Michael Braun's Blog

The New York Times recently ran a “Room for Debate” feature on internet connections on airplane flights. There are many good reasons to oppose this option. The best reason is that the restrictions required to maintain harmony aboard the flight may require more work and controversy than airlines should deal with. Further, as airlines are regulated by the Federal government, this issue may be something that lawmakers take up, especially if the practice is deemed a national security risk. Do we really want to be flying these friendly skies next to a person looking at pornography or other questionable material? Is that kind of monitoring work really worth it to the industry?

Rather than taking this tack, the debaters dealt largely with the potential annoyance of connection on the flight and with the peaceful feelings of disconnection. While I lump annoyance as part of proper monitoring (airlines do block Skype), the second complaint seems odd. Think about it: if you want to disconnect – get away from your phone, internet, email, television, et cetera – you should be able to. Not any time you want, as connection is a serious part of responsibility, but there should always be a place in a day for “downtime.” So for those complaining that they should be able to get away on an airplane, why would they pay the extra for the connection? For those unable to get away (and for whom staying connected is reaping a heavy toll), they need serious help. But for those who wish a connection, why should we deny it to them?

This is an issue of personal freedoms. If an airline wants to offer connectivity, because there is a customer demand, then the airline should offer it – assuming that the rights to such service do not infringe on the rights of others. For example, if I can use a cell phone in-flight, then the airplane crew also has a responsibility to ensure my use does not disturb others. But it is ludicrous to argue that the airline should not OFFER features because previously it was not possible to stay connected during a flight.

Who are these people really trying to protect? For many people, the ability to be connected to others is a pleasure, not a chore. And while they certainly do (or at least should) find time during the day to disconnect, that is their choice. If they want to stay connected during a flight, pay for the privilege, and not irritate anyone else with inappropriate content or loud use, then who is to say that they shouldn’t?

The issue at the heart of this debate is also at the heart of many other issues related to changes. Basically, it’s that people perceive others to have more negative qualities than they themselves have. It stands as evidence to their claims of addiction when someone uses an electronic device in public, but the complainer’s own similar behavior is nothing of the sort. In the end, internet and connection addiction may be quite prevalent. But seeing it manifest in everyday IT use is hardly justification for restrictive policy! If I want my internet and can get it now with no infringement on the rights of others, then by golly, let me pay for it.

We should hail bold Princeton for giving the Kindle DX a try. For three classes, students were given the device, preloaded with the readings for the semester. 50 students in total were part of this experiment; two weeks into the semester, it has already been judged a failure. Students have been frustrated in their attempts to truly engage with their readings. Though the Kindle does offer some basic annotation features, it cannot compete with the tried and true methods of actually writing on paper. Similarly, discussing a reading in class often involves mad page flipping (“Where was that quote that I can use to TOTALLY undermine your argument? Quick, quick, must find it before we change subjects!”), but the Kindle makes page turning an exercise in extreme patience, as turing a single page can take a few seconds. To lose this functionality (and potentially lose an argument) is not worth a lightened backpack.

What can we learn from this failed experiment? First, I think it is important to try out new technology. Even if it doesn’t go the way you expected, you learn something in the process. I do think it was good of Princeton to try something new, especially in this small, controlled roll-out. They provided evidence for questions that Amazon was unlikely to test: does the Kindle actually work for anything other than light pleasure reading? The Princeton experiment provides evidence to the contrary. But this may lead to a better designed eBook reader (or whatever) in the future. As much of my own academic reading is not from books, but from scholarly articles, I can certainly appreciate annotation abilities on a computer screen. It’s not like there is no demand for the ability to read PDF files on a computer.

Second, the Kindle is a piece of junk. For novels and such, it may be a good compromise. Sure, you have to buy all your books as eBooks (sorry, anyone who likes collections of books – bookstore, library, or personal), but in exchange, you can take 20 books with you on a long vacation and not worry about exceeding baggage weight limits. For any other kind of reading material, it is worthless. Reading the newspaper in paper form means interesting ads, colorful pictures, and a nice, professional layout. Reading the newspaper online means videos, easy access to other sources, and quick viewing of many stories at once. Reading the newspaper on the Kindle means a subscription, no news updates during the day, greyscale screen, and a clunky interface. For every issue that the Kindle claims to rectify, it creates three more.

It’s possible that someday, there will be an eReader that is worth something. But that day is far, far away. When I write notes in the margins of printed readings, I can write very quickly and very small. There is no product on the market that will allow me to do the same thing when reading something on a screen. Yes, I can type an annotation on a PDF now. Or I can get a tablet that will let me write. But these methods are still inferior to what I do currently. Princeton may scrap its Kindle program (I certainly would), or they might keep it going. But whatever they do, they have discovered for the rest of us something quite vital: the Kindle is a tool of convenience, not quality, and there aren’t a lot of people who would bemoan the inconvenience of good old paper and pencil.

Serious question, to which I would appreciate a real answer: who LOVES Windows? I don’t mean who likes Windows more than OS X or Linux. And I don’t mean who DOESN’T like Apple and thus instead uses Windows. I mean, who actually, really LOVES Windows, as in thinks that XP was the best operating system ever, until Vista which was also great, and now is so jazzed about Windows 7 they can hardly contain themselves. Where are the Windows fan boys?

Charlie Brooker is an irritating comic in Great Britain. He’s written before, evidently, about how he hates Macs and Mac users. In his most recent column, he writes that he hates Windows too. “I know Windows is awful. Everyone knows Windows is awful. Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it’s there, and there’s nothing you can do about it.” That’s not the sentiment of everyone, but it does seem like Windows lacks the kinds of fans that Apple has.

What should Microsoft do about this? On the one hand, they have to consider the people who purchase Windows over OS X for a very specific reason. Maybe these people want to do different things with their operating system, things that OS X doesn’t allow. Maybe these people want to run software that only works on Windows. Or they need their OS to fit into a company’s existing computer structure. But on the other hand, Microsoft also has customers who barely understand computers and who were very used to XP; when Vista came out, they were so overwhelmed they may have considered buying Apple.

The problem is that these two groups: the super-specific users who have good reasons for using Windows and the barely conscious, vegetable users who had their world turned upside down by OS changes. It may not be possible to please both these groups, which means Microsoft has a bit of an identity crisis.

There is evidence for this in the recent Microsoft videos encouraging and instructing the hosting of Windows 7 launch parties. In these videos, a melting pot of individuals gather around a computer to marvel at the wonders of Windows 7. These videos are well made, but they are also completely ridiculous. Simply imagining people hosting parties around the release of an operating system forces images of the most over-the-top nerds imaginable. And to what end? Ordinary people wouldn’t host a party like this; the people who would have hosted such a party likely have no interest in these lame videos. Rather than working to unite these two disparate groups, Microsoft has potentially alienated both of them.

The product itself may be a problem as well. As Windows gets more complicated, it also adds on endless additional layers of security. In doing so, it may strip out some of the power-user features that some users may have come to appreciate. I don’t know this for sure, but I wouldn’t be surprised if Windows 7 is the least friendly system to users to appreciated the ability to work behind the scenes of releases like XP. To that end, Windows 7 may represent a downgrade for some users.

It’s not as though Apple somehow avoids these same issues. Whereas I don’t use any fancy, behind-the-scenes features on my computer, there are certainly Apple users who do. But Apple also seems to offer a more streamlined product offering. They put down the gauntlet – like it or leave. In exchange for that ultimatum, Apple also offers products and software that all looks very similar. So if you can master the interface on one application, you can probably navigate your way around another. This makes it easier to decide if you want to use Apple or not. If you like how they design things, then you will like ALL their products.

A Microsoft user, on the other hand, has her choice of a wide variety of products, few representing a shared vision. So she can use Windows Mobile on her phone, but hate Windows Vista on her computer. She could be excited about Windows 7, but think the Zune HD is a complete waste of money. Maybe it’s that flexibility that leaves people with a sometimes ambivalent attitude toward Microsoft. Even me, fervent Microsoft hater, thought their design for a dual-screen folding tablet computer was quite beautiful. Of course, a couple days later, they released some prototype phone designs that I thought were the ugliest things I’ve ever seen. Microsoft is by no means a failing company, but it is a very big company, with many different areas and no central leadership. Without that, one part of the company makes Windows 7 party hosting videos while another designs computers that don’t run the operating system. That makes it really hard to fire up your users.

So is there actually anyone who truly LOVES Windows? There are people excited about Windows 7. There are people who like their Zunes, their XBoxes, their XBox Live, their Bing, and their Windows Mobile. But compared to the fan base Apple has amassed, Microsoft has nothing. If Apple ever went out of business, I might be suicidal. If Microsoft were to go under, the reaction might be more akin to a collective shrug.

Today, in two separate instances, I experienced some freaky nature. It made for an interesting Sunday, though neither of these events lasted more than a few minutes.

First, I had opened the patio door so the cat could go out on the porch. She meows loudly for this privilege, but quickly tires of being outdoors (especially when there is no sunbeam to lie in). All of a sudden, I heard a flapping by the door and looked over to see a small chickadee flapping wildly against the window and ceiling. It quickly calmed down and Lauren and I walked over to see what could be done. We needed to open the patio door wider so it could more easily make its way out. But it was sitting on the door tracks, meaning making the opening wider would startle the bird. After contemplating what to do for 30 seconds, I tried to open the door, which of course startled the bird. It made more noise flapping around than a dozen bees and scared us both half to death. But in its flapping, it found its way out. Lauren promptly shut the door and we were free of nightmare Hitchcock-ian situations.

Second, in the small thunderstorms that rolled through here all afternoon, it starting hailing around 8 PM. My car was parked outside, meaning some intense feelings of worry. I stuck my arm outside (through the aforementioned patio door) to find the hail quite small. It broke up as it hit my arm and hand. What a strange sound it is to hear hail in September. It’s been a strange month for weather with generally warm temperatures (warmer than August, it seemed), lots of rain last week, and now thunderstorms and hail. I trust that my car is okay, though I haven’t yet ventured out to check.

Other than that, it was an uneventful weekend, filled with school work and relaxation. As I think back, I actually can’t think of anything else worth mentioning. So, I’ll leave it at that.

For my birthday, Lauren got me a copy of Snow Leopard, Mac OS 10.6! It’s the first time I’ve upgraded my operating system since Tiger came out, way back in April of 2005. My MacBook is over 2 years old now, so missed out on the release of Leopard. Basically, it meant a pretty big change in how I’m used to my computer running for the last 4 and a half years.

There are a lot of new features with Leopard that I’ve never had on my own before (though have used on friends’ computers and at other times). So far, my favorite feature is easily Spaces. Spaces allows you to run your applications as if you had many separate monitors (up to 16!) but could only see one at a time. Whereas previously, I would have used the “hide” feature to keep certain windows visible or not, now I have different applications assigned to different spaces. In one, I have my internet browser and chat client. In another, I have productivity applications including email and calendar. A third holds word processing and other data applications (like spreadsheets). The fourth holds entertainment applications. As I am a bit of a neat freak on my computer, this separation makes me feel much more relaxed and organized. Thus far, I haven’t had opportunity to work with multiple applications (as I would do when researching or something like that – going back and forth between the web, email, PDFs, and word processing documents), but when that happens, I presume Spaces will be even more helpful.

I also like the new handling of Exposé. Exposé allows easy switching between applications’ multiple windows. So, if you have open 3 Safari windows, your email, 4 Pages documents, a Numbers spreadsheet, and iTunes, you can easily display all the windows at once. Leopard and Snow Leopard makes some nice changes, including the ability to see all Spaces, all windows, all windows in a space, or all application windows. You can do this via an assigned corner (for example, drag your mouse into one corner to see all windows) or an assigned key. In Snow Leopard, you can also click and hold on an application window to see all its active windows. Pressing tab will cycle through active applications. This makes Exposé work even better.

The other big feature, that I haven’t yet taken much advantage of, is Stacks. Stacks are new ways to put folders on the Dock. Whereas previously, a folder in the dock, when clicked, would launch that folder in Finder. Now, it opens up a window from the dock that shows the contents of the folder. For folders used frequently, this makes it easier to access their contents and keep you from opening multiple Finder windows. So, for example, on my desktop I have several folders of items that I access frequently. I haven’t replaced or moved them, but I have added them to the dock. When I want to access something for school, I now click on my School folder stack which quickly shows the contents of the folder so I can find what I need quickly. It’s not like this saves me minutes each time I want to do it, but it does make it a lot easier to access a document without having to use the Finder.

Mail is redesigned and works very well. So does iCal. QuickTime X allows you to easily record videos. I’ve made four and uploaded them to YouTube without difficulty. Time Machine allows for super easy backups, which is so extremely wonderful, though also perfectly mundane (after creating a full backup, subsequent backups only entail documents that have changed in the interim, meaning it may take just minutes to maintain the peace of mind in case of data loss). Quick Look allows for easy viewing of a document (many, many types) without actually opening the document. This is very handy especially for email attachments. There are probably other features that I’ve used but can’t recall. It’s a fun new operating system that I’m enjoying quite a bit.

Twitter is a perfect example of capitalism. They have created a product that has never generated any actual profit, has a business model designed not to make money, and has a following much smaller than the news coverage it has generated. But, because of the hype and their own moxie, they’ve received a valuation of $1,000,000,000 and have secured $100 million in new funding. This is a Ponzi scheme most certainly, and it’s a job well done by Twitter.

Twitter really does seem popular, if you judge by its media attention. And it is popular among individuals who seek to promote themselves on the web. If you are a celebrity, politician, company, brand, product, shill, sell-out, hustler, or huckster, you ought to have a Twitter account, because there are enough idiots out there who care what you have to say, as long as its in 140 characters or less. If you are an ordinary person, however, Twitter is not useful to you. Sure, it’s growing fast, until you learn that 60% of members don’t return to the site a month after they signed up. And sure, it’s all the rage, but not among young people.

It’s quite amazing then that someone would put a value of $1 billion on Twitter. How much would Twitter be worth if they simply made micro-blogging software for installation on a website? How much would they be worth if there wasn’t so much media attention? How much are they worth when compared to a company like Facebook? And how much money can they really be expected to generate in the future? I don’t think anyone bothered to think about these questions, as their software is not innovative (and thus not worth much if they were to sell it). They have questionable rates of membership. They have nothing like the potential of Facebook (which is also overvalued). And they have no business model that will generate money, nor any interest in producing one. They are also not interested in selling to another company (though I’m sure they would if the price was right).

So go ahead, investors, pour money into Twitter. Do you think all they need is just another $100 million? With that, they can start raking in the dough? There is more money to be made FROM Twitter than there is BY Twitter, meaning that $100 million will get spent, and then they’ll look for even more investment. Before long, when investors want to pull out, there won’t be anything left to grab. Twitter is like a dead animal carcass. The longer it sits around, the more it rots away. It cannot be revived, and when investors figure this out, there will be nothing left but a pile of bones.

I’ve spent two past posts critiquing the “fidelity swap,” a concept from journalist Kevin Maney. The basic idea is that consumers make continual tradeoffs between fidelity (completeness) and convenience. Products that fill one need or the other will succeed; products that fall somewhere in the middle are doomed to fail. In the past two posts, I’ve argued that multiple other variables matter and that this idea is only applicable in a small number of cases (if at all). Now, I would like to tackle the newspaper industry and their recent struggles by applying the fidelity swap framework and my own ideas.

What would the newspaper industry look like if it took the fidelity swap’s prescription? First, we would expect it to offer just two types of products. One would be high-fidelity. Perhaps it could be something like the new iTunes LPs – a digital product packed with extras. Each news story would contain plenty of background information, as well as video and audio related to the issue. It could be viewed on computer or mobile device. The other product would be high convenience, so perhaps basic stories (not the full story) sent out via email or text message – no multimedia. And these would get sent out regularly, with frequent updates as well. Easy to use and easy to stay up-to-date on the news.

Because these two products represent the ultimate in fidelity and convenience, we would expect them both to succeed, whereas the middle road (paper news, basic websites, et cetera) would fail. But think about products that are high in fidelity or high in convenience; are they really the best the industry can do? Will they get enough people to pay for the high-fidelity product that it would justify the cost of producing such content? Will people be satisfied with the striped down convenience content that they will stick with that news vendor?

In this case, the “fidelity swap” idea runs counter to the issues of monetization. If you can sell a product, then it might make sense to focus on the two ends of the spectrum; but if your product is already available for free and its associated costs are subsidized by advertising, then it doesn’t matter how convenient or complete it is, IF THE AD REVENUE ISN’T THERE. Make a great product or make a cheap product: if you don’t get your revenue directly from selling the product then it makes less of a difference.

So what should the newspaper industry do instead? First, some guidance from the fidelity swap’s logic can be adopted. A newspaper should offer ways to get the news that are both convenient and complete. The New York Times, for example, has both email/text alerts, and a wonderful website. But the first question always must be how to pay for it. How do we sustain our product? If ad revenue is no longer dependable or sufficient, then newspapers must look at what consumers are willing to pay for.

What might this new revenue model look like? In this case, consumers are probably not willing to pay for extreme convenience, but might be willing to pay for fidelity. A sliding scale between the two will make the most sense for monetization. How about three levels of subscription? A basic level, whereby you can read the same news in the newspaper online, can read some breaking news, and which costs you nothing. A subscriber level, where you can read more news online, but can’t get some premium features, and has a small associated cost. And finally a premium level, featuring full and enhanced content, access to all archived issues, and the chance to read news as soon as it’s written, rather than having to wait for the print version to be released; this would obviously have the highest cost (though still priced so as to compete against the free model).

It is possible that the free version and the premium version would succeed, while the middle version would fail. But that is a factor of price, which should not be considered a derivative of convenience. In the end, we don’t know how the market would respond to such an offer, because no one has yet to try it. News Corp. media outlets are moving close, but that change has only happened in the last few months.

In the end, applying the fidelity swap idea to the newspaper industry is appealing, but also short-sighted. Issues of revenue models and an inability to adapt to changing markets have hurt the newspaper industry. To ignore those factors in favor of a simple fidelity/convenience choice is wildly inaccurate and misleading.

I wrote yesterday about the “fidelity swap,” an idea started by journalist Kevin Maney. This idea argues that consumers are driven to choose products that are either high in fidelity or high in convenience; products or services that fall in between are doomed to fail. I offered an overall critique of this idea, arguing that other factors play roles in these decisions and that the split between fidelity and convenience is hardly true for most markets.

Recently, in Business Week, Mr. Maney applied this idea to our current university system (read it here). In the article, he argues that the proliferation of online learning will lead more students to opt for convenience over fidelity and choose to earn their degrees online, rather than in traditional learning centers. This is somewhat similar to an argument I debunked last week, but a little different as Mr. Maney is not interested so much in new technology as he is in market forces.

Once again, his argument falls prey to the same logical predators. First, he does have some things correct. Mainly, if online degrees become very common, and if these degree-granting institutions are properly accredited and vetted, then more employers are likely to start accepting the degrees. In the end, it may become more common for individuals to opt for an online college. But this is required BEFORE you can argue that the “fidelity swap” will push people to choose online degrees.

Further, he again ignores a vital element: quality. If online degree programs were interested in delivering high quality education, then why aren’t they advertising their quality? Most of their advertisements focus on the ease of getting in and earning the degree (limited time commitment, convenient scheduling, et cetera). And to choose a degree program that is convenient and not quality means a choice over options that have both. Mr. Maney assumes that universities come in but two flavors – high fidelity or high convenience. For him, high fidelity comes from big universities, and high convenience comes from online institutions.

But what about the myriad other choices? A vast majority of Americans live within 50 miles of a college or university. Many of these institutions already offer convenient classes for working adults, including online options. And most offer credits that can transfer to other institutions. If you want a degree from the University of Wisconsin – Madison, you can get it even if you spent your first 2 years at a community or technical college. Your credits will transfer. This means convenient and quality education. According to Mr. Maney’s argument, these institutions should be fading fastest, but instead it’s the technical colleges that are growing the most.

This is all about making choices that involve sacrifices; most choices do. It’s just that the “fidelity swap” cannot fully represent the choices in most cases. For high school seniors, going to college need not be an inconvenience; indeed, most ENJOY leaving home, living in a dorm, et cetera. They aren’t making a trade-off to get increased fidelity; they are making the choice that makes the most sense. For older adults, they aren’t sacrificing fidelity of the college experience in order to get a convenient degree; they have no interest in going to traditional university. Why would they? It means being surrounded by a lot of young kids, with different priorities, schedules, and lifestyles. This isn’t about costs and rewards; it’s about finding an option that makes sense.

I find it astounding when critics argue that the free market needs time to catch up to the critics’ ideas. Why do they presume that the free market is not already working? Why should we give the free market time to insure poor, old, sick Americans? The free market has already determined that these groups are not worth covering. Why should we give the free market time to reform the university system and draw in great, young students? The free market has already determined that the way to sell online degrees is to pitch them to working adults and stress how easy they are to maintain.

The university system is just another area too complex to be represented as a choice between fidelity and convenience. Mr. Maney ought to do a little more research before continues to apply the world to his theories.

Pardon me for being late to the game. This idea of a “fidelity swap,” as first coined by Kevin Maney, has been around for a few years now. It’s actually something that many people have observed, myself included, especially in regards to technology. Basically, it’s the idea that consumers will choose products that are either high in fidelity (completeness) or convenience, but that they will avoid products that fall in the middle.

It’s an easy explanation for the success of both tiny-screened devices and gigantic HDTVs. But the problem is that it’s wrong, or at least ill-conceived. This is often what happens when you come up with a theory and then spend a lot of time trying to fit the real world to it. The reason that the “fidelity swap” is wrong for many areas has everything to do with quality.

Take, for example, the struggles of the newspaper industry. People like Mr. Maney have argued that newspapers fall in the dreaded middle, somewhere between fidelity and convenience, and thus they have failed. But this argument misses two points. First, the format of the newspaper has become less popular and online news has become more popular. Second, if newspapers made money from reporting the news, they would be doing very well. If we turn focus away from the physical newspaper and on to online news, the entire fidelity continuum crumbles. Online news is both more convenient AND more complete than the newspaper; it’s a better product all around. In this case, consumers can have both and thus have chosen wisely; online news wins out over the newspaper.

This is where the idea of quality comes in. While initial representations of the theory used quality and fidelity interchangeably, the two are actually quite different. Mr. Maney should spend some time clarifying what he means by fidelity, but without that explanation, I will examine quality as a third variable. When thinking of quality separately, it’s hard to see the “fidelity swap” as much of a swap at all. There are too many products that are both convenient and high quality.

Take, for example, McDonalds restaurants. I’m not arguing that McDonalds is actually delivering high quality food, and I’m not suggesting that eating at McDonalds represents a full-fidelity dining experience. But McDonalds does not advertise itself as super-convenient. Their commercials, instead, focus on quality food. Indeed, that’s how fast-food restaurants have been selling themselves for years. Think Burger King’s “have it your way,” or Wendy’s square burgers because they “don’t cut corners.” Hardee’s advertises angus beef burgers. McDonalds says “I’m loving it,” not “I’m getting it quickly.” For many consumers, a fast-food restaurant should represent both convenience and quality.

Or how about the iPhone as a media device? As a phone, it obviously represents the highest fidelity; as a media device it leaves a lot to be desired with its small screen and headphone sound. But, at the same time, the iPhone offers very limited convenience with media. It requires computer syncing or an internet connection. It can’t receive radio or television broadcasts. And you can only get one with an onerous cell phone contract. It also has high quality when compared to other phones, but low quality compared to a television. Where does it fall on the spectrum? Who knows, but the fact is that many Americans have iPhones (and even more want one) and that it’s very popular for watching media on.

There are two questions that arise from these examples; both are left unanswered by the fidelity swap idea. First, are quality and fidelity the same thing? If so, then why are fast-food restaurants successful even though they represent both quality and convenience? Second, fidelity and convenience compared to what? The iPhone is a high-fidelity phone and a low-fidelity media device; it’s more convenient than watching at home, but still not especially convenient.

For consumers, I think the choices they make do take into consideration factors of fidelity and convenience. But other factors are important as well. Ignoring quality, price, and size is hardly a good way to make predictions in the marketplace. Yes, a 60″ television may be higher fidelity than a 30″, but if I choose the 30″ does that automatically make it more convenient? I may have chosen the smaller television because it is a better brand than the 60″, or because it is less expensive, or because in my living room, a 60″ television would look ridiculous. It seems like a stretch to say all these factors are derivatives of convenience.

Stay tuned. Tomorrow, I will critique this idea when applied to our university education system.

Recently, I attended some training for teaching assistants. One of the “breakout” sessions featured general discussion about running a class. The few of us there shared different ideas we had tried. I brought up my recent idea of holding “eOffice Hours.” Another TA said that she too had tried it, but had trouble finding a service that all students used. As my plan was to give out my contact information for a wide variety of services (AIM, Google Talk, et cetera), I was a bit perplexed as to why she hadn’t been able to do the same.

It turns out that she had created a new, special name for use in class only and was reluctant to give out her personal contact information. Incredulous, I related the story to Lauren with the suggestion that I was a better TA because I was more open with my contact information. She immediately responded with something enlightening: it’s different for men and women.

That was something I hadn’t considered before. For students, I am happy to give out any contact information they might want: email, phone, IM, et cetera. I don’t give out my website, mostly because I wouldn’t want to offend someone, but I would give it out if asked. I never gave this action second thought. So far, it hasn’t caused me any grief; indeed, I partially credit good reviews to this openness.

But that experience couldn’t be much different from my friend, and fellow TA, Giovanna’s experience. For her, the idea that a student would have her contact information is something that causes hesitation. Last semester, during lecture, she politely asked a student to be quiet or leave; this student, who happened to be a football player, was not paying attention, talking to the people around him, eating food, and burning music CDs. After class, he confronted her, which included physical intimidation by invading her personal space. I make no claims to know his intention, but for Giovanna, it was a very frightening experience. I still can’t imagine what that must be like.

So, as this semester began, and I gave out advice that TAs give out their phone number (or at least a Google Voice number, which is what I give out), I made sure to give the caveat: it’s different for men than for women. It’s different because I can’t imagine being disrespected like Giovanna was, simply because of my gender. It’s too bad that I have to give out different advice for men than for women, but at the same time, the whole experience has opened my eyes (even as I thought they were open already).

I don’t intend to answer questions about why people buy Apple computers. But the question does seem central to Microsoft’s continuing and (slightly) aggressive campaign in support of “PCs.” Recently, I viewed an advertisement on the New York Times’ website that showed a 17″ MacBook Pro, with price listed, become covered by falling dollar bills, which were then blown away to reveal a (supposedly) comparable model running Windows and, of course, priced much less. This ad would work wonders if consumers are uneducated boobs, but really, why do people buy Macs?

First, a computer is seldom a spur-of-the-moment purchase. Most of the time, it’s something that involves careful consideration and thought – what do I really need in a computer? Second, it’s something that involves careful budgeting, as most people don’t simply have $1000+ laying around. Third, it’s a purchase that serves multiple roles: productivity tool to entertainment device to data storage center to personal representative. With all these things to consider, how do the Microsoft ads stack up?

Microsoft ads don’t treat the computer as a spur-of-the-moment purchase, per se, but they do seem to insinuate that most consumers are a bit clueless. Take their “PC Hunter” ads, in which an individual embarks on a computer shopping trip, armed with just a basic list of features and price. Maybe that is how most consumers shop, but with so much information available at their fingertips, you would think they would already have a decent idea about something like price when they go out looking. Thus, they could already justify or rule out purchasing a Mac before walking into a store.

Careful budgeting seems to be the central feature of the Microsoft ads – after all, times are tight and money is a foremost concern. But seeing as how a computer is a major purchase, and how the computer should last for at least a couple years, the price differences that Microsoft is pitching don’t seem to matter that much. You can buy a Mac at $1200 or a similar PC at $900 – over the lifetime of the computer, does that difference matter much? If a computer was something that you used for a week and then threw away, or something you bought frequently, then that difference is huge! For example, I usually buy coffee every morning, so the difference between $1.00 and $1.25 really matters to me. But if I was buying coffee for the next three years, I would probably go for whatever I thought was best, rather than just focus on price.

The multiple roles of a computer are where the Microsoft ads really flop. In almost all comparisons, besides price, Macs win for a lot of consumers. Yes, there are people who don’t appreciate the design of Apple products; and for them, thank goodness there are well-designed computers from other companies. But for many people, Macs simply look and feel better (indeed, all the PC Hunter ads actually make reference to this, with multiple comments about how nice Macs look and feel; “so sexy” is how one person describes the MacBook). When it comes time to find a computer that fits all needs, I think that Macs have the advantage. Buying a cheap PC simply because it is less expensive than a Mac doesn’t make a consumer feel good, especially if that consumer were to realize she is losing out on great software and a computer that represents something refined. If Apple is a lifestyle brand, then the consumer focused only on price is like a person who only buys clothes at Wal-Mart. That’s surely NOT what Microsoft wants to become.

Recently, I sat next to a grad. student in my department who was using a Lenovo (formerly IBM) ThinkPad. It was small (12″ screen, which made me miss my old iBook – maybe I should get it out from the closet where it is currently sitting, unloved) and looked rugged and cool. It offered some very different design features from Apple, and it seemed like a product that could go head-to-head and say “I’m different than you, in a lot more ways than price.” That’s what Microsoft needs, if they really believe in their products. If Microsoft is just going to compete on price, then I’m already declaring their efforts to be failures.

The problem with Zephyr Teachout’s arguments about our current university system and new technology revolve not around the technology itself. In that way, her broader point may be right: new technology has the power to dramatically change the way we receive an education. But how substantial are ways in which it might change?

We know that technology is advancing in the classroom. My advisor has received complaints when her PowerPoint slides look especially spartan (black text on white background); she’s also received criticism when she didn’t have PowerPoint slides. She has also received praise for using a variety of YouTube videos to augment her lecture. Students seem to have adjusted to and even come to expect new technology in the classroom. But to what end? If projectors and computer hookups replace blackboards and chalk, is it possible to better communicate information? Personally, I feel constrained when I don’t have a chalk board. While technology can augment teaching, it can hardly replace the old tried-and-true methods.

And what would that augmentation look like? There is the possibility that lectures could have some kind of interactive content that runs on laptop computers, cell phones, or other internet devices (tablets, anyone?). But weighing the costs and benefits of such technology produces a mixed picture. Developing a lecture takes a lot of time, especially if the instructor is dedicated to staying up-to-date. Expecting the lecture to include interactive technology adds further time and cost. Unless the benefits are clear and large, new content will not sufficiently advantage learning.

Communication technology seems like it might have the possibility to increase learning. If students from around the world could connect with each other, then we might see the emergence of a global learning community; this sounds very impressive, especially as our economy becomes increasingly globalized. But the money spent creating such a system would be hard to justify. Many students already go to a university with a large, international learning community, yet few take full advantage of these opportunities. These students aren’t throwing away an amazing chance; they are just making rational decisions about their time. “Hmm… it’s Friday night, what should I do? Go to the lecture on traditional Tibetan basket weaving or hang out with my friends?” That is not a hard decision. A system is as a system does; if it fails to interest a large number of students, then it is a failure.

In the end, the push for new technology should come from students, not from instructors. When the internet came about, universities used it only as much as they could expect students to use it. Only when internet access was nearly universal could colleges justify putting material online. And even now, while I expect that all my students have access to the internet, I still copy assignment descriptions and hand them out. Computers have yet to replace paper. As new technology continues to propagate, innovative instructors will find ways to use it (not necessarily including myself as an innovator, but I am holding eOffice Hours via instant messaging this semester). But to force students to adopt something new is asking for trouble. This is, in essence, a supply and demand issue; those who think technology will change everything ought first to consider this basic relationship: more supply will only lower demand.

That’s what Zephyr Teachout, associate professor at Duke University School of Law, says. She argues that, like newspapers, universities are going to have to come up with a new business model if they expect to stay going in this information age. You can read her entire argument here. Can it really be true? Do newspapers and universities have more in common than we might think?

The crux of her argument is this: “Both newspapers and universities have traditionally relied on selling hard-to-come-by information.” Now, as information propagates more quickly, universities become less of a hub for information and more of a tradition. Students go to college for the learning, but because they can get that elsewhere, there is less motivation to attend traditional university – dorms, big classes, et cetera.

What does the university of the future look like to Ms. Teachout? “At noon on any given day, hundreds of university professors are teaching introductory Sociology 101. The Internet makes it harder to justify these redundancies. In the future, a handful of Soc. 101 lectures will be videotaped and taught across the United States. [...] The typical 2030 faculty will likely be a collection of adjuncts alone in their apartments, using recycled syllabuses and administering multiple-choice tests from afar.”

Does she mean to make the future sound so dystopian? What’s most amusing about her dark claims are that she fails to point out a benefit to the consumer in this model. Newspapers are currently struggling because of changing revenue models; the same may be true for universities (especially small colleges, Teachout suggests), but university’s revenue stream and their core business model are one and the same. Newspapers don’t make money from reporting, and thus their business is threatened by a decline in advertising. But universities make money from granting degrees; they will be hurt when their service is no longer in demand.

It’s easy then to argue that online universities will make brick-and-mortar universities obsolete. This is true only if college itself loses its luster. For many students, the idea of getting a degree by staying at home, in their childhood bedroom, is not appealing. While college costs keep getting higher, there is no evidence that students are actively seeking less expensive alternatives – a summer class at a community college, maybe, but they aren’t giving up the whole university experience. Further, there is no evidence that an online degree from a reputable university would save the student much money at all. Low cost degrees are currently available from joke universities, like the “University of Phoenix.”

Ms. Teachout does present evidence for her claims in that online degree programs are more popular than ever. She suggests that, in time, many more universities will offer online classes for distance learners, leading more and more students to pursue these options. What she ignores, however, is the demographics of those pursuing online degrees. As the BA becomes the previous generation’s high school diploma, more individuals who eschewed college after high school find themselves at a disadvantage. Especially in these tight economic times, a college degree can be a deciding factor in heavy job competition.

The main issue with Ms. Teachout’s argument is that it relies on the idea of new technology creating new markets and reforming old ones. But, Ms. Teachout’s vision of the future is hardly dependent on advancing technology. 30 years ago, students could easily view video-taped lectures, and they did! I recall my mother watching lectures on video when I was quite young (8 or 9), for a college-level class. But the reason that universities have survived decades of competition from advancing technology (correspondence colleges, audio lectures, video tapes, distance learning labs) is that their service remains in high demand.

Ms. Teachout fails to say how new technology will change the demand for college as an institution. If new technology allowed a vast and diverse group to all interact with each other, then maybe the university could be threatened; imagine having a class on Japanese art with a professor in Japan, Japanese students, and weekly tour of Japanese art museums, all with full interactivity! Without this technology (as Ms. Teachout writes, classes will still be very large and very impersonal), there are no new benefits other than potential lower costs. Indeed, large universities are already criticized for their large, impersonal classes. That’s one of the reasons that I have a job: teaching assistants can provide a personal face to a large lecture.

Should more universities start offering online, distance learning, more power to them! But such actions would not represent a threat to the university system as we know it. If the only benefits college offered to most students was the learning, then why would college life have become so immortalized? It’s not just that distance learning is unappealing, it’s that it’s downright uncool. And that’s not the way to sell new technology.

This weekend, one of Lauren’s friends from college got married in Ripon, with the reception held in Oshkosh. The weather couldn’t have been better, and the whole affair was a lot of fun. I don’t think there are enough gatherings in our lives where old friends and acquaintances can get together, enjoy food and drink, socialize, and dance. In reality there are few events like this anywhere… like a middle school mixer, only without the awkwardness. It’s especially nice that you get to see people you met before (or knew for all of college in Lauren’s case), but haven’t seen for a while. Facebook is good for keeping up with people, but it’s hardly enough to maintain a friendship.

Other than that, the weekend was dedicated to studying. Sunday mainly, as we got up a little late (8:30), did school work, then went to a library and did more school work. After dinner, I worked a little more before watching the first hour of the Clijsters/Wozniacki US Open final. It was a great match, though I didn’t see the end as Mad Men came on at 9. Finally, I feel like I had a productive weekend and am ready to tackle the week.

I had my first sections this week. First week of section is always both easy and nervy. I’m always calm when speaking in front of people – at least, outwardly. But my heart often starts beating more quickly. It’s a challenge to get it to slow down. Overall, I find section not very intimidating, but clearly my automatic response is fear. Silly generations of evolution – I’m in no danger in front of students!

Other than that, everything has been proceeding normally. The semester is getting a little less busy, as I have had time to get caught up. Maybe I will even have time to blog a bit more frequently. I feel like I’m falling behind a bit, even as I am caught up with school!

I’m slow in writing about President Obama’s address to a joint session of Congress, in which he laid out his plans for healthcare overhaul. That’s mostly because I’ve been busy, but also because it’s important to take some time to see what the impact of the speech will be. A couple days is hardly long enough; we won’t truly know what effect the speech had until healthcare reform has passed, and by then, who cares if the speech worked or not? But what we can judge right now is whether the speech helped change the debate.

In these past couple of days, I would say that Obama’s gambit worked. The debate has once again swung back in favor of the possibility of health care reform. Whereas just a week ago, many news organizations included stories about how reform was not going to pass, today the media seems to believe again. Further, more Democrats seem to be getting behind Obama’s plans. After all, he made reform seem very sensible, and he outlined plans for keeping it from adding to the deficit. Hard to say no to such pragmatic wishes.

Part of the problem is the ineffectiveness of the Republican response. Representative Dr. Charles Boustany delivered the response. He’s from Louisiana; Republican leaders seem to think that the best speakers come from there. He suggested in his response that “most Americans wanted to hear the President tell Speaker Pelosi, Majority Leader Reid and the rest of Congress that it’s time to start over on a common-sense, bipartisan plan focused on lowering the cost of health care while improving quality.” But at the same time saying, “we agree much needs to be done to lower the cost of health care for all Americans. On that goal, Republicans are ready – and we’ve been ready – to work with the President for common-sense reforms that our nation can afford.”

Which is it? Either we need to get something done soon, or we need to scrap everything and start all over. Do Republicans really think that it helps their cause to be putting off this reform? They admit it themselves: Americans want change to the system. If they wanted an effective message then they could come up with their own plan and tout it in the media. They wouldn’t have to be angry; they would just have to be logical, presenting their ideas as reasonable and effective. Or they could stand up and oppose all change by arguing that it’s too expensive and wouldn’t help anyone. Instead, they admit that we need change and then say that they are not the party who will get it done. Now that’s a campaign platform!

It’s too soon to tell when a reform bill, passed by both the House and Senate, will arrive on the president’s desk. But when it happens, I think this speech will mark a turning point. And once the bill goes into effect, if history is any guide, Americans will soon grow accustomed to living in a society where people can get affordable healthcare, inside or outside their job. When that happens, Republicans will have yet another failure on their hands. Republicans like to play games running against history. Once again, it looks like they are headed for a loss.