Month: July 2012

Hardware, platforms and corporate strategies

I just purchased a Google Nexus 7. I bought the 8 gig version because my prepurchase investigations had convinced me that it would be all I would require for my personal needs and because I have multiple devices in the same “space”. The following image displays several of my options (iPad, Nexus 7, Galaxy Nexus). I do not really need all of these devices. Perhaps owning all of this stuff is a bad thing, but I write about the applications of technology and I prefer to really use the devices and services I write about rather than parrot what others say. I have been an Apple advocate since the beginning. However I also believe healthy competition is key to innovation and fair treatment of consumers. I wanted to understand for myself if a $200 device can get the job done even if I can afford the iPad. I need to spend more time and I realize it depends on what “the job” is, but so far the Nexus 7 satisfies my needs for browsing, email, reading, etc. Early on the knock on the iPad was that it was a consumption device. This was a short sighted view, but if most of your activity is about consumption or if you have another device for production, my first reaction is that a $200 device works.

One of the activities I tried on the iPad, the Nexus 7 and the Galaxy Nexus was reading a Kindle book. Ironically given the focus of this post, the book was Age of the Platform. It is an interesting read examining company strategies (Amazon, Apple, Facebook and Google) to compete for our attention and dollars. My take on the book (after a couple of chapters) is that it explores the distinctions between and interdependencies among hardware, platform, and content. Perhaps it might be claimed that Apple has created a great platform to sell hardware. Google has explored hardware to encourage various companies to develop similar hardware products and encourage access to the Google platform. Amazon offers content, needs a platform to do so, and puts just enough into hardware to keep customer options open. Facebook is pretty much all platform.

More and more as a content creator, I am a fan of companies that prioritize the platform without attempting to control it. I do not want a given company to control hardware, content, and platform. We are finishing a book (actually a book and other stuff) and while creating a content product for the Apple platform (an ibook) would have been a relatively easy translation of our content, such a product would leave out those with other hardware. This is why I am pleased to have had the experience with the Nexus 7 that I have had. I see tablets as a big deal in education, but I hope the Amazon/Google model of flexibility in the hardware that can be used to experience content (Kindle reader) will emerge as the hardware, platform, corporate strategy of choice.

I have nothing to say about Facebook.

Loading

Open access and responsibility – AERA

A lengthy post just appeared on Jon Becker’s blog, addressing the issue of access to scholarly information focused most specifically on the format of the AERA annual meeting. I have excerpted a few comments to give you the flavor of the post (not including the author’s commitment not to attend further meetings unless some changes are made). I would encourage reading of the entire post.

I see no evidence of AERA’s commitment to the access principle, and that absence is more pronounced than ever in this era of advanced information and communications technology. AERA is not doing nearly enough to to advance and improve access to research and scholarship in education. Consider just the issues around publishing and annual meetings.

 … so long as attendees expect to attend and hear 15-minute presentations about the paper, there’s not great incentive to read the papers ahead of time. What if you did away with presentations entirely and enforced the paper uploading expectations? What if you “flipped” the conference and had presenters create short video presentations to be uploaded and hosted by AERA in advance of the conference?
While I have attended this conference and purchased the AERA journals since 1975 or so, I have no specific reason to defend the approach taken by this or any other professional organization. It is expensive to attend conferences and belong to professional organizations. Yet AERA is far less expense than other organizations to which I have belonged (APA, ISTE). Professional organizations have some obligation to the public (I suppose), but the first responsibility of the organization is to members. Actually, I am guessing the first obligation is to self preservation. Hence, the organization must generate sufficient revenue to meet the needs of the organization. These needs may include bringing in costly speakers, “publishing” scholarly journals, maintaining a paid staff responsible for the day to day operations of the organization, hosting a national meeting, etc. Paying for information (at the conference and in your local library) generates revenue that helps meet the revenue needs of the organization. The organization generates revenue through dues, conference fees, journal subscriptions, and donations. You can guess where I am going with this – cut a few costs or increase some fees. Controlling access to information is one way to generate revenue. Perhaps the membership would be willing to double their dues or donate some money to the organization. Perhaps the invited speakers could be eliminated. Perhaps officers would be willing to serve at their own expense. Hmm….


Regarding access to convention content, here are my thoughts. I am not a fan of the concept of flipping. I want to listen to and review quality presentations. I have not found open discussions of much value and I do not value presenters who have too much time to work with and like to engage the audience in talking among themselves. I want to be in control of how I spend my time at a professional meeting. I value the opinion of individuals I have known over the years and we will have plenty of time to get together and discuss our projects outside of the formal sessions.


Not all presentations are of the “lecture type” so conference planning committees do offer posters and round tables as alternatives to encourage more give and take. Skip the 15 minute presentations if you prefer these other formats. Often the SIGs determine the format they prefer for the sessions they control. Contact your SIG officers to argue that SIG time be used in a different way. Working at the SIG level may be the most practical way to encourage that a different format be used more frequently.


I offered these comments just to make the point that not everyone thinks the flipped idea makes sense. However, I am guessing there are some more general issues that the author failed to consider.


Would people really attend the “expensive” meetings if they could review the formal presentations ahead of time? Would they attend the sessions even if they attended the meetings? It may be access to a carefully crafted presentation that is most helpful to other researchers.


Do presenters want to offer their presentations in a carefully crafted form? I find it very difficult to obtain “complete” versions of presentations now. Most are not available at all. PowerPoint slides do not and probably should not be detailed. I would prefer a well written document, but most presenters seem to reserve the effort required to generate such a document for “real publications”. Just how would the “you must submit a complete paper” actually be enforced? Perhaps the complete paper would have to be application to present. Any volunteers to review?


So, as is often the case, simple analyses miss many important factors. “The organization” was only the bad guy in the 60s.

Loading

iGoogle

The Official Google blog just offered a post within which it was announced that several services would eventually be discontinued. Among these services was one I use daily – iGoogle.

Google describes IGoogle as a personal home page. I think “start page” or “launch page” would be a more appropriate description. Perhaps my amazement as to why this service would be discontinued is somehow related to some difference in perspective as to how we choose to describe the service. iGoogle was my home page when I launched my browser. It was customized for my needs – hence it was “personal.” Mine was built from widgets and RSS feeds. See the following image if you are unfamiliar with this service. I can obtain a quick look at information sources and then move on to the other services I use frequently. The opportunity to set a default start page seems to be going away in most browsers and it already seems this is not possible in mobile browsers.

Google made mention of Chrome and Android as justification for the decision. I wish the post would have provided more of an explanation. I use chrome as a browser and OS – the connection with the shutdown (16 more months) is not exactly obvious to me.

20120705-225916.jpg

I went to iGoogle from NetVibes and my old page still works. I can always update that site. I suppose I could put something together in Google Sites, but I see that service as more appropriate to a public web site. I guess I assumed most folks had an Internet routine like I do and the opportunity to create a customized personal portal appropriate to personal interests would be popular. With the data Google collects, it would seem Google would know.

With so many startups looking for the next big thing, perhaps several will take a shot at improving an old thing.

P.S. It appears many have had a similar reaction. A similar sentiment from a MacWorld blogger.

Loading