10 Apps That Kill Smartphone Batteries (all running in the background)

My friend and I were talking to each other about apps that would kill smartphone batteries in less than six hours if left running in the background.  We were thinking up of just apps on any platform, not iOS or Android exclusive ones.  All of this was just mere speculation - I don't know how badly these apps actually drain smart devices' batteries in general.  (I mean, I didn't have performance tests and that whatnot.)  Also not every person with a smartphone would likely have all the all apps mentioned below or even use them at the same time.

(*If you really want to be technical, you'd have to let the smartphone get updates while the phone is asleep for the battery drainage to be dramatic, such as pinging for e-mail updates every 10 minutes.)

Without further ado, I present to you: 10 Smartphone Apps That Kill Battery Life

1)  Facebook

2)  Twitter

3)  Tumblr

4)  Pinterest

5)  Vine

6)  Snapchat

7)  Instagram

8)  YouTube

9)  E-mail (any type)

10)  Camera

Honorable mentions:  Weather (any), such as The Weather Channel

_

Image credits:
Facebook - http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/06/Facebook.svg
Twitter - http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/9f/Twitter_bird_logo_2012.svg
Tumblr - http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2c/Tumblr_Logo.svg
Pinterest - http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/35/Pinterest_Logo.svg
Vine - http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/17/Vine_logo_green.png
Snapchat - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Snapchat_logo.png
Instagram - http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/28/Instagram_logo.png
YouTube - http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/06/YouTube_logo_2013.svg
iOS Mail icon - http://www.iphonehacks.com/2013/10/tips-mail-iphone-ipad.html
iOS Camera icon - http://tripletsisters.wordpress.com/2014/03/02/ios-7-icons-in-pixelmator/
The Weather Channel icon - https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.weather.Weather

Not the Death but The Decline of Camcorders

Technology has always been changing often replacing the old with the new.  One doesn't have to look far back into recent history to see this way of the technology industry.  An excellent example of this is the smartphone, which has not only changed the way people see and use their cellphones but also even changed other technology markets.  Some technology have declined with the rise of smartphones.  Devices that have declined due to mobile technology are cameras, especially the DSLRs, voice recorders; and camcorders.  Certainly the average person doesn't go out and buy these "declining" devices.  Only people who really need them would get these less popular devices.  However just because the demand for a device is declining doesn't necessarily mean that it is or will be obsolete.  The persistence of camcorders is the most pertinent here.

Camcorders have been around since I could remember.  I remember watching America's Funniest Home Videos in the afternoon when I was in third grade (around 2004).  I always remembered that I always wanted one because I could see that other people could record cool content with camcorders.  Although I've never had a camcorder, I know they have their pros.  Camcorders are good for what they were made for: recording videos.  So there's no fear that a recorded video can only be 20 or so minutes long.  Also, camcorders are not really limited by their video quality, memory space, or battery life on one charge compared to more convenient video recording on devices like the iPhone.

For those who think that everyday video recording can be replaced by all-in-one machines (a.k.a. smartphones), think again because this case, multipurpose devices with video in them almost always have compromises to make everything fit into one convenient package, such as the iPhone.  Despite what is stated on the gung-ho info page on the iSight Camera on the iPhone 5S, the iPhone is nothing compared to dedicated camera - even a point and shoot one.  Remember that what you see on that iSight website was the iPhone only its best, which means that the pictures could only get worse than that marketing bullcrap.  Besides I've only seen my vulgar classmates use iPhone cameras to post selfies with as many people for Snapchat and those pictures are really horrible in everything technical about a digital photo, from quality to lighting.  Besides, how much can the iPhone camera improve since it still has an 8MP camera since the iPhone 4S.  Other than some very fine details, software has made the iPhone camera better compared to the hardware itself.

The decreasing popularity of a device doesn't mean that the device is useless.  For example, radio isn't the first form of media most people go to when given the choice.  There's the TV and Internet, which are more appealing than the radio because the TV and web are very visual.  Yet that doesn't take the usefulness of the radio, especially in the car or when the TV and the Internet are unavailable.  Similarly, the recent audience for camcorders have dwindled down to the ones who really are looking for a camcorder and not those who get one just because "everyone else has one."  It all goes down to functionality and specifications - just how many purposes a device can have and how well does the device do each function.  Despite smartphones winning over in functionality with their multitude of uses, the camcorder is victorious in video recording by a lot.

Camcorders are not so popular as they used to be.  Since smartphones are becoming more widespread now the use of camcorders have fallen significantly, along with many related and similar technology.  However camcorders still survive because of the niche audience who really wants or needs the functionality of a camcorder over, say, an iPhone camera.  Devices in technology should always be looked at both their aspects in function as well as specifications before deciding how popular or disused they are.

The (Silly) Reason Why Mitt Romney Lost the 2012 Presidential Election

After some thinking, I've figured out why Mitt Romney lost the 2012 presidential election.  Actually it's rather silly but I'm still convinced that the reason I'm thinking of may have had a tangible effect during the election.

Mitt Romney lost the election because of the YouTube video, Mitt Romney Style.  I must've watched that video about 20 times since I've heard of the video, which is right here:

The corollary to Mitt Romney Style is the Hot Problems parody (featuring Mitt Romney, of course).

I know it's kind of stupid to say that a (/two) YouTube video(s) could've made a presidential candidate lose an election like that.  However it's difficult to recall any other parody video of either Mitt or Obama that got about 50 million views.  (Also it is one of the few College Humor videos I enjoy.)  I mean, this video of Obama doing Gangdam style only got a few measly 1 million views:

I'd also not like to go into the factual and truly political details of why Mitt Romney lost the 2012 presidential election.  That task would be for political experts such as those working for CNN.  I already explained to my Spanish class last year why Romney lost in a paragraph I read aloud based on an article from El País completamente en español.

All in all, my "reason" is pretty silly and is absolutely in no way an reliable resource to why Mitt Romney didn't become president in 2012.  However it is interesting to see that all of this suggests that social media (such as YouTube) has the potential power to influence current events.