Tag Archives: Google

Easy Hacks for Getting More out of Android

Android is not the most user- or beginner-friendly OS. Yet, it runs on literally billions of devices, so it’s worth becoming at least minimally competent in it. Below I’ve provided 10 basic tips for streamlining your Android experience to the point that it resembles something more polished. Note that I came up with and/or tested most of these techniques on an LG Nexus 5 and Nexus 4, one running stock Android KitKat and the other Jelly Bean.

Change how much memory Chrome can use


Chrome can be allotted more memory.

As a rule, mobile browsers are not great mobile apps. They cannot match native apps for speed or user experience, and the gap between the two has even led to the fear that the Web is dying. But sometimes you need one, maybe to handle a link someone sent you, for instance.

Chrome isn’t as fast as third-party alternatives such as Dolphin, but that can be remedied. Type this into the URL bar:


Then, select 512. You’re in for some smooth scrolling and page rendering. Not however that the system will become much more aggressive about how it manages and kills apps so that it can free up resources for Chrome.

Open content in native apps rather than Chrome


Opening John Gruber’s App.net feed in Robin rather than Chrome (back when App.net wasn’t dead).

Remember what I just said about native apps? The best ones are much better than any (slow) mobile Web app.

One of the great perks of Android is being able to pick what app opens certain types of content. So when you click a link to Wikipedia, for example, you may be given the option to open it in the Wikipedia app for Android (if installed) rather than Chrome or your default browser. Your mileage may vary, but the following apps are excellent for viewing links that would otherwise direct you to a tiny Web view:

  • Wikipedia
  • Tumblr (use the “Open in Tumblr” button at the top of the page)
  • IMDb
  • Reddit is Fun Golden Platinum (for reddit links)
  • YouTube
  • Instagram
  • Pocket Casts (really wonky/nerdy podcasting client: mainly for podcast RSS links)
  • Twitter

Toggle Bluetooth and other radios from the lockscreen

Screenshot (09-31PM, May 16, 2014)

The Bluetooth extension can be tapped to toggle Bluetooth.

DashClock Widget is one of your best friends. It provides shortcuts to unread texts, emails, weather data and more from your lockscreen.

If you’re on KitKat, you’ll need to go to Settings -> Security -> Enable Widgets to make sure it can run. After that, you can install tons of extra extensions. One of my favorites is the DashClock Custom Extension, which can do just about anything, including toggle Bluetooth and Wi-Fi. Just tap from the lockscreen, and the setting is changed.

Change icons without installing a launcher

Screenshot (03:14PM, Apr 13, 2014)

These icons were made with LINE Deco and are running on the stock Google Now launcher.

Tired of all those low-res icons that look like they were just ported straight from iOS? That’s an easy fix – just install LINE Deco. t. Basically, it lets you pick any of thousands of different icons you want to stand in for your apps, and it doesn’t require you to change your launcher or buy an icon pack.

Enable data compression and bandwidth management in compatible apps


Some apps offer options for data compression.

Do you need to watch how much mobile data you’re using? Some apps have settings that can help you out. In Chrome, go to Settings -> Bandwidth Management, where you can adjust when Chrome preloads webpages and toggle its handy Reduce Data Usage feature. Other apps can also compress HTTP requests. Above is an example from the Hacker News 2 client.

Tap and hold Shift and drag over a letter for capitalization


It’s not that hard to type capitals using the Shift and drag method.

This trick is usually found by accident. If you press and hold on the Shift key on the default Google Keyboard, and then drag your finger from there to a key, you can get a capital letter without having to go through the weird multiple taps on Shift needed to enable caps lock.

Customize Google Now with…a magic wand?


Inside the Magic Wand screen on Google Now.

Google Now has a weird interface. What I mean is: there’s a magic wand at the bottom of the screen. What does it do? If you click it, it lets you customize your Google Now settings, adding new card and removing ones that were based on some errant search you did long ago and aren’t helpful anymore.

Set up automatic device sleep times


Battery Widget Reborn can be configured with automatic sleep times.

An easy way to save lots of battery is to turn off Wi-Fi and mobile data at night. Apps such as Battery Widget Reborn can configured to put your device into Night Mode at hours of your choosing, meaning that use almost no battery while you’re sleeping (plus you don’t get annoying notifications out of nowhere at midnight).

Link UCCW to specific apps


This UCCW predictably links to the Facebook app.

Ultimate Custom Clock Widget can do almost anything. I wrote a short guide to it last year. One of the best features is the ability to link certain hotspots – areas on the graphical widget – to apps of your choosing. So you could click the battery meter of a UCCW and be taken straight to Battery Widget Reborn, or click the unread mail count and enter straight into Email/Gmail.

Hide built-in app icons you don’t like/use


Launchers such as Nova Launcher Prime can hide unwanted icons from view.

If you’re bothered by the icons for seldom used apps such as Google+ or News and Weather, you can get rid of them. Install a launcher such as Nova Launcher Prime and then navigate through the settings to manage the app drawer. Many launchers have an option for hiding any app that you specify from the icon grid.

What would it take for Google to decline?

A recent thread in /r/AskReddit posed a similar question. The comments were revelatory, with plenty of resigned jokes about the heat death of the universe, antitrust proceedings, and the (unlikely) rise of Bing being the only ways for Mountain View’s best to be bested:

  • “The first and most obvious way to cause a decline might be from some sort of anti-monopoly judgement being levied on them causing say for example the search engine portion of google, to be split from the part of google that manages android and chrome.” – /u/icantrecallaccnt
  • “The heat death of the universe. Though they’ll probably buy some quirky startup that’s figured out how to reverse entropy and remain in business forever.” – /u/SoresuMakashi
  • ‘The Big Bing’ – /u/tenillusions
  • “If Chinese mega-sites and portals decide to really take expansion outside of their borders seriously. Baidu, Tencent et al are well on their way.” – /u/Tuxedo_Superman

Granted, there were some thoughtful responses that probed Google’s complacence and ongoing alienation of its important demographics (advertisers, developers – note: not end-users). But I think the issue isn’t so much that Google has gotten fat and happy and turned into Microsoft 2.0 (riding Search, Maps and Gmail the same way Ballmer et al rode Windows XP and Office). Rather, the issue is that Google is desperate.

Odd word choice? Not really – Wired picked up on it recently, too, with the keen observation that the middling Google+ has left Google clinging to ever-declining per-click costs while trying to find something – anything – to help it keep pace with rivals such as Facebook, that, despite having nowhere near Google’s profits, have arguably staked out a better slice of smartphone attention spans. I have often made fun of Facebook for being essentially a channeling of some of the best talents in computer science toward the end of designing hamburger buttons and click-by-accident advertising, but I admit that its new mobile strategy – discrete offerings for messaging, news, etc. – amplifies the threats to Google’s Web-centric business model that have always resided in walled-garden apps.

Still, you’d be hard pressed to find  much appetite in the mainstream technology media for examining Google’s weaknesses. In contrast, Apple – the world’s most profitable company – is often construed as facing near-constant extinction if it doesn’t, say, release a smart watch in the next two months. The inimitable Horace Dediu succinctly broke down the double standard in his post, “Invulnerable” –

“I suspect the absence of scrutiny comes from Google being seen as an analogy of the Internet itself. We don’t question the survival of the Internet so we don’t question the survival of Google — its backbone, its index, and its pervasive ads which, somehow, keep the lights on. We believe Google is infrastructure. We don’t dwell on whether electric grids are vulnerable, or supplies of fuel, or the weather.”

I would go a step further and say that Google is like a church or a cathedral. That is, it is frequently visited, assumed to be a mainstay of the cultural fabric regardless of external economic conditions and – most importantly – it collects little to no money from any of the end users who interact with it. Sure, parishioners may make a slight donation to the local church, but the real funding comes from other sources; likewise, Joe Surfer doesn’t directly pay Google for anything, with the possible exception of a buck or two for extra Google Drive space or Google Play Music All Access. Hence, the actual business of Google is abstracted from consumers, who end up spending little or no time contemplating how or why it could go belly up – it’s not like they can point to reduced foot traffic or ridiculous clearance sales as harbingers of decline.

The signs are there, though:

-Let’s start with Android. Android was a defensive land grab to stop Microsoft and then Apple from shutting Google out of mobile. It has succeeded in terms of worldwide adoption, but it confers on Google nowhere near the profits that iOS has on Apple. Maybe that’s not a fair comparison, but it’s symbolic of how Android was never designed from the ground up as a sustainable business but as a vehicle for legacy Google services (there hasn’t been a really great new Google service since Maps in 2005).

As such, Google is always tinkering with Android to make it less like an open source project and more like its own Google service. Peter Bright’s article on forking Android understandably struck a nerve with Google, which is awkwardly trying to maintain Android’s chief competitive advantage (no licensing fees, tons of customization possibilities for OEMs and carriers) while bringing it further under Mountain View’s umbrella.

-One of the best revelations of the ongoing Samsung-Apple legal battle is that Samsung really would like to move on from Android. Samsung isn’t a great leader, but the fact that it would even consider something as nascent as Tizen to take the place of Android on its smartphones lines is telling.

-Google Glass reeks of desperation. Jay Yarow of Business Insider insisted that Google botched Glass’ launch, ensuring that it would never take its apparently rightful place as the successor to the iPad as the next big thing in consumer tech. It’s a computer for the face, with no obvious use case as yet, a crazy price tag, and understandable cultural stigma. Tech media were wrong to puff it up as the Next Big Thing, but consider also the absurdity of this situation: Google is trying to sell a terrible HUD in order to get out ahead of the competition, like Apple did to much better effect with the iPod and then the iPhone.

-It’s not just Glass, either. The Nest acqusition, the Boston Dynamics aquisition, and the obsession with “sci-fi” projects at GoogleX. – Google could be looked at as “shooting for the moon.” Or, it could be viewed instead as desperately trying to find any revenue stream alternative to mobile ads, which just don’t work like desktop ones do and, moreover, are subject to intense competition from social networks and messaging platforms.

-The sci-fi thing merits more attention. Forever ago, I wrote this about Google Glass and its ilk:

By “the future,” commentators usually mean “a reality corresponding to some writer or creative artist’s widely disseminated vision,” which shows the odd poverty of their own imagination as well as the degree to which they often underestimate the power of creative artists/humanities types to drive technological evolution. But can human ingenuity really aspire to nothing more than the realization of a particular flight of fancy? Should we congratulate ourselves for bringing to life the technology from a reality that doesn’t exist?

Trying to actualize the fantasies of sci-fi is not forward-looking; it is, by definition, backward-looking, with respect to someone’s text or vision about what was possible in the past. If someone created a real Death Star today, it would be impressive – as a testament to madness. Why would someone exert such enormous, concerted effort at recreating a technology conceived for recreational purposes in the 1970s, by individuals who had no idea that smartphones, MP3s, Bluetooth, Wi-Fi, and on on would be invented?

To analyze sci-fi is often to analyze what it doesn’t conceive of. I watched Gattaca recently, a 1997 movie with a setting in the far future. What was in this high-tech future? Big, hulking desktop PCs and keyboards. Sci-fi is the product of constrained imagination (“the future is hard to predict” – Captain Obvious), but imitating it is even more self-defeating. For this reason, I am immensely pessimistic about the prospects of any of Google’s top-secret projects being a breakthrough that would expand its business or appeal in meaningful ways. Sci-fi is a small porthole on the future.

-Google’s customers are advertisers and other businesses, not individuals. It reaches the latter by its presence on platforms that belong to the former – think its default search engine deals for Firefox and Safari. There’s not any real competition on those fronts for now  – Bing is good but has lithe mindshare, and Yahoo is still locked into its deal with Microsoft. But Marissa Mayer is driven to displace Google on iOS, and Apple and Yahoo have a good relationship (Yahoo provides the data for Weather on iOS, for example). As MG Siegler has pointed out, it seems implausible that Apple would go on subsidizing Google, enabling it to make so much money off of iOS, money that it can channel into Android.

-Once one gets into the “Google isn’t invulnerable” mindset, it’s easy to see everything as a weakness, sometimes without good reason. But think about its efforts to bring Chrome OS apps to mobile devices. Such a tack seems defensive – a way to halt the decline of the Web and keep matters squarely in the realm of JS, HTML and CSS. I’ve often argued that Chrome OS is more of a breakthrough than Android (it has the potential to disrupt both the business model of Windows PCs and the essential appeal of tablets), but it looks like it could turn into just a moat for Google’s existing (and, to be fair, highly profitable, at least for now) Web businesses.

-Google+ has become the DNA of Google services. Its profile system is a way of indexing Internet users. It has succeeded in helping Google collect more nuanced data, even if it hasn’t exactly done much to blunt the impact of Twitter, Facebook, and others. But now that Vic Gundotra is leaving, Google+ looks weirdly quaint – like nothing more than Gundotra’s messy senior project for getting hired by another firm. There are already rumors that the Google+ team will be split up and sent to other projects (in the same way that the Google Reader team was once chopped up to work on Google’s initial forays into social).

Look, Google isn’t going to turn into AOL or Yahoo. But it should be increasingly apparent that Google is not synonymous with the Internet at large, and is not guaranteed to constantly occupy so much mind share.

How to remake your Android home screen with LINE Deco

Last year, I wrote a popular post about improving your day-to-day experience on Android devices by using launchers, icon packs, battery managers, and other utilities. With so much fragmentation (on both hardware and software), Android can be a tough beast to tame, but using a classic combo such as Nova Launcher + Stark is a good way to essentially get a blank slate so that you can tweak appearance and functionality to your own desire.

Still, it’s a bit of work. Not all users are going to feel comfortable (or be able to) leave behind the stock Android or Google Now launcher for something else. Plus, icon packs can quickly become annoying – they vary widely in the number and type of icons they support, or you might find one that has a great G+ icon but for some crazy reason doesn’t have an icon for Evernote, for example.

Leading icon pack makers, most notably Kovdev, have feature request backlogs that could literally take years to implement, and as such have implemented a premium system under which users can pay a fee to have a particular icon(s) added soon. The great Out There space simulator is one app that I noticed getting the fast-track treatment in Kovdev’s packs. But who is going to pay $5-$10 for an icon?

LINE to the Rescue
LINE is nominally a communications app that includes VoIP calling, OTT messaging, and videoconferencing. Many probably know it as an app that is full of a dizzying array of stickers, revenues from which fuel LINE’s ad-free business model. It’s much more sophisticated that WhatsApp, Viber, or Tango, all three of which have been the subject of blockbuster acquisitions and/or financing this year. It’s heady days for messaging apps.

LINE, though, is an entire platform: just look at its range of services. The LINE Camera app is feature-packed photo editor that taps into the same premium upgrade system as its main messaging. LINE Deco is a custom Android experience in one package – wallpapers and icons included.

Here’s a home screen I made using a combination of different LINE Deco icon packs (many of which are free) and wallpapers:

Line Deco

A home screen remade with LINE Deco

All of these icons are running on the default Google Now launcher on a Nexus 5. LINE Deco has pulled off the feat of making Android customization simultaneously more advanced and much easier to use  (not easy to do) – no extra launchers or standalone icon pack-apps are required, yet users can choose from a huge variety of differently shaped and colored artwork (I went mostly with a hand drawn theme).

Before Facebook began its quest to separate services into multiple apps (Paper, Messenger, Poke) and in the midst of Google’s efforts to do something similar (making core Android functionalities such as the keyboard and Google+ backup photos into their own apps), LINE figured out that an overarching social experience can be distributed across a bunch of interconnected silos. Chatting, calling, customizing your home screen, taking photos – it’s all part of one experience that can be targeted with related apps.

That’s why I said that LINE was a platform. If WhatsApp can be found for $19 billion, it’s hard to fathom what price LINE could command were it actually for sale. It’s letting us make our devices more personalized, while keeping us within its increasingly rich ecosystem. I’m all for this mobile future supported by icon pack and sticker sales rather than tons of ads.

When Will Google Make Another Breakthrough Product?

Software and hardware vendors are held to a ridiculously high standard – many times, the press will be breathing down their necks about a “lack of innovation” or some similarly meaningless term when their current product line is still doing remarkably well and changing – even if subtly – the markets that they occupy. A good example is the absolutely exhausting “Apple can’t innovate without Steve Jobs” trope that has been beaten like a drum by unimaginative writers since 2011, even as Apple has unveiled, well, innovations like AirDrop for iOS, 64-bit mobile processors, and high-resolution MacBooks. Likewise, Nintendo is the subject of endless ire for the struggling Wii U (which has sold 4 million units – nothing to set the world on fire, but hardly a $900 million writedown), even as the original Wii crossed 100 million in lifetime sales, the 3DS line became the best dedicated gaming device, and the company’s StreetPass/Miiverse system proved that it count use “the Internet” is ways that no one else could.

What’s weird about the “innovation” obsession is how unevenly it is applied. For example: when was the last time that someone really scolded Google for a “lack of innovation”?

Part of the reason that Google has been spared the knife is that is has too many products. Nice also-rans like Google Keep, throwaways like Google Currents, and core products like Search and Gmail – combined, this constantly shifting portfolio serves as a shield against anyone who could swipe in and say “Google isn’t innovating” (it also helps that the company’s founders are still involved – tho it would be fun to start a “Google can’t innovate without Eric Schmidt” argument).

But having a lot of products doesn’t mean Google is innovating. It just means that it deflect press attention to struggling initiatives, unlike Apple or Nintendo, both of which support only a few core products at a time (and as such, if one does well or fails, it gets an inordinate amount of attention). What has Google done since, say, 2005, when it unveiled Google Maps?

  • Google Chrome – a Webkit browser, beaten to the punch (on desktop) by 5 years by Safari. It performs better than Safari in many instances, but it’s a catch-up tool. This can be seen in how Chrome didn’t even come to mobile until 2012 and wasn’t the default browser on stock Android until the first Nexus 7 was released, while Safari shipped with the iPhone from day one.
  • Android – this looks impressive on the surface (and I enjoy using it – it was the impetus for starting this blog), but it was an acquisition that succeeded because of its free, open source roots and how it was updated in response to the first two iPhones. Google’s creation of a propriety Google+/Hangouts portal could take it in an odd direction.
  • Google Fiber – a niche Internet service project in the U.S. that would be prohibitively expensive to build nationwide and is already being outflanked by competitors like AT&T.
  • Google Drive/Docs – the definition of an also-ran, in that it imitated Dropbox and Office without adding much new.
  • Google+ – a confusing response to Facebook that is super-useful in some workflows (photo backup) and utterly annoying (no functionality if not signed-in, terrible connection to real-life) in others. It’s essentially a mildly interesting blog platform that hasn’t caught public interest, since users have much better alternatives like Tumblr.
  • Google Play – a belated response to the App Store. Play Music All Access is Spotify (est’d. 2008) in a different wrapper.
  • YouTube – an acquisition that has been turned into a spam machine via its poor comments system, its poorly imagined channel setup and the prospect of becoming yet another me-too music subscription service.
  • Google Glass – this is Segway 2.0 – a perfect match for insular geeks who pay for flying cars in bitcoin, but unlikely to become a mass-market success. The amount of attention Glass has gotten is a testament to the press’s fascination with “innovation” at the expense of the subtle iteration that often constitutes real change.

Maybe put it this way: what Web products do most people use from Google? Search, Gmail, and Maps. And all of those are ancient. They’ve been tweaked, but not always for the better – Gmail is increasingly a mess of separated inboxes and questionable compatibility with IMAP. Maps is primed for more advertising. These changes make me think that Google is spinning its wheels, a bit afraid of just blowing up something old and letting something new cannibalize it.

Google+ and Internet comments

“Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect.” – Mark Twain

The Internet versus intelligence
The Internet is a black hole, sucking in anyone and everyone with the slightest curiosity about anything  – but a lot of the gold at the end of the rainbow is not gold at all. No, it’s not coal, or brass, or poisonous lead, it’s something worse: A pile of YouTube/Hacker News/TechCrunch comments.

YouTube comments in particular are a cesspool of humanity, full of gems like:

  • Can I get likes for no reason
  • check out my channel!
  • Seems legit
  • I see what you did there
  • You just went full retard. Never go full retard
  • Faith in humanity lost
  • No fucks where given that day
  • Still a better love story than twilight
  • Go home you’re drunk
  • Do you even lift?
  • Getting real tired of your shit
  • Dafuq did I just see
  • ‘Murica
  • Then suddenly a wild pokemon appears
  • Watch out bitches! coming through
  • A wild chess game appears!
  • NO.
  • Doesn’t matter, had sex
  • 10/10 would bang
  • That’s enough internet for today
  • You had ONE job
  • Jokes on you, still masturbated
  • You sir won the internetz
  • Comment with most likes is a *
  • Fuking grammer Nazi

(hat tip Verge forum user Micr0b3)

The Internet has facilitated such sentiment on an unprecedented scale. The opportunity for anyone to spew bottomless rage against Miley Cyrus, cast “doubt” on the president’s birthplace, or derail a conversation by discussing the finer points of home-brew console development…well, I’ll grant that that’s “unprecedented,” a word often applied to the Internet (damn, I did it earlier and didn’t realize it til now!)

Comments sections may be the best case against “openness” online, a vaguely defined term that nevertheless puts on the airs of “anyone can write anything with no consequences while darting between YouTube, Netflix and Reddit on a bandwidth-neutral Net.” Every commenter is an expert, or at the very least a potential conversation hijacker whose hastily gathered yet half coherent sentiments can trigger thousand-word outbursts from her faceless peers.

Popular Science and the damage to knowledge
Online commenters are not simply wailing in a vacuum – they’re frequently causing real damage to the whole of human knowledge from behind their often anonymous guises. The paradox is that the Internet’s promise of anonymity and even impersonality has resulted in the creation of countless communities that are defined almost completely by edgy personality.  Evolutionary cues like strength and appearance are worthless when anyone can feign virility from behind a screen name, and as such, anger has become the quintessential online emotion.

It would be sad enough if the Internet were just an enabler for millions of angry, sad persons. It’s worse, though, since comments sections have become news unto themselves, their poisonous din distracting from actual events and trying to erode any achievement by others as individuals try to feel better about their own narrow outlooks. Today, Popular Science (finally!) announced that it was shutting down its comments sections on news stories:

“[B]ecause comments sections tend to be a grotesque reflection of the media culture surrounding them, the cynical work of undermining bedrock scientific doctrine is now being done beneath our own stories, within a website devoted to championing science.”

The issue with comments is probably evolutionary. As if caving to some outdated instinct to follow the tribe lest they be eaten by wild animals, people easily surrender in the face of massive upvotes, agreement, and likes. Unfortunately, the comments section conventional wisdom isn’t good at much else other than estimating the weight of a bull. I mean, did you ever try to assess music albums on the old Rolling Stone forums? Anonymity made it nigh impossible to get anywhere without having to slog through some contrarian bile or irrelevant points-earning sideshow.

Google+ to the rescue?
In a happy coincidence (in many fora, someone would mistakenly call this “ironic” and receive a stupidly stern, pointless lecture from a language bully, which contributes no value to civilization and probably destroys some by making someone feel bad), Google also announced today that it would begin tying YouTube comments to Google+ accounts.

Google+ is more than a social network – more like an identity service. I have mixed feelings toward its increasingly comprehensive tracking of every online twitch or murmur,  but its commitment to real names (and who really is going to expend the effort to create many G+ personae?) means that YouTube’s comments sections will finally have accountability, which is what comments have always needed. If G+ can get YouTube under control and also remain a valuable photo backup service, it’ll have contributed more societal value than Facebook ever has/will.