Educational Technology Debate » NComputing

2010 Trends: Alternate Computing Emergence and Convergence

wayan — Tue, 19 Jan 2010 12:34:50 +0000

The year started with the Mother of All Disruptions as the world teetered toward economic and financial collapse. The technology industry withered in general due to lack of demand. Intel, for example, reported its first loss in 21 years in the second quarter. As we head in to 2010, things seem to be on the mend, albeit slowly.

I thought I’d jump on the new near “top trends” bandwagon and provide some observations of my own for information technology for development (ICT4D).

Netbook fever and 1:1 computing in education begin to fade into the background

Ever since Nicholas Negroponte launched the One Laptop per Child project and Intel followed with the Classmate PC, the buzz has been about netbooks for classrooms, or 1:1 computing (one computer for each student).

The reality is that the majority of netbooks sold are not sold to schools, but to middle class consumers who are looking for a smaller notebook form-factor. In my 2009 travels, ministries of education in Latin America seemed to be the most notebook centric. Peru had purchased 150,000 XO laptops. Chile wouldn’t even consider anything that wasn’t mobile. As governments’ emerge from budget lockdown, I predict that they will look for more affordable and realistic options, such as PC labs and desktop computing.

Alternative computing models “cross the chasm.”

A desktop PC or notebook computer has typically been the primary way people in the developing world get exposed to computers and the Internet. That is changing rapidly with the introduction of solutions that significantly lower acquisition and maintenance costs and provide increased energy efficiency over a standard PC or notebook. For example, the company I currently work for, NComputing, sells a product that allows up to 30 users to share one, inexpensive desktop PC by hooking up additional monitors, keyboards, and mice to small access devices and costs about 75% less than a PC and uses 90% less energy. In 2009, NComputing reached 15% of the US market desktop computers in K-12 education.

Microsoft has also embraced “shared computing” for education, announcing a new product called Windows Multipoint Server that will be available later this year. Many developing countries, such as India, Brazil, Pakistan and others, now allow these type of solutions to be bid in addition to standard PCs and notebooks. Just as shared access will prevail over 1:1 computing, virtual desktops will become an increasingly popular option given the tremendous cost savings over traditional desktops.

Mobile phones and Computers

The final trend to watch is whether one form factor – the mobile phone or the computer – will win out over the other in ICT4D. With smart phones providing most of the capabilities of a computer, some argue this will be the ICT device that prevails. But is it really a zero-sum game? My opinion is that the computer and the mobile phone will coexist for the foreseeable future.

Sometimes you just need a full-size keyboard and monitor for an application. And sometimes you just have to be truly mobile (and by mobile I mean being able to transact on the move vs. sitting somewhere with a laptop). At Intel we often talked about “three screens” … the small screen (handheld), the bigger screen (computer), and the biggest screen (TV).

But all of these trends should lead to increased development through access to innovative ICT solutions and services that could be created and driven by social enterprises. I’d love to see a special report from BusinessWeek and The Economist on the convergence of these trends and its impact, but if not, we can always blog about it.

Increased Computing Saturation Requires Cost Effective Solutions

wayan — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 15:23:38 +0000

In Walter Bender’s previous post, For Real Learning, Mobility and Saturation Matter, one of his concluding statements was:

“I echo Dukker in being supportive of whatever means we can deploy to get great software into the hands of children, inexpensively.”

I completely agree. Shared computing vs. 1:1 is a false dichotomy. Is it better for every student to have a computer at their fingers at school and at home? Absolutely. But pushing 1:1 as the short-term objective vs. long-term goal sets up unrealistic expectations with schools and governments that just don’t have the funding.

Is increased saturation of computing devices better?

Yes, but that can only happen with ultra-low cost solutions. Mr. Bender commented that he would leave the math to me, so let me provide a few tools and references (there are many available).

Vitalwave Consulting, a research firm that specializes in information and communications technology (ICT) in emerging markets, produced a report titled Affordable Computing for Schools in Developing Countries: A Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) Model for Education Officials that compared TCO for various platforms. Below is a summary:

The key is the Total TCO, which ranges from $2.6K to $2.9K per seat over 5 years. This dwarfs the acquisition price of $285 to $750. That is why many have criticized Nicholas Negroponte’s infamous target of a $100 laptop as unrealistic and misleading.

Unfortunately, alternative computing models, such as virtual desktops were left out of the report. According to a Vitalwave source, they included NComputing in the initial analysis but the sponsor of the report asked to keep these results hidden.

NComputing also has a comprehensive TCO Calculator (.xls file). It shows:

The initial cost for a virtual desktop solution (assuming 16 seats) was about $4,500, which is about 60% below a mainstream desktop and about comparable with an “ultra-low cost” platform (e.g., a netbook).
NComputing devices consume 1 or 5 watts (significantly lower than desktops and comparable to netbooks)
Maintenance and support savings are significant. With only 3 PCs supporting 16 users, savings are about 80%,or about $550 per seat over 5 years. That’s another 20% savings vs. netbooks.

Conclusion: the math matters. To increase saturation, whether through 1:1 computing or shared access, alternative computing models must be considered.

Is mobility essential?

I think that’s debatable and really depends on the age, level of education, specific learning application required, and most importantly, where the school and community are in the spectrum of funding and specific needs.

In Maslow’s famous hierarchy of needs model, basic needs such as food or water must be fulfilled before other things are needed. For example, if one is starving (physiological), one has no interest in things like self-esteem or achievement (Esteem). They just want food.

Mr. Bender said,

“21st century computer skills” seem to be about the acquisition of some specific knowledge – necessary but not sufficient. Learning is about the acquisition of a new “outlook” – what we are capable of doing with that knowledge .

Again, I would look to a hierarchy of needs based on key demographics see if acquiring “a new outlook” is truly necessary. I’d argue that in some areas, just getting access to a computer gives that student an advantage over someone that leaves school to start working without ever having that access.

Mr. Bender uses examples where netbooks can be more advantageous in music, nature, gym, and photography. These are wonderful examples. But are these subjects relevant when we’re talking about kids that can get a great advantage just by improving their math, reading and writing courses with computers?

Students in a particular location can get a big benefit just by being exposed to computing for the first time which allows them to:

learn how to use them
get access to the information economy, and
improve the quality of their learning experience through computer-based learning solution (like Sugar).

Can desktop solutions and mobile solutions co-exist?

Yes, and there are many examples where schools deploy both. In Macedonia, NComputing deployed over 100,000 virtual desktops which made Macedonia the country with the greatest density of computers to students. But Macedonia also issued a tender to deploy a smaller quantity of netbooks. They cannot afford mobility for all students, and yet even at 1:1 desktop computing they see the advantages of mobility. But emphasizing mobility is misleading and can lead public officials to trade off higher saturation and access for a mobile solution.

Sugar desktop

Sugar on a Stick on a Desktop

This last weekend, I downloaded and loaded Sugar on Stick on my laptop. I was impressed. I commend Sugar Labs for developing a remarkably simple, clean and robust learning platform. Its simplicity reminds me in many ways of Google Chrome.

And I can see the benefits of the enhanced analytical learning that could take place with this platform. But since Sugar is platform-agnostic, you don’t need a mobile solution to get it’s benefits. It could be just as easily deployed on desktop computers or virtual desktops.

Conclusion

To summarize my overall points:

Access to a computing device can enhance education.
The computing device is merely a tool.
Affordability and economics are critical elements to maximize saturation.
Increasing saturation is a good thing.
Mobility is also beneficial, but can be expensive.

I think Walter and I share the same simple goal: improving lives and education through increasing access to ICT. This implies increased saturation.

To achieve this goal, TCO costs of deploying computing devices must be significantly lowered by 2 to 3X, and private and public sector must collaborate. More time collaborating and less time debating or competing would clear the way for significant progress.

Shared Access Computing is the Most Economical and Scalable Model

wayan — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 14:09:45 +0000

As Wayan appropriately points out in his introduction, a computer is merely a learning tool, albeit an increasingly important tool, in enabling higher quality education. And as Walter Bender pointed out in the insightful WSJ debate Will Low-Cost Laptops Help Kids in Developing Countries? with the CEO of NComputing, Stephen Dukker, “computing is not a cure; it is an agent that will enable children to engage in learning.”

So the debate we’ve been asked to participate in is to posit which computing model is better suited in the developing world to proliferate computers to enhance learning and education.

Intel's Classmate PC

Back in 2006, when I was co-General Manager of the computer division at Intel that was developing the Classmate PC, Intel was heavily promoting notebooks (which had higher average selling prices and higher margins than desktop CPU’s).

It may surprise some given my involvement with the Classmate PC, and Intel’s overall strategy, that I was not a proponent of 1:1 computing in the developing world. My passion for significantly increasing the access to computers for those in the under-served markets ultimately brought me to the role I have now at NComputing.

Access to fully functional, ultra-low cost, highly energy efficient connected computing is a critical component of enhancing and enabling the learning experience. My belief continues to be that shared access continues to be the best starting point for developing countries that are introducing computers to their schools for the first time.

First and foremost, if mature markets have not adopted 1:1 computing in any great degree beyond higher education, how can we realistically expect emerging markets with more limited budgets to adopt 1:1 computing?

The math is simple. Is it better to have 1.8M students share access to 50,000 computers for the first time vs. wait until the government can afford to proliferate notebooks to the same 1.8M students.

In the 1:1 model, who get’s these computers first? This particular example is from the state of Andra Pradesh in India:

The government saved $20M by deploying the shared model in acquisition, maintenance and electricity costs. They were able to

deploy more computers and
purchase generators to keep the computers running during power outages.

The $100 target price of the OLPC laptop was originally only the purchase price, regardless of being able to achieve it or not. There are other significant costs occurred during the life of a single computer, including maintenance and electricity. Secondly, where is the point of diminishing return where the farthest extreme is having a computer at a student’s fingertips 24/7?

As a longtime professional in the IT industry, I would be lost without my notebook by side. Blackberry’s, iPhone’s, etc. have reduced that dependence. But what about the kindergartner or sixth grader. I would agree that having increased access to shared computer model (more than one hour a day) would be better, but surely these students don’t need a computer with them all the time?

You could argue by digitizing textbooks you reduce their backpack load, but I have not heard of an outbreak of K-12 student back problems.

The portability aspect is another challenge, especially in developing economies. Kids drop and lose things in general. They have not developed their judgment skills to a point where they can be responsible for a notebook. I finally broke down and got my son a mobile phone – he lost it within six months, and if you looked at its shell, it is considerably marred.

I am not entirely against 1:1 computing, and in the subsequent debate we will discuss hybrid models that could work, but when it comes to primary and secondary schools, I do feel strongly that economic realities strongly support shared usage. I try to illustrate this in the chart below:

This is not a hybrid model. This is an evolutionary model. As students’ age/mature/progress, the need for a computer all the time becomes more critical. In addition, everyone has different needs, abilities, talents and skills. Some will gravitate towards the computer as if it is an extension of their body. Others will find it mildly useful but will prefer paper, pencil, books, etc.

This is where “try” vs. “buy” comes in. I would argue that 99% of people in the developed and developing world over the last 30ish years since the PC was introduced “try” before they “buy.” Whether it is a parents PC, a school lab, a cyber café, telecentre, or work place, they will be exposed first then build the interest and knowledge.

This is why, at Intel, before the Classmate PC “creosote bush” squashed all other projects (Rural Community PC, Amazon Kindle… yes, we were partnering with Amazon and e-Ink on a text book replacement product, and more), we had a significant push towards “shared access.”

In conclusion, I laud the efforts of Intel and OLPC who have significantly increased awareness of the importance of computing in education. The question and debate remains, though, as to how computing is deployed. The most economical and scalable solution is shared access computing.

1:1 Saturations and Computer Labs: Can Their Benefits Bring a New Model?

wayan — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 17:18:42 +0000

One learning tool per student is an accepted and expected ratio when we speak of pencils, books, and other familiar items in a classroom. We all assume that private use of these items confers greater benefit than their cost, and only high-cost or rare items should be shared among all students, as in a library for books or chemical sets in a chemistry class.

Yet this seemingly natural order has a whole other life when we look at information and communication technologies in educational systems. Especially when we focus on computers. Educators and technologists promote either full saturation, a 1:1 model where each student has a computer, usually a laptop, or a shared-use model where computers, often desktops, are deployed in school labs.

Between these two models there is the initial debate around the different computing platforms and their different benefits, which highlights a more subtle difference in pedagogy, and through that, the basic foundations of what “school” means to a society.

For July, the Educational Technology Debate we will examine the two models, 1:1 and computer labs, and their respective benefits. Our goal will be to understand which benefits are key, and look for a way in which we can fuse these key benefits into a model that can be deployed in the many educational environments of the developing world.

Our two respected discussants on this topic will be:

Walter Bender
Walter Bender currently heads Sugar Labs, focusing on the award-winning Sugar Learning Platform (download it now). Previously he was president for software and content development at One Laptop per Child, and is on leave from MIT, where he was executive director of the MIT Media Laboratory.

Mark Beckford
Mark Beckford is currently Vice President of Global Business Development at NComputing, Inc, whose virtualization software and hardware allows multiple users to work off a single computer. Previously, he led diverse global teams at Intel to extend its market leadership and promote growth in new and emerging markets.

Please join us for what we all expect to be a lively and informative conversation – your input can start right now in the comments below, and Walter and Mark will post their opening remarks beginning Monday, July 6.