priced but efficiently functional devices in many areas around the world, third-world countries inclusive. It triggered the possibility of smartphones priced at under-$50. Coupled with component-availability and affordability, it appeared the days where only the flagship assured of quality and efficiency but at high, out-of-normal-reach premium were numbered.

It appeared. At the time.

Today however, two devices have "appeared" with enough gravitas to stake their holding to that promise. I will allow readers read of the two devices, their quality (which ooze from every pore), the premium-ness, their functionalities, the possibility of personally customising both, their specs, their differentiations but more than anything else their unbelievable affordability for all the mobile-tech punch they pack.

These two
1. The OnePlus 2
2. The Moto G

Read. Then, ask yourself why anyone will spend over a 100k for a flagship when these devices are available at these price points and with these specs? That question, in its very essence is what happens when a true flagship killer is born and experienced for the first time.

For the most part, ignorance plays more than a pivotal role in the continued dominance of a flagship. Those who break their banks for flagships do so from a deep lack of the knowledge of the existence of comparative and inexpensive alternatives. Obviously, there remains the caste who do so, willingly or otherwise, for the class symbol these flagships carry. Definitely. However, knowledge is a defining characteristic in the emerging death of traditional mobile flagship.

Will this emergence hurt Apple's flagship? The jury is still out on that for now. But, can it force Apple to alter anything? Hmm...

Apple won't change their business model for anyone's sentiment. They have become the most valuable company today as a result. It's simple - control the design process and make it premium; control the software and optimise it to the fullest since you also design the hardware; control the pricing and the merchandising since you make both hardware and software; sell at a premium because you control hardware, software and merchandising, all and because you define a status and symbolise class.

With so much power and a compelling catalogue of premium products, you call the shots and no other competing manufacturer can make you sneeze or catch a cold with their attractive device releases. Mostly.

Although Android development has altered some Apple standards going forward like making phones with bigger screens and allowing permissions for some third-party applications that are favourite for smartphone users, Apple remains a stubbornly selfish yet veritable force in mobile tech. And it works for them that way. It doesn't work for their business model to sell cheap. Their iPhone C, which was supposed to have been a cheaper alternative for those who couldn't afford the flagship model, flopped spectacularly. I doubt they'd try it again.

Yet, this mobile tech market isn't entirely predictable. If clamshell phones (what we call flip phones) are making a comeback in 2015, who am I to speculate that Apple wouldn't do another cheap device tomorrow? After all, pressure from Android sales forced Apple's hand and made them enter the mini tablet market though their late visionary founder, Steve Jobs, had earlier labeled that genre of mobile devices dead on arrival.

Who knows? But, there is this certainty. The flagship killers will never be out of job. As far as flagships exist. slowly dying. Windows phones looking like relics. The dregs left for the others to contend with.

Then, phone components became more available and affordable. The tech finally caught up and hardware improved enough to match the processing demands of the software. With its Open Source model, Android grew in leaps and bounds and in some instances overtook Apple in functionality. Apple made do with consistency and premium quality but there came to be a plateauing of growth in what could be offered. The competition was how to better, in slight incremental proportions, what was already on offer.

Concurrently, Android's conditional free OS allowed inexpensive but less-powered devices from Asian OEMs to flood the middle- and lower-income earning market. Those poorly executed products conspired to give the platform a bad reputation with many concluding that Android as a whole was a terrible OS to be involved with. Among other considerations, this led Google to place emphasis on standards and engineer Android to work as efficiently on less-powered as it did with flagships.

What that move birthed was phenomenal especially considering the need for low-priced but efficiently functional devices in many areas around the world, third-world countries inclusive. It triggered the possibility of smartphones priced at under-$50. Coupled with component-availability and affordability, it appeared the days where only the flagship assured of quality and efficiency but at high, out-of-normal-reach premium were numbered.

It appeared. At the time.

Today however, two devices have "appeared" with enough gravitas to stake their holding to that promise. I will allow readers read of the two devices, their quality (which ooze from every pore), the premium-ness, their functionalities, the possibility of personally customising both, their specs, their differentiations but more than anything else their unbelievably affordability for all the mobile-tech punch they pack.

These two
1. The OnePlus 2
2. The Moto G

Read. Then, ask yourself why anyone will spend over a 100k for a flagship when these devices are available for these price points and with these specs? That question, in its very essence is what happens when a true flagship killer is born and experienced for the first time.

For the most part, ignorance plays more than a pivotal role in the continued dominance of a flagship. Those who break their banks for flagships do so for a deep lack of the knowledge of the existence of comparative and inexpensive alternatives. Obviously, there remains the caste who do so, willingly or otherwise, for the class symbol these flagships carry. Definitely. However, knowledge is a defining characteristic in the emerging death of traditional mobile flagship.

Will this emergence hurt Apple's flagship? The jury is still out on that for now. But, can it force Apple to alter anything? Hmm...

Apple won't change their business model for anyone's sentiment. They have become the most valuable company today as a result. It's simple - control the design process and make it premium; control the software and optimise it to the fullest since you also design the hardware; control the pricing and the merchandising since you make both hardware and software; sell at a premium because you control hardware, software and merchandising, all and because you define a status and symbolise class.

With so much power and a compelling catalogue of premium products, you call the shots and no other competing manufacturer can make you sneeze or catch a cold with their attractive device releases. Mostly.

Although Android development has altered some Apple standards going forward like making phones with bigger screens and allowing permissions for some third-party applications that are favourite for smartphone users, Apple remains a stubbornly selfish yet veritable force in mobile tech. And it works for them that way. It doesn't work for their business model to sell cheap. Their iPhone C, which was supposed to have been a cheaper alternative for those who couldn't afford the flagship model, flopped spectacularly. I doubt they'd try it again.

Yet, this mobile tech market isn't entirely predictable. If clamshell phones (what we call flip phones) are making a comeback in 2015, who am I to speculate that Apple wouldn't do another cheap device tomorrow? After all, pressure from Android sales forced Apple's hand and made them enter the mini tablet market though their late visionary founder, Steve Jobs, had earlier labeled that genre of mobile devices dead on arrival.

Who knows? But, there is this certainty. The flagship killers will never be out of job. As far as flagships exist.

Device Choice and Preference

I used to prefer a device on the cutting edge of tech that made me only one of the first few with the latest OS, freshly baked. That lasted a good while. Until the "Almighty" holders of power "changed it for me". Of what use was a latest software-running-device, when it was dead from 100% battery to shut-down in 3 hours of heavy use, or less?

I became a wall-hugger, always to be seen with a device plugged to charge while being used. Cos there was no telling how much juice will be left when the electricity supply was cut. And, it was always a case of scampering for chargers and plugs to slot the phone into as soon as power was restored.

Plans to charge the device to capacity were made ahead of any extended period away from a wall socket. Extra chargers had to be bought to accompany the phone outside the normal residences and points-of-regular-charging. When those still didn't make the phone live longer between charges, power packs gained notoriety. Vendors seized the initiative and today, it's only sometime now before you'd see a power-pack sold beside the regular "gala" sausage. It was so lucrative, our countrymen ventured into it and sowed weeds of fakes in the midst of the original fruits of power packs. As usual.

I didn't need further preachments to change preferences. Again, the issue was about how much good was a tech-blazing device when for half the time it was either keeping you tethered to a wall socket or it was dead, the other half? Options for a device on the bleeding edge of technology but with a bigger battery juice than my aging Nexus 4 came at a premium. A premium I was as unwilling to pay as could be imagined.

As I was in the market for a phone, I tied it to a fresh preference - a huge battery power. I'd have said humongous but tech products today aim more for a slimmer profile with the ongoing internecine war to churn out the record-setting slimmest-smartphone-ever still raging. As with the attractions to slim down body-parts, some goodness is lost in the process. Battery always suffered.

Then, just as I was salivating over the battery juice in the Huawei Ascend Mate 7 - saying nothing of the eye-watering gorgeousness of its hardware and the steep edge of its over a 100,000 asking price - a Chinese vendor caught my eye. And even if I'd not have believed a crystal-ball reader telling me some months back that I'd ever use one of such devices much less own one, I was sold.

In less than a week, I know it was as right a decision as I've ever made. For now. With a bigger battery than even the latest offerings from Samsung and Apple and a splendid screen tech to boot, I've begun living life away from the charger. And it's super duper. It takes the heft of the iPhone 6+ and Samsung Galaxy Note 4 to the cleaners coming with that phablet screen real estate but with a chunkier battery and at a ridiculous price of N25,000.

Yea, I may be your common, regular, cheapskate but when personal preferences are involved, none of that matters. A full battery on this beast with 4000mAh outlasts my heavy usage easily without breaking a sweat (the Ascend Mate 7 had a 4100mAh battery). I don't care much about DISCOs and their consanguineous links to the GENCOs no more as I'm enjoying my Infinix Hot Note. Say what you will. Na you geh yur mouth.

Apple Watch? Thanks, but no thanks.

Of course, I followed the unveiling event in real time online. And to say I was disappointed would be wrong.

As most already know, I'm an Android proselytiser, preaching to any who lends an ear, the benefits Android carries over other platforms especially over iOS, Android most powerful competitor (were you aware of this my position? If not, you now do).

So naturally, the question will be why would saying the Apple Watch was a disappointment be wrong, in effect? It'd mean I was lying. It's really easy to understand why. Allow me explain. Please indulge the length. It was deemed necessary to create a comprehensible background. Thank you.

Apple won itself international acclaim for the luxuriously finesse quality of their design chops. Until recently, no other device manufacturer came close to an Apple product where design was the criteria. None. Right next to it's renown for design, was it's ability to simplify a process into intuitive steps. Sliding, clicking, dragging and navigation (back and forth) on their devices were so easy, children could pick them up and get busy without much help.

Such was the visionary leadership of Steve Jobs that he could produce use-value in his devices that people never knew they needed and when they got it, wondered how they were able to have been living without it. Each iteration of their products, from the laptops to Personal Computers, from the iPods to the iPads and from one version of the iPhone to the next carried with it that premium feel that left those who saw it at the unveiling utterly speechless. It was Apple's inherent W-factor. The WOW-factor.

Then, Jobs died.

His death, couldn't have come at a most inauspicious time. For at the cusp of his passing, there was a new enemy on the horizon. Android. And the rise and rise of the Android army changed the landscape of tech competition and ineluctably signaled the beginning of the end of the W-factor.

I'd not deny Samsung's copying of Apple's "dress sense" in the design DNA of their initial Android devices, since Apple has won in some court rooms using exhibits Samsung couldn't deny, just as I'd not digress into the series of tech Apple relied on (you could also use "copied" here and not be wrong) but quickly patented in designing their iPhone.

However, forced to differentiate, Samsung went back to the drawing board and returned with a vengeance that has seen them trump the iPhone in every market ever since (save maybe America) and seen them displace Apple as the manufacturer with the most smartphone sales.

This Samsung triumph was heralded by the choices made available to users powered by Android. There was a screen size for all types of hands sizes (to each, his or her own) and tastes followed by the choice of storage expansion using memory cards and removable batteries (especially when you run out of power and need to keep your phone chugging on). It didn't stop there as regards choices on Android tho', Samsung was only the biggest fish in the pond. There was LG, Sony, Motorola and finally, of the big 5, there was HTC.

While Samsung danced around plastics (durable polycarbonate plastics tho') and made people who wanted a premium feel to their devices feel cheated, HTC always had the potential to blow away all competition when it came to design. To HTC then went all who cared a little more about how their phone felt in the hand but didn't want an iPhone. Yet, it wasn't until last year's HTC One (M7) did HTC come into it's own rivalling, nay beating, the iPhone at it's game of thrones for the prize of the most quality-feeling phone design. The top awards it won ahead of the iPhone in the design department only bore testimony to the end of the quality wars in Apple's favour.

HTC wasn't done yet and in 2014 bettered the M7 when they outed the HTC One M8. Though a glance was enough to know that there was no other phone on the planet quite like it, a touch of the device was other-worldly. It merely confirmed HTC as the design Kings. Dazall.

Now, as the loss of the W-factor condemned Apple to a lesser-than device manufacturer in the quality department, the pace of software development in Android, spurred by it's Open Source framework, blazed on. Teething problems like bugs, forced closes, freezing and lags across the Android OS shrank away when the hardware developed enough to match the awesome software. A plethora of devices for every price point (for the poor and rich, and everyone in between) no doubt helped to cement Android's leadership of the market segment.

All too suddenly, Apple found itself in an unfamiliar space. The catch-up space. It's premium-ness was now second to HTC and Android had become not only as intuitive but was gaining in widespread acceptance as the go-to device in markets where Apple used to enjoy exclusivity in smartphone experience and sale. Juxtaposed with some Android devices with larger screens, iPhones could almost pass for toyish copies. And Apple's legal battles with almost every other phone manufacturer was making it appear like a sorry loser, an adolescent unhappy with his more successful younger sibling. Worse, it's toyish devices were deemed luxury items cause they comparatively sold at a premium. Too expensive for what could be bought for less.

These pushed Apple to release two devices last year. A "longer" flagship (iPhone 5S) and a regular 5C which so happened to be the iPhone 4 in plastic. Steve Jobs must have recoiled in horror to see his beloved luxurious product in plastic but they had their backs on the wall and that was the response they could muster. The catching up game was catching up. The 5C was meant to be the cheaper version to challenge cheaper Android phones and the 5S was for the topdogs.

The failure of the C is a story of it's own. It's enough here to say that it was such a flop, even Apple was ashamed to be associated with it. So much so that they didn't renew the plastic this year.

But what do we see this year. More catch up. There's a pic-story I shared on my wall comparing the features of the iPhone 6 to my 2012 Nexus 4. #TrueStory but please don't let this prevent you from independent verification of the claims. The iPhone 6 Plus on the other hand improves on a few of those features and seems to be Apple's answer to the Phablets on Android especially the runaway success that is the Note "category" owned totally by Samsung but with a good number of competitors particularly the awesome LG G3, the first Quad Def screen.

So, finally we come to the Apple Watch. What the history above presented carried over to the smartwatch segment as well. Android Wear watches became an item especially this year with Samsung, LG and Asus leading the fray until the Moto 360 joined in as the first and most beautiful of round watch faces (all the others, apart from the LG R watch, have squarish watch faces). The Moto 360 tried to replicate a  wristwatch that is backed with the smarts of Android OS. And my, was it beautiful. (Don't believe. Google it)

The philosophy behind Android Wear (that is, Android for smartwatches) is so simply genius that you'd have thought it was Apple's idea. That is, the old, Steve Jobs' Apple. The irony! It's designed to render information quickly and briefly and to shorten the number of times the user reaches into their pockets or bags to check their phones for notifications. Just as you glance to check the time, you glance to see who's calling, who just sent a text, what appointment are you supposed to meet... in general, what just caused your phone to vibrate or to ring. That way, it's an accompaniment of the phone but for easy access. IT WAS NOT TO BE A SHRUNK ANDROID PHONE, but an accompanying device that makes using the phone only when necessary for the big stuff. Ain't that genius? So, it had just swipe functions, going up or down and heeded to voice actions. So, you could quickly get back to what you were doing especially if you were driving.

But what have we here with the catch up tech company? They who claimed to not have shrunk the computer to the wrist? A full collection of all, or almost all, apps. FOR A WATCH!!!! Colour me disappointed. There are bubbles of different colours for your apps so small, a myopic person will have issues seeing them, saying nothing of those with sausage-sized fingers. Oh, but the crown knob will help you zoom in for better finger use, yea? Yet the knob designer forgot totally that not all their buyers will be right-handed. How about the app bias of the knob functions? Performing zooming in this app and scrolling in another without the user knowing which one applied until use. Then, wait for the best one, and this isn't about the ugly user interface oo. No, though that one sef dey, the watch has varied counter-intuitive interactions: there's TAP, PRESS (with "taptic" feedback), SCROLL (up, down, right, left). How's that for a device that's that small? A device that's supposed to get you stuff done fast and get you going?

If it were a standalone device, needing no other item to function, and handling it all by itself, especially it's health usage (which is quite stellar), then one could snort at my grouses. However, with all these, it still requires to be used as an accompanying device (I'd try not to say catch up again) with the iPhone. If that is so, why try to make it another iPhone but for the wrist and still needing to be tied to the real iPhone? This is a question that may never have risen had Steve Jobs been involved in the design process. But there's no turning back the hands of time now, yea? Yes, pun intended.

I'd try not to say how unmoved I am by the looks of the watch. It's just there given what I've seen of the Samsung GEAR, the LG R Watch, the Asus ZENWATCH and the beautiful Moto 360 (go check them all out and decide for yourself 'cause these devices are all about personal tastes). It doesn't scream Apple like Apple products usually do. It's funny how the iFans who wanted to crucify Samsung for throwing all types of gadgetry into their devices (with large screens oo) are now dancing round the Apple campfire when their watch (with it's tiny screen) cramps all the apps on it. There's not enough space left for me to shake my head.

None of these will affect Apple too much (it would seem I've wasted my time, yes?) They'd sell the phones in millions because it is Apple. Each phone sold will equal two or three of the price of the competition. They'd sell the watches too, at a premium. People, the iSheep, as they're "fondly" known, will spend days lined up in front of Apple stores to be first to own them. Apple stock will go up in due time and make the company the most valuable. As usual.

The duopoly in mobile between the top shots, Android OS and iOS will rage on. I like the competition. It keeps both platforms on their toes, forcing then to innovate and not rest on their oars. The consumers are the happier for it. In the end, I'd still root for Android even though the concessions remain that Apple got this industry going and still remains a point of reference.

Granted, an iFan will take exceptions to certain things here said. The story will differ on several points if told from the other side. That is understandable especially if the facts remain sacred.

Android Device Preference Today

I'd say the OnePlus One because of its price and specs. However, it's not available now except on an invite-only basis in Europe and America.

For available phones, the Samsung Galaxy S5 will be hard to beat but I'm not very fond of Samsung's devices, and that is just a personal thing not that it has anything to do with the awesome devices they manufacture. A close second (except for it's bad back camera) is the HTC One (2014 model) which is a unibody metal device and is easily the best designed device for this year so far. Not even the current crop of iPhones can beat it.

The upcoming LG G3 promises to astound everyone and blow the competition out of the water. Leaked pictures so far prove that it'll indeed be a device worth owning. It's left to LG's unveiling for us to know what else they've cooked into the sequel of their highly successful and popular G2.

However, personally? I've never stopped admiring the Motorola flagship device of last year, moto X. Since I bought a unit for my aunt last month, I've not only come to utterly appreciate the sleek design language of the device but have only words of praise for Motorola's decision to stick to Android's default software User Interface (UI) rather than add to it as others have done to distinguish the way their phones look on the screen from the others (Samsung has TouchWiz, HTC has Sense, and so on). What this means is that the phone doesn't lag anywhere. Things zip through from the micro-second your finger touches the screen to doing the action you intended. It's blazing fast. In addition to that, because there's no added UI, updates of the OS get to the device faster than others. Motorola's KitKat (Android 4.4.2) update arrived at the moto X way ahead of its arrival at the devices of other manufacturers. It was a thing of pride to be among the very first peeps across the Android ecosystem to enjoy the freshly minted version of Android long before other even more expensive device owners got it.

Also in the X's favour is moto maker, an online platform where a buyer can pick from a coterie of options - colours for the back, a different colour for accents (accents refer to the power and volume buttons and the ring around the camera lens), thereby personalising your phone even externally, making it a phone that's truly yours. My aunt picked a Spearmint back, Black front with Red accents.

This says nothing of the added series of Touchless Controls Motorola baked into the device such that a user will neither have to touch the screen nor unlock it to make it useful as merely speaking to the locked and blank screen of the phone, beginning with the words, "Ok, Google Now" unlocks the phone and opens the phone's microphone app ready to listen to what further instructions you want to give it. You can then proceed to perform a Google search, call a contact, ask a question, play a stored song already on your phone, open one of your phone's apps, all without even touching the phone and get results.

It's not outrageously big but designed with a beautiful curve that fits your palm comfortably and has a great battery management process that ensures a full battery doesn't run out before the day is over. Notifications and time gently appear on the locked screen when you pull it out of your bag or pocket so that you may have no need to unlock your screen every time just to check notifications or time or missed calls or whatever, keeping the time your screen will stay on to the minimum. I could go on and on, but I think the point of my admiration is obvious. To even know that a sequel to this device (rumoured to be known as X+1 is planned soon since the initial X is now about 7 months) is exhilarating. I can't wait to see what that'll bring to the game. Maybe a better camera, which will be a big bonus. Their lower spec'ed cousins, the moto G, and the lowest, the moto E carry some of the X's features but reduced for a bargain cost. The X is flagship level, the G is mid-range and the E is entry level.

There's also the Nexus 4 and Nexus 5 devices as well but their atrocious battery makes me refrain from adding them to my small list here.

However, device choices are the most personal decisions people should make and these decisions should not be based on another person's preferences. What each person desires from a device do not always tally with the desires of another. These cover the entire gamut of what makes a device tick, from screen size to operating system, from phone design to camera sharpness, from touchless controls to user interfaces, from range/level to price of a unit, from ease of use to showboating, all these come to play when choice is concerned for individuals who are indeed unique. So, my preferences here aren't binding on anyone, they simply reflect my view of what a device means for me.

About Android devices and all the hype

A response to a brother's query on the hype of Android devices

I'm more of an Android purist than an evangelist for any of the OEMs (Original Equipment Manufacturers) who, in a bid to distinguish themselves from the competition, consider it necessary to, not only alter the beautiful vanilla stock User Interface, but to plough a sizeable portion of their investment capital into Research and Development that introduces several other functionalities into the device, especially flagship devices, thereby outpricing these devices by way too much.

The truth is that some of these functionalities are actually necessary and some wonder why they were not included in Android by default and some other functionalities improve upon what is available by default. The crux of this argument lies in the inclusion of functionalities that the majority (non-geeky, non-research-minded) clientele who would buy these units, without doing an ounce of the detailed background reading you've done,  may never use but which seem to add to the overall cost of production, and by extension, final costing of the device. This is not actually all that ingenious. It is a money-spinner for Samsung, and sounds appealing in the beautiful ads specifically created to, to borrow your term, 'hype' these bells and whistles.

Make no mistake, a geeky few actually buy these devices for these very add-ons but they are the happy minority.

To boot, there are always user complains. These are those for whom it is said, you cannot satisfy everyone. The fact is the internet is a reservoir for every need. Need I seek to drown myself in complaints about every Apple products from the days when good ol' Stevie Jobs returned to the company he cofounded to raise it up from its ashes, I'd find. Need I desire to find how much Samsung copied the 'dress sense' of the iPhone to gain it's dominating role today in the business of smart devices, it's there. Are there more complaints about Android products than Apple's? Sure thing! Are there more complaints about Apple devices than Android's? Oh, yes sire! I could go on, but you get the idea?

However, when respected blogs and tech enthusiasts crown the S4 the smartphone king of 2013, it's safe to assume they know their gizmos and can judge in favour of what the standards are and what the practicality, in real life usage, outputs for each device given the various criteria they applied to reach their decisions. Their views ought to be respected however as their views.

In the end, it's up to the buyer. What are your preferences viz a viz the cash in your pocket. How can your mobile computing needs be best served with some change left to put food on your table? Or even to allow you some money for data bundles, which still don't come cheaper today than before. I have discovered, personally, that Android suits me. Not just any Android but Nexus Android. It's cheaper, heavily subsidised by El Google, works like a champ, has a specs sheet like any other flagship, gets the latest and greatest updates the fastest and is downright securely locked down (not all will agree, but I don't run an antivirus on my device today).

Knowing the questions people ask me often about tech and devices and seeing that it mirrors my inquisitiveness as well, I often believe that many will not tarry to join in my preference should the knowledge I have be shared with them. That's why I share Android-related news often and Nexus ones too, every once in a while. Motorola, now a Google company, is treading this path too - offering nicely spec'd devices, with stock Android and therefore are getting updates faster to their devices (even beating the Nexus 4 to getting 4.4.2 on the Moto X). That's just brilliant.

For me, OEMs can improve Android if they must, but devices should be affordable and updates should be timely. However, do your best to be the manufacturer of the best device on the best mobile platform that offers choice, adaptability, freedom and security.