Author: grabe

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

ISTE – The Outside Aisle

Cindy and I have an ISTE tradition. We select our favorite product from a vendor positioned on an outside aisle of the exhibition hall. These vendors have a smaller and less expensive booth and typically a very small number of products. You should be able to locate most of our previous posts by searching “outside aisle”. The earliest I could locate was from 2004. I think I started blogging in 2003. I did not make an effort to determine how many of our “picks” made it to prime time.

Anyway, the selection for this year is the Swivl from Satarii. This product consists of two components – a rotating base designed to hold some type of video camera AND follow a marker/mike. Simply put, you move about with the marker/mike and you are followed by the camera. The iPhone would serve as an appropriate camera. Anyone creating videos with inexpensive equipment in classrooms or other real world situations quickly discovers that audio is the greatest challenge. The roving mike solves this problem.

This was actually more of a search than a discovery. Cindy was looking for this device as a way to study the work of preservice teachers. We ordered one so a product review will likely follow.

 

Loading

Deep thoughts (or at least they seemed so) while driving

According to the online map service, the auto trip from Grand Forks to San Diego takes 30 hours (each way). I am guessing this depends on who is driving. My wife was doing 80 somewhere in Utah and this was legal. I was targeting a higher MPG and we might still be on the road if I drove a higher proportion of the time.

Anyway 60 hours gives you lots of time. We have a mifi and electrical plugins. The passenger has quite a few options. It gets more complicated when attention has to be shared between driving and anything else.

We pretty much exhausted our podcasts by somewhere in Nebraska. TWIT Live worked, but that was just stealing content we could have listened to on the drive back. I enjoy audio books – my wife not so much. However as the hours go on your tolerance changes and we spent half a dozen hours or so listening to Bauerlein’s “The Digital Divide”. This would not be a choice for most couples, but we have some unique common interests.

Listening to this book in large chunks (I tend to listen to books while at the gym or before sleeping under normal circumstances) gave me two ideas for posts. I decide to offer both here.

Observation 1 – a compendium on tech will be significantly dated

The concept of this book is very cool and in keeping with one core idea from the book. (BTW – the title of the book is misleading from my perspective. Digital divide implies an equity issue to me and the book has multiple foci with what I consider equity issues a minor focus). What I like about the book is the effort to offer diverse perspectives on a topic avoiding the problem of reading what we want to hear. You should find things that support and argue against your personal believes. Piaget understood these competing processes as the basis for learning. The problem of thinking we are educating ourselves by reading more of what we already believe is a Bauerlein theme.

However, attempting to provide a broad perspective by reprinting 5 year old articles in the tech area makes the authors look disconnected from reality. Much of what experts thought 5 years ago turned out to be wrong and if you are not tuned into the date issue your impressions of the content often work against applying the expert label to the author. Kind of amusing in a way.

I think the book was assembled “on the cheap” probably because getting authorities to author new content would have been a difficult sell to the authors. I had probably read 1/3 of the material already – years ago. It was stimulating stuff – then.

I do like the concept of being open to different perspectives and attempting to offer this opportunity to learners.

Observation 2 – learning vs. exploring by listening and reading

I process some professional books in digital format. Some of this content I purchase from Audible and some from Amazon. I have approximately 114 audio books and probably 40 ebooks at present. I have been an Audible member far longer. Reading/listening has resulted in some personal impressions on the advantages and disadvantages of each experience. I offer these impressions because I think they are relevant to others who advocate the use of audio/video over print ebooks and have not invested hundreds/thousands of hours in either.

I have decided the print experience is more useful for learning. I find audio to be too slow and too passive for real work. I use the format as a convenience or a way to pass time. If I were to attempt to really learn from this format it would be too slow. I am not certain what the actual WPM of audio vs. reading is, but it must be a multiple of 2-3 at least. If I really had to learn from the audio, I would have to sit and listen carefully. Far too slow. There is also the issue of control. When I read and become distracted, the words do not keep moving such that I miss things. With audio, the disconnected narrator just keeps going.

There is an overlap between my audio and “print” collection of books because when I listen to a book I think is really useful I have to purchase the print version to consider more carefully (but quickly). I see no way to address the issues of personal control and speed in a streaming format.

 

 

Loading

Think barter not free

I have written several times about expectations regarding “free”. In most cases, my comments have concerned my reaction to what I consider the sense of entitlement that is sometimes evident. The argument that seems to occur most frequently references the music industry and suggests that the copying and distribution of music has not hurt the industry because musicians achieve greater visibility when their music is shared and this increased visibility offers new revenue opportunities when musical acts tour. I am not certain what musicians think of how others tell them they should earn their living, but I think drawing analogies from the world of musicians to justify behaviors involving other forms of content is an unwarranted stretch.

I have been reading Free by Chris Anderson. As the topic suggests, the book explores various ways in which businesses can profit from giving content away. By the way, Anderson does sell his book and he does address this point in the book. I think his argument is that free is up to the content creator and not the consumer (my interpretation). I did draw a personal insight after working my way through multiple examples Anderson provides. The consumer likely misunderstands free. There may be those who give content away as a personal contribution to the public good, but businesses are seldom acting on this motive. I think consumers would be better served to label no cost, online content or services as part of a barter system rather than  as free. It may be difficult to take this perspective because it is not obvious just what is exchanged in this barter.

Consider all of the hoopla over online privacy. Just why do you think online companies who offer “free” services need that personal information? It is likely that personal information in association with the record of other online behaviors has value to the company providing the service/content or to other companies. There is money in a record of your likes and dislikes. You are offering your personal information and the record of your online activity in exchange for the services/content you receive. A second form of barter involves the exchange of “free” content/services for your attention to advertising. We have been willing to accept this exchange for years with commercial radio and television and information services such as newspapers have long been subsidized because of ads. Remember the uproar a decade or so ago when there was an offer of a free television channel to schools (Channel One if I remember correctly) and the channel contained ads aimed at young people. What did educators think – a free hour of content each morning?

Clearly the content creators are exploring many different compensation models and many traditional models will eventually lose out to some of these newer models. The point is that a business requires the generation of resources to support the work of employees. The assumptions that consumers have a right to free is misguided and often based on a misunderstanding of how the commercial online world really functions.

Loading

College Cost and DIY Education

The cost of college, the failure of the government to come to a decision on the subsidy for Pell grants, and just the general value of a college education have come into question.

A recent 60 minute segment examined these issues and the radical proposal that young people might better prepare themselves for life in other ways. This segment is worth the watching and considering.

I see this situation from both sides – I am an academic having spent 30+ years as a college faculty member, I am a parent with three grown children with loans – two from graduate programs focused on health care (PT, OT). We were able to help our kids, but they must still cover a substantial debt. BTW – our kids are doing very well and I assume they would share my perspective that they owe some credit for their success to their educations.

I would guess that the issue is not so much whether an advanced education is helpful, but rather whether the education is cost effective. Maybe I am wrong. The notion of “open source” education seems attractive to some because it appears the resources are there to self-educate (see 60 minute segments). Do I think that self education can work. Certainly!! Would I recommend the approach? Very rarely!!

Don’t get me wrong. I think the idea of natural experiments is great. People of means might want to volunteer their kids for a few years to see how it goes. This is actually how I think this will play out. There will be some successes, but we will want to carefully examine the variables associated with these successes. How frequently will the necessary characteristics exist in most of the 17-19 year old population?

My experience working with Introductory college students suggest that few have the self discipline or the perspective to guide their own education. The students who could be successful are the students who are already successful in the existing system. This is what I think is deceptive about the perspective of the 60 minute piece (the position of the advocates). Students from good homes with supportive parents and life experiences that provide them with a perspective on the possibilities may be able to make this work. If it does not after a few years, mom and dad are their to support a more traditional development process. Many of the entrepreneurs held up as role models were not necessarily rich, but dropped out of premier colleges with generally supportive parents.

To me, this is another of those social issues society is failing to deal with realistically. College costs are high because many expect those who experience it most directly to pay for it. We cannot seem to come to grips with universal health care. We cannot seem to come to grips with universal advanced education. We are creating a selfish society that is all about us and our kids. Let everyone else fend for themselves.

Pursue your passion. Consider how many have argued against this lack of reality in many who do. Maybe you do not recognize the topic that brings this to my mind. This reminds me of the campaign to get inner city minority kids to value education and to carefully evaluate the odds of them becoming the next sports mega millionaires. Would those proposing that formal education needs a new direction argue against the advice given those who were 6’8″ and had a 40 inch vertical as 17 year olds? Now the new role models are the kids who drop out of college and self educate to achieve as entrepreneurs. The odds of becoming the next Bill Gates, Steve Jobs or Mark Zuckerberg are probably not that different than the odds of becoming the next Michael Jordan or Lebron James.

Loading