Apple has just released new iPad focused curriculum guides focused on encouraging student creativity. The guides which focus on music, photography, video, and drawing include project ideas and app tutorials. Apple has also released a related teacher’s guide.
Showing posts with label apple. Show all posts
Showing posts with label apple. Show all posts
Monday, October 1, 2018
Tuesday, June 7, 2016
Missed opportunity for Apple in Ed Market
Hardware is or perhaps already has become a commodity. Nearly any device produced - laptop, tablet, phone - is capable of reaching the online services provided by multiple providers and more than meets the needs of a very high proportion of users. The money put into such devices brings a dismissing return. Once you get past $300-400, a larger investment adds little to what you can accomplish. This reality is reflected in the diminished interest in these same devices. If it were not for difficulties with the wired-in batteries, most of us could extend our replacement cycle by several years. The speed of a connection is far more important than the speed of the CPU, drive, or bus.
The trend I describe here is not a reflection of the use of this technology. We might have moved more of our attention to mobile, but we have not diminished the focus of our attention on digital content.
These trends make it difficult for companies that are focused primarily on hardware. The multiple companies involved in generating hardware assure reasonable value for money spent. I use mostly Apple devices, but I understand that I am purchasing this hardware at a premium and for little advantage when it comes to my work. I am worried about the future of Apple hardware.
It seems Apple already realizes the challenges I have identified and are making every attempt to diversify. My frustration is that Apple fancies itself a design and hardware company and ignores the potential in content (with the exception of music) and online social. I wish that Apple would challenge Amazon in the ebook market. iBook Author is a great tool but largely ignored as a development environment because Apple refuses to make the necessary investments to take the content generated cross platform. Anyone writing for group adoptions (e.g., textbooks) cannot make a commitment to developing in iBook Author. Instructors making book decisions cannot put students in the situation of having to own the hardware from a specific company.
My complaints with the Amazon model beyond the general objection to the lack of competition is the simple format of the content that must be prepared for the Kindle. Generating content for the Kindle is not easy and the commitment of Amazon to its own low end devices limits the use of multimedia in the content created. I understand that Amazon is moving toward a more diversified textbook authoring platform, but derivations of pdfs are not what I find impressive. The Kindle devices are simply not suited to video or to integrating web and book content.
So Apple, you have the money to create a presence in the content environment. You will soon be out of the education market if you focus only on hardware.
Tuesday, December 15, 2015
Apple vs testing machines
Buzzfeed offered a short post in which Tim Cook, Apple CEO, was interviewed about Apple losing its hold on the K-12 teach market to chromebooks. Excerpts from this interview generated a lot of attention from those making tech decisions in schools. Cook seemed to be claiming that the popularity of the chromebooks was driven by their popularity as testing devices.
“Assessments don’t create learning,” Cook said in an interview with BuzzFeed News Wednesday, calling the cheap laptops that have proliferated through American classrooms mere “test machines.”
It is difficult to know how accurately Mr. Cook’s beliefs were communicated or how we would prioritize the multiple reasons those making purchases might take into account when making a decision. He may not have intended this to generate much public attention. I hope he does not think suitability for online testing is a major reason most districts select a given device or if the devices must serve in this capacity that this is the only activity for which they are appropriate. Perhaps he has been influenced by the over the top rhetoric of the political season and assumes there are no consequences for statements. I would not doubt that some administrators made compatibility with the tech requirements for testing a factor. This would then encourage a closer look at netbooks, laptops, and desktops. Apple has several products in these categories.
I would suggest that misidentifying reasons for purchases has important consequences. Belittling decision makers by suggesting they are interested in little more than testing is no way to win friends and if you actually believe this you may be blind to limitations in your own business model.
I own pretty much every device Apple sells as well as chromebooks, a windows laptop, android tablets, etc. I do use iPads heavily, but I will say that until I purchased the Pro I found iPads limited for heavy writing tasks. iPad pros would be great in schools, but the cost is prohibitive. I don’t hear Mr. Cook saying much about cost.
I could generate a list of pro chromebook features for the classroom, but this work has already been done. Here is an great summary by Andy Losik.
[written on a chromebook]
Monday, July 6, 2015
Research shows Google search bias?
It seems to be Apple and Microsoft against Google. The “concern” expressed by the unlikely pairing of Apple and Microsoft is that Google collects, and as I understand all of the concerns, shares personal data for pay. Google, in response, argues they use the information collected as a way to improve the search experience.
While this sounds like an disagreement over a principle, the positions taken align with business interests. Google makes money from advertising. Apple makes money from hardware. Microsoft makes money from software. The income foci of these companies has evolved and this may have something to do with the positions now taken on privacy. Google offers software and services for free partly to increase use of the web and as a way to offer more ads and collect more data. Google also offers services that decrease the importance of hardware. Chrome hurts the hardware sales of Apple.
What I think is important under these circumstances is clear public understanding of what data are being collected, how it is being used, and what are the motives of the players involved. It turns out we all are also players because blocking ads while still accepting services (the consequences of modifications of browsers) involves personal decisions for what constitutes ethical behavior.
Into this business struggle and how it has been spun appears a recent “study” from Tim Wu and colleagues. Evaluation of the study is complicated by the funding source - Yelp. Yelp has long argued their results should appear higher in Google searches and suggests Google elevates the results of Google services instead. Clearly, you or I could go directly to Yelp when searching for local information completely ignoring Google (this is what I do when searching for restaurants), but Yelp wants more.
I have a very small stake in Google ads (making probably $3-4 a year), but I am more interested in the research methodology employed in this case. My own background as an educational researcher involved the reading and evaluation of many research studies. Experience as an educational researcher is relevant here because many educational studies are conducted in the field rather than the laboratory and this work does not allow the tight controls required for simple interpretation. We are used to evaluating “methods” and the capacity of methods to rule out alternative explanations. Sometimes, multiple interpretations are possible and it is important to recognize these cases.
Take a look at the “methods” section from the study linked above. It is a little difficult to follow, but it seems the study contrasts two sets of search results.
The Method and the data:
The method involved a comparison of “search results” consisting of a) Google organic search results or b) Google organiic search results and Google local “OneBox” links (7 links for local services with additional information provided by Google). The “concern” here is that condition “b” contains results that benefit Google.
The method involved a comparison of “search results” consisting of a) Google organic search results or b) Google organiic search results and Google local “OneBox” links (7 links for local services with additional information provided by Google). The “concern” here is that condition “b” contains results that benefit Google.
The results found that condition B generate fewer clicks.
Here is a local search showing both the OneBox results (red box) and organic results from a Minneapolis search I conducted for pizza. What you see is what I could see on my Air. Additional content could be scrolled up.
The conclusion:
The results demonstrate that consumers vastly prefer the second version of universal search. Stated differently, consumers prefer, in effective, competitive results, as scored by Google’s own search engine, than results chosen by Google. This leads to the conclusion that Google is degrading its own search results by excluding its competitors at the expense of its users. The fact that Google’s own algorithm would provide better results suggests that Google is making a strategic choice to display their own content, rather than choosing results that consumers would prefer.
Issues I see:
The limited range of searches in the study. While relevant to the Yelp question which has a business model focused on local services, do the findings generalize to other types of search?
What does the difference in click frequency mean? Does the difference indicate as the conclusion claims that the search results provide an inferior experience for the user? Are there other interpretations. For example, the Google “get lucky” and the general logic of Google search is that many clicks indicate an inferior algorithm. Is it possible the position of the OneBox rather than the information returned that is the issue? This might be a bias, but the quality of the organic search would not be the issue.
How would this method feed into resolution of the larger question (is the collection of personal information to be avoided)? This connection to me is unclear. Google could base search on data points that are not personal (page rank). A comparison of search results based on page rank vs. page rank and personal search history would be more useful, but that is not what we have here.
How would you conduct a study to evaluate the “quality” concern?
Thursday, June 18, 2015
We have entered the spin zone
What are you willing to share to get something in return? The answer to this question may be very relevant to the future of several companies - Google, Apple, and Microsoft.
Are you willing to share data derived from your online behavior? This seems to be shaping up as a dividing line newly promoted by these companies to differentiate themselves and attract users and their money. (The New Yorker offers their analysis).
Here is how the companies spin their positions. Google wants you to believe that it collects information about you to provide you better online experiences. The more Google knows, the more helpful it can be. Do you want random ads or do you want ads that address personal interests? (No open consideration of whether you want ads at all). Apple and Microsoft, in contrast, vow to protect your privacy. The use of data derived from your online behavior is described as a privacy issue.
When I attempt to understand the decisions of technology companies, I ask myself “What are the business model?” We know what these companies offer. Microsoft sells software and some might argue services. Apple sells you hardware, some software, and access to content and services developed by other companies. Google sells a few services and access to other companies content and software, but mostly it sells ad impressions.
These companies do offer users some “no cost” incentives. Microsoft gives away some cross-platform services (One Note, Bing search). Apple gives away some software to Apple users (the OS and productivity apps), but is very limited in cross-platform opportunities. Google gives away many cross-platform services.
You are a user? What do you want? Do remember the Stones’ song - You can’t always get what you want (but if you try some time, you can get what you need)? This actually good advice and should be heeded in this situation. An acceptable answer to the question of what do you want should not be - I want stuff for free. A better answer might be - I want reasonably priced goods and services and not to be taken advantage of in order to obtain what I need.
Apple’s present gamble is that it can do locally on a device what Google does with machine learning and the Google cloud. Apple understands the importance of personalization, but intends to develop a different approach. Rather than collect information based on your behavior, store these data in the cloud and then personalize services based on what appear to be your priorities, Apple intends to keep your data on your device to convince you that your data are not being shared or used for other evil purposes. If developed by Apple using this approach, a service comparable to Google Now could offer useful information related to personal needs without sharing the personal priorities the system determined with Apple. I suppose Apple assumes you view ads as a nuisance you could do without and can search when you want information about a product or service. Apple also assumes you can do without free Google services and will find other services as a substitute. I also suppose it is possible Apple may believe it can offer similar free services if providing such services further reduced interest in what Google offers. This last possibility has yet to materialize as Apple has not been able to develop credible cloud services to this point.
What about Microsoft? A similar logic might apply. Microsoft now promotes its combination of free and paid services (and software) by assuming you are willing to pay for some things in compensation for not having to share personal information.
If you are willing to give up your Google services what is it you assume? I suggest you assume Apple will be able to actually create the device based “personal priority and needs” approach it claims to be developing and that Apple will get far better at cloud services.
The “nuclear option” for anti-Google companies is to build in default mechanisms for blocking ads. At present, if Google can show no ads it would not have enough alternative revenue streams to stay afloat. Customers taking advantage of this “privacy” opportunity and not understanding what they get in the trade for their information could possibly ruin Google. Of course, it is more complicated than just Google vs. Apple and Microsoft. Removing ads, also removes an incentive for many who offer content for free. Those offering content would need other incentives for doing so and the consequences of these other incentives are unclear.
Why do I care? While I understand the general motive of companies to acquire as much of the pie as possible, I do not see a system with few players as great for consumers. I think greater awareness of how companies make money is important. How you or I interpret these finance models is important? It is possible to spin whichever approach you choose to attack? Apple’s model involves overpricing locking users into software and services that may not be the best available. Apple supports blocking ads that were intended to appear by the authors of content. Google uses data about user behavior.
Are you willing to share data derived from your online behavior? This seems to be shaping up as a dividing line newly promoted by these companies to differentiate themselves and attract users and their money. (The New Yorker offers their analysis).
Here is how the companies spin their positions. Google wants you to believe that it collects information about you to provide you better online experiences. The more Google knows, the more helpful it can be. Do you want random ads or do you want ads that address personal interests? (No open consideration of whether you want ads at all). Apple and Microsoft, in contrast, vow to protect your privacy. The use of data derived from your online behavior is described as a privacy issue.
I’m speaking to you from Silicon Valley, where some of the most prominent and successful companies have built their businesses by lulling their customers into complacency about their personal information.
Guess who - Tim Cook
When I attempt to understand the decisions of technology companies, I ask myself “What are the business model?” We know what these companies offer. Microsoft sells software and some might argue services. Apple sells you hardware, some software, and access to content and services developed by other companies. Google sells a few services and access to other companies content and software, but mostly it sells ad impressions.
These companies do offer users some “no cost” incentives. Microsoft gives away some cross-platform services (One Note, Bing search). Apple gives away some software to Apple users (the OS and productivity apps), but is very limited in cross-platform opportunities. Google gives away many cross-platform services.
You are a user? What do you want? Do remember the Stones’ song - You can’t always get what you want (but if you try some time, you can get what you need)? This actually good advice and should be heeded in this situation. An acceptable answer to the question of what do you want should not be - I want stuff for free. A better answer might be - I want reasonably priced goods and services and not to be taken advantage of in order to obtain what I need.
Apple’s present gamble is that it can do locally on a device what Google does with machine learning and the Google cloud. Apple understands the importance of personalization, but intends to develop a different approach. Rather than collect information based on your behavior, store these data in the cloud and then personalize services based on what appear to be your priorities, Apple intends to keep your data on your device to convince you that your data are not being shared or used for other evil purposes. If developed by Apple using this approach, a service comparable to Google Now could offer useful information related to personal needs without sharing the personal priorities the system determined with Apple. I suppose Apple assumes you view ads as a nuisance you could do without and can search when you want information about a product or service. Apple also assumes you can do without free Google services and will find other services as a substitute. I also suppose it is possible Apple may believe it can offer similar free services if providing such services further reduced interest in what Google offers. This last possibility has yet to materialize as Apple has not been able to develop credible cloud services to this point.
What about Microsoft? A similar logic might apply. Microsoft now promotes its combination of free and paid services (and software) by assuming you are willing to pay for some things in compensation for not having to share personal information.
If you are willing to give up your Google services what is it you assume? I suggest you assume Apple will be able to actually create the device based “personal priority and needs” approach it claims to be developing and that Apple will get far better at cloud services.
The “nuclear option” for anti-Google companies is to build in default mechanisms for blocking ads. At present, if Google can show no ads it would not have enough alternative revenue streams to stay afloat. Customers taking advantage of this “privacy” opportunity and not understanding what they get in the trade for their information could possibly ruin Google. Of course, it is more complicated than just Google vs. Apple and Microsoft. Removing ads, also removes an incentive for many who offer content for free. Those offering content would need other incentives for doing so and the consequences of these other incentives are unclear.
Why do I care? While I understand the general motive of companies to acquire as much of the pie as possible, I do not see a system with few players as great for consumers. I think greater awareness of how companies make money is important. How you or I interpret these finance models is important? It is possible to spin whichever approach you choose to attack? Apple’s model involves overpricing locking users into software and services that may not be the best available. Apple supports blocking ads that were intended to appear by the authors of content. Google uses data about user behavior.
Thursday, April 9, 2015
Photos - First Look
With the most recent iOS and OS updates, Apple has replaced iPhoto with Photos. Here are some initial impressions after a short period of experimentation. The Photos editing tools are impressive and a drastic improvement over iPhoto. I have one complaint in this area. Perhaps the things I do most with photos is to crop and then adjust image size for use outside of the Apple environment. I cannot figure out to adjust size beyond one kludgy 3 size option adjustment I could make when emailing an image. I keep thinking I must be missing something, but I don't think so.
Apple assumes we want to access our images across devices and store these images in the cloud. We tend to use multiple devices and in at least some cases even with cross-device access we would prefer not to save the image on the device. This makes some sense. However, Apple is not keeping up in the storage wars. Apple offers 5 GB free with Photos, but the first price point beyond 5 GB would be approximately $12 per year for 20 GB. Flickr offers a terabyte at no cost and my $25 per year pro account gives me unlimited storage. I suppose $12 a year would satisfy the needs of most individuals and you could then take advantage of the convenient access from any Apple device feature.
Apple assumes we want to access our images across devices and store these images in the cloud. We tend to use multiple devices and in at least some cases even with cross-device access we would prefer not to save the image on the device. This makes some sense. However, Apple is not keeping up in the storage wars. Apple offers 5 GB free with Photos, but the first price point beyond 5 GB would be approximately $12 per year for 20 GB. Flickr offers a terabyte at no cost and my $25 per year pro account gives me unlimited storage. I suppose $12 a year would satisfy the needs of most individuals and you could then take advantage of the convenient access from any Apple device feature.
Monday, June 30, 2014
iTunes U as a CMS
Apple has announced that enhancements to iTunes U allow an instructor considerable flexibility in shaping content for his/her class.
The new in-app updates to iTunes U give teachers full course creation capabilities on iPad, with the ability to directly add rich content and learning materials from iWork®, iBooks® Author or any of the over 75,000 educational apps available for iPad.
My opinion is that Apple will continue to trail companies such as Amazon and Google in providing content to the broad education market until Apple is willing to offer content cross platform. The iPad is very popular, but cross-platform is the reality in schools using a BYOD, android, or Windows platform. For whatever educators want, this seems an industry struggle based on whether companies benefit most from software or hardware adoption.
Monday, June 9, 2014
Thoughts on WWDC 2014 for educators
On June 2 Apple held its annual event for Developers (WWDC - watch the two hour event). The keynote outlines Apple’s plans for the near future supposedly to guide and encourage software developers. Of course, the rest of watch as well and hope to learn what we might expect from the company in the next few months. Here are some personal comments mostly focused on revelations that may influence the use of Apple technology in K-12 settings. I encourage you to view the presentation and draw your own conclusions.
First, this event is primarily about Apple software development and how developers might take advantage of OS and iOS improvements (mostly) in preparing products and services to be used with Apple hardware. My impression and the impression of the comments of pundits I have reviewed is that Apple proposes some major new innovations. On a personal level, I will find it more convenient to use Apple-enabled software across Apple devices (back and forth between my iPad and Apple computers). I should find that software developers will find it possible to create more powerful services to operate within the Apple ecosystem and possibly I will be able to count on improvements in Apple’s use of the Apple cloud.
I do not necessarily see these changes as opportunities for the K-12 setting. My view of K-12 assumes the use of technology in the classroom and elsewhere (home) and assumes that students will be using multiple platforms (not just Apple). The power I see in the Apple announcements seem pretty much focused on Apple hardware and software (i.e., apps) running on Apple hardware. The use of the cloud appears to play a bigger role in Apple plans, but mostly to store and transfer files between Apple devices. This approach might be contrasted with the Google model in which the hardware is primarily a way to get to the cloud and Software as a Service runs “in the cloud”.
I think there are “work arounds” for the approach taken by any company. You can certainly use Google drive to store files as a method of moving data from one device to another. You can do the same with DropBox, Box and other cloud services. iCloud does allow me web access via any browser and allows me to manipulate files I have created with Pages, Numbers, etc. You can, in fact, use iCloud to store other file types. I must admit I have not used the service for this purpose.
I propose that an issue educators will have to consider is how much time their students spend working within the Apple ecosystem using experiences that require apps running on Apple hardware vs. how much time they use Apple hardware to work online or run software that creates files that can be stored in other ways.
If you have read many of my posts, you know that I lean toward open systems. What I value does not assume services should be provided at no cost. I believe there is value in the most flexible approach possible. It might be argued that the experience of using technology can be made most efficient when one organization controls the experience end to end. Perhaps this is true, BUT a) this requires everyone commit to what this environment will be and b) ad end to end approach has the potential to reduce competition that leads to long term development.
I use a variety of hardware. I do prefer Apple for computers and tablets, but presently not a phone. I have the opportunity to own multiple products in each hardware category. Not everyone is so lucky nor should their income level be a liability in learning with technology.
First, this event is primarily about Apple software development and how developers might take advantage of OS and iOS improvements (mostly) in preparing products and services to be used with Apple hardware. My impression and the impression of the comments of pundits I have reviewed is that Apple proposes some major new innovations. On a personal level, I will find it more convenient to use Apple-enabled software across Apple devices (back and forth between my iPad and Apple computers). I should find that software developers will find it possible to create more powerful services to operate within the Apple ecosystem and possibly I will be able to count on improvements in Apple’s use of the Apple cloud.
I do not necessarily see these changes as opportunities for the K-12 setting. My view of K-12 assumes the use of technology in the classroom and elsewhere (home) and assumes that students will be using multiple platforms (not just Apple). The power I see in the Apple announcements seem pretty much focused on Apple hardware and software (i.e., apps) running on Apple hardware. The use of the cloud appears to play a bigger role in Apple plans, but mostly to store and transfer files between Apple devices. This approach might be contrasted with the Google model in which the hardware is primarily a way to get to the cloud and Software as a Service runs “in the cloud”.
I think there are “work arounds” for the approach taken by any company. You can certainly use Google drive to store files as a method of moving data from one device to another. You can do the same with DropBox, Box and other cloud services. iCloud does allow me web access via any browser and allows me to manipulate files I have created with Pages, Numbers, etc. You can, in fact, use iCloud to store other file types. I must admit I have not used the service for this purpose.
I propose that an issue educators will have to consider is how much time their students spend working within the Apple ecosystem using experiences that require apps running on Apple hardware vs. how much time they use Apple hardware to work online or run software that creates files that can be stored in other ways.
If you have read many of my posts, you know that I lean toward open systems. What I value does not assume services should be provided at no cost. I believe there is value in the most flexible approach possible. It might be argued that the experience of using technology can be made most efficient when one organization controls the experience end to end. Perhaps this is true, BUT a) this requires everyone commit to what this environment will be and b) ad end to end approach has the potential to reduce competition that leads to long term development.
I use a variety of hardware. I do prefer Apple for computers and tablets, but presently not a phone. I have the opportunity to own multiple products in each hardware category. Not everyone is so lucky nor should their income level be a liability in learning with technology.
Tuesday, April 1, 2014
Apple apps in the browser
Apple does not have a great reputation for cloud services, but it keeps trying. I discovered by accident today that Apple now offers browser-based apps for Numbers, Keynote, and Pages. Work that you have done on your iPad or your desktop can now also be modified using a web browser. I guess this is interesting, but it took me a while to see what advantages the web version might offer. Perhaps you do not want to pay for the desktop apps, but want to continue work you have started on your iPad (since the desktop apps cost $20 and the iOS versions are free this might be one use case). I do still like working on the desktop for bigger projects and the cross device capabilities with the iPad may be helpful.
The web version allows collaboration in real time. I admit I have never collaborated in real time when this was possible (Google), but it does sound interesting.
Google, Apple and Microsoft now have slight different versions of the same cross device / web model. Competition is good.
The web version allows collaboration in real time. I admit I have never collaborated in real time when this was possible (Google), but it does sound interesting.
Google, Apple and Microsoft now have slight different versions of the same cross device / web model. Competition is good.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)