Michael Braun's Blog

Here’s a link to a blog post from the New York Times “City Room” blog. In it, author David Sax bemoans the fact that food service employees expect tips for performing a wide variety of services and in a wide variety of contexts (bringing you food, mixing a drink, et cetera). He recognizes that tips are necessary due to the low minimum wage of these employees (lower than the minimum wage for jobs that don’t receive tips), but argues that we should instead fight for this wage to be raised, rather than continue to have to tip for everything. In this way, Mr. Sax misses out on the larger economic picture.

Tipping can be stressful, especially in the United States where is is both culturally expected and quite divergent from our usual economic transactions. We aren’t used to negotiating prices for almost anything; even purchases where it is expected, buying a car for instance, are regarded as some of the least fun purchases to make. We like to see a set price and make our decision based on that. Adding in an additional calculation for a tip complicates the purchase. Further, different areas of the country may have different expectations for tip percentage. I always tip 20% minimum, but out of town friends sometimes think I’m crazy to go so high. Tipping is complicated, so it’s no wonder that Mr. Sax is arguing against tipping.

The solution to eliminating tipping (or reducing its expected percentage), however, is not so simple as raising the minimum wage due to simple economics. Were the minimum wage to go up, restaurants would likely raise their food prices. It wouldn’t be so dramatic as to happen over night, but gradually the prices would rise in all restaurants affected by the change. Slow to change, however, would be the cultural norms of tipping. If the minimum wage went up by 10% and food prices followed, we would not expect to see a similar downward shift in the rate of tipping. Such a change would actually be doubly warranted, as higher wages mean less dependence of tipping and higher prices mean higher tips. Such a change might cap the rate of tips at their current level, but it would be unlikely that the tipping norm would actually decline.

Mr. Sax’s solution, then, is actually worse for his pocketbook. Even if he keeps tipping at 15% (as the article says he does), he would be forced to pay for the rising minimum wage in higher food costs and higher tips. And even if he did get his way and the cultural norms changed, economics would argue that the quality of service would decline, as service workers would have less motivation to work extra hard with the hope of earning a greater tip. Maybe Mr. Sax should think about what he really wants and argue for that instead, as I certainly don’t trust his economic solution to the issue of tips.

No word on his website, but renowned computer science professor and design critic Don Norman has some pretty interesting things to say about a magical future device in his 1988 book The Design of Everyday Things (originally published as The Psychology of Everyday Things). Here’s what he says, when imagining a future computing system:

“The imaginary calendar looks like a calendar. It’s about the size of a standard pad of paper, it opens up to display dates. But it really is a computer, so it can do things that today’s appointment calendar cannot. It can, for example, present its information in different formats: it can display the pages compressed so that a whole year fits on one page; it can expand the display so that I can see a single day in thirty-minute intervals. Because I frequently use my calendar in conjuction with my travels, the calendar is also an address book, notepad, and expense account record. Most importantly, it can also connect itself to my other systems (via a wireless infrared or electromagnetic channel). Thus, whatever I enter into the calendar gets transmitted to my office and home systems so that they are always in synchrony. [...] The computer is invisible, hidden beneath the surface; only the task is visible. Although I may actually be using a computer, I feel as if I am using my appointment calendar.”

That sounds an awful lot like an iPad. The iPad is about the size of a pad of paper. Its calendar application looks like an actual date book. While it can’t expand to show an entire year (and I’m actually not clear why that would be a good feature), it can show an entire month, week, or day. It can sync when connected to a computer, or by using a CalDAV server (e.g., Apple’s MobileMe service or Google Calendar) so that everything stays updated.

He also asks for an address book, notepad, and expense account program. Apple ships the iPad with an address book and notepad applications (designed to look just like a real address book and real notepad). These also can be synced with multiple computers. And I’m certain there are multiple expense account programs that can be downloaded from the App Store.

Most importantly, the iPad is a computer that doesn’t look like a computer. When Prof. Norman wrote the book, computer graphical user interfaces were becoming more common. Today, they are universal but also quite confusing. The iPad transforms to become the application, and thus it does feel very much like you are interacting with an appointment book rather than a computer program. One of the selling points mentioned when Apple debuted the iPad was that the device disappears, and you feel like you are interacting with only the content.

I would love to hear Prof. Norman’s thoughts on the iPad. So far, I can find only a quote from him in a Wall Street Journal article:
Don Norman, a tech-design pioneer and professor of design at Northwestern University, went a step further. “I think it has redefined the computer,” he said. “The laptop is now obsolete. The multitouch interface now extends to word processing and spreadsheets.”

I guess we can put him in the ridiculously enthusiastic camp. Count me as a member as well.

Here’s the logic used by Mika Majapuro, marketing guy at Lenovo, to justify not entering into the tablet market with a “slate” device like the Apple iPad: “We of course build plastic mock-ups that we show (to customers)…we had a slate form factor. The feedback was that for (our) customers it will not work because of the need to have (a physical) keyboard.” (Quote courtesy of CNet.) What’s wrong with this statement? For a marketing guy, Mr. Majapuro seems to have no idea how you market a device like the iPad to business customers.

It seems like he takes either of two viewpoints on the iPad, each of which I will liken to marketing an alternative to a sedan. First, there’s the too many features pitch. “Why drive that giant car into the city every day when you can replace it with a motorized scooter? The scooter gets great gas mileage, is stylish and hip, goes anywhere you need it to go, and is easy to use. It’s so much better than the car you currently drive!” This pitch presumes that the car driver does not need most of the features of their car and thus can handle something much simpler. But a laptop, to a business person, is an invaluable tool, especially when traveling. It cannot be replaced by something simpler in most cases. So asking customers if they wouldn’t just rather have a simple tablet computer doesn’t make any sense. If they had to pick just one, they have no choice but to keep the full-powered laptop.

The second marketing strategy is the full-feature, low-power pitch. “Why drive that giant car when you can have a small, inexpensive budget car? This new model seats four, but is half the size of a sedan! It gets great gas mileage, though takes 45 seconds to go from zero to 60 MPH, and it only has a 4 gallon gas tank. But you don’t need all the power of your current car, and this one has all the same features.” This is akin to selling a tablet computer with all the hardware of a laptop built in. That means it runs Windows 7, has 10 USB ports, connects to external peripherals like mice and keyboards, and does everything a laptop does. Except that it has terrible battery life, weighs a ton, and seems weak when compared to an actual laptop. No surprise that someone would not choose this product over a real computer. It’s an inferior laptop without a keyboard and with a touch screen; it has absolutely no features that anyone really wants in a tablet form.

What Mr. Majapuro misses is that the iPad and other devices like it are not designed to replace the functionality of a laptop. If you need to do extensive writing while on the road, then an iPad will not be the computing device for you. If you need to juggle dozens of spreadsheets, numerous strategic marketing plans, and all the design specifications for your company’s entire product line, all while on the road, then an iPad falls way short. Your only option is a laptop.

But what happens when you need to share information on a computer with a customer or client? Do you really want to pull out your work laptop to do a simple task like that? Last semester, a professor gave a presentation to us communication science folks using his laptop that he clearly didn’t know how to operate. Thus, during his slideshow, he was continually interrupted by Skype alerts. He just ignored them, rather than stop the show to turn off the alerts. This is the experience of many people who take their full powered computers and use them for multiple tasks at once. When you are the only person using the computer, the alerts and other individual configurations are helpful. When you have to share the computer with others, the alerts are a distraction.

Maybe Lenovo is simply being cautious. After all, the iPad isn’t out yet, which means Lenovo would have had to do a lot of work in defining the market to be releasing an iPad-like tablet device now. And Steve Jobs is notorious for disparaging a product or function before Apple releases their own version. But because Mr. Majapuro is a marketing guy, I’m surprised that he is taking the customers’ perspective on this kind of products. Feedback from customers in response to either of the two marketing pitches above will be negative, but only because the pitch is for a product or a use of a product that no one would be interested in.

The fact is that every warrior needs a variety of tools to do the job. Road warriors are no exception. The additional burden of carrying a 1.5 pound Apple iPad, in addition to a laptop, is hardly worth noting when compared to the advantages of such a product. If Lenovo continues to have no interest in making such a product, then they may have missed an opportunity to sell both a laptop and a tablet to many of their customers. Good news for Apple, as I’m sure they will welcome the additional iPad sales.

In the latest mass excision of apps from Apple’s app store, some 5000 apps with sexual content were removed. For the most part, it seems like these apps delivered up soft core images including pin-up style pictures. Other apps were more crude. Escaping the cuts were apps from Sports Illustrated and Playboy. So, why did Apple cut some sexy apps but leave others intact? Apple isn’t offering explanation, but here’s some speculation. Apple cut those apps because they didn’t trust the developers to deliver only appropriate content.

For example, an app that displays pictures featuring partial nudity requires the app creator to have a supply of appropriate photos. That means that each photo should be licensed properly, rather than taken from the internet or uploaded from an angry ex-. Each photo should show a person who is age 18 or above. But there are only so many app makers who also make their own content. Sports Illustrated and Playboy are providers who do. Less reputable sources are not nearly as trustworthy.

Imagine what would happen if one of these app developers let through an image of a 16 year old that was uploaded after it was texted to a friend. Every person who downloaded that application is now subject to child pornography investigation. Each iPhone with the app on it can be seized as evidence of a crime. And who knows what kind of penalties Apple faces? Removing apps en masse is a bold step to take, but this kind of problem is one that Apple executives are likely to view as absolute disaster.

As Lauren and I wandered around Barnes and Noble today, I noticed that they are now advertising the in-store availability of their eBook reader the Nook. Around the in-store display stood clustered a few individuals admiring (or perhaps gazing skeptically) at the device. At $259, it’s hardly a spur-of-the-moment purchase, but curiosity, if not actual interest, was running high. I thought about going over to the salesperson standing behind the display and peppering him with obnoxious questions. I didn’t, and instead will offer those questions to you as required questions before buying an eReader.

1. Do you buy all or most of your books? If yes, then an eReader may be for you. It requires you to purchase books. They can be purchased over an internet connection, saving you a trip to the store. If the answer is no, then an eReader could be a tremendous waste of money. If you go to the library or borrow from friends, then an eReader has little functionality that fits with your current reading style.

2. Do you lend books to or borrow books from friends, family, or colleagues? If no, then an eReader could be a good purchase. If you only read books you own and hoard your books like a greedy miser, then you won’t worry about the lack of sharing capabilities in eReaders. If yes, however, then an eReader could put a serious kink in your preferred reading methods. Once an eBook is locked to your device, the only way to get it to someone else is to hand over your expensive eReader.

3. Do you have room to store your books? If no, then an eReader may be an ideal solution for your space problems. After all, we can’t all afford the space we’d like to spread out. Even in my two bedroom 1100 square foot apartment, we’re running out of space for books! I don’t know what you do if you live in a 400 square foot studio. I guess you really have to like using books for decoration. If yes, then an eReader gives you no advantage over actual books. Not to mention if you LIKE having books around, then an eReader leaves you with no physical trace that you actually own the book.

4. Do you buy a lot of books every year? If yes, then an eReader could save you money. eBooks cost around $10 now, and prices seem on the rise as publishers demand more money. That’s not much less than a current newly released paperback (which tend to retail at around $15). To justify the purchase of your eReader in one year, you’d need to buy over 50 books, with an average savings of $5 per book. Spread out over a couple of years, your total books obviously declines. But factor in any cost to a damaged or broken eReader, and you’d better buy an awful lot of books. So, if no, then an eReader may be a bad purchase.

5. Do you travel a lot and read a lot? If yes, then an eReader could be a good purchase. Being on the road and trying to read a lot can be really difficult. Either you have to bring a lot of books with you from home or buy books on the road. In either case, your suitcase is going to end up pretty heavy. An eReader gives you the ability to carry a lot of books with you (and buy over an internet connection) without the bulk and weight. If no, then an eReader might be a waste of money. Even if you travel on a couple of vacations per year, do you really want to be making special eBook purchases for a trip if you usually get books from the library or read hard copies?

6. Do you want another gadget (and a single function gadget at that) in your life? If yes, then an eReader could be a good purchase. It doesn’t do much more than display eBooks, so if you like that kind of thing, then buy away. If no, then don’t waste your money. eBook readers are quite under-powered, especially for their price. Do you really want to carry around another electronic device in addition to your laptop and cell phone?

7. Does the feeling of holding an actual book mean nothing to you? If yes, then get an eReader. It feels like you are holding a piece of electronic gadgetry, not a book. It’s silent, plastic-y, and dull. But if no, if you like the feel of a book, then steer clear of eBooks with all your might. I think they are actually sent here to destroy our civilization – seriously.

The tech rumor mills are abuzz today about the possibility that Hulu will start a paid service model, and specifically that that model will center around the iPad. Details are scarce, but most of the rumors indicate that either all of Hulu will be pay-only, or you will pay for some “premium content,” or that using Hulu on the iPad (or other non-Flash-supporting device) will cost money. The question is why would Hulu risk a good thing?

Right now, you can watch a limited number of shows on Hulu from a variety of networks. It’s a great site if you missed a show from last night. It’s not a good site if you want to get caught up on a show that started in the fall. The shows play in good quality and have ads play at regular commercial break times. One ad shows per break and overall, it’s not very intrusive. Overall, the service works well; Lauren and I use it at least once per week.

So what is the point of charging for the service? From a monetizing point of view, it would seem easy to make more money by playing one minute of commercials per break, rather than just 30 seconds. Or to play a couple of minutes of commercials before the show begins. Or to replace the video ads with interactive ads that require consumers to click to continue after a certain period of time has passed. (This is the style of some ads on ABC.com.) None of these solutions is consumer-friendly, but we’re already used to minutes and minutes of ads on broadcast TV. Why should the extremely convenient Hulu be different?

Hulu would be very different from broadcast TV if it started charging for service. If I start paying for the service, then I don’t want ads. And if payment is required, then people are likely to move to different sites. (After all, each network offers the same shows on their individual website.) There may be some advantage to selling content for viewing on an iPad, but the iPad is not a laptop replacement nor ultra-portable. Why wouldn’t I just use my laptop if it costs me money to play the same content on my iPad?

I think increased ads are a perfect way for Hulu to make more money, if that’s what they’re concerned about. A pay-for-extras model could be another way to generate more revenue. But if they are trying to convert the entire site to pay-only, then I think they’re due for some spectacular disappointment.

Following the arrest of the Taliban’s military commander Abdul Ghani Baradar, two more senior Taliban officials have been arrested, according to the New York Times. This means that these people have been free and loose around Afghanistan and Pakistan since we invaded 8 years ago. Somehow our gigantic military offensive failed to arrest these senior officials. In Iraq, we arrested most of their leaders; they have already been tried and executed by the Iraqi government. But in Afghanistan, we couldn’t get the job done. So, kudos to President Obama and our military leaders for finally starting to get things right.

The two senior leaders who were arrested were “shadow governors” for two northern provinces. That means that they were de facto rulers of those areas, despite the fact that the Taliban is no longer in power. It’s structure like this that turns that Taliban from a group of thugs into an organized and disciplined gang of thugs. With plenty of angry, violent, religiously-motivated young men willing to terrorize people, these rulers maintained their power and helped to hone and shape the rage of their fighters. Had we arrested these leaders in the beginning, those young men would have been unorganized and undisciplined, potentially spelling a shorter lifespan for the Afghani insurgency. But we couldn’t get the job done under Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld.

Further, the earlier arrest of Baradar means more arrests and surrenders could be one the way, at least according to Ahmed Rashid on Fresh Air last night. Rashid speculated that Baradar would be treated well and used to arrange meetings with other senior Taliban officials. This type of dialogue could help speed along the end of the Taliban reign of terror, which has continued despite the US invasion. We can only hope the Pakistanis are treating Baradar with the proper treatment to help encourage him to cooperate.

It’s examples like these arrests that remind me how terribly run the entire Afghanistan campaign has been, and how a simple change in strategy and focus can start making dramatic progress after just a few months. Maybe such progress won’t continue, and no doubt the corruption of the Afghani government is maybe the worst in the world, but I feel like we’re finally starting to get it right against the Taliban.

Here’s a ridiculous idea. It seems that company Oblong Industries has designed a computer system that works just like the computer Tom Cruise uses in the movie Minority Report. In the film, Cruise interacts with the computer like he’s conducting an orchestra, using his hands, arms, and entire upper body (all while standing) to interact with large computer screens. As a movie effect, it looks pretty cool. As a practical way to interact with a computer, it’s ridiculous.

If this is the future of computing, then we had all better start lifting weights now. I guarantee my arms are not strong enough to work on a computer for more than 20 minutes at a time. Even if we don’t have to wave our arms around and can instead use more subtle hand gestures, it still puts a lot of strain on the forearms. Imagine, even worse, that you have to use a system like this at your job, for 8 hours a day. You’d be exhausted, only to have to come home and do the same thing to check your Facebook. Sure, the body would naturally adjust after a while, but I think I’d rather go into a manual labor job than have to deal with a computer system like this.

One point that the company makes is defensible: interacting with a computer via a mouse and keyboard isn’t “natural.” That’s true to the extent that humans are not capable of learning. But, of course, we are capable of learning and the segments of the population for whom a mouse is not natural is rapidly shrinking. Designing a system to rid us of the mouse, in this day and age, seems about 20 years late, not part of the future of computing.

And what about the underlying assumption that the company makes – that computer input is what stands as a barrier to entry? Is that really true, or is it perhaps that the fundamental idea of graphical user interfaces is foreign to some – that is, the idea that an icon represents a physical object? I would argue that this is something that could be changed in the future. (Look to the iPad’s iWork applications, which show their documents as they actual document, rather than as an icon.) Oblong doesn’t identify that as a problem with computing, and thus only offer a rather ridiculous replacement for the mouse.

Oblong is being treated by the tech media as thinking to the future of computing. But they’re not. You know the only product mock-up that I’ve seen in the last year that made me think differently about computing? It’s Microsoft’s Courier, a two screen tablet that folds like a book. (My favorite tech product of late, the iPad, doesn’t count because it’s an actual product; Courier is just an idea, for now.) Until Oblong starts innovating like that, I’m not interested.

Cell phone makers are busy at their busiest event of the year: Mobile World Conference (MWC). We’ve already seen several big unveilings, including the new Windows Mobile OS 7 and Bada OS from Samsung. There have been plenty of other phones designed to run Android, Google’s mobile OS. It’s interesting to note the similarities and differences between these mobile operating systems. On the one hand, there are severe limitations as to how unique an OS can be on a phone. On the other hand, there is still lots of room for innovation, especially as the smartphone market continues to expand. The problem is that too many cell phone companies seem content to copy, rather than innovate.

One of the companies that is most copied in terms of design is Apple and their iPhone OS. This is partly because Apple is known for their excellent interfaces but also because Apple has lead the way toward increasing smartphone sales. The problem with this approach, however, is that Apple’s OS is designed around old fashioned principles. The main feature of their operating system is that each function of the phone is represented by an equally sized icon; each icon represents a button, and thus the OS is “native” to many users. This kind of design is simple and effective, but it represents old ways of interacting with technology (button pressing), not new. Apple then augments the button system with multi-touch interface and gesture control. They mix the old and the new for an intuitive experience.

Other handset makers frequently copy Apple’s button/app design and add touch controls with differing degrees of success. Whereas Apple’s interface is extremely responsive (so that touching the screen really feels like you are touching the graphics), other handset makers’ touch screens can be slower and less responsive. When this is the case, the phone feels like old, button-based technology. And more importantly, it means that the OS design has failed to produce a product that is easy and natural to interact with.

There are obvious limitations to Apple’s design, namely the fact that we tend not to get information in a linear fashion. I don’t want to open up a clock application to see the time, then open my calendar application to see what is on my schedule, then open up my maps application to see how to get to my upcoming meeting, and finally open my weather application to see if I need to bring a coat. Instead, I want all that information in one single space. Android solves this issue with the use of “widgets,” small applications that display one or two pieces of information and are visible right on the phone’s screen.

Widgets are an example of an innovative attempt to solve a problem combined with foolish design. In order to use the widgets most effectively, you need to move them around between different screens of widgets – something that is not intuitive. Further, the use of too many widgets means your phone’s battery life may fall. These are very practical aspects of design that are not implemented well in Android. Further, the idea of widgets themselves is reductive. It solves a problem on a smartphone with a solution from a computer. Smartphones are not computers for good reason. Their limited screen size means solving problems of information with tiny applications running on the screen wastes opportunities to be more creative.

I am tired of seeing poor design in smartphone OS, in terms of usability and non-originality. Where are interface designers with a real perspective on how to use a device in ways that blend intuition with new features? In ways that are instantly learnable and unusually deep? In ways that are visually appealing and familiar? Apple is, so far, the only company that has come close to meeting these goals, and their OS still leaves a lot to be desired. I don’t know when another innovative OS will come out, because thus far we see only copycats. I will definitely be reading more about Windows Mobile 7 and Samsung Bada as more information becomes available.

The 2010 Winter Olympics started on Friday, and Lauren and I have spent a fair amount of time watching them already. This has been encouraged by the fact that I caught a cold on Friday (first time I’ve been sick in over a year) so haven’t felt like doing much other than laying around. In NBC’s efforts to make money, they’ve recruited a lot of corporate sponsors and run a lot of ads during the games. The most conspicuous sponsor is McDonald’s. They seem to run at least one ad every commercial break.

How in the world can McDonald’s tie in their food with intense athletic competition? If these Olympic athletes are eating at McDonald’s, it would be only because their intense training regimens give them the luxury of being able to high calorie foods. More likely, however, McDonald’s does not make up much at all of their diet, an example that most of us ordinary folks should follow.

A similarly confusing sponsor is Coca-Cola, maker of sugary soft drinks. They even have collectable cans that their ads encourage you to buy. It’s an unhealthy beverage, best enjoyed sparingly, with ingredients that provide no nutrients and may make your bones brittle by blocking calcium absorption. In other words, it’s not part of an Olympian diet. Even worse are Coke’s Diet Coke ads that play up their support of women’s heart health. Diet Coke won’t make your heart more healthy, but their ads skip over that fact.

Even with all this advertising, NBC still predicts they will lose money broadcasting the games; some have estimated that those losses will top $200 million. This, of course, comes on the heels of numerous NBC snafus, including their late-night programming debacle and their pending sale to Comcast (soon to be called Xfinity). But since many of my favorite television shows are broadcast on NBC on Thursday nights, I guess I should be grateful that they’ve managed to sell any ads, no matter how ridiculous the sponsors.

Short Item: It would appear that I have reached post number one thousand with my post on eBooks in schools. I first started blogging on this site in June 2005. 57 months later, I’ve managed to average nearly 18 posts per month. It’s amazing how a small amount of dedication, spread over a great period of time, can produce such volume of writing.

Anyway, thanks for reading.

Here’s an idea from the halls of Congress: Rep. Edward Markey (D-MA) is proposing that Congress fund efforts to get eBook readers into the hands of low-income kids. The plan also calls for lowering rates for broadband access in these kids’ neighborhoods. I think Rep. Markey has his heart in the right place, but eBook readers for low-income kids (or even kids in general) is a terrible idea. I specifically object to the idea on three grounds.

First, consider a thesis I put forward yesterday, namely that new technology adoption decisions require a comparison with already accepted technology and evaluation along the lines of current goals and compromises. If the new technology meets goals and offers fewer compromises (or more tolerable compromises), then it will be adopted. Current compromises on physical books, however, seem far superior to the compromises required by eBook readers. Whereas physical books are easily purchased, stored, transported, and replaced, eBook readers require higher price, individual book purchasing per device, regular charging, careful protection, and prohibitively high replacement costs.

What compromises are represented by physical books? They are heavy, take up space, and are not fixable if damaged. But these compromises are not likely to be experienced by most readers, let alone by low-income kids. Most people do not tote around half a dozen books with them at all times, nor attempt to store thousands of books in a small bedroom. Further, while care is required for books (as with anything), a book that is damaged is cheap to replace. This is entirely opposite of an eBook reader, where a single fall or rough ride in a backpack can render all books on the device inaccessible. In short, eBooks fail to meet the standards required for technology adoption.

Second, consider the environment experienced by low-income kids, specifically the “low-income” part. While an inexpensive paperback does not represent a valuable position (except, hopefully, in the child’s mind), an eBook reader does. While I do not mean to imply that all low-income kids also live in high crime environments, an eBook reader, nonetheless, may increase the chances that these kids will become victims of crime. This possibility will necessitate extra caution with an eBook reader. Kids best not read on the bus or sitting outside. Kids ought to keep their eBook reader with them in school and not leave it in their locker. Kids shouldn’t carry their eBook reader with them after dark either. This increased risk of crime won’t affect all low-income kids, but it may affect enough that it should be a concern for lawmakers.

Finally, consider the problem that eBook proponents aim to solve. It does not relate to the compromises I identified above (heavy, take up space, et cetera). Instead, it has to do with access to technology and lower rates of reading. eBook readers do not solve these problems. In terms of technology access, most eBook readers (the iPad as the one notable exception) do not offer new technology. Instead, they are single purpose devices designed to do one thing really well. The Kindle, for example, as a screen that displays book pages on a non-eye straining screen. But it doesn’t allow for web browsing like a computer does. Just because eBook readers represent new technology does not mean that they are the kind of technology kids should be exposed to.

In terms of encouraging kids to read, an eBook reader does not solve the problem of lack of interest in offered titles. The library is the ideal starting point to encourage kids to find books they will actually enjoy; an eBook reader (requiring a purchase of each book) is actually a detriment, especially for low-income kids (who, by and large, go to low-income schools). Whereas schools and school libraries have plenty of opportunity to purchase books in bulk (with a wide variety of authors, genres, and subjects), eBook readers offer no such flexibility. That means that each kid with an eBook reader now has fewer titles to choose from and no ability to browse and try different books. Fewer titles mean fewer kids interested in reading as a leisure activity.

In terms of the problems that this legislation aims to solve, eBook readers are actually a distinctive step backwards. No doubt Rep. Markey is trying to think what would be best for kids, but he’s starting with the wrong frame of reference. His logic seems to start with the premise that technology solves problems. (Perhaps he has high technology optimism, as per my development of the concept.) Thus all his attempts to solve real problems focus around a technological solution. Rep. Markey would do well to consider the compromises required by all solutions and tailor his legislation in this fashion. Technology is never the key to solving a problem; proper implementation of thoughtful solutions (which may include technology) is.

Writing about the iPad is cathartic to me. I honestly spend most of the day thinking about it (honestly). It’s technology-lust like I’ve never experienced before. And because I’m feeling such passion for this product, I’m continually boggled by critics who can’t imagine the market for the device. I am not surprised at all when someone says they don’t want to buy it; I feel the same way about the iPhone. But when they can’t even imagine the market, I’m totally stymied! So, for those critics, and anyone else curious, here’s how I picture the iPad market.

First, there’s the people who are tied down to their desktop computer. To be honest, I envy these people. I like the idea of a central hub of communication for a household. It’s a great way to share media, the opposite of a laptop in this fashion. But there are some serious limitations to a desktop. Do you always want to compute at a desk? Do you want your digital data tied down in one place? At the same time, do you really want a laptop so that you have to manage two different computers? The iPad could be a good portable solution.

Second, there’s the “less is more” crowd. The people who are sick and tired of cell phones that do way too much. The people who decry added complexities to websites. The people who give up on software that is hard to learn. The people who never change features on their computers because they aren’t sure they will know how to change it back. These people are less inclined to tote around a laptop with them everywhere they go. But as our world depends more on connectivity, the iPad may offer an ideal compromise. It’s lighter, simpler, and generally “less” than a laptop, but it still does internet and email well.

Third, there’s the new computer users of all ages. There are a million things that can go wrong with a computer, and this represents a serious barrier to entry for some people. If you thought you were always about to break your computer (or if your parents thought that), you might be hesitant to use it. The iPad has a simple interface and simple features; it could be an ideal entry point for these new computer users.

Finally, there’s the “try something new” group. I count myself most closely in this category. Here’s how I think about technology decision making: in everyday life, there are a wide variety of compromises we make with the technologies (be they new or old) that we use to meet our daily goals. For example, I pay more for a cell phone than I would for a landline, because it’s important for me to have access to a phone wherever I am. When a new product comes out, we may evaluate it along the lines of our current goals and current compromises. The iPad is designed to fit between a laptop and smart phone, and hopefully reduce compromises across the board. So for those people interested in trying some new technology, the iPad may be perfect.

There are plenty of other, more specific groups that may be interested: schools, doctors, Norwegians. But I think these main categories do a good job of representing the base of the iPad’s market. So, for critics of the iPad who don’t understand the market, think about these categories. Unlike those of us who mostly spend our time reading the opinions of the highly techno-literate, the groups above are the vast majority of the population. If even a fraction of them buy the iPad, Apple is likely to have another hit on their hands.

Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona and presidential nominee in 2008 (remember him?) has some heat in his upcoming primary. It seems that some other challenger is tired of McCain’s supposedly centrist ways. J. D. Hayworth, a radio yapper and hardcore right-winger, is taking on McCain and courting support from Tea Party crackpots.

What would a maverick do in the face of this challenge? Seeing as how McCain is a self-presented maverick, I guess we can look to him for the answer. Let’s check this New York Times article to see. Well, that’s odd. It seems that McCain’s maverick strategy is to go against any sort of progressive reform he’s ever supported in the past and aim solidly for right field. That’s exactly opposite of what I would expect a maverick to do, so well done McCain! You’ve proved yet again that no one puts a maverick in a corner.

According to the article, McCain is speaking out against the bailout that he voted for, is remaining mostly mute on campaign finance reform that the Supreme Court eviscerated in a recent bone-headed 5-4 decision, and speaking out against gays in the military. Good one, Johnny boy! You’ll get the votes if only you play to your basest instincts.

Senator McCain needs to wake up and pick a side. Either he goes hardcore and tries to stick himself on the fringe of his party, or he wakes up and stands for what he’s supported in the past. Instead, he seems determined to retain his Senate career at any cost. You can’t set sail with the political winds if they aren’t blowing in your favor, McCain. It’s time to tack and tack again, making sure people know you are steady in the face of Tea Partiers. Even though a recent New Yorker article made it clear that these crackpots aren’t to be underestimated, who can imagine that they will be around for long? They are more likely to produce a third-party candidate or have to compromise significantly over support for a non-ideal candidate and risk scuttling their organization. McCain should recognize this.

On the other hand, McCain can do whatever he wants. If he wins the nomination and wins reelection, he’s still likely to be non-effective in the Senate for another 6 years. If he loses the nomination, and Hayworth wins the election, Hayworth will be stuck on the fringe unable to do anything. And whatever happens, McCain can STILL sit back in one of his 20 homes and do whatever he wants. His star has long faded away.

10 Americans from Idaho have been charged with abducting children in Haiti. The prosecutors alleges that these Americans took children from Haiti and were intent upon putting them in an orphanage across the border in the Dominican Republic. As it turns out, not all these children were not orphans, and it’s unclear what permission these Americans were or were not given when taking the children.

I’m going to give these Americans the benefit of the doubt. It seems unlikely that the parents of these children were able to communicate specifically what they thought was going to happen to their children. Some of the parents have said they thought their children were going to go to school in the Dominican Republic, not be placed in an orphanage. Because of this lack of communication, it seems unlikely the Americans had any idea what was going on; rather, they saw children who needed help and took them.

But what mindset is necessary to take that kind of action? Can you imagine yourself going to the site of a horrible natural disaster, or maybe a war zone, and taking off with children? Especially if you didn’t speak the language and didn’t fully understand what was the status of the children? I hope the answer is “no way,” because it would seem to go against every bit of common sense. Give the children food and shelter, yes. Put the children on a bus headed for a foreign country so they can be adopted by new parents, umm… not without a whole lot of verification and permission.

The mindset necessary for this type of action is one void of any common sense and instead endowed with an overwhelming sense of superiority. I call it the colonizer mindset – the feeling that your presence and actions in a country are morally justified because of your civilization’s natural higher place in the world hierarchy. In order for these Americans to truly believe they were doing the right thing, they had to feel pretty darn superior. To not check if the children’s parents were still alive means that the Americans had to think that no matter what happened to these kids, it was going to be better than their current situation. Parents alive or not, living in an orphanage was the best bet for these kids. It sounds an awful lot like attempts by Western colonizing countries to destroy local cultures in the name of “betterment” of children.

We’ll see how the court case plays out; good intentions may allow these Americans to get off easy. But good intentions can often go awry, and bad judgment is often at fault in the commission of crimes. Whatever lead to their colonizer mindset (be it their religious faith, extensive news coverage, or just stupidity), it is clearly the culprit behind their bad choices. This case has taken on greater symbolic meaning as well – finally, the colonized can prosecute the colonizers. Let the great healing of Haiti begin.