If you’re new here and like what you read, you may want to subscribe to our RSS feed.
Thank you for visiting!

Another OLPC competitor has entered the U.S. market. This time, Hewlett Packard Co. is releasing a lightweight “Mini-Note” line of notebook computers. Each unit weighs less than 3 pounds with a screen that measures 8.9 inches diagonally. A Linux-based model is available for under $500. According to an AP article, the devices are not being positioned for large-scale deployment in the developing world:

The Mini-Note will compete primarily with Intel’s Classmate PCs — which are designed by Intel and feature Intel chips but are built and branded by other companies — and Asustek’s Eee PC.

To a lesser extent, they also will go up against the XO laptop from the Cambridge, Mass., nonprofit One Laptop per Child, which is intended primarily for schoolchildren in developing countries.

NPR reports that the One Laptop Per Child project will provide computers for kids in Birmingham, Alabama. The report highlights a key challenge of the project: Can a slow computer have an impact in a high-speed society? Maybe not.

Meanwhile, Nokia quietly announced the WiMAX edition of the N810 Internet Tablet. As noted here previously, it’s predecessor, the N800, has potential as an m-learning device. The N810 is based on the same hardware and software architecture, but incorporates a keyboard and can connect to both Wi-Fi and WiMAX networks. Can the expanded networking capabilities of the Linux-powered N810 WiMAX fill the low-cost (but highly connected) computing gap in U.S. education?

The One Laptop Per Child (OLPC) “Give One Get One” program is now open in the United States and Canada until November 26. During this time, you can donate the revolutionary XO laptop to a child in a developing nation, and also receive one for the child in your life in recognition of your contribution. The cost? $399 — $200 of which is tax-deductible. Another bonus: For all U.S. donors who participate in the Give One Get One program, T-Mobile is offering one year of complimentary HotSpot access.

More information…

Last month, I wrote on my latest handheld acquisition: the Nokia N800. I wrote a little on my initial experiences, and pondered its use in education. Now that I’ve had this for a month, it’s time for an update.

Unlike most electronics produced by Nokia, the N800 is not a phone. It is an Internet Tablet. It can connect to wifi networks, but it cannot connect directly to a 3G (UMTS) or EDGE network. Supposedly, a 3G version for Sprint is in the works, and should be released in 2008. For those who need telco network connectivity and cannot wait for the Sprint version, you can tether it to your cell phone via a Bluetooth link.

Positive experiences

The N800 has a gorgeous display. At 800×480, the resolution is high enough for most applications. Because so much screen resolution is packed into a small space, smaller text on Web pages can be harder to read, but the devices contains well-placed zoom-in and zoom-out buttons to enlarge text and graphics.

The built-in Web browser (Opera) renders most pages beautifully. For those pages that do not render properly (or where certain features are missing), a Gecko-based (used in Mozilla and Firefox) engine is available through the MicroB project. The Gecko engine, however, is a little bit slower and more prone to crashes.

The device also contains a simple, but surprisingly capable RSS reader. Fresh content can be displayed on a home screen widget; and, the RSS application loads all needed graphics and properly renders all content in a highly-functional (and readable) interface.

The built-in email application is deficient on many levels, but it is possible to install Claws Mail through a couple clicks from the maemo.org repository list. Several Claws plugins are also readily available. For the uninitiated, however, configuring Claws can be quite painful.

The device can also be used for multimedia playback. Assuming you have the proper codec installed, video playback is good. MP3 playback is flawless. Again, by clicking through the repositories listed at maemo.org, installing additional codecs is quick and simple.

Finally, the hardware seems solid. With casual use, you can expect the battery to last a day. It can remain on standby for up to a week. The built-in wifi antenna is also superb, and does well at detecting and connecting to access points with weak signals. Whereas my laptop can only detect 12 wifi networks from my home, the N800 detects 23.

Drawbacks

The device doesn’t boast full Java support. This means I cannot use Java-based applications such as Oracle Calendar (my university forces me to use it). Support for Java is a much-needed feature for a future OS release.

Although the device transfers data at a rapid rate, Web browsing is not as swift as I would hope it would be. As previously mentioned, the built-in Opera browser lacks compatibility with some Web sites. MicroB is more compatible, but still very buggy.

Although Skype released a client for the device, they haven’t provided support for the built-in Web cam. My guess is because, due to memory limitations, N800 code would need to be tight, meaning that Skype developers cannot get away with obfuscating their binaries with meaningless code. Failure to incorporate such a feature makes Skype look bad. Perhaps now is a good time for them to consider opening their standards? Video calls are still possible by using the built-in “Nokia Internet Call Invitation (Beta)” application, but you’re limited to calling other N800s.

Wishlist

As a traveling presenter, I would like a device smaller than my laptop to play PowerPoint (or OpenOffice.org) presentations. It would be great if a future edition of this device had a video-out solution. The onboard chipset already supports video output, but Nokia chose not to include the connecting hardware. Adding video-out support should be a small addition.

The device needs to ship with international character sets. Packaging Latin, Greek and Cyrillic characters are a good start, but Arabic and East Asian characters should be shipped in the base package, too.

Finally, upgrading the device’s firmware is a pain in the neck. Nokia and the development community periodically release new OS versions and fixes, requiring firmware flashing each time. Although most user data is retained, this causes most applications to disappear. It would be nice if Nokia provided an option to reinstall application and library packages (if available and compatible with the new kernel, etc.) after each update.

Does the N800 belong in schools?

Inspired by devices such as those built by Noah and Ozing (see also this EF article), I continue to evaluate if the N800 has a place in schools. In places with limited electrical or network connectivity, content and curricula can be distributed via SD cards and charged less frequently than laptops would need to be charged. The battery shipped with the device is sufficient to allow moderate use throughout a school day before needing a recharge.

The N800, however, is not designed for children. It is designed for hackers, technology mavens, and other nerds. Perhaps, then, it can find a home in higher education? Given the expanding developer community and (mostly) open platform, maybe successor products could become the OLPC-parallel, “$200 palmtop” for college students in developing and “developed” countries.

But wait! The N810 is coming…!

As my luck would have it, less than a month after my N800 arrived, Nokia announced a successor product, the N810. Apart from integrating a GPS receiver, a keyboard, and a swifter processor, there are not many differences from the N800. The built-in keyboard, however, should make it a much more attractive product to educators and other markets. More on that device once I get my hands on one…!

An element missing from media coverage of the One Laptop per Child XO is the ramifications of using mesh networking. This scheme allows for data to be passed through individual machines acting as nodes, where data hops from machine-to-machine until its destination on the network –or on a foreign network is reached. This allows for instantly reconfigurable and self-healing networks that can self-adapt to a variety of network accessibility environments.

This networking model has also been recontextualized into the interface and software design of the device which encourages as much co-teaching and co-learning as possible. Working with teams from Pentagram Design and Red Hat, OLPC created SUGAR, a graphic user interface that captures the students’ world of fellow learners and teachers as collaborators, emphasizing connectivity between people and activities. From OLPC:

Everyone has the potential for being both a learner and a teacher. We have chosen to put collaboration at the core of the user experience in order to realize this potential. The presence of other members of the learning community will encourage children to take responsibility for others’ learning as well as their own. The exchange of ideas amongst peers can both make the learning process more engaging and stimulate critical thinking skills. We hope to encourage these types of social interaction with the laptops.

[...]

As most software developers would agree, the best way to learn how to write a program is to write one, or perhaps teach someone else how to do so; studying the syntax of the language might be useful, but it doesn’t teach one how to code. We hope to apply this principle of “learn through doing” to all types of creation, e.g., we emphasize composing music over downloading music. We also encourage the children to engage in the process of collaborative critique of their expressions and to iterate upon this expression as well.

While the developed world is using new technologies to teach the same old stuff its been pushing since the 19th century, the co-constructivism allowed by OLPC could allow children in less developed countries leapfrog their peers in new knowledge production. Is this purposeful orientation toward the use of technologies the start of a new revolution in education?

…from the New York Times:

In November, you’ll be able to buy a new laptop that’s spillproof, rainproof, dustproof and drop-proof. It’s fanless, it’s silent and it weighs 3.2 pounds. One battery charge will power six hours of heavy activity, or 24 hours of reading. The laptop has a built-in video camera, microphone, memory-card slot, graphics tablet, game-pad controllers and a screen that rotates into a tablet configuration.

Want one? Check out the One Laptop Per Child XO Giving program:

Starting November 12, One Laptop Per Child will be offering a Give 1 Get 1 Program for a brief window of time in North America. For $399, you will be purchasing two XO laptops—one that will be sent to empower a child to learn in a developing nation, and one that will be sent to your child at home.

…plus, it’s tax-deductible!

Matthew Hockenberry of creativesynthesis.net demonstrates the One Laptop Per Child’s fourth production prototype of the $100 laptop initiative at SIGGRAPH 2007:

(Video by Leonardo Bonanni of hyperexperience.com)

George Kubik, president of Minnesota Futurists, sent a note regarding the One Laptop per Child project, and a related article from Fortune Magazine. The $100 laptop is currently looking like a $176 laptop. Although prices are expected to decrease in the future, the $176 laptop is distant from what was envisioned originally.

India’s HRD ministry (which has rejected the OLPC) thinks it can do better, and is soliciting proposals for a $10 alternative. Writes Mark Raby at TG Daily:

The manufacturing cost has already been scaled down to $47, reports the India Times. So far no manufacturer has agreed to the $10 price. “The cost is encouraging and we are hopeful it would come down to $10. We would also look into the possibility of some Indian company manufacturing the parts,” said a ministry official.

Will this create competition in “open source” approaches to mobile educational technologies and lead to greater innovation? I hope so, but I must also caution against “cheapening” the quality and purposeful application of education technologies. Placing such limitations on the technologies could further limit the innovative uses for the devices by children inside and beyond the classrooms they’re intended for.