Yes, I agree that this is simply another hardware platform on which people can build stuff. It is a solution enabler, not a solution in itself. However, this price point means that one can deploy solutions for cheaper than with existing hardware.
I think we all agree that *solutions* built on top of hardware platforms change people's lives -- cheap hardware simply opens up such possibilities to interested parties who want to build solutions, but don't have enough money for expensive hardware. I would like to emphasize this point -- the best ideas can come from anywhere. Once you let such a cheap device loose into the wild (so to speak), I'm certain that several talented people will come up with good ideas and implement them. What remains to be seen is how many of those are useful and improve people's lives significantly. -- Rahul On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 6:02 PM, Clint Tseng <cxlt at cs.washington.edu> wrote: > Yes, but your argument is centered around how the technology is better. I > don't think I have to point out who we're echoing when we say that > technology alone is not enough. We could make the Galaxy S2 or the iPhone 4 > cost $10 and it simply wouldn't make the kind of difference you'd hope for > (eg, much at all). > The App Store is not available because you have to pay Google licensing fees > to put it on your device, which would have driven the cost up. > Touchscreens are nice, but I don't think any of this will truly matter for > the populations we're talking about until we see voice technology like Siri > develop to the point where you don't need to care that you're talking to > technology. At that point, perhaps it's worth revisiting the distribution of > generic technology to remote regions and untrained users without caring > about what their actual needs are. For now, it's still much better to > actually do the footwork to figure out what people need and give them that > than to try to hand out or sell general purpose computing devices and hope > to make a difference. > $0.02. > -Clint > > On Thursday, October 6, 2011 at 3:16 PM, Rahul Banerjee wrote: > > Against a cell phone, the tablet's screen is a compelling argument. > > However, I don't know if really poor people (who are mostly > illiterate) would go for a tablet over a *television* -- I've observed > that even people living in illegally constructed shacks next to train > tracks always have a DTH antenna dish sticking out from the roof. My > belief is that: > 1. TV's are dead simple to operate -- turn them on and they work. If > you can't navigate your magical tablet's touchscreen, you have a > magical paperweight. > 2. There's decent infrastructure in place (in India) to get a > direct-to-home subscription. I've been to some pretty remote places in > India (places that are accessible only using off-road vehicles and are > completely cut-off for three months during winter) and nearly all > these houses had dish antennas. AFAIK, 3G-based data plans aren't that > ubiquitous yet (you could only get them in certain cities in India > last time I checked -- about 2 months ago). > > The battery question is an interesting one -- I read a review which > stated that the battery life is two hours. I've observed in urban > slums that (illegally) hooking up wires to overhead electricity supply > cables (a dangerous practice, to be sure) is common. I'm not claiming > that this is the norm everywhere, but financial pressure often > eliminates batteries anyway :) > > I'm going to keep on harping on the "poor but intelligent/talented > student" angle. These are the people who'll benefit the most from such > a device. Imagine being able to read textbooks on this! Btw, I also > discovered in the review that the App Store / Marketplace is disabled, > which is *not cool*. Maybe they don't expect the target users to have > connectivity, but this severely limits the platform. There are a ton > of free apps out there which the users cannot get, and now custom > delivery platforms will have to be built for every project (I'm > thinking of textbooks, telemedicine, the fieldwork apps like the > Verbal Autopsy stuff, etc) > > I've rambled enough here. My summary would be that this is a giant > step forward, but the poorest of the poor (think indigent poverty) > won't magically lift themselves out of poverty using this one device. > However, it does generate lots of exciting possibilities for > "slightly-better-off" segments and it can be an enabling device for > several projects on a shoestring budget. > > -- > Rahul > > On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 1:00 PM, Fritz Meissner <fritz.meissner at gmail.com> > wrote: > > Just brainstorming a hypothetically compelling reason: consumption of > locally-made movies, which I'm given to understand?currently happens > wholesale on cellphones in India. Would the move to tablet form, i.e. bigger > screen and (one would hope) better sound, make for a massively improved > experience? > The Aakash could be a better investment than a TV / DVD player, given the > greater capacity and reusability of USB or SD cards compared to DVDs. Of > course, the TV has a bigger screen, but it doesn't run on batteries. How > much would a TV cost? > > Fritz > > On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 3:15 PM, Jerome White <jerome at cs.caltech.edu> wrote: > > However, there is a "rural/poor" segment that could afford this: those > making between 5 and 10 thousand Rupees a month. In fact it's what some > spend on a mobile phone. However, with the mobile, there is very compelling > reason to make such an investment. A similarly compelling reason, from their > perspective, to own this device isn't clear to me. > > But, at least we've got another device to help us generate publications :) > > jerome > > On 06-Oct-2011, at 4:11 PM, Fritz Meissner wrote: > > How much is $35 to the poorest of the poor? I recall an economics study > that paid Indian workers the equivalent of a monthly salary, I think that > was 50USD... 35USD is beyond cheap in the West but perhaps still not > affordable in that context. > > OTOH if the tablet is locally made, perhaps just the work that the > manufacturer provides will be beneficial. > > Fritz > > On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 1:32 AM, Joyojeet Pal <joyojeet at gmail.com> wrote: > I agree with Yaw on this -- sure, it is great that this technology is so > cheap, and one can argue that similar such efforts have brought up new > technology innovations (Netbook etc) and various other benefits, what is > deeply problematic is the idea that this will solve the issues of > development in India, and Indian minister Kapil Sibal's announcing the > project as being some kind of a dig out of exclusion > (http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/technology/india-announces-35-tablet-computer-to-help-lift-villagers-out-of-poverty/2011/10/05/gIQAPT8PNL_story.html) > > If you look at UNDP's latest HDI report on India, you may find that > someone should find this claim at least quixotic, given that the country > ranks 119th in the world for what ranks are worth. India as a state spends > among the lowest on education (3.6%) and healthcare (1.1%) and has an income > inequality problem that is by all measure growing yearly, gender inequity is > 0.748 (on a scale of the 'best' at 0.212 and 'worst' at 0.814). the average > Indian spends 4.4 years in formal schooling.. the list goes on and on. > > i'm not saying this is not a significant achievement, my concern is > tying this to development in such a way, in fact specifically in the > perception that this could be the state's part in providing development in > india. i think it hurts the cause of folks working in this space at the very > least. > > On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 7:03 PM, Yaw Anokwa <yanokwa at gmail.com> wrote: > the hype around this tablet is terrible. > > i think it's great to have cheaper technology, but android tablets, > even cheap $35 android tablets, will not lift villagers out of > poverty. i wish it were that easy... > > > On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 15:49, Rahul Banerjee > <banerjee at cs.washington.edu> wrote: > > Sorry for the spam, but I couldn't resist sharing such wonderful news: > > http://www.seattlepi.com/business/article/India-announces-35-tablet-computer-for-rural-poor-2203509.php > > (Actually, the government is subsidising its price (which would be > closer to $50), but it's still pretty amazing that something like this > exists at all) > > -- > Rahul > _______________________________________________ > change mailing list > change at change.washington.edu > http://changemm.cs.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/change > > _______________________________________________ > change mailing list > change at change.washington.edu > http://changemm.cs.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/change > > > _______________________________________________ > change mailing list > change at change.washington.edu > http://changemm.cs.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/change > > > _______________________________________________ > change mailing list > change at change.washington.edu > http://changemm.cs.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/change > > > _______________________________________________ > change mailing list > change at change.washington.edu > http://changemm.cs.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/change > > > _______________________________________________ > change mailing list > change at change.washington.edu > http://changemm.cs.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/change > > _______________________________________________ > change mailing list > change at change.washington.edu > http://changemm.cs.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/change > >
