Translation for non-Hindi speakers: The sign on the left says "Laptop for 1600" (In Rupees, this is ~ $35). The guy (literally and figuratively "the man on the street") is boasting "I have downloaded a roti using this, wanna see?" Roti is a very basic food item and "dal (lentils) - roti" is a standard staple in most of North India. This is what a roti looks like: http://www.food-india.com/ingredients/i001_i025/i006.htm
-- Rahul On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 10:05 PM, Abhishek Prateek <abhishekprateek at gmail.com> wrote: > > Sorry about the spam. I came across this pic and found it too amusing to not > share.?It's in hindi though. > > > > On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 12:56 PM, Yaw Anokwa <yanokwa at gmail.com> wrote: >> >> this thursday at change, kentaro will be sharing reflections on his >> ten myths work and i'm assuming he'll touch on much of this. it should >> be an interesting talk and we'll try to make the talk more widely >> available online. >> >> if you have questions for kentaro, please submit them at >> http://www.google.com/moderator/#16/e=f0f2f >> >> http://change.washington.edu/2011/10/kentaro-toyama-reflections-on-the-10-myths-of-ict-for-development >> >> >> On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 06:50, Tapan Parikh <tapan at cs.washington.edu> >> wrote: >> > Now that Ive wasted a decent amount of time on this thread, I should >> > also provide some explanation of why Im so annoyed by Kentaros >> > argument. >> > >> > The first time I heard it was at the NYU CATER event in 2009. ?I >> > remember thinking that everything that Kentaro said was true, but that >> > the talk still left me completely deflated and uninspired. ?The >> > emphasis was all wrong. I remember noticing that there were a number >> > of students in the audience that felt the same way. I was worried that >> > Kentaros perspective was scaring students (and funders, but that is a >> > different story) away from ICTD, or at least not allowing them to have >> > fun and to learn while doing it. >> > >> > The process of creation is supposed to be fun and engaging. The >> > stories that we tell should be inspiring and motivating; not daunting >> > and pessimistic. As students and designers, you are *allowed* to fail. >> > That is how you learn. You dont need to understand all the ?"myths" >> > and "chasms" of development from day 1; save that for the critical >> > theorists (and the policy makers). If you follow the process of >> > user-centered, iterative design, you will learn those things as you go >> > along - and you may even find that some of well-established beliefs >> > arent true, at least in your context! ?This ?is how innovation works, >> > and how designers and engineers are able to do the impossible. But to >> > do this - you have to believe, and you have to having fun. >> > >> > My students and I have had a great time designing ICTD technologies, >> > while learning a huge amount along the way. I havent tried to >> > proselytize, because I think that the jury is still out on ICTD, as it >> > is for many other things, which is what makes it an exciting research >> > area. But I do want to ensure that students know it is OK to believe >> > in technological progress. If that is a myth, then it is one that is >> > shared by the entire modern world, which makes it true if simply by >> > convention. >> > >> > Finally, pointing all the ways that ICTD (and development) are hard is >> > not an intellectual contribution - its common sense, and has been said >> > before, by smarter people then you, or me, or Kentaro. As engineers >> > and designers, if you want to make your mark, the best you can do is >> > to create things that actually (and demonstrably) change the world for >> > the better - b/c thats where all the brownie points are waiting. ;-) >> > >> > Dr. Glass Half-Full, signing off.... >> > >> > On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 10:11 PM, Tapan Parikh <tapan at >> > cs.washington.edu> wrote: >> >> Thanks for the post Deepti. I think the last line summarizes your >> >> argument: >> >> >> >> "All one is saying that every development dollar spent on 'technology >> >> for development' is better spent on 'people for development'." >> >> >> >> 1) In 99% of "development/aid" situations, I agree. >> >> >> >> 2) Its usually not an either/or. One can (and often does) spend money >> >> on both people and systems/process (that technology enables). As >> >> Kentaro alludes, most successful (ICTD) projects do exactly that. And >> >> the fact that public resource allocation is inefficient (and moreso in >> >> "development/aid") is a systemic political problem, and not a problem >> >> of technology. >> >> >> >> 3) If his is really a policy argument (as opposed to research), then >> >> thats fine - he should take it up w/ the Kapil Sibals of the world. >> >> Budgeting is a complicated political process, and policy makers can >> >> use all the good advice they can get. >> >> >> >> On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 5:47 PM, Deepti Chittamuru >> >> <deepti at ischool.berkeley.edu> wrote: >> >>> I can see why Tap would argue that Clay Shirky's piece is a refutation >> >>> ?of >> >>> Kentaro's claim. But I don't think Kentaro's claim is dislodged by >> >>> Shirky. >> >>> Shirky says he does not seem to understand why we should be careful when >> >>> attributing agency to social media/communication tools while everywhere >> >>> else >> >>> it is attributed routinely and everyone understands perfectly well what >> >>> it >> >>> means. I don't think Kentaro would argue that a quirk of the English >> >>> language is the danger. He would rather argue that repeated use of such >> >>> language if and when it leads to mistaken attribution of agency would be >> >>> dangerous. His argument presumes that such mistaken attribution of agency >> >>> is?occurring?in the context of ICTs especially in the development and >> >>> public >> >>> policy sectors. >> >>> I had a version of this conversation recently with Kentaro and here is >> >>> what >> >>> I believe he would say. Again, this is my understanding of what he would >> >>> say, it does not necessarily capture his beliefs very accurately. I >> >>> write it >> >>> as a conversation simply because that is how I remember it in my own >> >>> head. A >> >>> lot of the examples below are drawn from my understanding so if they are >> >>> wrong then it is my fault and not his. :) >> >>> Kentaro: While it is perfectly fine for you to use such terms, it is the >> >>> belief that these tools are somehow causing good that is distracting. It >> >>> does not matter if the lay man believes this but it starts getting >> >>> dangerous >> >>> when resource allocating public policymakers or folks in the development >> >>> sector start believing that offering a laptop/mobile phone based game to >> >>> a >> >>> teacher-less child or to a teacher who does not know how or even what to >> >>> teach will be more effective than investing the same resources into >> >>> training >> >>> teachers in terms of increase in literacy in a community. >> >>> In a war after all it isn't the weapons but the strategy (how you use >> >>> them) >> >>> that wins the war. Every single general in history will attest to that. >> >>> There have been instances when an enemy with superior weaponry >> >>> (technology) >> >>> has been defeated by people with better strategy and more will power >> >>> even if >> >>> the latter had less advanced war technology. >> >>> If you have to choose between training soldiers and building out your >> >>> technological prowess, then choose to focus on your soldiers and on war >> >>> strategists, etc., Technology after all is only meant to enhance a >> >>> soldier's >> >>> ability to fight the war, if he is himself not?effective?what will a >> >>> super >> >>> high-powered gun do for him? except probably lead him to shoot himself in >> >>> the foot... >> >>> But the concern is that what the generals already know, the policymakers >> >>> and >> >>> people in the development sector might not remember. >> >>> When teacher's do not know the absolute basics that they ned to teach, do >> >>> not have the motivation or self-efficacy to turn up everyday in a class >> >>> which is nearly empty to teach children who are hungry; If?mothers?are >> >>> too >> >>> unwell to give birth to healthy children and the children grow up to be >> >>> malnourished, then it might be a better idea to focus every resource you >> >>> have on building self-efficacy and motivation amongst the teachers and to >> >>> offer them teaching skills, instead of overhead LED projectors; it might >> >>> be >> >>> better to offer community health workers motivational and self-efficacy >> >>> interventions and skills to educate women and their families rather than >> >>> to >> >>> offer them mobile phones and cool apps. >> >>> It does not mean the cool apps don't help or that the overhead LED >> >>> projectors don't help. They do, but are less value for the resources >> >>> spent >> >>> on them. Furthermore if you did manage to improve the self-efficacy >> >>> levels >> >>> of a teacher or the educational/motivational skills of a community health >> >>> worker then he or she would find a way to get the LED projector or the >> >>> cool >> >>> mobile phone app. >> >>> Technology isn't the hardest part to get while doing development work but >> >>> the skills and knowledge necessary to do the work are difficult to >> >>> acquire. >> >>> So if you have to choose between putting in a million dollars into either >> >>> buying mobile phones for community health workers or into training them >> >>> to >> >>> enhance their persuasion skills or their knowledge of the healthcare >> >>> issues >> >>> and solutions, then choose the latter. >> >>> Only if you believe that you already have an effective force of community >> >>> health workers/teachers/ human rights activists/whoever is helping should >> >>> you be spending the money on accessorizing them so to speak with >> >>> technology. >> >>> Technology can help you do whatever you do more effectively, powerfully, >> >>> efficiently, etc... whether it be good or evil. It is a magnifier of >> >>> human >> >>> intent and?capacity. But you have to know what to do for technology to >> >>> help >> >>> you do it better, more widely, more powerfully, etc... Twitter cannot >> >>> help >> >>> you spread the message far and wide and effectively mobilize people if >> >>> you >> >>> do not know what message you have to send to?mobilize?people. >> >>> This argument is about whether it is more important to teach people what >> >>> to >> >>> do or improve people's ability to do it. The latter (improving how they >> >>> do >> >>> it) presumes the existence of?knowledge?of the former (what to do and >> >>> how to >> >>> do it)... mistakenly so in my opinion. As of today I?would?argue that the >> >>> biggest challenge in the development sector is helping people - teachers, >> >>> community health workers, etc., - figure out what to do and how to do it. >> >>> Only after achieving at least a minimum level of knowledge, self-efficacy >> >>> and motivation does it make sense to explore how we can help them do it >> >>> better. >> >>> Some people seem to argue that simply having access to the right >> >>> technology >> >>> will help people figure out what to do or how to do it and that is the >> >>> main >> >>> issue of contention here. Technology is about how to do it better, not >> >>> about >> >>> what to do or how to do it. So I argue that we (folks in the development >> >>> and >> >>> public policy sector) should first focus on teaching what to do and how >> >>> to >> >>> do it before we begin investing resources in figuring out how to do it >> >>> better. >> >>> Deepti: Yeah but if I do not have the money to build a full force of >> >>> effective workers (in whatever development area) would we not be better >> >>> off >> >>> at least "magnifying the intent" of the few good teachers, community >> >>> health >> >>> workers, etc. that we have? >> >>> After all building effective human abilities even in a fraction of the >> >>> workforce in development is so much more expensive and slower than being >> >>> able to magnify the abilities of those who are already effective. >> >>> Wouldn't >> >>> the latter be more value for each dollar spent? >> >>> Also wouldn't the very deployment of technology be an intervention in >> >>> increasing skills, knowledge and self-efficacy of the community health >> >>> workers/teachers/whoever else even amongst those (admittedly the >> >>> majority)?community health workers/teachers/whoever else??who aren't very >> >>> knowledgeable, self-efficacious or motivated? >> >>> Even for those who aren't very great teachers/community health workers, >> >>> etc., wouldn't simply having access to technology increase - if only >> >>> slightly - their levels of knowledge, self-efficacy and motivation? >> >>> Kentaro:?Just access to technology does not reliably lead to an increase >> >>> in >> >>> knowledge, self-efficacy and motivation and one cannot depend on the hope >> >>> that technology might have such a side-effect when one is spending a >> >>> billion >> >>> dollars developing and deploying it. Also if there is such an increase in >> >>> knowledge, motivation and self-efficacy, it is only marginal. Why spend >> >>> so >> >>> many resources to only have a marginal impact on vital issues. >> >>> This is like investing resources into inventing super-efficient surgical >> >>> tools that facilitate quicker healing times for patients undergoing brain >> >>> surgery when there aren't enough good surgeons to go around. Agreed a >> >>> patient bleeding into his brain will benefit from shorter recovery >> >>> periods >> >>> after brain surgery but he will benefit even more from having access to a >> >>> superb brain surgeon. So if you do not have resources to do both (train >> >>> surgeons to treat the bleeding brain and invent great surgical tools), >> >>> if it >> >>> is a question of whether to allocate resources here or there, then you >> >>> are >> >>> better off focusing on the creation of better surgeons than the >> >>> invention of >> >>> better tools. >> >>> Also the market does have a way of finding out what works best and >> >>> eventually developing whatever is most useful. We do not really have to >> >>> spend public or development dollars on building better mobile phone >> >>> interfaces or apps. We are better off spending public money on building >> >>> human capital. >> >>> Furthermore?if the human capital is knowledgeable enough, >> >>> self-efficacious >> >>> and motivated enough they will identify and obtain the technological >> >>> tools >> >>> they need, whereas going the other way -from access to technological >> >>> tools >> >>> building knowledge and self-efficacy- round is much harder. >> >>> As to your first point about whether magnifying the intent of a few good >> >>> teachers isn't as good a way to spend resources as?increasing?the number >> >>> of >> >>> good teachers, especially since the former is easier and less expensive >> >>> to >> >>> do than the latter - No it isn't. >> >>> For such a strategy to be successful in improving the over all levels of >> >>> education, health, etc., you still need a minimum number (critical >> >>> mass?) of >> >>> good teachers, community health workers, etc... We do not have even that >> >>> minimum number of great teachers, community health workers, etc., and >> >>> hence >> >>> every "development" dollar that you spend on designing or deploying a >> >>> "useful" mobile phone app is a dollar that you are taking away from doing >> >>> more useful things like building better human resources. >> >>> Nobody is saying that technology does not help, the argument is about how >> >>> much it helps. Does it help enough to justify spending on technology >> >>> "instead" of spending on people doing development work? Is it so >> >>> effective >> >>> that it can do as much as a great teacher or a very effective community >> >>> health worker? ?If not then one is better off spending on improving >> >>> teachers, community health workers, etc... at this stage. All one is >> >>> saying >> >>> that every development dollar spent on 'technology for development' is >> >>> better spent on 'people for development'. >> >>> >> >>> -d >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 3:21 PM, Tapan Parikh <tapan at >> >>> cs.washington.edu> >> >>> wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>> This could be a very entertaining conversation if I wanted to play >> >>>> devils >> >>>> advocate for a bit, but unfortunately deadlines loom. >> >>>> So Ill say yes, you are absolutely right, but your argument could be >> >>>> used >> >>>> just as well as a defense for the hypothetical folks that Kentaro >> >>>> appears to >> >>>> be railing against. ?I dont think anyone sensible (that I've run across >> >>>> anyway) has argued that technology is instrumental for development to >> >>>> occur, >> >>>> at least on an individual basis. >> >>>> The economists have looked for causality at the macro-level, but recent >> >>>> events have led many prominent economists (Keynesians, granted) to >> >>>> suggest >> >>>> that large parts of that sub-discipline are irrelevant to the real >> >>>> world. >> >>>> Anyway, Ill close by saying that whether words determine reality, and >> >>>> whether modern classical macro-economics is completely bogus, are both >> >>>> hugely interesting unsolved questions that I dont have time to engage >> >>>> with >> >>>> today, or before tenure for that matter. ?;) >> >>>> >> >>>> On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 11:55 AM, Sunil Garg <sunilgarg at gatech.edu> >> >>>> wrote: >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Where is the refutation? >> >>>>> Just because the English language wants us to frame things in a certain >> >>>>> way doesn't mean that's the reality. >> >>>>> -Sunil >> >>>>> >> >>>>> On Oct 17, 2011, at 2:34 PM, Tapan Parikh wrote: >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Clay Shirky rebuts Toyama much better then I ever could: >> >>>>> >> >>>>> http://crookedtimber.org/2011/10/10/guestpost-communications-tools-agency-and-anxiety/ >> >>>>> On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 7:36 PM, Tapan Parikh <tapan at >> >>>>> cs.washington.edu> >> >>>>> wrote: >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> Ive never understood Kentaros point here, or at least why its >> >>>>>> delivered >> >>>>>> with such pessimism. >> >>>>>> Its strictly a glass half-full, half-empty kind of argument. ?Of >> >>>>>> course >> >>>>>> technology does not achieve its effect in isolation. ?Of course you >> >>>>>> need all >> >>>>>> the rest of the things Kentaro mentions. ?But an "amplifier of your >> >>>>>> intent" >> >>>>>> still sounds pretty awesome to me. ?This is what Steve Jobs was >> >>>>>> trying to do >> >>>>>> for us, and what we are trying (successfully or unsuccessfully) to >> >>>>>> achieve >> >>>>>> for the poor and marginalized through ICT4D. ?Im not saying that >> >>>>>> computers >> >>>>>> are the best or most appropriate technology, but the potential is >> >>>>>> there, and >> >>>>>> that is why we are working to achieve it, and why it is still >> >>>>>> research. >> >>>>>> I find Joyojeet's critique much more interesting. ?Are computers truly >> >>>>>> amplifiers, or are they strictly aspirational? ?Said another way, is >> >>>>>> high >> >>>>>> technology perceived as an end in and of itself, or do we understand >> >>>>>> its >> >>>>>> true machinations*, and use them for some other higher purpose - the >> >>>>>> highest >> >>>>>> being to learn, and through the process become better people, or a >> >>>>>> better >> >>>>>> society. I am sure everyone who has worked in ICTD has directly >> >>>>>> observed >> >>>>>> "gadget lust" in our partners, users, and without doubt, in ourselves. >> >>>>>> Summarizing my point, the important question is "are u the one riding >> >>>>>> the horse, or is the horse riding you?". ?The jury is still out on >> >>>>>> this for >> >>>>>> ICT4D, as it is for the rest of the World, IMHO. >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> *?For the philosophy and German buffs, see Heidegger's "The Question >> >>>>>> Concerning Technology". >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 6:55 PM, Yaw Anokwa <yanokwa at gmail.com> >> >>>>>> wrote: >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> rahul, >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> i would encourage you to check out >> >>>>>>> http://www.kentarotoyama.org/research. i think his work on >> >>>>>>> technology as an amplifier and the ten myths of ict4d will be quite >> >>>>>>> insightful. >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> yaw >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 18:16, Rahul Banerjee >> >>>>>>> <banerjee at cs.washington.edu> wrote: >> >>>>>>> > 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 >> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> > _______________________________________________ >> >>>>>>> > 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 >
