photo 500x90_zpstdr3iova.png

Robert Pattinson's batman is the Toyota Prius to Ben Affleck's coal-rolling 12-cylinder diesel pickup truck.

In a world where Birds of Prey bombs like an Islamic terrorist at the box office, and Ben Affleck's Batman project vanishes faster than evidence that Geoffrey Epstein didn't kill himself, comes a new take on an old Batman story - this time with Robert Pattinson as the legendary Ninja of dead parents, Batman.

This time, director Matt Reeves gives us our first look at the Batsuit up close, letting us rest easy in the knowledge that this thing doesn't have bat nipples like the George Clooney one did, and wasn't designed for the build of an 800lb gorilla the way Affleck's was.

The following is a clip from the director, courtesy of Veriety, with an ominous musical score by Michael Giacchino, depicting Pattinson's Batsuit from the waist up. In a scene darker than my house when I'm walking to the bathroom at 3 in the morning. Ambient light just barely makes the scene visible as Pattinson looks off into the distance, brooding harder than an edgy 14-year-old Atheist that just got bodied online in a fighting game.

Pattinson isn't the only A-listing actor joining the cast of the Batman. Zoe Kravitz joins the ranks as Catwoman, and Collin Farrell as the Penguin, Paul Dano as the Riddler, and Andy Serkis as Alfred Pennyworth; The butler-turned-adoptive father of Bruce Wayne.

There is an interview with Pattinson as he describes feeling "powerful" in the Batsuit, shortly after a village full of people had to physically squeeze him into it every time it was filmed.

The Batman's opening night is June 25th, 2021.

Robert Pattinson's new Batman Suit


If Sprint's PR department is anything to be believed, Leading the world in 5G data development, and a Sprint and T-Mobile marriage of networks could make it the best wireless carrier available to consumers. On the surface, Sprint seems to have a lot going for it these days. It owns the two big prepaid carriers, it's coverage is the closest to Verizon in terms of overall range of cellphone towers, and it's the first thing that comes to mind when searching for a direct alternative to AT&T. To bad Sprint —as a company— sucked balls like marbles through a vacuum cleaner.

It's not just my opinion. Back in 2017, Sprint came in dead last in categories like talk /text, LTE coverage, AND customer support, according to Consumer Reports survey that year.

The company still hasn't changed much since 2017. The complaints people have are still very much there. Despite excellent marketing and brand recognition that could rival Jesus Christ, all the exposure in the world can't help a company with low quality coverage, Electronic Arts-style prices, and LTE internet slower than AOL Dial-up in 1997.

The LTE sucks.

This image was stolen courtesy of this Tech Quickie article.

This is the problem that holds back Sprint’s sister companies like Virgin and Boost Mobile. Sprint LTE is slow enough to make Internet Explorer in 1996 look like Usain Bolt running from Dinosaurs in Jurassic Park. Doesn't matter if the coverage is within 1% of Verizon if it feels like you're playing an underwater level in an old Playstation 2 video game every time you load a web page. That is, if it manages to load a page at all.

The Talk and Text is crap most of the time.

This image comes from an article on Even the prices displayed here are completely false.

Your mileage may vary, like I mentioned earlier, but Sprint has probably the spottiest network in the history of hotspots. I have accepted and received calls that sounded like T-Pain's Autotune in a tumble dryer, and had texts that took almost 3 minutes to send after I sent them. Keep in mind, I've been both a Sprint customer for well over a year, and a Virgin Mobile customer since 2014. They both share the same network, and have the same coverage and LTE speeds. Same with Boost Mobile. Same network, same performance. Having lived in both Portland Oregon and California's Orange County, and the coverage has been equally terrible in both places. Yet in Burbank California, and visiting relatives in rural Indiana, the coverage is pretty much spot-on. No dropped calls, or wonky texts.

Most Sprint customers you ask complain about serious reliability issues, especially when traveling more than a mile in any direction. It isn't terrible everywhere, but most of what you hear are complaints from customers who already pay a steep price as it is, and still get the kind of coverage you would expect from bumming your neighbor's Wi-Fi.

Infrastructure is bad.

This is the phone I was trying to get linked to the Sprint network. It's the LG Stylo 4+, and it's the last phone that sprint will ever contaminate in my house.

I opted for the Unlimited Kickstart plan, trying to bring my phone number From Virgin to Sprint, in order to upgrade to a much better  -unlocked- phone. I sit on the phone for about three hours, with customer service reps scrambling trying to figure out why the hell it wasn't working. After being transferred 4 times, someone apparently mentioned what should have been obvious to Sprint technical support, or even sales reps: The $25/month Kickstart plan doesn't work on phone numbers that were already on the Sprint Network. This included Virgin Mobile, which is Sprint's sister company.

So, in order to get my phone number out of the Virgin Mobile prepaid hell, the only other option was the Unlimited Basic; a plan that not only costs an extra $35 more than Kickstart, but added a credit check, followed by a $42 activation fee. So after paying over $100 the first month, I was expected to pay $64 a month for slow internet and talk that sounds like EVP monitors in a haunted house.

I don't even blame the customer care for how long this ordeal even took. apparently, their internal infrastructure is shitting its pants every time you ask it to do anything, and the fact that the terms & conditions of unlimited Kickstart weren't readily available to them -the one group of people who should know what it is- is actually embarrassing.

Website is a mess

If the navigation bar isn't changing faster than a Digimon evolves, half the time, it doesn't actually work. This thing has so many glitches and errors,  you'd thing the website was hosted by Ubisoft Montreal.

I couldn't see my own bill for nearly a month because the website was such an unreliable cluster F*** of errors and spaghetti code.

Having a bad network is one thing, but having both an App and a website less reliable than a heroine addicted roommate is another. This website has been having problems for literally years now, but Sprint is more concerned with going door-to-door and proselyting for the Galaxy S10 like a Jahovas Witness on a Saturday morning than actually fixing the damn problem.

Pricing is awful

If you were to go to Sprint's website right now, and look for the actual price of wireless service for an actual smartphone you actually OWN, you will be lead down enough rabbit holes to have a working map of the lost city of ZION from the Matrix Reloaded. Apparently, Sprint is so ashamed of their actual plan's prices, they would rather show you a collage of advertisements for the Galaxy S10, and how many fetishes the company seems to have for asking people to LEASE the damn thing, that you would have to be halfway --or more-- through signing up for a 2-year contract before you can actually get a straight answer as to what you're going to be paying. This is not surprising, considering smartphone LEASES seem to be the only way this company makes money!

I don't ask for much from my wireless carrier. All I ask is that I don't pay anywhere near $65 for wireless service, whether it's reliable or not. I could buy tablets and smartphones every month for the amount of money I pay in wireless service fees. I don't even pay $65 for high-speed internet in my own house, let alone slow internet on my phone.

Yet and still, the Unlimited Basic -The only actual plan they have for unlocked smartphones- is $65 freken' dollars a month, and goes up from there. Forget everything you heard about $40 unlimited, or $25 kickstart. It's all bullcrap. there will always be some excuse to get you sucked into the Unlimited Basic plan, and everything else is just a gateway drug until they get you hooked on that for two years. Unlimited Basic is their actual lowest priced plan, and everything else is just a two-year gateway drug until you end up on the $60 plan, because let's face it: that is the only way this company is making money.

Sprint already undercuts Verizon by a considerable margin, and out here in California, that's still less than what T-mobile is charging for the same plan. Thing is, Verizon -despite being a shady company in it's own right- actually has a reliable network, and T-Mobile doesn't ask you for your god damn credit score just to pay a phone bill.

That's another thing all together, which is why I would recommend against going with Sprint. Not only does Sprint send inquiries on your credit score just for signing up, (seriously, too many inquiries in a month could lower your credit score,) but it also expects a down payment/service activation fee just to get started, AND you're paying more than $60 a month just to have it. Every plan is on a 2-year contract as well, which leaves me asking: what year does Sprint think it is?

Everything about the way this carrier does business is stuck in 1996; a year when having a cellular device was treated as though you were leasing to own a nuclear warhead. The privilege of paying your own bill was treated like you were taking out a mortgage in those days. Nowadays, in an age where prepaid is king, companies who adopt this model of business -even when you're not even leasing to own the phone you're bringing to the network- are just being tacky at this point. It's no wonder this company is falling behind.

How sprint can fix itself

Every time Sprint is in a little bit of trouble financially, it buys out its closest competitor. It's been doing this for over a decade now. It bought out Virgin, then Boost, and now its merging with T-Mobile, awaiting approval from Congress, The FCC, and even the president. Yet, it isn't doing the one thing it should have done in the first place; fix its infrastructure.

You see, Sprint is a publicly traded company, and needs to dump money into acquisitions like Virgin, Boost, and even T-Mobile just to keep their shareholders happy, and not dumping stock by the time their quarterly reports get published. Don't quote me on this, but for all we know, this is technically Sprint inflating its numbers to give shareholders the impression that the company is worth more than it actually is. The problem is, if this theory is correct, it would explain bad prices, bad performance, and overall customer dissatisfaction in 2018; The company isn't interested in customers, so much as it's interested in shareholders. The fact that Sprint -one of the most recognizable names in mobile computing- managed to sink to the bottom of customer satisfaction, yet still has the balls to propose a merger with T-Mobile is evidence of the overarching problem with the company.

Sprint needs to fix its network FIRST! Not after a merger, not after another TV AD campaign. Other carriers like Verizon and even ATT know that coverage is the name of the game in the mobile carrier market. Anything less than three bars anywhere nationwide is unacceptable.

Why Sprint Sucks Right Now | The TakeDown


A little over a month from uploading this, Sacha Baron Cohen gave a speech, where he lambasted Facebook and YouTube for promoting questionable political ads, and allowing people to have edgy teenage opinions on social media platforms without his permission. A lot of people have given their nuclear takes on this topic, and have been kicking this dead horse into the ground like they're making compost fertilizer. And so, In typical RAGE PRO fashion, I got on this topic later than Microsoft Internet Explorer's download speeds. Bear with me here, because there's a lot to unpack.

The hero 'woke comedy' needs

Mainstream news sites have been plastering Twitter and Facebook with news of the 'brave and virtuous' Sacha Baron Cohen's speech at the Never is Now summit, held by the Anti Defamation league.

Cohen, best known for playing a racist caricature of an antisemitic Khazacstani goat farmer named Borat, slams Facebook and YouTube for promoting "racist and antisemitic posts" on their website. You know, that thing Facebook never actually did?
This film, where Cohen's character Borat famously sang the song "Throw the jew down the well". His promoters advertised this very film on Facebook, but now, all the sudden edgy politics are a "problem".

After accepting the ADL's International leadership award, Cohen –the guy who played a white guy trying to be a ghetto AF black guy for five years in films and television– lambasted major social networks like YouTube and Facebook for what the wealthy elitist boomers who likely wrote Cohen's acceptance speech claim are directly responsible for "murderous attacks on religious and ethnic minorities"
This is the guy who wants to tell you what's appropriate on the internet.

here's some notable quotes from the speech he gave during an election season, which totally isn't suspicious or anything.

all this hate and violence is being facilitated by a handful of internet companies that amount to the greatest propaganda machine in history
 Says the guy who used both Facebook and YouTube to promote his film, where he played the role of a flamboyant homosexual fashion designer, chasing down straight people.

I feel like this speaks for itself.

The algorithms these platforms depend on deliberately amplify the type of content that keeps users engaged – stories that appeal to our baser instincts and that trigger outrage and fear. It’s why YouTube recommended videos by the conspiracist Alex Jones billions of times. It’s why fake news outperforms real news, because studies show that lies spread faster than truth … As one headline put it, just think what Goebbels could have done with Facebook.

 If you pay them, Facebook will run any ‘political’ ad you want, even if it’s a lie,

 And they’ll even help you micro-target those lies to their users for maximum effect. Under this twisted logic, if Facebook were around in the 1930s, it would have allowed Hitler to post 30-second ads on his ‘solution’ to the ‘Jewish problem’.

Cohen then went on to roast Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, for saying that Facebook is a bastion of "Free expression." Which is bullshit, by the way.

I think we could all agree that we should not be giving bigots and paedophiles a free platform to amplify their views and target their victims.

He then goes on to say this:

Internet companies can now be held responsible for paedophiles who use their sites to target children. I say, let’s also hold these companies responsible for those who use their sites to advocate for the mass murder of children because of their race or religion. And maybe fines are not enough. Maybe it’s time to tell Mark Zuckerberg and the CEOs of these companies: you already allowed one foreign power to interfere in our elections, you already facilitated one genocide in Myanmar, do it again and you go to jail.

Why is this a problem?

I think anyone who has used the internet for more than a week in their entire life knows that Facebook doesn't know what humor is, or that there is such a thing as being facetious or sarcastic. Meme pages are taken down faster than a pedophile on an FBI watch-list, and posting articles from sites that are among Facebook's competitors is enough to get your article banned. It's a similar situation with YouTube. Apple, Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube all banned InfoWars at relatively the same time, and most YouTube videos aren't even monetize-able, because so many videos might contain the word "fuck" in them.

Yet, music videos, and clips uploaded from major Holywood and music studios are able to stay untouched, AND have ad revenue⁠ —despite containing content that breaches the TOS (Terms of service) of all these websites. Why? Because they have money. Just goes to show you how disconnected rich dudes like Cohen are from the world, as seen by the poor and middle class. He's  rich, so he never had to deal with censorship in social media first hand.

The "freedom for security" question

Yeah, you could argue that Facebook needs to censor people in order to protect the fragile Minds of its incredibly stupid users, but let's be real here: If Facebook took the moral policing approach in the mid 2000's, while he was making jokes about the holocaust and playing a wigger named ALI-G for 5 years, Cohen wouldn't have a comedy career at all. He would be banned on the platforms he's criticizing now, and would probably be fighting off more allegations of racism than a police officer serving an arrest warrant in a black neighborhood.

It seems like the only way to get away with making edgy jokes is to be paid up with the right people. It's always like that with these "famous people", isn't it? If Stephen Colbert does a white nationalist salute on his late night TV show, he gets national syndication, because he has enough money and fame to make the context matter. But if I made that same joke, in the same context, My videos will get demonetized, I'd be suspended from Twitter, and my ass would probably be on a government watch list or something. 

Stephen Colbert mocking Steve Bannon on his late night show in 2017, but it's okay when THIS white guy does it, because he's making fun of the Trump administration, and CBS pays him a lot of money.

If I walked around for years famously pretending to be a hood n**** from the streets, getting that paper, my ass would be cancelled faster than a Jeffrey Epstein's prison term. Unless, of course, I were, say, a famous film director like Quintin Tarantino. Then, everyone is cool with it. Suddenly, as long as you make a film starring a black comedian that made 426 million dollars, you get to walk around like you're posted up on the block, and say the n-word any time you feel like it. If my Italian ass walked around wearing jerseys three sizes too big, and speaking fluent food stamps, somebody would check me almost immediately. I would get the shit kicked out of me faster than a homosexual walking into an ISIS hideout for a job interview. 

Just goes to show you how disconnected rich assholes like Cohen are from the real world. People like Cohen haven't seen a crackdown on freedom of expression, because he's too rich to have to deal with it himself. So, like most wealthy 40-something boomers with their head up their ass, they just assume the censorship their ego trip is looking for doesn't exist.

But the fact that Cohen is the one saying it makes it feel even more disingenuous. Hearing a guy -who made his living off of these platforms- start slamming them now is like watching Mitt Romney pretending to care about poor people. This asshole waits until he's made all the money he possibly could for more than a decade, then he chooses to promote censorship now that he made all his money. 

The 'woke' epidemic in comedy

Cohen's sellout mentality isn't unique, however. Nearly every celebrity who made their careers in edgy humor starts getting a superiority complex any time they get a little bit of clout, don't they? Amy Schumer, for example, built her entire career on edgy humor. Her repertoire included rape jokes, racist jokes, you name it. Yet, the moment she got mainstream clout, she's throwing fellow comedy writer Kurt Metzger under the bus because he made an off-color joke on Twitter about false rape accusations...?

How about Sarah Silverman? She spent more than a decade as one of the edgiest comics in show business. She was racier than comics like Doug Stanhope and Luis C.K., with more antisemitic humor than the /pol/ message board on 4Chan when the subject of Israel comes up. She's used the N-word with a hard R in one of her bits on 'the Sarah Silverman program,'  on Comedy Central, yet, because she had a network deal worth millions of dollars, nobody said a damn thing. But, this same woman can turn around years later and start giving the rest of the world "woke" lectures about 'equality' on her cancelled Hulu show "I love you America"?

Don't get me wrong: This clip is hilarious, but come on, people. Don't pretend you're the wokest Apple user at Starbucks after you got famous off of shit like this. 

But, even in light of those examples, Sacha has got to be the biggest sellout in the history of comedy. Cohen hasn't headlined a movie since 2011, and he's worth nearly 180 million dollars. Yet, in his nearly 30 year career, he never once said anything even remotely close to a rebuke toward social media during the Obama administration. No, he waits until TRUMP is president, then all the sudden, he complains about "racist ads" and "fake news". Funny how deafening his silence was when he was trending on YouTube, Facebook and Twitter, when his promoters were using these platforms, paying his way to the top of the comedy scene. Real "virtuous" of you, Cohen. Way to throw the rest of us comedians under the bus.


The way I see it, no one who is pro-censorship in has any business calling themselves a comedian. Rich assholes like this will never know what it's like to have to build a comedy career from nothing in the age of cancel culture, the way I and other young comics would.
Cohen will likely never know what it's like to do a set on a college campus in the 2020's, and get treated like you're only black guy at a Klan rally. He's never going to know what it's like to go on Twitter, make a joke about his own ethnicity, and get treated like he just stuck a baby in a microwave. This is the reality we -as comics- face every time we do our act in public these days. 

No, I don't like the Genocide in Myanmar. I don't like Anti-semetism, and I don't like BoomerBook or YouTube. But I don't like these platforms Cohen criticizes because they are inherently hypocritical. They condemn based on personal politics, rather than principle ⁠—much like Cohen's speech at the ADL.

No, I'm not saying Cohen hates edgy humor. I'm not saying he wants to BAN edgy humor, but I am saying social media is a machine, and machines don't know what humor is. If Facebook, YouTube and Twitter took the steps he's talking about now, he would never have made it as a filmmaker. He would have been blacklisted and swept up in the wokepocalypse just like the rest of us, so it's easy for him to talk his bullshit up in his ivory tower.

...But he has a lot of money, so fuck everybody else, I guess.

Why That Sacha Baron Cohen Speech at the ADL was Bull | The Takedown


If you're one of the few people left who actually bother to watch the Super Bowl, you might have seen this commercial with cute babies, more ethnically diverse than a TV advertisement for a failing community college. The ad --in addition to the babies-- contains a narrator, telling the babies how strong and politically correct they are going to be when they grow up. How they're going to do what they want and "not be silenced," which is exactly what you want to tell your toddler when they inevitably throw a whindmilling tantrum in a walmart because they wanted the box of Kellogg"s Corn Pops you put back on the shelf.

This commercial has all the left-leaning talking points:

Some people may see your differences and be threatened by them. But you are unstoppable. You’ll love who you want. You’ll demand fair and equal pay. You will not allow where you come from to dictate where you’re going. You will be heard, not dismissed, you will be connected, not alone. Change starts now.

Changing what? your Diaper?

Yeah, I'm not feeling this commercial. I'm all for equal pay and standing up for yourself, but this doesn't come across as genuine to me. There are too many political buzzwords tossed in, and it just seems like an attempt to bait /pol/ into trolling the comments section, and pretending some unprovoked attack is taking place over the commercial. Like I'm sure Sky News or the Washington Post is waiting in the wings so that the commercial's writer can cherry-pick the racist comments in order to paint everyone (including me) with the broad brush of "oh, you only dislike it because you're a racist or Misogynist!"

I'm just tired of this stupid cycle these political nutjobs keep putting us in. They keep dragging everyone into their crap, and all we want is to see a cellphone commercial with a cellphone in it. Seriously, I'm in the market for a branded smartphone on a prepaid T-Mobile plan. I want to buy a Moto X4, I'm not trying to buy some asian babies n' shit!!

It's not just the regressive left, either. This is a problem having to do with the less sane elements that exist in pretty much all political parties. It seems like the loudest, most mentally unstable people end up shouting their way to the top of seemingly every political identity, turning it into illogical bullshit, then immediately start trying to force feed their illogical bullshit down every moderate's throat, in places and at times that divisive political politics clearly don't belong.

Now as soon as moderates like me --who don't want this kind of political cancer in their superbowl ads about cell phones-- say that this doesn't belong here, the first thing the director or producer behind the commercial will do is cherry pick the racist comments, take it to the media, and act like it's an epidemic-level problem, further bolstering their fabricated victimhood they so passionately try and convince moderates is actually a real thing. Next thing you know, a bunch of articles are going to crop up like weeds on an abandoned front lawn about how people who watch superbowl commercials are all racist and hate women, or how superbowl commercials need "reform". Then the extremists on the right wing are going to take the bait and start posting swastikas everywhere n' shit, playing right into the hands of the people who want to label everyone a bigot in order to win an imaginary political contest. The articles by zealots on Kotaku and the Verge will probably claim the commercial watching community is "toxic", spinning some highly dubious argument that insinuates every single person watching commercials hate blacks and Jews or something, and every single one of us is sending some kind of death and rape threat, all while providing no evidence.

I know that this WILL happen, because the same thing happened with video game Journalism, (Gamergate,), Metal music (Metalgate,) Atheism (Atheism+,) and even comic books as early as 2016. Whenever the church of Leftitology wants to control a particular form of media, be it music or video games, they shoehorn their divisive, highly debatable ideas into the things they have nothing to do with in the most inorganic way, and as soon as normal --sane-- people politely point out it doesn't belong there, it's almost like these people go out of their way to conjure the Alt-right spergs on 4chan in the hopes that they'll say something racist. Cue the ten different articles about how [insert popular hobby here] needs "reform".

The commercial is incorrect

There is a point in the commercial where, during the "staring at babies during a cellphone commercial" where the narrator says:

"You’ll demand fair and equal pay."
You see where I'm going with this, right? So now that I got the fact that I'm not a Nazi or Klu-Klux Klan member out of the way, I think it's safe to point out that the gender wage gap conspiracy theory that the regressive left like to reference has been debunked numerous times as far back as the early 1980's.

You see, the 77¢ on the dollar myth is a rounded number, based on yearly Department of Labor statistics which collectively measured the average median income between males and females. It doesn't take into account things like maternity leave, the fact that men -on average- don't take vacations as often as women, the fact that men are more willing to work overtime than women, (I.E, they work more hours, hence why they get paid more,) or the fact that men are wiling to work more dangerous, more labour intensive jobs than women; those blue collar jobs that often pay more than what most women are willing to do for a living. It also doesn't take into account that men are almost twice as likely to enter a STEM field in college than women, despite being only %40 of college graduates in the states.

So where did the regressive left get this whole "equal pay for equal work" phrase from? Well, the evidence suggesting women get paid a lower salary -per-hour- than men simply doesn't exist. In all likelihood, this myth came from a lazy misunderstanding of the D.L.S. study, and much like most conspiracy theories, end up taking a life of its own.

But we all know what's going to happen: anyone who politely points this out is going to be labeled a rapist who eats black babies while gassing Jews in their spare time by Polygon, Kotaku, Buzzfeed, The Verge, and all the other fringe political propaganda reels that pretend to be tech and entertainment news websites. And as far as I'm concerned, that was the point.

You see, I don't buy for a second that adding that well-refuted conspiracy theory to the commercial was an accident. It's deliberately provocative. They are looking for vitriol and outrage over their "liberal agenda" so the regressive media can -in tern- call it an "Alt-right attack" on women. 

The regressives love the word "Alt-right". It's a way for them to call you a Nazi without requiring the balls to back it up with evidence. Nowadays, It's been getting difficult for the liars in media to call someone Alt-right and get away with it, when there are people on social media willing to fact-check these things and call them out on their bullshit. The fake tech media can claim anyone espouses "Alt Right views" though. That's the next best thing, after all. If you, for example, believe that gravity forces objects to fall, and the "Alt-right" happened to believe the same thing, the fake tech media can then claim you have "alt right views." Great way for these spineless cowards to manipulate an audience into thinking you're a Nazi, without having to come right out and say it.

I don't want to be a part of this shit. I just wanted an ad that had something to do with smartphones n' shit, but we all know what is eventually going to happen: Pointing out the irrefutable fact that the wage gap myth is wrong is going to be called "alt right views". It's a bygone conclusion at this point. This is an elaborate attempt to stigmatize the very act of fact-checking the debunked wage gap. Even mentioning that this myth isn't true will get you labeled a misogynist.

So in summation, the goal of this commercial, in my opinion, isn't what it says on the surface. At least not to me. This is yet another one of those baitjobs, where it only exists as a strawman argument to weed out only the worst kinds of political people on the right, so that anyone right-of center will be conflated with those furthest from the center. Hence why it references the famously debunked wage gap lie as a rallying cry for these babies. I don't believe the writers of this commercial care about minorities, equal pay, or immigration issues. They don't care about these kids. They are merely a political talking point to them; a round of ammunition for the war they wage on whoever they strawman at the time.

How to fix it

Moderates need to be the ones calling out T-Mobile for greenlighting this commercial. Not the far left, not the far right, not the Alt-right, not /pol/, not Tumblr, just moderates. Because political allegiances are just the perfect tool for political extremists to dismiss anything you have to say, on account of who you voted for, or what party you claim. Anything you say will be dismissed offhand --regardless of how true it is-- as being "biased". The message isn't going to get through to the majority as soon as it's stuck into the quagmire of left vs. right. The problem is, moderates aren't the type of people who dwell obsessively on something they disagree with. They see this bullshit commercial, and move on, because they often have better things to do. The problem with this apathetic stance is that political nutjobs don't have anything better to do, and will often force moderates into a corner with their bullshit until they are forced to pick a side. 

T-Mobile's #LittleOnes Superbowl AD Sucks, and Here's Why

Marvel's VP of sales claims that the declining sales of their comic books are because of the Comic studio's efforts to increase diversity and female characters. 

According to David Gabriel in an interview with ICv2, claims that readers “were turning their noses up” at diversity and “didn’t want female characters out there”.

In case you are one of the many comic book readers that stopped following Marvel's publications as of late, Marvel Editorial staff have been making efforts to replace or kill off founding members of the famous Avengers line of characters, and replace them with new heroes that represent a more 'progressive' and 'diverse' lineup, because apparently the old lineup was too white, and too many of them had penises between their legs. Thor Odinson was replaced with Jane Foster. Carol Danvers's Ms. Marvel changed her name to Captain Marvel in honor of her dead boyfriend Mar-Vell, leaving a Teen Muslim girl to take up the Ms. Marvel name. Steve Rogers got really old out of nowhere, leaving the Captain America moniker to be taken up by his best friend Sam Wilson, and most famously, Tony Stark falling into a coma or something, leaving a complete stranger who is only 15 years old to become the next Iron Man, but not exactly. (See, she was introduced in Invincible Iron Man #1, but most of the time she was trying to come up with a name, and settled on IronHeart eventually.) This 'ethnic cleansing' of sorts has been dubbed "All New All Different Marvel", (ANAD) or, "Marvel Now!"

According to David, he had a spoken to retailers at the Marvel Retailer Summit, who told him that readers were sticking to old favorites. “What we heard was that people didn’t want any more diversity,” he said.

“They didn’t want female characters out there. That’s what we heard, whether we believe that or not. I don’t know that that’s really true, but that’s what we saw in sales … Any character that was diverse, any character that was new, our female characters, anything that was not a core Marvel character, people were turning their nose up.”
Gabriel later clarified his statement, saying basically some readers felt abandoned, adding that there is a demographic of readers out there that are really into the new 'diverse' characters.

“And let me be clear, our new heroes are not going anywhere! We are proud and excited to keep introducing unique characters that reflect new voices and new experiences into the Marvel universe and pair them with our iconic heroes.
“We have also been hearing from stores that welcome and champion our new characters and titles and want more! … So we’re getting both sides of the story and the only upcoming change we’re making is to ensure we don’t lose focus [on] our core heroes.”

It goes without saying that Gabriel's remarks took a bit of an ass-kicking on social media...

...Yeah, that didn't go over well with readers.

There seems to be some confusion between retailers and Marvel Editorial. Retailers can only get a gist at the issues readers buy, but that doesn't mean that they have any idea what is going on in a reader's mind. There is a difference between selling comic books for a living, and actually being an avid consumer. And since Marvel's Editorial staff seems to have no idea what the fuck they're doing anymore, allow me to clarify some things, as an avid reader and customer of comic book fiction for 20 years...

Why sales are REALLY slumping...

Marvel's core demographic doesn't like the direction Marvel is taking the universe, and dispite the consensus that Gabriel seems to be getting, it isn't because of diversity: It because a father of a Norse god --who has been dead for literally millennia-- had some UNSOLICITED OPINIONS ON FUCKING ISRAEL!!!!!!!!!! IT'S BECAUSE YOU TURNED CAPTAIN AMERICA INTO A GOD DAMN HYDRA AGENT!!!!!!! IT'S BECAUSE YOU KEEP INSISTING THAT MOTHERFUCKING RED SKULL WANTS TO MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN & SHIT!!!!!!!!!! WHAT THE FUCK, MARVEL!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?! WHAT THE FUCK?!?!?!?!!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

Seriously, Are you kidding me with this shit? The negative reception is really that hard to understand?! Marvel, I don't know if you people are reading this --and I hope you do-- but literally no one in the comic book community stopped reading your books because of the vaginal status, or the skin color of your replacement characters: It's because YOU ENDED STORIES WE WERE READING! YOU LEFT THOSE STORIES UNCONCLUDED WHILE YOU INTRODUCED NEW CHARACTERS TO TAKE THEIR PLACE PRACTICALLY OVERNIGHT!! Can you imagine how pissed people would be if the final season of Game of Thrones was canceled halfway through, and replaced with a Superhero Samurai Cyber Squad reboot!?!?

See, I don't think you get it, Marvel... We read about characters --individual characters-- in comic books. We come to your universe to read your stories for the character in the fucking title of the story. Not another character with the same name, not a counterfeit of the original, or some spinoff that takes place in a parallel universe. We come to Marvel to check up on the history of the characters --the people-- we care about. We want to see their rich history get even richer over time. We want to read the people WE have come to know and love, not the ones you fucking tell us to!

By the way Marvel, no one likes reading your books because Your politics are a pile of canned, evaporated elephant piss!!

We don't give a shit in a Large Hadron Collider about what you think a fucking micro-aggression is, or who the fuck you think we should vote for in an election! I didn't like Frank Miller's run on All-Star Batman & Robin for the same reason I don't want to read the ChampionsI DON'T GIVE A FUCK ABOUT YOUR POLITICAL OPINIONS!!!!!!! I DON'T PAY $3.99 AN ISSUE TO READ YOUR FUCKING TUMBLR ACCOUNT!!!!!!!!!!!!

Oh, and don't get me started on the smarmy, condescending nature of trying to manipulate grown ass readers who they shouldn't vote for! Jesus H. W. Christ, I don't care who you are! I don't care if you voted democrat or not, Trying to flat out TELL people who they should vote for in a comic book has got to be the most insulting god damn thing I could possibly imagine from a publisher! HOW FUCKING DARE YOU, Marvel! How fucking dare you try to force your politics on me! Who the fuck do you think you are!?! What bills you pay to be pushing propaganda in my house!?!?!?

Fuck You, Marvel! We're done! It's over between us! I'm reading Rebirth now. Rebirth just -- DOES things; Things you never do for me. Rebirth understands me. Rebirth touches me in ways that no one ever has. Rebirth cares about me; what I want to read, but all you care about is yourself.

Things just aren't working out between us, and believe me, it's not me, and its not the readers... It's you.

Marvel Thinks Readers Don't Like "Diversity"

The Idea of diversity destroying comic books makes about as much sense as saying a bottle of water would be enough to destroy the vast expanse of the ocean. Diversity on comic book superheroes has existed well into the 70's, and really saw an uptick n the 90's. That being said, I won't deny that some aspects of it are really becoming a problem now. It isn't so much the diversity itself, so much as the execution being about as effective as a Jahova's Witness knocking on every door in the neighborhood. People are calling Marvel Now's approach to diversity a form of tokenism, but I happen to think it has more to do with bad writing than anything else. Most of the bad writing is due --in no small part-- to Marvel's writers and their terrible habit of promoting political messages that don't really mesh well with the story. When Marvels second Civil War events was going on, political commentary would pop into the narrative and slap me upside the head like Barry Bons with a baseball bat.

People have been saying that they saw columnists at websites that cover comic books insisting that anyone who didn't like Marvel's direction only disliked it because we're all racist. I read a lot of articles online, and personally, I have never seen this happen. I have seen a lot of people claiming that comic book readers tend to fear change, and all that bullshit. 

Comicstorian --a YouTuber-- made an excellent response to this amazingly stupid accusation. If you think about it, Marvel went out of their way to kill or replace all the heroes that these bland, heavily sanitized characters were replacing. People talk about character development being a big issue with these new propaganda puppets like Jane Foster and RiRi Williams, because comic book readers don't read comic books for superpowers at all, rather for story and characters. We care about the people we're reading about, and not so much some stranger that popped up out of nowhere. Had these characters been introduced in their own books with their own superhero persona, I'm pretty sure no one would have had a problem with it.

Of course, most people agreed with Comicstorian on this issue, but I would take it a step further and side with Rob from ComicsExplained, when he called these accusations "ridiculous" and "Tremendously irresponsible." The way I see it, there are very real instances of racism out there in the real world. For some idiot columnists to be casually throwing that accusation around diminishes The impact of a real world problem, and if they keep this shit up, people are going to stop taking racism seriously altogether.

For me, The moment someone starts up a topic with "people who disagree with me are racist," I immediately tune out and ignore everything else they have to say. This isn't just me being an asshole, but a consequence of being a grown up. If you're talking to me --an able-bodied working class adult-- and the whole time we have a conversation, you are performing mental gymnastics in a futile attempt to detect coarse traces of racism in everything I say, then you don't deserve to talk to me. The way I see it, if you have to shoehorn racism into everything, you are not enough of an adult to carry a conversation with a grown-up, and you need to go fuck yourself.

I don't want to come off as a complete asshole, but the politically divisive nature of the media and the way it handles this issue is a red herring. Racism and Sexism and needs to be thrown out of this discussion, before people can have a dialogue about what's really going on here, because all this hyperbole and labels do is derail the conversation. The truth is, I really like Marvel comics. Marvel comics like the X-men, Thor and Spiderman are among some of my fondest memories growing up. My favorite part of the comics was how they always tried to shake up the status quo. The characters lives felt like they were always changing. That being said, I feel like no amount of race-bating and social justice propaganda is going to change the fact that Marvel is really doing something wrong here.

A word about RiRi Williams...

The Riri Williams as Iron man situation was a good example of a character who fell victim to one of the worst introductions to a character that has ever existed. I have to admit, as the series progresses, I'm starting to not dislike the concept it as much as I did in issue #1. The first issue of Invincible Iron Man was like driving by a car accident on a Los Angeles highway in rush-hour traffic. It was clumsily written, had bad artwork with dull, ugly tones, and to top it all off, came almost immediately after Stark was left in a catatonic state, meaning he was (For all intents and purposes) dead. Just before, in Stark's own comics, we learned that not only is he adopted, but he actually meets his real biological mother, in a plot line that goes absolutely fucking nowhere, since he was replaced with RiRi williams almost immediately after the revelation.

The worst part of her story isn't even RiRi herself; it's the fact that her inception derailed a plot line of a story readers actually gave a shit about, to introduce a character that was given literally no build up. Yet, there were dumb liberal douchebags in media that would have you believe that there is nothing resembling nuance to the negative reception. In their mind, the only people who could dislike invincible Ironman #1 are all grand wizards of the KKK. Never mind the virtually non existent story structure, forget the bad writing and dialogue, or that Riri had very little or no character, had not established any real backstory, and readers had no reason whatsoever to get invested in the character.

How not to screw up a character introduction...

Up to this point, we have gotten to know the characters who took up the mantle of any Avenger. Even X-23 had several years of backstory before taking up the mantle of Wolverine. The fact that we are first introduced to the character, who takes up the Ironman mantle practically overnight is bound to piss people off, and for good reason: We don't know this person. We didn't spend time with this character (RiRi) to the extent that we spent with, say, Ms. Marvel. We have no bond or emotional connection to this complete stranger. This is obviously the most plausible and probable explanation for why she wasn't well received by long time fans of comic books, but there is always some moron out there trying to turn this into a political issue.

YouTubers I don't agree with...

For example, I just watched a video by a YouTuber ComicsIsland, where he described what HE felt was wrong with the diversity issue in comic books.

...Doing this, research has shown that they survive this, by, for every older reader they've lost, they've attracted two new ones. That's not necessarily a bad thing ever. There was always gonna be some people who weren't willing to accept anything other than a pure white Marvel. I say good riddance to them.

I'm sorry... I like ComicsIsland and everything, but I'm gonna have to call bullshit on that statement. Fuck that.

Yeah, sure... It's easy to speculate that a toothless redneck in some Klan robes took a break from lynching some Negroes in the woods of Alabama to sit and read a Captain America paperback, but this is the same kind of nebulous, deliberately vague generalizations that are tailor-made to lump in every person who stopped reading Marvel comics into one big strawman fallacy. It isn't a slippery slope from "Racists don't want to read black woman" to "Readers stopped reading Marvel Comics because they must be racist, and don't want to read black woman." Honestly, that is such bullshit. Readers of comics shouldn't let garbage statements like that slide --ever-- because its a straw-man fallacy at best, and a bigoted insult to readers at worst.

What's really destroying comic books...

I want to expand upon something Comicstorian brought up in his video. Diversity is bad when it's all about the politics, in my opinion. People don't read comic books for propaganda, like Angela: queen of hel; we read comics for the characters. We follow a character's life in these books, and most of us have been reading long enough to feel like we know these people. How would you feel if your best friend disappeared overnight, only to be replaced by a stranger you've never met trying to take their place? If you ask where your friend went, would it be fair for someone to label you a racist because you miss the person who is now gone? Hell no!

That's what's really destroying comic books here: It isn't diversity, it isn't women, and it damn sure isn't people with different skin tones. Diversity doesn't kill this industry; politics kills this industry. Politics divides people. Inclusion in comic books is supposed to be all about making people feel welcome; like they belong in a community, but politics is all about tearing people apart, and trying to make the other party feel inferior. Politics is all about segregation -- about finding a way to reduce the opposing side to the strawmmen we are expected to create for them. It's about finding some excuse to segregate people based on stupid bullshit. Racism and Sexism are the hatchlings born over the nest that we know as politics. If you want more diverse characters, like LGBT and minorities, then you do it without the political baggage, because people are more than just a vote, or a political statement. People are individuals. People are different. People are --in my opinion-- better than this shit.

Characters of "diversity" that suck...

I never liked Wiccan of the Young Avengers, because he has always been written like a character that only ever existed to fill a diversity quota, and subsequently, his only defining character trait is the fact that he is Gay. Same thing with Wiccan's boyfriend Hulkling. It doesn't strike me as particularly realistic for a real person to talk about nothing but how much of a homosexual they are. I've never spoken to a real gay person who has ever done that in real life, like they only exist to remind an invisible audience of comic book readers that they are in love with the same sex. 

Northstar is a Canadian superhero that pretty much no one cares about at all, so you'd be forgiven for not even realizing that the flying Super Canuck was gay. Being gay is just about the only thing this empty, soulless character has going for him. He doesn't have anything even remotely close to a personality. I used to read his crossovers with wolverine, thinking this guy was secretly an android or something, like a life model decoy modeled after no one in particular.

There is a point where Marvel's politics have bled over into their character development. Diversity is important and all, but I feel like Marvel is crossing that line between equitable opportunity for inclusion, and just shallow tokenism. This isn't real diversity to me; this is just a very inorganic brainstorming session by a committee, looking to cash in on the Tumblr audience of potential readers; people who are more inclined to read articles from Polygon and Destructoid, for no other reason than because these liberal arts and Social Studies majors are the demographic that actually has the patience to sit down and read something. In an attempt to win their trust, Marvel Editorial decided to try and appeal to everything from their cringeworthy hairstyles to their weird Communist politics, and if Marvel's sliding sales figures are any indication, it backfired like a tennis match with a live hand grenade. Marvel's sales are sliding so much, that Marvel revealed that it's poised to abandon the politics all together.

There is a reason for this: Nobody wants politics in their comic books. Nobody expects politics in their comic books. Comic book readers are trying to escape the divisive bullshit in our reality, not celebrate it in the escapist fantasy of Superhero fiction. It doesn't matter what side of the political spectrum you're on; why the shit would anyone want to read this crap?!

Diverse original characters that Marvel is ignoring...

My favorite recent marvel event was Secret wars. Not so much Secret wars itself, but the lead-up to it, where the Illuminati are struggling against the universe itself to prevent earth 616 from crashing into parallel versions of earth, effectively destroying the space time continuum. What I liked about it was that for the first time in a very long time, the main focus of a Marvel even wasn't about heroes fighting each-other, or about political garbage that comic book readers don't give a shit about. This comic book transcended domestic disputes, and tackled something bigger than Earth itself. But you want to know what I didn't like about it? The fact that Blue Marvel wasn't in it.

Blue Marvel is a physics professor, Electrical Engineer, and holds a PhD from Cornell University. He got his powers from an accident in a antimatter containment field, giving him strength on par with the Sentry and Thor, can fly at light speed, and is more than 80 years old. Now, If I were, say, in need of assistance from a brilliant scientific mind on how to move a god damn fucking planet out of the way, chances are, I would go straight to the guy who can launch Antimatter protons from his fucking body at high speed, to see how one could recreate the experiment in order to change the trajectory of a fucking planet. Just a thought, Marvel... Just a thought.

Of course, that's not what happened though. The one hero that the Illuminati should have brought into this scenario, wasn't; dooming the planet to a war with the Ultimate universe, and had it not been for the supervillain Doom recreating the universe in his own image, the entire multiverse wouldn't even exist.

Art by: Jung Geun-Yoon
Blue Marvel is on the Ultimates team, working as a strike force for Shield, lead by that egocentric jackass Captain Marvel. Blue Marvel is sidelined once again, and this has become a recurring trend with Marvel over the years: These only way a black protagonist can seem to lead a team in the Marvel universe is if he --or she-- commandeers the identity of a white superhero. This takes into account the obvious exception of Storm, since Storm is an original character, but she only leads one of at least 3 X-Men team spinoffs.

Think about it... When's the last time you read a Blade #1? Cage? Doctor VooDoo? Bishop? Hell, It's not just disappointing to me; it's condescending to black, female and minority superheros.  It's sending the wrong message to suggest that readers aren't interested in new characters of color. This idea that Marvel has to sneak one in through the disguise of a traditionally white protagonist is actually kinda racist, if you think about it. It shows how little the Marvel editorial staff seems to think of comic book fans, but also, how little they seem to think of black heroes in their own books. Seriously, Twitter and Reddit are beaming with a hunger for a new, diverse, but --most importantly-- original character, and Marvel has been going out of their way to ignore the "original" part like it's carrying the Ebola virus!

Message to Marvel Writers...

I want to leave this long rant on this note:  Make your new characters as diverse as you want, in as much frequency as you like, but remember this: Being Queer is not character development, being a woman is not storytelling, and being Black or Asian is not a personality trait. Unless you're writing porn, the color of someone's skin, or the variety of sexual tastes should always be secondary to who a character is as a person. Write your characters like they are people, not like they are a campaign billboard, and --maybe-- long time readers will actually take them seriously.

Is Diversity Destroying Comic Books?

At some point during the Diamond Retail summit, Marvel announced that the RessurXion event will immediately follow the Death of X and Inhumans vs. X-MEN events, and would take place after the war between the inhumans and mutants.

Let me just start by saying RessurXion sounds like the screen name of a thirteen year-old boy on DeviantArt. I would love to know how that namedrop went down at the committee, between members of the board passing around bongs the size of elephant cocks and shooting up heroine on the boardroom table. I mean, no wonder Marvel's stories are such garbage these days. Whoever came up with a name like RessurXion must've been higher than Christ on the third day. Jesus Christ.

Second, I'd like to point out how much of a cop-out this is. Marvel has been getting a lot of flack lately for allegedly killing off the X-MEN franchise for the sole purpose of spiting Fox for not letting the MCU buy the film rights to their franchise back, so it's not hard to see that this is Marvels way of saying "oh, we're not getting rid of the X-MEN, we're just changing it a little."

Kinda like how they backtracked on Steve Rogers (captain America) being a secret Hydra Agent for 90 years, even after punching both red skull and Hitler in the face. Now, after months of insisting it isn't mind control, we learn in Steve's own book that the red skull implanted a piece of Xavier's brain into his head in order to make himself the most powerful telepath on earth, and implanted a false history into Steve's mind making him think he was a Hydra agent since the 1920s.

Also like how Marvel backtracked on Riri Williams; a teenage girl; being Iron Man from now on, despite how stupid the name would be for a sixteen year-old girl. Now her name, and book series will be called Iron Heart, which is the kind of name you would give to a stone-blooded serial killer. 

Classic case of Marvel running damage control. Let's hope one day, instead of trying to correct the problem after they already created it, they will learn not to publish something dumb in the first place.

What the Hell is Marvel's RessurXion?

So if sacrificing good storytelling in favor of fringe-left political propaganda wasn't bad enough, there are rumors of Marvel killing off the X-men franchise purely to spite FOX, who currently own the movie rights to the franchise.

In Peviews of the upcoming Extraordinary X-Men, it is revealed that a purified form of the terragen Myst, (the thing that activates the powers of the Inhumans) is weponized in the form of a bomb, and is lethal to Mutants. This story, as well as many X-Men being left out of promotional materials lately, suggests to readers that any characters still owned by FOX; including the Fantastic Four; will be annexed from the Marvel Comics landscape soon.

Why the X-Men comics are like driving by a car-accident.

Right now, there are 3 entirely different X-Men comics following 3 different teams, with three different goals. The Uncanny X-men, who's whole thing is to build a school in a parallel dimension full of demons n' shit in order to avoid terragen poisoning, The Extraordinary X-Men, lead by Magneto, who are basically just the X-Force without Cyclops.

Now, the real clusterfuck here, is the All-New X-Men; lead by a teenage Cyclops from the past, consisting of members like Old Man Logan (Old Wolverine) from the future, Gene Gray from the past before SHE died, and Genesis, who is a child version of Apokalipse from an alternate Timeline.

Now, if having three different X-Men books that don't follow the same plot line isn't confusing enough, most of these books revolve around, and often reference, the death of Cyclops. We find out in the first issue of the All-New X-Men that a mutant cult known as the ghosts of Cyclops is going around acting like the Brotherhood of evil Mutants. Now the obvious question here, is how did Cyclops even Die? Wasn't he in prison? Well guess what? we have to wait until fucking October to find out how he dies, even though this was a foregone conclusion for six months already! There have been extensive stories and plot-lines revolving around this character long after he died, Including Mr. Sinister re-animating his fucking corpse into a mutant-inhuman hybrid zombie, yet it's been over six months and we still don’t have a clue how it happened!?!

How this reflects upon Marvel's quality of storytelling.

This, to me, just proves the points I've been making for months now. Marvel's stories are a shit-storm because stories aren't motivated by character development or a passion for telling a good story: They're motivated by corporate maneuvering and fringe-left political propaganda.

I have been a Marvel comics fan for years. I have always chosen marvel over DC on the book shelves since I was 8 years old, because their stories were compelling and inspiring back then. But times have changed, and so has Marvel Comics. The Civil War going on right now is more of a footnote than an actual event, established characters are being thrown to the wind and replaced by uninteresting hacks, and the X-Men comics are starting to look like the Maximum Clonage saga.

I am no longer interested in Marvel's books, because Marvel's books have clearly lost interest in themselves.

The Fall of the X-men: Marvel's Narritive Train-Wreck

I wanted to buy a tablet as a viable alternative to a full sized laptop. I went through about 3 or 4 of them before I finally gave in and realized that Android just plain sucks when it comes to productivity. It may do very well in streamlining gaming right now, but trying to do anything serious with the OS, like using a full version of a photo editor, code making, (even for basic Markup languages like HTML,) and MIDI production all suck balls on this platform.

A large portion of the problem is the OS, (which seems to be designed around phones and not Tablets in the slightest,) but an equally large portion of the problem has to do with the hardware most tablets have, and the fact that they are just plain shit. I don't mean to say they are shit like they don't work well, even though that is the case for most android tablets, I'm saying that the way a lot of the hardware is designed isn't good enough to accommodate what most people would use them for.

This leads me to question the purpose of an android tablet entirely. What is its niche? What are they for? who are they designed to appeal to?

They suck for photo editing

Photoshop sucks ass on the Android platform right now, and the only way to get GIMP to work properly on Android is by downloading an APK bigger than most triple-A game titles on Android, and hacking a version of XFCE into the OS like an episode of Mr. Robot. Pretty much every other photo editor for android tablets is one step below Photoshop Express, which is like losing a 100 Yard dash to a 100 year-old turtle.

They suck for video editing.

I have tried like you wouldn't believe to find a decent video editor on this platform, and paid a shit ton of money unlocking them all, yet, every single one of them is complete garbage. Either you can't edit video properly, or you can edit it properly, but you can't add more than one audio track, defeating the entire purpose of video production software entirely. 

All of the DAWs (Digital Audio Workstations) suck huge penis.

I think the worst example of software for tablets and Smartphones is the DAWs, and how they all seem to be tailor made for only one kind of music style, and that music style is almost always Dubstep, with a hint of closet-homosexual techno music from the mid 90s. Try to make Metal, R&B, or Orchestral scrapes, and you're shit out of luck, because these programs don't support real VSTi or DXi effects & layers, and all of the effects these programs DO have are proprietary.

I almost forgot to mention the baffling lack of user friendliness of these programs that have me pulling my fucking hair out every time I try to use them. The visual literacy of most of these programs are so retarded, they make look absolutely flawless in comparison.

Android tablets suck for painting and drawing.

Android has some of the best apps for graphic artist of any platform outside of Adobe Photoshop. The problem is, 99% of all Android tablets lack the two most important features an artist like me would need to have to draw effectively on Android: Pressure sensitivity and palm rejection.

Pressure sensitivity is when the size of your brush gets bigger or smaller depending on how hard or soft you press on the screen. Palm rejection is when the android touch screen doesn't detect your hand or wrist leaning on the screen, yet only detects the stylus you're using to draw with. The Samsung Galaxy Note series phones have this, as well as the Samsung Note 6, and many ASUS tablets, but they all require you to use whatever proprietary stylus came with the device. iOS and Windows allow you to buy whatever Bluetooth stylus you want.

This is one of those unique cases where the only thing holding Android tablets back from being the great art platform for aspiring artists is the hardware not being universal across all Android tablets.

What android tablets are good at.

Surprisingly enough, the one thing that Android excels at seems to be gaming. Gaming just plain works across the vast majority of Android tablets, but with smartphones being able to play all the same games, tablets hardly stand out as being a good enough reason to get one, if only for a bigger screen.

To me, this is why Tablets that run Android have been steadily dropping in sales numbers the past couple of years. When you get right down to it, tablets are just one half of a laptop, so butchering the software to be more like a phone and butchering the hardware to make it less appealing to pretty much anyone is a recipe for disaster.

Do Android Tablets Suck for Productivity?

Previous PostOlder Posts Home