The Professor's Notes

Writing as an academic, I desperately want to get my hands on (the demand data for) the iPad.  Specifically,  I wonder about the “pre-order” demands that have been placed.

I am not writing this as a “hater” or critic of the iPad.  I just would love to see if the demand spiked on the first day and dropped precipitously, or whether the demand over the 21 days prior to shipping stayed relatively constant, or even ramped up as we approached the 3rd of April.

Here’s what I wonder:  people who are early adopters, and the first to get in line and wait for days for a new product, are by all anecdotal evidence I have heard the ones who pre-order, and pre-ordered on the first day they could.  And in the case of my brother, ordered it as soon as the Apple Store made it available.

If my supposition is true, then the demand for pre-ordered items would have been heavily front-loaded.  Conversely,  I would find it quite interesting if demand for the iPad through pre-ordering had any sort of ramping to the demand pattern.  If the demand was increasing, then the big question of the day would be:  Why?

The next question is are the people who would normally stand in line to get the next “really cool product” the same who would want to pre-order right away (and thus reduce or eliminate lines at the stores) or is the psychology of waiting in line for a “cool new product” palpably different from the psychology of “getting” it?

Anyone have any thoughts or insights into this?

I was struck yesterday by the word choice that was presented when AT&T’s executive announced that they are “considering incentives to get consumers to reduce their data usage.” (See the story “AT&T Considers incentives to curb heavy data usage“)

What sort of incentives could they be talking about? And why choose that word?

Well, the last point is obvious.  The definition of incentive (by most dictionaries) is to encourage or motivate to action.  These are all “positive” words.  Things that make us shake our head in the affirmative. “Ahhh… incentives. Nice.”

We usually see these as pay bonuses, time off, gifts.  Additional “things” that would encourage us to do a bit more.

Of course, that isn’t what AT&T is thinking.  In this case AT&T is going to try to come up with some way to get people (their customers) to stop using a service they provide–most likely the service offering that led them to AT&T and the iPhone in the first place! AT&T is looking to “consider new pricing models to curb users’ data usage as it tries to keep up with growing demand.”

What pricing model would “encourage” you to use less of something you currently consume and enjoy?  I think this is obvious–AT&T is going to charge you more.  So the incentive here is a negative one.  ¹

What is perhaps even more interesting is this (and I will leave you with this thought):  AT&T isn’t saying “We realize you like using our product and our product is in high demand and thus we will increase the price and generate greater profits for our shareholders.”  They are saying “We realize you like using our product, but we don’t want you to, so we are going to raise the price so that you stop using it.”

Tell ya what AT&T, when my contract runs out, how about I reduce my data consumption to zero.  The Droid sure is looking better every day!

The New York Times has the story, Broadband Now! So Why Don’t Some Use It? where they ask the question “Why not?”

So for those that have been listening to our podcast Real Tech for Real People, we have talked quite a bit about the numbers of people that don’t have high speed (broadband) internet access.  We have been reporting the numbers we had previously read that had anywhere from 40-45% of the population does not have access.

Okay, I am confused. FCC says 96% of households have, or have access to, broadband.

“No less than 96 percent of households either subscribe to or have access to broadband service, according to an F.C.C. task force, which presented a status report to the commission last month.” (see commission report here)

The article reports that the task force goes on to report that:

• median speed is 3 megabit/second ¹
• 1/3 of households “choose” to not subscribe Read the rest of this entry »

In my last post, I put forward my argument for how digital textbooks can result in a win-win for publishers, students and authors. (Okay, so I didn’t mention the authors. I hope it doesn’t take much to realize that more copies sold by the publisher will result in more royalties paid to the authors. )

Part of my argument hinged on the elimination of the resale market in large part due to the robust DRM (copy protection) afforded by the digital books.  Unfortunately, when I presented this argument a few weeks ago, someone pointed me to a site that shared the (convoluted) steps necessary to break the DRM on the Kindle.  So much for secure. ¹

This forced me to think a bit further.

In this post, I hope to make a case for reasonably priced digital textbooks in an era of “cracked DRM” that can still result in a win-win. Read the rest of this entry »

Those who know me personally know I have a strong desire to see digital textbooks succeed.  I think it has the potential to deliver a Win-Win for most of the major stakeholders, including the authors, the publishers, the environment (potentially) and the students.¹ Perhaps the biggest challenge facing everyone in this is how to achieve that “win-win”and this involves a mix of pricing, availability, and convenience.  I hope to address that in this post. Read the rest of this entry »

In a recent blog post, Stevie Rocco wrote that “Professor X is a scribe.”  She wrote that as part of a larger conversation which grew from a critique of Cole Camplese’s presentation at the Chronicle of Higher Education’s Tech Forum and his defense, and I encourage you all to go read the post.

In reading her post, however, I find that while I agree that when it comes to “how” content is delivered a “professor is a scribe” may be correct, I believe that is unfortunately a rather narrow view of the role of the professor.

Back when the printing presses were gaining ascendancy, they replaced the scribe, because they were doing what the scribe was doing–copying someone’s words for others to read.  Scribes had to be worried, since printing presses ostensibly would make fewer *random* errors than scribes would. (That said, the printing presses could easily replicate the same error by the hundreds, and now millions.)

The people who at the time should have (and probably were) most excited by this revolution were the authors.  Those people who spent time thinking, researching, and writing the texts that were now being made available at a far faster rate.

Professors are not mere scribes.  Professors are experts in their field of study, who are contributing to that body of knowledge through that research, and then share that “research informed knowledge” with the world.  One way they share that knowledge is through publications, another through presentations and talks, and finally (and perhaps most importantly) professors share it by educating the next generation.

So professors are not scribes.

Who should be worried that they can be considered scribes?  Instructors.  Those people hired to teach materials developed by someone else, without having a rigorous, peer reviewed research stream of their own.  They are simply vessels through which others speak.  THAT can be easily replaced by well-designed technology.

That said, professors are certainly worried.  Rightly so.  Not that they will be replaced, but that people seem to think they can be.

As I have written before, I thoroughly enjoyed reading Andrew Keen’s book “Cult of the Amateur.”  He argues that experts are essentially being pushed out of the arena and replaced by those whom I will call the “dabblers.”  These are people that some would say “know enough to be dangerous” but are not well-versed in the detailed specifics to be experts, and therefore unable to deal with the nuances.  In fact professors, as an integral part of their earning their terminal degree, learn the research methods necessary to truly understand the data they are viewing.  Regardless of whether one is a Hebrew Literature scholar or a theoretical physicist, the opinions of the Professor are informed by their understanding of how to interpret their data. Without such a background all interpretations are considered valid, and truth becomes subjective.

I am anything but a technophobe, but I am concerned that, as we start touting the role of youtube, facebook, twitter, and Wikipedia as ways for students to share their knowledge about materials, we fail the students.  We allow them to elevate their views, their perspectives, and their understanding of the material while simultaneously dev0lving the role of professor as mentor, guide and expert.

Let’s all work to enable better ways of helping students grasp material, but please, let’s not make the mistake of thinking that professors are “just scribes.”

I have been commenting (okay, really complaining) that the bail-outs of the banks really only helps the banks, and ultimately hurts everyone else.  Let me explain:

Banks are in trouble because they loaned out money to people that are having a hard time paying them back.  That’s mortgages, and credit cards, and car loans, and… well you get the point.

So the government gives money to the banks.  OUR money to the banks.  Money from the people that are having a hard time paying the bills.

As I see it, this results in taxpayers (you know, those of us giving the money to the Government to use “wisely” on our behalf) owing two debts instead of one.  I have the original debt that I have a hard time paying, and now I have this NEW debt that my government has assumed on my behalf.  Thanks, Government.  You’re a peach.

What would I have done?  Well, given that “let things work themselves out without government meddling ” isn’t a good idea (apparently) I would have said “hmm…. let’s give the money to the people that owe the money.  Let them pay the banks back, so the banks get the capital they need, and we don’t drown our populace in debt.”

Imagine that.  The government supporting the banks through helping the people the government is really here to help–THE PEOPLE!

Thankfully, we have people like Jon Stewart on our side.  Unfortunately, the government doesn’t listen.

But you should.  Get a cup of coffee and take a 10 minute break from work and watch.

I was involved in a research effort where we explored industry “best practices” in achieving “Outcome Focused Performance.” In a nutshell, we were trying to discover how the best organizations subjugate what they do to the Outcome (with a capital O) that they hoped to achieve.

One of the first issues we had to grapple with, however, was our task. We were tasked initially to look at this with the title “Performance Driven Outcomes. (PDO)” I was convinced that the phrase was wrong. It wasn’t a simple disagreement of semantics. It was a fundamental way of viewing the problem. It seemed to me that the PDO approach focused on what you do, and that the outcomes derive from that. If we let our performance drive the outcomes we achieve, we will have high marks but may not ever be successful.

At the time, I wrote (in discussing the DoD):

…we see clearly why we have this disconnect. The politicians and the media are looking for outcomes, and we are actively measuring and providing outputs. Congress wants to read about enemy forces overtaken and a war won. We want to talk about sorties flown, numbers of bombs dropped, and parts avail-able on the shelf.

This is, of course, not a problem limited to DoD.  It’s a problem that faces every organization (and dare I say it, even our personal lives.)  The problem is that often we use surrogates for the outcomes (dollars spent, dollars earned, customers served, students enrolled) and we don’t focus on the Outcome.

Generally, the outcome tends to be amorphous, and thus harder to nail down. That doesn’t mean we SHOULDN’T nail it down–just that it is more work.  For instance, Nike is conducting an overall review/restructuring of their operations, and apparently they have the “outcome” in sight:

“In light of the current economic climate, it is more essential than ever to sharpen our focus on the consumer to maximize opportunities for product innovation and brand management in the marketplace,” he said. “The decision to reduce our workforce is a difficult one, but it will put our business in the strongest position possible to continue to deliver long-term profitability and growth.”

Of course, the devil is in the details–specifically how they operationally define “focus on the consumer.”  In fact, if you read carefully the quote, you will read that they are focused on the customer to “maximize opportunities for product innovation and brand management.” Do you think they will “get it right?”

I am actively seeking your thoughts on this.  specifically in three areas:

1.  What do you see as the difference between these two phrases (or do you even see a difference?)

2.  Does your organization focus on the “Outcome” or are they distracted by measuring outputs?

3.  Do you think in a time of economic crisis it is more, or less, important to focus on “Outcomes?”

I continue to find it amazing that the media, and President Elect Obama insist that this is the worst economy since the Great Depression.  As I wrote previously, we are no where near the economy that Carter handed over to Reagan.  But lest my words didn’t convince, check out this great cartoon:

found at: http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/politicalcartoons/ig/Political-Cartoons/Carter--Who-s-the-Worst-.htm

I was listening to our local public radio station this morning, and they were discussing the reduction in revenues to fix PA highways and bridges because (as they said)  the price of gasoline is so low.  Of course, they correctly pointed out that the real reason for lower revenues was the reduction in consumption that was driven by a poor economy and high gas prices over the summer.

Many callers talked about how we need to raise the gas taxes, not only to provide funds to repair the highways, but to get people to learn to conserve, and to support alternative fuels. In fact several callers felt we needed a tax “floor” implemented immediately.  A “tax floor” would mean that if the price of gas dropped below a threshold (most said $3/gallon) then the price would stay at $3, and the government would scarf up the difference.  In that way, the government would reap the “windfall profits” of low prices (instead of the consumer).  (see my past discussions regarding windfall profits here.)

Interestingly, if the price rises and falls in part due to fluctuations in demand (and demand changes relative to price) would the price charged ever get much below three, if the gas stations knew they would have to just “give” that to the government?

So I want to know, what is YOUR opinion about gas taxes?  Are you in favor of a higher gas tax?

Look forward to your answers.